Big Businesses Decrease Telecommuting Employees shouldn't get too used to working from home One of the major benefits of increased broadband availability has been that telecommuting is increasingly an option for individuals who wish to work from home. Numerous benefits are reported by telecommuters including higher job satisfaction and increased time with family due to the lack of a daily commute. Despite this, many large companies seem to be moving away from allowing their employees to telecommute and are even requiring that some employees who currently work from home return to the office full time. AT&T has been one of the biggest companies to start reversing the telecommuting trend. However they aren’t the only company to decrease their acceptance of telecommuting by employees. Intel and Hewlett-Packard have both started requiring employees to spend face time in the office either full or part time. The U.S. government has also decreased their support of employees working from home. This doesn’t necessarily mean that telecommuting is on the decline. Among the general business population, telecommuting still remains on the rise. Some state governments are starting to support allowing their employees to work from home. And even these three big companies claim that they continue to support telework in some form. But it does appear that the prevalence and style of telecommuting may be in the process of change.
|
  BK
join:2001-09-10
Wheaton, IL | strange I'd be interested in AT&T's and Intel's reasoning behind the reverse. | |
|  | zed260Premium
join:2007-09-30
Cleveland, TN
kudos:1 | 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 | |
| | |  DataDocMy avatar looks like me, if I was 2D.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 marcoRes Firma Mitescere NescitPremium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA | 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!
| |
| | | | | | | If you think that's bad... Read the SBC Internet/Email policy...and then realize that they're serious about "non-work related activity". | |
|
| | Reviews:
 ·magicjack.com
| 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.
When I worked in the office I still put in a lot of time nights and weekends. But, going into the office helped establish a feeling of when I was "on the clock." When I worked from home at night, I felt like I was at home and doing something extra by choice.
Like someone else said, this is probably less of a problem for jobs like customer service with a real "shift."
Mark | |
| | | | | | 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. | |
| | | | | Reviews:
 ·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 Reviews:
 ·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 Reviews:
·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. | |
|
| |  jester121Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL
·voip.ms
| 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. | |
|
| Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by BK: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 | |
| | | Ulmo
join:2005-09-22
San Jose, CA Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
| Re: strange said by amigo_boy:said by BK: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? | |
|
|  CabalPremium
join:2007-01-21
Austin, TX
·Suddenlink
| 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? | |
| |  Old_GrouchDon't just sit there silly DO somethingPremium
join:2004-05-26
Greenwood, IN
kudos:1 | They (SBC at&t or whatever name they choose) started backing off before I retired years ago.
Marketing types did and still walk around spouting the benefits and savings to having people work from home.
One of their (sbc) largest customers even pushed sbc to allow them to pay employees' dsl or second line at residential rates so they could take advantage of the work at home savings. Doesn't sound like much unless you understand the telco paranoia about billing residential service to a business (corporate) name.
Internal to the company (proof they are bi-lingual) they got real scared when they realized they were supposed to manage people they couldn't see. That was the death knell...managers (especially the underemployed middle management) were scared by the loss of power and direct supervision of legions of employees.
They've still got middle managers. And, they have fewer telecommuters. Who won?
--
At Team Discovery we know how to get more outta that danged 'puter of yours!
If you paid taxes it's a rebate. If you didn't, it's welfare. | |
|
| |  Not all jobs productive for telecommuting
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.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page | |
| | | | Re: Not all jobs productive for telecommuting said by fAcEtIOUs: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 Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
| said by fAcEtIOUs: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. | |
|
 pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
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! | |
| | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| 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 | |
| | | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
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! | |
| | | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| 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 | |
| | | | |
1 edit | 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. | |
| | | | | | | 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. | |
| | | | | | | | 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? | |
| | | | | | | | | 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. | |
|
| | | | | | 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. | |
| | | | | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| 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 | |
| | | | | | | | | 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. | |
| | | | | | | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| 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 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | 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. | |
| | | | | | | | | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| 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 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | 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. | |
| | | | | | | | | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
4 edits | 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 marcoRes Firma Mitescere NescitPremium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA | 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 Reviews:
·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). | |
|
| | 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 SaintPremium
join:2007-10-03
Saint Louis, MO Reviews:
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| 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. | |
|
|  QuaffAPintA Big Thanks To The Troops
join:2001-01-10
Downingtown, PA | Telecommuter Out teams are spread out all over place and in different timezones. I telecommute full-time and have found it to be wonderful for both me and the company. The company gets me for longer (I'll work till later hours from home rather than commuting for an hour), and cheaper - it's cheaper per sq ft to have me at home than pay for me to be in an office.
