 
sMoKeNiNja
join:2001-09-10
Wheaton, IL
clubs:  | strange I'd be interested in AT&T's and Intel's reasoning behind the reverse. | |
|  | zed260
join:2007-09-30
Cleveland, TN | Re: strange simple if you start telecommuting more ppl start to not know each other and we all turn into zombies its just not good for social ppl | |
| | | 
DataDoc
Waiting for Godot
Premium
join:2000-05-14
Greenville, NC | Re: strange I'm sure that's why. :P
SBC acquired AT&T and their policy differs, read the link:
»AT&T's Telecommuting Crackdown
I don't agree with their policy, but you're off-base on their reasons. | |
| | | | 
major marco
Res Firma Mitescere Nescit
Premium
join:2003-02-13
Mission Viejo, CA
clubs:
| Re: strange said by DataDoc  :I'm sure that's why. :P SBC acquired AT&T and their policy differs, read the link: » AT&T's Telecommuting CrackdownI don't agree with their policy, but you're off-base on their reasons. Damn you, DataDoc, with your having read the article! 
--
The Toll
Let's Go Flyers!
| |
| | | | | 
Roadywan
| If you think that's bad... Read the SBC Internet/Email policy...and then realize that they're serious about "non-work related activity". | |
| | | | | | | jc100
join:2002-04-10
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: strange Away but remoted into my pc and saw this topic. That's one point but the other is face time and people getting to know you. Those who are in an industry where telecommuting is accepted are at a huge disadvantage at times compared to those that go "into" work. I read somewhere that bosses get less exposure to you and that hurts when it comes time for promotion and raises. By being in the office, a boss is able to see what you do, how valuable you are to the company, etc. When you telecommute, he or she simply sees the work you do but not you doing it, if that makes sense. | |
| | | | | averagedude
join:2002-01-30
Mesa, AZ
·Cox HSI
| Re: strange Even more important with the economy going in the tank.
I want to make sure I hold on to my job.
Face time = keeping job, showing I am willing to work hard in keeping my job.
Yea, it costs me big $ in gasoline, but rather have job.
Telecommuting is great when the economy is great.
This averagedude is watching his back and making sure he is not part of the next round of lay off's. | |
| | | | | Ulmo
join:2005-09-22
San Jose, CA
·Comcast
 ·SONIC.NET
| said by jc100 :Away but remoted into my pc and saw this topic. That's one point but the other is face time and people getting to know you. Those who are in an industry where telecommuting is accepted are at a huge disadvantage at times compared to those that go "into" work. I read somewhere that bosses get less exposure to you and that hurts when it comes time for promotion and raises. By being in the office, a boss is able to see what you do, how valuable you are to the company, etc. When you telecommute, he or she simply sees the work you do but not you doing it, if that makes sense. Yes, it does. Compensation for that problem can include inviting your boss to the movies on your few in-office days. Don't most telecommuting programs include a provision for one or two days a fortnight to go in, such as once per week? You schedule around your boss's off-time schedule and get to know them personally. Then they can't forget you!
Granted, you should both have appropriate home lives for that kind of comradery, but so how hard is that? | |
| | | | Ulmo
join:2005-09-22
San Jose, CA
·Comcast
·SONIC.NET
| said by amigo_boy :said by zed260 :simple if you start telecommuting more ppl start to not know each other and we all turn into zombies its just not good for social ppl Adding to what I said in an earlier post: Even though I can do personal things during the day (and make up for it nights and weekends), this leads to a loss of a sense of "on" and "off." It all blurs together. Phone calls at 6AM with Europe. 9PM with China. Even when running errands during the day I feel like I'm on the clock. That feeling of being on the clock can be self-programmed out of you, even though it does initially come up before such self re-programming. After your reprogramming, you can feel perfectly comfortable not doing any work in the middle of the day while on full salary.
Add in some increased discipline about making sure both you and your company get their fair share of each other's resources, and you're set. A few months at most should be all it takes for incorrect feelings to be corrected, if you are attentive to your internal feelings and control reshaping of them. Also, it is more than just "feelings"; your own motivations and all else that goes on in your brain regarding the issue are included in this.
