SAHM's as Cheap Labor

Sue Schellenbarger at the Wall Street Journal recently wrote an article about stay-at-home moms who keep their skills sharp through short-term, part-time consulting projects. I agree that such assignments can benefit both employers and the moms who take them on. However, the benefit for employers that Ms. Shellenbarger emphasizes the most is that these women provide “cheap labor.” According to the article:

“Skilled workers taking temp projects isn't new, of course. What's different about these teams is that they're available on short notice because the women are usually at home; they tend to work cheap because their main motive is to keep their skills fresh; and they're often extraordinarily well-qualified, having left the work force voluntarily when their careers were on the ascent.” (See full article here.)

While it is true that SAHM’s that desire some mental stimulation and valuable experience may be willing to work for less, is it really such a good idea?

In one response to the article, writer Brittany Hudson suggests that women taking these low-paying part-time gigs are collectively bringing down the wages of other workers. (see article here). If companies are able to get this cheap labor to fill their needs, why would they hire a full-time worker with benefits and a higher salary?

I do agree that this practice is a problem, but I don’t think the women taking these assignments are to blame as Hudson suggests in her article. I think the problem lies in the workplace, which doesn’t value a worker unless they are full-time.

I think that companies who create part-time opportunities provide a win-win opportunity. A company often can fill a talent gap with a short-term worker, and there are many moms (as well as other people!) who wish to work, but want some flexibility. But, these workers should be paid their fair market value for the work they provide. A “part-time pay penalty” hurts everyone.