Looks Like Our Traffic Isn't As Bad As Some Make It Out To Be... (Atlanta: bankruptcy, schools)

[rcsteiner]

Originally Posted by livinginbuffalo

The company my husband works for has a huge work from home project that he is actually in charge of rolling out. He estimates about 25% of employees will have that ability which accounts for about 1000 people. There are definitely forward thinking companies out there.

I suspect we have a higher percentage than 25% who work from home at least part of the time.

[RoslynHolcomb]

My problem with Atlanta isn't the interstates, I expect them to be a mess. The surface roads are what drive me insane. In certain areas the toads are constructed in such a way that you have to get on the interstate. The "you can't get there from here" phenomenom makes me want to pull my hair out at least once a day.

[RoslynHolcomb]

Yep, most of what you post, some of us realize it. Although I had never lived in Alabama, most of Alabama is much like Georgia without metro Atlanta.

Yep. People seem surprised by this, especially those who've never bern outside the metro. Unsuprisingly, Alabama and Georgia are more alike than they are different. And Birmingham is considerably easier to navigate. The grid, streets north and south avenues east and west make it almost impossible to get lost. Atlanta streets seem to be thrown together with absolutely no rhyme or reason. And this is true not only in the city, but the suburbs as well. Another issue is the lack of signage. Every other city I've been in marks the way to the interstate every other block or so. Here you're lucky to get one sign, and if that ine's been vandalized or obscured some way? Too darned bad. And God help you if you have to slow down to ensure its a northbound ramp. The horns start honking before you can hit the brakes. A lot, and I mean a lot of the traffic issues on Atlanta surface roads could be greatly remedied with simple signage.

[neil0311]

Originally Posted by Fritz99

Do tell which company this maybe. I want to send in my application now.

Originally Posted by rcsteiner

I suspect we have a higher percentage than 25% who work from home at least part of the time.

As stated, my company has a policy of allowing you to work wherever you want to work. I go to the office only when I need or want to do so.

Without providing the details of where I work and what I do, I'll just say that the work that I and many others at my company do isn't tied to an office. In fact, often my work requires me to visit my customers or to work remotely. Our company's view is that you are responsible for getting your work done. You have metrics to measure whether that's happening or not. If you're not doing your work, it's pretty obvious.

If you work in a situation where all of your team members are in the same city and work in the same building, then that may be a reason for everyone coming to an office. You may lose communication and efficiency if people worked from home often. In my case and in the case of others like me, people work (and our customers are located) in different cities, and we use unified communications technologies to keep us connected. I can conduct an audio or video conference from my home office just as easily as from the company's office. The only thing I lose is free soda and coffee. Typically, I put in more time from home, because I plug in early and may not unplug until later than I would if I was driving home.

More and more in certain industries and large companies, this type of remote working is normal.

[arjay57]

The difference is that Neil's company knows employees are taking care of business no matter where they are. Not every corporation has that luxury.

Hence the need for workers to drive in each day so they can be supervised and have their time accounted for.

Maybe if workers demonstrated a higher level of responsibility it wouldn't have to be that way. That would certainly be a great way for folks to improve traffic by their own actions rather than sitting around waiting for the government to fix everything.

[Mirabella]

Originally Posted by RoslynHolcomb

Yep. People seem surprised by this, especially those who've never bern outside the metro. Unsuprisingly, Alabama and Georgia are more alike than they are different. And Birmingham is considerably easier to navigate. The grid, streets north and south avenues east and west make it almost impossible to get lost. Atlanta streets seem to be thrown together with absolutely no rhyme or reason. And this is true not only in the city, but the suburbs as well. Another issue is the lack of signage. Every other city I've been in marks the way to the interstate every other block or so. Here you're lucky to get one sign, and if that ine's been vandalized or obscured some way? Too darned bad. And God help you if you have to slow down to ensure its a northbound ramp. The horns start honking before you can hit the brakes. A lot, and I mean a lot of the traffic issues on Atlanta surface roads could be greatly remedied with simple signage.

I wish I knew what the quota was for rep points or positive comments per poster.
This is a great point. Try being new in Atlanta and figuring our where you are on Roswell Road. What is wrong with having signage that tells you what number block you are on without having to figure it out from random businesses that have the number on their sign? So simple ...

[AcidSnake]

Or it could be that many companies have CEOs and executives who have control issues and lack the ability to have faith in their employees.