I like your feedback, though. | |
| | | jester121
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL
 ·ViaTalk
| said by zed260 :simple if you start telecommuting more ppl start to not know each other and we all turn into zombies its just not good for social ppl My office is chock full of zombie-like people and I don't like it one bit. | |
| | | | | Ulmo
join:2005-09-22
San Jose, CA
·Comcast
·SONIC.NET
| Re: strange said by amigo_boy :said by sMoKeNiNja :I'd be interested in AT&T's and Intel's reasoning behind the reverse. I don't work at either company, but where I work we've had telecommuting for 4-5 years. The company began aggressively encouraging it a year or two ago as a way to save on real estate costs. I go 2-3 months at a time without going in the office and am considering taking off for South America for 3 months, working from there (something the article says may have been viewed as an abuse of the system). Personally I don't like it. I like to come in the office, see coworkers. I think it creates a sense of engagement, purpose, team. I like the flexibility to do personal things during the day and work at night or the weekend (or to work from anywhere). But, after 2-3 months I don't feel like I'm really part of something. Mark Is this even after participatory mailing lists, conferences, pictures of each other and each others' projects and personal lives, and general communications of each other personally, or has that been eliminated due to some aborted concept that it is not necessary? | |
| | 
Cabal
Premium
join:2007-01-21
Boston, MA
| They probably figure - correctly - that they can accomplish as much with half the staff located in the office. Most telecommuters suck.
--
Interested in open source engine management for your Subaru? | |
| | | | | 
supergirl
join:2007-03-20
Pensacola, FL
·Cox VOIP
·Skype
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southeast
·magicjack.com
| Re: Not all jobs productive for telecommuting said by TK Junk Mail :There are definitely jobs where telecommuting works well. And there are also jobs where it isn't productive for the company, even if it suits the employee. Customer service employees can be easily measured and having them as telecommuters can lower costs for both employees and employers. Jobs(like project mgrs) that need a LOT of meetings with various departments seem to be more productive in face to face meetings. While tools do exist like videoconferencing that can allow telecommuters to meet, so far they are often problematic and annoying to set up. Over time, companies will find out which types of tasks and jobs work for telecommuters and which ones don't. One size doesn't fit all. I just love and hate meetings since they tell me what new and insane directions the a@@holes in-charge are taking that I have to consult later that was a bad idea. "We need daily status reports from all departments." Gee, stupid, considering you can barely read, what do you need to cut down a forest for? Plus, it takes away about 10% of productivity. Once a month was back in force after they decided they didn't want to read all those status reports, and production dropped 10% for the month.
Remember American Beauty and Lester Burnham's resume: "My job consists of mainly masking my contempt for the a@@holes in-charge while, at least once a day, retiring to the men's room to j-off to a life that doesn't so closely resemble hell." 
--
Saving the world keeps me busy. However, I find Earth very primitive from my home planet of Krypton.
-Supergirl | |
| | Ulmo
join:2005-09-22
San Jose, CA
·Comcast
·SONIC.NET
| said by TK Junk Mail :There are definitely jobs where telecommuting works well. And there are also jobs where it isn't productive for the company, even if it suits the employee. Customer service employees can be easily measured and having them as telecommuters can lower costs for both employees and employers. Jobs(like project mgrs) that need a LOT of meetings with various departments seem to be more productive in face to face meetings. While tools do exist like videoconferencing that can allow telecommuters to meet, so far they are often problematic and annoying to set up. Over time, companies will find out which types of tasks and jobs work for telecommuters and which ones don't. One size doesn't fit all. Good points, and those things which work well will change as those tools get easier or harder to use, and work better or worse. Businesses need to keep up to date with that. | |
| 
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
| Probably Not a Bad Thing Aside from the fact that if you can do your job 5 days a week from home, it means that someone in a foreign country can do the same job 5 days a week from abroad, and for far less than you'd get paid... I personally think that if your boss doesn't see you physically at the office, they just assume you're not doing anything.