The one bad thing is that I can't imagine not telecommuting anymore, so it would be difficult to ever transition back if I left the comany .
--
FunnyAndFun.com :: Take a laugh break... | |
| | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| Re: Telecommuter said by QuaffAPint:it's cheaper per sq ft to have me at home than pay for me to be in an office. If you don't mind me asking, do you write off from your taxes the cost of a home office? Back in the '70s this was a common write-off. This was so abused that in the '80s it was made harder to qualify for (not just that you do work for your employer, but it's at your employer's request, to their benefit and where you do your primary work). It became a guaranteed red flag for an audit. It seemed like very few people used it.
I'm curious if it's become more mainstream and less reason for an audit now that more people telecommute. I paid off my mortgage three years ago, so I can't itemize. Even if I could I'd be reluctant to write off the cost of a home office without knowing whether it flags someone for an audit. (I don't have anything to hide. But, just the headache factor.).
Mark | |
| | | QuaffAPintA Big Thanks To The Troops
join:2001-01-10
Downingtown, PA | Re: Telecommuter said by amigo_boy:said by QuaffAPint:it's cheaper per sq ft to have me at home than pay for me to be in an office. If you don't mind me asking, do you write off from your taxes the cost of a home office? Back in the '70s this was a common write-off. This was so abused that in the '80s it was made harder to qualify for (not just that you do work for your employer, but it's at your employer's request, to their benefit and where you do your primary work). It became a guaranteed red flag for an audit. It seemed like very few people used it. I'm curious if it's become more mainstream and less reason for an audit now that more people telecommute. I paid off my mortgage three years ago, so I can't itemize. Even if I could I'd be reluctant to write off the cost of a home office without knowing whether it flags someone for an audit. (I don't have anything to hide. But, just the headache factor.). Mark My company offered to pay for a lot of it. I just payed for it myself and, as you stated, I don't want to risk an audit, so I didn't claim it either. | |
| | | | major marcoRes Firma Mitescere NescitPremium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA
1 edit | Re: Telecommuter said by QuaffAPint:My company offered to pay for a lot of it. I just payed for it myself and, as you stated, I don't want to risk an audit, so I didn't claim it either. If you followed the letter of the law and jumped through all the hoops complying with all the specs, then you wouldn't have to worry about getting audited. And even if you were, provided that you were doing it correctly, there would be no worries.
Let the IRS audit you all they want. As long as you have complied with the exact specs of the law, there's absolutely nothing to fear. Further, considering oil is at $100/barrel and shows absolutely no sign anything less than that anytime soon, it is just plain dumb not to take advantage if the company is paying the freight.
--
The Toll
Let's Go Flyers!
| |
|
| | Well... I work for the third 'Big Business' listed...and can say it's not 100% true. There is a corporate mandate going on that is decreasing overall office space, at least in most locations. I happen to be in a city with one of those 'cram everyone into a smaller area' locations. So, there is literally no room at the inn, and the same would hold true across the board at 'Big Business #3'. | |
| Reviews:
 ·Verizon Broadban..
| Tele is where its at for a good bit of smaller biz. I have tele'ed most of my working life. Even worked at Nortel
and tele'ed all the time. In the office once or twice a month. Loved it but the work load was insane. Even now with my own company All our are Datacenter side. I basically work from anywhere I am. There's simply no way I would go back to
an "office". My partners and I get 3 times more done this way than a 9-5 jobber. Plus in Atlanta you can spend an hour in traffic or more both ways to "work". No thanks. I will stick with Tele thank you very much.
ym | |
|  tim_kButtons, Bows, Beamer, Shadow, KaseyPremium,VIP
join:2002-02-02
Stewartstown, PA
kudos:13 | I wish I only wish I could telecommute. It would save me 4-5 hours commute a day. While my job is perfect for telecommuting, the company would never in a milliion years let a union worker do it. Salaried personnel are allowed but even they are getting cut back on the number of days allowed to work from home.
--
RIP my baby Buttons 1/15/94-2/9/07 Buttons, Buttons video
| |
|  MrMasterjetsetterPremium
join:2000-12-16
St Thomas, VI | Not Entirely Accurate IBM was asking for more people TOO telecommute here in Austin.
and my company is allowing more telecommuting as well.