Also, these same CEOs & executives may greatly lack the leadership capabilities to instill in their employees a feeling that they matter to the company and that their jobs at the firm have a higher purpose. These factors matter greatly if a company seeks to create an environment where employees are empowered to do more not just for the sake of holding down their job, but for the sake of making the firm as competitive and successful as it possibly can be.

There is a great difference between being a boss and being a Leader. Most CEOs and executives I've noticed in many jobs I've held down before the occupation that I am in now are merely bosses...and lousy bosses at that.

Just my humble opinion, of course.

Originally Posted by arjay57

The difference is that Neil's company knows employees are taking care of business no matter where they are. Not every corporation has that luxury.

Hence the need for workers to drive in each day so they can be supervised and have their time accounted for.

Maybe if workers demonstrated a higher level of responsibility it wouldn't have to be that way. That would certainly be a great way for folks to improve traffic by their own actions rather than sitting around waiting for the government to fix everything.

[samiwas1]

Originally Posted by AcidSnake

Also, these same CEOs & executives may greatly lack the leadership capabilities to instill in their employees a feeling that they matter to the company and that their jobs at the firm have a higher purpose. These factors matter greatly if a company seeks to create an environment where employees are empowered to do more not just for the sake of holding down their job, but for the sake of making the firm as competitive and successful as it possibly can be.

There is a great difference between being a boss and being a Leader. Most CEOs and executives I've noticed in many jobs I've held down before the occupation that I am in now are merely bosses...and lousy bosses at that.

Just my humble opinion, of course.

I agree with this. When the company I worked for was a smaller private company, we had the ability to manage ourselves, our departments, and purchase what was needed. If I needed a ream of paper, I bought a ream of paper. If I needed lamps, I bought lamps. I would always get the best price, and keep my supervisors informed. I was always right on top of everything.

Then, we got "bought out" by a multi-national media conglomerate. Suddenly, everything had to go through multiple layers of approval, and half the time, we couldn't even purchase ourselves...had to go through company agents. It just did not apply to the way we worked, and made everything much more difficult. And they cut as many people as possible. The whole thing made me care far less about how things turned out.

Of course, this has nothing to do with traffic. But it does relate to having people work at home. Just because someone is in an office doesn't mean they aren't on Facebook all day, or watching YouTube videos of cats.

[Fritz99]

Originally Posted by arjay57

The difference is that Neil's company knows employees are taking care of business no matter where they are. Not every corporation has that luxury.

Hence the need for workers to drive in each day so they can be supervised and have their time accounted for.

Maybe if workers demonstrated a higher level of responsibility it wouldn't have to be that way. That would certainly be a great way for folks to improve traffic by their own actions rather than sitting around waiting for the government to fix everything.

Workers could demonstrate responsibility if given the opportunity. You manage through metrics and deadlines. Either you are meeting them or you are not. When I roll out of bed at 6:30 and work from home, I get right to work. After I have sat in traffic for an hour to get to work, it takes me a full hour to let my nerves calm and get truly focused on being productive. Also I noticed that many of the men in my field, technology, i suppose due to the higher salary, tend to have stay at home wives. I truly believe they like driving in to work to so they can work in peace. My manager, director and VP have no thoughts about working from home and seem to have no sympathy for those that would like to.

[aries4118]

Originally Posted by ATLTJL

...
Birmingham is like a sleeping giant. Atlanta is lucky that it has no interest in rapid growth (Birmingham looks to Atlanta to see exactly what it NEVER wants to become) because if it wanted to, it could probably slaughter us. All they need is to get better leadership, but the topography and natural resources are so much better than ours. Plus it's an hour closer to the Gulf Coast. It will never, ever be for the urban dwellers, but for people wanting to raise a family in a decent quiet place, it's a really nice place to live. Isn't that generally who businesses are most interested in attracting?

Birmingham is a beautiful city, in an unparalleled natural setting--however, don't get it twisted.

Birmingham is the "way it is" because it has to be--not because it wants to be. Birmingham's chosen reactionary path and virulent racial violence and racial politics derailed any chance for it to rise to "pre-eminence" in the American South--and sealed it to its current fate (and state). The fact that all of its pristine metro communities were and still are conveniently segregated and located "over the mountain" was/is the tell-tale sign that the city+metro lacked/lacks the mindset, modern know-how, and wherewithal to be an Atlanta-caliber city.


Birmingham should look to Nashville, Raleigh/Durham, and Charlotte as role models. They are its potential peer cities.