This trait seems built into most bosses, whether they consciously show it or not.
--
This isn't fair! I was only supposed to hate just ONE presidential candidate! | |
| | amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
·EarthLink
| Re: Probably Not a Bad Thing said by pnh102 :Aside from the fact that if you can do your job 5 days a week from home, it means that someone in a foreign country can do the same job 5 days a week from abroad, and for far less than you'd get paid... I agree. Telecommuting makes this more visible. Coming into an office and working as a team suggests there may be an added value that would be lost by offshoring. Whoever makes the decisions might be afraid to find out the hard way. But, if everyone telecommutes and it works out, that's one less unknown for the decision maker.
On a related note, it sounds like offshoring is becoming less attractive. I saw this today:
»www.forbes.com/2008/02/29/mitra-···int.html
"...wages are rising in India. The cost advantage for offshoring to India used to be at least 1:6. Today, it is at best 1:3. Attrition is scary.
...
"Assuming a 15% year-to-year salary hike rate, and a 2007 cost advantage of 1:3 in favor of India, if U.S. wages remain constant, India’s cost advantage disappears by 2015."
Mark | |
| | |
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
| Re: Probably Not a Bad Thing said by amigo_boy :On a related note, it sounds like offshoring is becoming less attractive. I saw this today: » www.forbes.com/2008/02/29/mitra-···int.html"...wages are rising in India. The cost advantage for offshoring to India used to be at least 1:6. Today, it is at best 1:3. Attrition is scary. ... "Assuming a 15% year-to-year salary hike rate, and a 2007 cost advantage of 1:3 in favor of India, if U.S. wages remain constant, India’s cost advantage disappears by 2015." The article paints rising wages as a bad thing it seems. Personally, I say good for the Indians who can make more money now. That means their standard of living is rising to first world status. This is a very good thing for everyone in India.
--
This isn't fair! I was only supposed to hate just ONE presidential candidate! | |
| | | | amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
·EarthLink
| Re: Probably Not a Bad Thing said by pnh102 :I say good for the Indians who can make more money now. So do I. This increased standard of living (increased consumerism, reduced political conflict, etc.) was the stated goal of global trade and offshoring. I don't fault Indians (or anyone else) for seizing upon the opportunity.
It's just unfortunate for all those American workers who *individually* paid the price for what is overtly a *collective* goal. For 10-20 years they were forced to pay for a socially-imposed standard of living (like sewers, building and zoning codes, animal welfare, occupational health and safety, environmental protection) and then forced to compete against those who don't. As they lost their jobs, free marketeers dismissed it as "just a free market."
There's really nothing "free" about that. The stated goals were collective goals (how "we all benefit when..."). It seems perverse to me.
Mark | |
| | | | | jc100
join:2002-04-10
·RoadRunner Cable
edit:
March 2nd, @01:00PM
| Re: Probably Not a Bad Thing Offshoring is a catch 22. When you invest in a "poor or third world country" heavily, you eventually set higher costs of living. There by, you eliminate the advantage you had when you first moved there. China is a prime example. While many Chinese still work for slave wages, a large majority have become enormously wealthy due to all the international investments. I think it was like 15 or so years ago, MOST chinese didn't own a car. Now it's almost reversed, if it hasn't been. I forget the exact numbers but now a majority drive and less use other means. Hence, while you improve the lives of people there, you simply face the same challenges as you would at home. This being eventually wages increase, workers want more, and you're left either moving back or looking for your next hot spot. Personally, I think SOME foreign investment isn't bad but companies are too reliant of offshore work. The bottom line if you cut out the people who buy your products (Americans in many cases), you are hurting yourself. Jobs here mean people can turn around and afford to buy or use the services being rendered. When you offshore, more people lose their life blood, and then profits fall as we are seeing now with our current economy and jobless rates. People simply don't have the money to spend. | |
| | | | | redhatnation
Premium
join:2005-06-02