--
One never notices what has been done; one can only see what remains to be done. -Marie Curie | |
| | Ulmo
join:2005-09-22
San Jose, CA Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
| Re: Not Entirely Accurate said by MrMaster:IBM was asking for more people TOO telecommute here in Austin. This fits with my general idea that IBM is more disciplined, but I don't know if that's related. | |
|
pules
join:2001-01-10
Los Angeles, CA | I hate working from home!!! I've been working from home since Dec 2007 and I HATE IT. I really like being around my co-workers. Like others have stated, when I was at the office, I was "on the clock" and when I left, even though I have a digital leach (damn Blackberry), I was "off the clock" and I loved that feeling. I also loved the fact I got to BS with my co-workers or get involved with another team that could use some NetOps hands on help. Even though my "bosses" know what I do and my value to the company, had I always been working from home, I doubt they know who I am and capable of doing. | |
| | | There is a balance. I definitely think there is a balance between telecommuting and coming into the office.
There is also a difference between flex-time and telecommuting. Telecommuting is working the same hours you normal would just not actually at site. Flex-time is the ability to do work "whenever". If that means 9am or 3am.
There has to be balance. Working two days a week from home and working the rest at the site, I think helps with a lot of the concerns managers have about telecommuting. They will get to see you pretty often and it makes the employee happy. | |
| | | Telecommuting from the office... I basically telecommute from my office. In an organization of over 50 people, I'm the only one that works in my office. My nearest co-worker is an hours drive away and my management is in the next state!
I go into an office and exist as a voice on the other end of teleconference lines. Some projects, I never see another living member of the team until the post-project celebration.
...and yet I'm expected to show up at an office. Explain that one to me? I certainly can't... I work from home about once a week and nobody can tell the difference except that I start my day earlier when I work from home, take a shorter lunch and work later...
Can I please pack my desk up now? Thanks... | |
|  funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | This is an economic indicator -- I've seen this happen over a few cycles now.
Awesome economy, full unemployment
Employees get free coffee and soda
On site child care, mommy rooms for nursing babies, concierge services like auto detailing, dry cleaning, haircare, etc..
Flexible hours, days, and working conditions
Casual Fridays or similar relaxations on the dress codes
Receeding economy, rising unemployment
Employee freebies cut back or ended
The on-site services are all cut back or curtailed to "before 8am" and "after 5pm"
Standardized working hours are reinforced
Dress codes are reinforced
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
"We don't throttle any traffic," -Charlie Douglas, Comcast spokesman, on this report. | |
| | | New Model for Workforce Deployment I have been working on the need to find more effective uses of telecommunications technologies to support remote workers and have concluded that the work from home model does not work enough of the time for enough individuals. This approach is also inappropriately seen as a viable method of supporting continuity of operations planning. This will be proven to be based upon several false assumptions. A more effective method of supporting knowledge workers remotely is the development of public-private networks of secure facilities. The predominant ’single location model’ in use by most major organizations is a remnant from our industrial age experience. Multi-location workforce deployment will be a cornerstone for connecting our communities in the information economy. Aside from better traffic congestion mitigation, pro-active deployment from secure network facilities greatly improves emergency preparedness. The list of drivers to move beyond work from home and hotelling is growing daily. Distributed workplace must be given an opportunity to demonstrate the tremendous potential of our information and communication technologies resources. | |
|  viperpa33sWhy Me?Premium
join:2002-12-20
Bradenton, FL | No employee downtime, company benefits When I started my new job, they stated I will have the ability to work from home. After working at my job for the past 6 months, my bosses encourage you to work from home, not discourage. I work from home 2 -3 days a week with no downtime in my productivity. Just because I work from home don't mean I am playing. I HAVE to be in front of my laptop the full 8 hours with no exceptions.
There has been no decrease in employee productivity and the employees work better when given the ability to work from home. There is no lack of teamwork and in fact I would say there is more. As far as my boss seeing my work, he knows when we have our weekly meetings. He can see the work that is done and ideas that are brought to the table. Over the past 6 months from what I seen there has been no employee downtime due to telecommuting. You can balance your personal and work life accordingly.
Example:
How many times have you gotten a cold or flu and you called in sick but didn't have the ability to work from home? How many times has your coworkers come in sick into work, infecting someone else even yourself cause they didn't want to take a sick day and you end up getting sick and taking a sick day? So this is downtime for the company even though your allotted sick time in most cases. If your sick and can work from home, there is no downtime and the company benefits.