Woodbridge, VA
·Comcast
·Verizon Online DSL
| said by amigo_boy :It's just unfortunate for all those American workers who *individually* paid the price for what is overtly a *collective* goal. For 10-20 years they were forced to pay for a socially-imposed standard of living (like sewers, building and zoning codes, animal welfare, occupational health and safety, environmental protection) and then forced to compete against those who don't. As they lost their jobs, free marketeers dismissed it as "just a free market." Wow. What a great point. Thank you. If this was Slashdot, you'd get a +5 Insightful. | |
| | | | | | jc100
join:2002-04-10
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Probably Not a Bad Thing Red that's not a good point. Paying to be environmentally friendly and acting responsibly is the price of business. We don't want to end up like China or India where our water sources are so heavily polluted, it's unsafe to eat or drink from them. China has had a VERY SPOTTY track record when it comes to this, and now they are facing serious problems. Many rivers and areas that were pristine 20 years ago are not industrial waste sites. In the U.S. we try (don't always succeed) to hold companies responsible for their actions. Sure it costs more, but would you rather we have toxic waste sites littering the country or it be done in such a way your kids or family gets sick due to contaminants? | |
| | | | | | | redhatnation
Premium
join:2005-06-02
Woodbridge, VA
·Comcast
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Probably Not a Bad Thing You misunderstood his and my points. American workers have to pay for infrastructure in this country. Workers in other countries do NOT. The infrastructure issue was a new point -- to me -- hence my reply.
I was not speaking about being environmentally friendly or lack thereof. | |
| | | | | jc100
join:2002-04-10
·RoadRunner Cable
| See my post to red, you missed the ball on those "socially" imposed ideas. I guess you'd rather have toxic waste dumps, biohazard sites, and contamination dumped everywhere like China and India. If you follow the news, these countries have some of the WORST contamination in industrial areas. Sure they don't force people to invest in those areas, but then again, would you want to drink their water or live near them? I don't know about you but I'd prefer NOT to die of cancer, radiation, or water borne illnesses due to pollution. That's just me though. | |
| | | | | | amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
·EarthLink
| Re: Probably Not a Bad Thing said by jc100 : I guess you'd rather have toxic waste dumps, biohazard sites, and contamination dumped everywhere like China and India. You misunderstood my point. I'm not opposed to those standards of living. I'm not opposed to other countries raising their standards of living *because they can afford to* due to greater opportunity and expectations among their population.
What I dislike is that this long-term goal was the stated benefit of globalism and offshoring of jobs. This is a collective, social goal. But, as individuals were impacted (because they couldn't "compete" against those who didn't have the same costs of living, due to their lower standard of living), "free market" advocates dismissed it as "just a free market, why do you expect a handout?"
There's something perverse about a society forcing a standard of living upon individuals (for collective purposes), entering into trade agreements with countries that don't, stating that it's for long-term collective benefits, and then claiming they don't have a collective responsibility to those who are displaced because they can't "compete" in a "free market."
There's nothing competitive or "free" about that. We, as a society have a tendency to use "collective goals" when it's convenient, and "individual responsibility" when it's convenient. Offshoring (and its results) are a perfect example.
It's even more perverse when you consider how trade agreements enforce western norms upon developing countries in the areas of business (banking, finance, property rights, taxation). But, those agreements do virtually nothing when it comes to social issues or employment rights, etc. In other words, we socially intervene in business to facilitate offshoring (to make it more predictable for business). And when workers are displaced advocates of free markets dismiss it as "just a free market."
It seems some markets are more "free" than others. Otherwise business wouldn't need trade agreements, etc. They could deal with the same non-level playing field as everyone else.
Mark | |
| | | | | | | jc100
join:2002-04-10
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Probably Not a Bad Thing Well there will never be a level playing field is the WHOLE problem. You for one have struggling countries who will do anything to bring in investments. This anything could be like China or India who overlook toxic dumps, don't require any standards for employees, etc. That's the whole issue. Companies see they can boost the economy and standards in one way, but screw the country in another. However, for the companies, they see the short term. For the 10 or 20 years they are there before the costs go up, they can save a fortune. Things like NAFTA are a joke, I agree. Free trade isn't free at all. It comes at the expense of the 10s of thousands who will lose their job to a country that has few requirements. Simply put, globalism in many cases, is a swear word. It comes down to the point that unless you are willing to work for nothing, then we will find someone who will in ANOTHER PLACE. That's the sad thing. Maybe we're on the same page here, maybe not. I am not sure, that's just my take on the whole measure. | |
| | | | | | | | amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
·EarthLink
| Re: Probably Not a Bad Thing said by jc100 :You for one have struggling countries who will do anything to bring in investments. This anything could be like China or India who overlook toxic dumps, don't require any standards for employees, etc. I agree. Even we went through the same thing as we developed to the standard of living we have. We had toxic dumps, rivers that frequently caught on fire, etc. Maybe in 100 years people will talk about how uncivilized we are now, eating grown food instead of "meals in a pill" that are synthetically made. 
I'm ok with less developed countries going through the same growth. It's expected that as they improve *materially* they will improve *socially*. The history of developed nations leads us to believe this. That's the stated goal of "free traders" and businesses who immediately benefit. We're told "we'll all benefit" from increased consumerism, lower prices, rising global standards of living, less political instability (due to more societies being an "ownership" society).
I think that's undeniable. But, the troubling part is how we ignore those who payed the greatest price as we proceeded "from here to there." Engineers and programmers who went to work stacking lumber at Home Depot. And whose complaints were dismissed as "it's just a free market."
There's nothing free or market-based about that. It's perverse. This comes out of the Forbes article. In 2015 India could reach equilibrium. That's great! But, what about all the people who's lifestyles and investments in life were undermined in pursuit of this *collective* goal? And who were dismissed as if there were no collective goal, as if it's just a raw, free market?
I think we're on the same page.
Mark | |
| | | | | | | | | jc100
join:2002-04-10
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Probably Not a Bad Thing The one thing that you did overlook is that we developed in the early 1900s when many technologies did not exist to make our efforts cleaner. Sure, I bet there were some preventative measures, but many people didn't know what we do now about toxins causing illnesses. With that said, these same companies have that knowledge but are fully aware they can save money by avoiding cleanup and regulations by going to these said places. Basically, we didnt know then or have the means. We know now, and the U.S. requires certain standards. These companies choose to circumvent them by going elsewhere to places where they aren't enforced or easily overlooked. Couple that with the initial low wages, and yep, you got it right. We are not level at all. Sad. I think this time we're in FULL agreement. | |
| | | | | | | | | | amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
·EarthLink
| Re: Probably Not a Bad Thing said by jc100 :The one thing that you did overlook is that we developed in the early 1900s when many technologies did not exist to make our efforts cleaner. We had burning rivers in the '70s and '80s.
It's interesting to consider whether US companies are going to other countries to evade US laws, or if they're just going somewhere that, by its own cost/benefit calculus doesn't impose the same laws and is more "business friendly." Maybe it seems like a distinction without a difference, but are they guilty of doing the wrong thing if a country doesn't feel it's the wrong thing?
I'm not defending US corporations. If they had their way they'd undo our social standards so they can do here what they do internationally. I'm sure they'll fight improved social standards internationally just because it will affect their bottom line.
Mark | |
| | | | | | | | | | jc100
join:2002-04-10
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Probably Not a Bad Thing Ok, but are you trying to justify this as a normal process of industrialization, or are you saying it's wrong? I mean personally, companies and people should learn from the past to avoid similar mistakes. That's my take anyway. Being that these companies seem to lack any interest in keeping these countries clean, lends credence that the lack of environmental rules is one huge reason they jumped ship. Obviously, they save tens of millions by just dumping and not having to clean up after themselves. Here, that would be unacceptable. They know it, and find other places where rules are overlooked or not in place.