A happier employee is a more productive employee and any good boss or employer knows that. | |
| |  rolandeCertifiablePremium,Mod
join:2002-05-24
Columbus, OH
Linksys
AT&T Midwest
| Re: No employee downtime, company benefits said by viperpa33s:A happier employee is a more productive employee and any good boss or employer knows that. Tell that to my company. I work for one of the largest financial institutions in the US and the senior management direction on working remotely has done a complete 180, since I started here. There is now a strict no work from home policy for my department. Although, we all end up working remotely at some point during any given day or week when we are on-call. The funny thing is that the majority of our department is spread out all over the US, as well as all of the project management teams. So, it is not like there is much "face to face" meeting time in the office even if we are there. It is pretty ridiculous given the work we do and the distributed locations of many of the people we work with on a daily basis. I completely see the value in being in the office a couple days a week for particular types of communication and discussion etc. But to mandate it will just burn out many of the people. It really sucks to be woken up for a 3 hour support call at 3am and then be expected to still be at your desk by 9am, regardless. Management wants their cake and eat it, too. You can't expect to have both project engineering and production support handled by the same staff without some sort of scheduling flexibility. All you end up with is bitter, hostile staff who leave for better opportunities and take huge amounts of knowledge out the door with them. Unfortunately, those costs are intangible and so management just overlooks it and assumes you are easily replaceable.
--
Ignorance is temporary...stupidity lasts forever!
»www.thewaystation.com/
»blog.thewaystation.com/ | |
|
ricep5Premium
join:2000-08-07
Jacksonville, FL | Corporate Security Telecommuting is down because corporate IT can't maintain the security of the data flowing out of the datacenter.
Laptop encryption was considered the way to deal with this, but now even that is suspect.
The financial risks of lost or stolen data is now higher than the real estate costs of keeping employees in house.
Remote employees have to be able to work exclusively on the phone and VPN and not require social interaction with their coworkers. While many love the perception of flexibility telecommuting provides, many found they were not emotionally up for the role.
And now with corporate IM software available which tracks your availability online, lets your co-workers know just how much time you spend away from your desk.
The ultimate in misplaced telecommuting data was Director of the CIA (under Clinton) John Deutch, who would download classified CIA data to his home computer. He got a pardon on Clinton's last day in office, but it was a clear breach of national security. If the CIA can't get it right, you can be sure that the banks, insurance and other financial industries struggle as well. | |
| | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| Re: Corporate Security said by ricep5:And now with corporate IM software available which tracks your availability online, lets your co-workers know just how much time you spend away from your desk. I know an enterprising person who used AutoIT (»www.autoitscript.com/autoit3/) to do random keyboard activity so IM never went "away" for more than 15-20 minutes.
He took it a step further to have it detect when a conversation started. It would email a text message to his cell phone, and then reply to the conversation with random messages:
"Hey."
{random delay}
"I understand. I'm having a problem with my network, hold on."
{random delay}
"Ok. I need to reboot. Let me get back to you."
Mark | |
|
1 edit | I'm a telecommuter... I've been a telecommuter since January 2006, and I love it. I think part of it depends on the work you do. I'm a website admin for an herbal medicine distributer and the way we've got it set up, it works fantastic.
32 hours a week, I work from home. I'm pretty autonomous. I know what needs to get done and I do it. However, One day a week I do have to trudge the hour long commute into the office and have face-time with my colleagues. Doesnt matter what day, as long as I drop by at least one day a week.
it helps me to stay in touch with my bosses and coworkers but still reap most of the benefits of working from home.
Since I get to set my own hours, it is really nice. Typically I don't go on the clock until 4pm and I work through until things are done at midnight or 1am. Nobody cares. Not only does it work out better because of the bandwith available at the office increases during off-hours, making my connection more zippy, but It works out better so that I can have my day to do with whatever I want, and I can do work when it's convenient for me. It works out very well. I do need to be available to take calls from the bosses during the day but they're not frequent and so I don't bill for them. | |
|
1 edit | Sure, why not... Let's force 'em to drive to work. After all, gas will only be $4.00 a gallon by summer! | |
| | Ulmo
join:2005-09-22
San Jose, CA Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
| Re: Sure, why not... said by qworster:Let's force 'em to drive to work. After all, gas will only be $4.00 a gallon by summer! Yup. From [url]»gasprices.mapquest.com/searchres···=2[/url], gas prices for LOS ANGELES, CA lowest $3.73 & highest $4.30. (Those are probably prices for the lowest grade, which prettymuch all gas-based cars can use.) So in the middle of 3.73 and 4.30 is $4.015 (per gallon of gasoline). | |
|
| |
|
|