Similarly, I agree, these companies would have us all working for nothing if they had their way. They would pay pennies, follow no safety regulations, etc. Basically, it would be similar to the practices of the early 1900s and before. A good book by the way is Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle". Great read about how workers back there were treated. Essentially, he looked at meat packing plants and how people who were injured were treated. Let's just say if you lost an arm, they still sold that batch of food. Likewise, if you were sick or got hurt, it was tough luck. That's what we DON'T want again obviously. America has progressed from that stage. Sadly, companies want to go back to old standards and find others who have not. | |
| | | | | | | | | | amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
·EarthLink
edit:
March 3rd, @11:47AM
| Re: Probably Not a Bad Thing said by jc100 :are you trying to justify this as a normal process of industrialization, or are you saying it's wrong? To me, it's a "chicken and egg" thing. A society can't afford the luxury of enhanced social standards without a stronger economy (material standards) to pay for it.
It's a contradiction. Free marketeers would say corporations are *helping* underdeveloped countries reach higher standards by polluting and exploiting workers. I agree with that to a large extent. There's no other way for a poor country to mature and develop than to go through this phase. But, I wouldn't say corporations are benevolent entities. I'm sure they'll collude with the elite of those countries to stifle social reform.
That's why (sorry to be repetitious) I think the problem is that free trade agreements don't take into account social disparity. They grease the skids for corporations to do business in other countries by imposing western norms (flattening disparity of practices in commercial and financial markets). But, they do virtually nothing with respect to expectations for labor markets society norms (like environmentalism).
Free marketeers say the benefit of globalization is that these societies will mature and advance like we did. It's a natural process. "Invisible Hand" of the economy (Adam Smith). But, what's so invisible about trade agreements that alter the market in favor of corporations? Why couldn't corporations be naturally led to those opportunities without this "helping hand?" And, if we believe in "helping hands" (which we do, since our free market is really *socialized* capitalism), why aren't we including in these agreements social/labor expectations?
The risk of imposing western norms on foreign commercial and financial practices (to help corporations have a more "predictable" opportunity) is that we may be helping the enslavement of people. They may not have the means of enacting change which even free marketeers say is the goal of globalization.
As Marco pointed out, Mexico is a good example. We should have used the lucrativeness of that agreement to expect social reforms such as a reduction of the *immense* disparity of wealth. Maybe immigration wouldn't be a problem if Mexicans had more opportunity at home.
said by jc100 :people should learn from the past to avoid similar mistakes. I agree. But, it could sound imperialistic to tell other countries "we learned the hard way, therefore you should find a better way to develop yourself." If we hold US corporations to our standards it's essentially the same thing.
said by jc100 :workers back there were treated. I'm on the fence concerning this topic. It's easy to view this anachronistically and say it was horrible how... But, things weren't so good when individuals farmed their own plot of land (or worse, someone else's). Poverty, hunger, homelessness when your crop didn't come in.
Workers didn't go to the big cities (and meat packing plants, et. al.) because a gun was held to their heads. They must've gone because it was perceived to be "better." It was only after some exposure to this relative improvement that they realized it could be "even better" and that, just as capitalists could use their collective wealth (the fruit of past labor) for their benefit (to the detriment of others), these new laborers realized they could use their collective labor (the tool to create wealth) for their benefit (to the detriment of others).
Since then it's been a continuous debate over who's benefiting too much.
There's an interesting tie-in to the 2nd Amendment. It's no coincidence that the Natl. Guard was created by the 1903 Dick Act, replacing the militia over the following 2 decades through an additional 3-4 acts. When called out to break up strikes (at the request of fat-cat industrialists calling the governor for favors), the militia frequently took the side of the strikers, protecting them from company thugs. Corporations weren't big fans of that particular social institution.
Mark | |
| | | | |
major marco
Res Firma Mitescere Nescit
Premium
join:2003-02-13
Mission Viejo, CA
clubs:
| said by amigo_boy :said by pnh102 :I say good for the Indians who can make more money now. So do I. This increased standard of living (increased consumerism, reduced political conflict, etc.) was the stated goal of global trade and offshoring. I don't fault Indians (or anyone else) for seizing upon the opportunity. ...Said the employees whose jobs weren't outsourced.
--
The Toll
Let's Go Flyers!
| |
| | | | | |
See 7 replies to this post | |
| Ulmo
join:2005-09-22
San Jose, CA
·Comcast
·SONIC.NET
| said by pnh102 :Aside from the fact that if you can do your job 5 days a week from home, it means that someone in a foreign country can do the same job 5 days a week from abroad, and for far less than you'd get paid... I personally think that if your boss doesn't see you physically at the office, they just assume you're not doing anything. This trait seems built into most bosses, whether they consciously show it or not. This is a really bad thing. It makes all of my pro-telecommuting comments above seem really antiproductive.
Thinking of pro-telecommuting solutions, what I come up for this is that if you take the suggestions I have above about getting involved personally with your bosses, coworkers, people that work for you, etc., the boss would look differently at some bad-speaking Bangaladorian than he would at an upstanding well-speaking well-heeled native.
When you talk about your preschool, elementary school, high school, college stories about your children, which school, etc., it will seem like at-home, rather than the weirdos in the third/second/non-domestic first/other world.
So, there is a recurring theme here: telecommuters need to telecommute their personal business relationships effectively, which means doing it to an appropriate degree (much more than less it seems, from the anecdotal accounts above). | |
|
Tworker
@swbell.net
|  I work for T
My main clients are spread out in 4 major cities across the US.
My coworkers and management chain are spread out all over the US.
Very rarely are there any face to face meetings. Even if there were no telecommuting, none of us are in the same city, let alone same building.
Typically our days are spent glued to our computer screens with email and messenger along with a phone screwed into our ear.
There are times I've traveled to other cities and worked from there. Remote is Remote. My boss and my clients don't care, nor should they, my work doesn't suffer.
With telecommuting, I'm putting in about 60 hours a week. 10-15 minute lunches during the day, no real breaks, etc., etc. If I was forced to go back to the office everyday, I wouldn't put in more than about 40-45 actual hours of work.
Will there be abusers, sure, but those should be dealt with on an individual basis. | |
| | Mce Saint
join:2007-10-03
Saint Louis, MO
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
| Re: I work for T I think it's misleading to say the entire federal government is decreasing teleworking. The federal government is NOT a monolith - and it doesn't march in lockstep. Remember there are three branches - and they're not set up in a hierarchy; they're co-equals.
I know that the Administrative Office of the United States Courts has made a big push in the last several years to increase teleworking - and some court units (bankruptcy, district or appellate) have been more "aggressive" than others in allowing workers to telework. At least some funding is still tied to how much teleworking is being done by those eligible for it (the higher the percentage teleworking the more money the court unit gets).
The federal judiciary has sunk a LOT of money into technology and in trying to make the federal courts "paperless." Pleadings and documents can be filed with the Court - and viewed by judges, law clerks, and opposing parties - online 24/7.
Westlaw and Lexis have virtually eliminated the need for "hard copy" libraries. There's no need to go anywhere -other than a computer tied to the internet - for research purposes.
Orders and opinions can be drafted on WordPerfect and sent by email over a VPN for approval by a judge - who then electronically signs it - and then it is docketed as a .pdf file. Notice and copies of the order get sent via email to the parties (who can review the court's docket on-line).
Given all of this it seems a bit silly to force many people who work in the federal judiciary to sit in an office from 8am to 5pm. Especially those involved with the resolution of cases based on pleadings (i.e., law clerks and staff attorneys). Research and writing isn't a "start at 8am" and end at "5pm endeavor" - sometimes you have to chase the rabbit down the hole even if it means staying until 8pm, 9pm or whatever. Other times, your simply unable to see the forest for the trees . . . and chaining that person to there desk for 3 hours doesn't change that.
I personally enjoy the personal freedom teleworking gives me. I think that face-to-face contact with co-workers is often overrated. | |
| 
grobinette
Premium,MVM
join:2001-01-27
Springfield, VA
clubs:
 ·Verizon FIOS
edit:
March 2nd, @05:57PM
| Cost of commuting Funny that as the cost of commuting has grown and with the contribution to the air pollution caused by the increase in traffic that companies now seem to want to see more people in the office.
--
Team Discovery | |
| | |
|
|
Big Businesses Decrease Telecommuting
