Houston traffic - why isn't telecommuting/flexi-schedules the answer? (daycares, buy)

[Oildog]

Because the CEO gets more productive results with people in the office. That's what I've been told when 9/80 schedule was done away with.

[ipuck]

Originally Posted by key2thecity

I think that's the weakest argument against telecommuting that there is; if anything, if it's offered people who appreciate it will do their best to keep their job. If someone isn't doing their work, fire them. It's simple. Isn't that what should happen whether they work in the office or not?

It is one thing to ask an engineer making 6 figures to work independently. It is another thing to ask the accounts payable clerk making 15 bucks and hour to work independently unsupervised.

I been an employer for many years in hiring both professionals and retail. Most people need supervision. There is only a small percentage of people that can motivate themselves and organize themselves to work at home effectively. The couple times I agree to let employee telecommute have back-fired on me everytime.

I currently work at home myself and I also have telecommute for an employer before. With that said, there are certain days I have to try really hard to get myself motivated to work.

[key2thecity]

Originally Posted by ipuck

It is one thing to ask an engineer making 6 figures to work independently. It is another thing to ask the accounts payable clerk making 15 bucks and hour to work independently unsupervised.

I been an employer for many years in hiring both professionals and retail. Most people need supervision. There is only a small percentage of people that can motivate themselves and organize themselves to work at home effectively. The couple times I agree to let employee telecommute have back-fired on me everytime.

I currently work at home myself and I also have telecommute for an employer before. With that said, there are certain days I have to try really hard to get myself motivated to work.

I understand what you're saying. But I believe there will always be days where people just aren't motivated. Being in the office doesn't make anyone work harder on those days. I don't believe telecommuting is an answer to every job, industry, or title. I posted earlier that my position would not allow for it. But I think it would work for many others and it could reduce congestion in the city.

I still believe an employer would get and keep better employees if it is offered. There would definitely be a trial and error period where some people would need to stay in the office or be fired because, as you've stated, some people need the direct supervision. But that's not the case for all people. My office pretty much operates in a telecommuting environment. There's only a handful of us in the office today, but trust me, everyone not here is definitely completing their work or they wouldn't last here.

[Dopo]

Originally Posted by key2thecity

Many people have mentioned taxes and tolls as a way to ease congestion. I REALLY think the city should get with employers and strongly encourage them to utilize technology and allow employees to telecommute.

I don't mean to offend you .... but this is gotta be a joke

Businesses do/work the way they think is most profitable to them
I don't see why the government should step in and tell businesses their business hours or how to operate their business.

Originally Posted by key2thecity

I'm completely convinced that at least 75% of people that commute to work everyday could work from home. If Big Brother would learn to pay people for WORK and not for time and physical presence, most people would be much happier and the companies would be more efficient.

I'm also convinced that 90% of Americans would work 1/2 as much if they worked from home.
BTW, who's "Big brother"?

[Dopo]

Originally Posted by key2thecity

I think that's the weakest argument against telecommuting that there is; if anything, if it's offered people who appreciate it will do their best to keep their job. If someone isn't doing their work, fire them. It's simple. Isn't that what should happen whether they work in the office or not?

You sound like you've never had a job.
I've had over 20 jobs since I was a kid, ranging from fast food restaurants, factory worker, telecommunications techncian, engineer and everything in between.

I know for a fact that most people slack around if they know they can get away with it.

[key2thecity]

Originally Posted by Dopo

I don't mean to offend you .... but this is gotta be a joke

Businesses do/work the way they think is most profitable to them
I don't see why the government should step in and tell businesses their business hours or how to operate their business.


I'm also convinced that 90% of Americans would work 1/2 as much if they worked from home.
BTW, who's "Big brother"?

Nope, not a joke and I'm not offended. They don't have to TELL them anything, but they can offer an incentive to reduce the traffic and congestion. A population of millions accessing the same infrastructure at the same time daily is not good for anyone. So why not have city officials speak with employers about ways to lighten the load? The load IS coming from how those employers operate their businesses and schedule their employees. Why is it a joke to expect people to attempt to work together for the greater good? (oops, the jokes write themselves for that question!)

Anyway, I'm convinced that people have a very negative opinion about other people's work habits. I think people would work more efficiently if they had a choice and the opportunity for more free time. It would take some getting used to and I'm sure many people would still prefer to come into the office. But for those that wouldn't, it's pretty sad that people would just assume they're not doing sh*t. Honestly, the 8-5 workday in the office was not designed with modern technology in mind. Most office workers could do their jobs in 1/2 the time in their PJs if they possess the right time management and computer skills.

[key2thecity]

Originally Posted by Dopo

You sound like you've never had a job.
I've had over 20 jobs since I was a kid, ranging from fast food restaurants, factory worker, telecommunications techncian, engineer and everything in between.

I know for a fact that most people slack around if they know they can get away with it.

And you sound like someone with low tolerance for different ideals. I'm not making this up. This is nothing new. There are many companies that already allow this, so it CAN be done. I was just bringing it up as a means to relieve traffic congestion.

I've been working for 17 years. I began in retail and have been working in corporate jobs for 12 years. I know exactly what people do and don't do in an office. Slackers will slack regardless. And I've already stated that this would not be the answer to all jobs, titles, and industries. However, just because some people are unmotivated and need a thumb on their head to do their jobs, that is not the case for all people. Again, I think people would do their jobs more efficiently. If people were paid for WORK and not TIME there would be no slacking.

[J_Treehorn]

Originally Posted by key2thecity

Telecommuting is productive if you have a productive employee. It would be a great way to weed out those that don't work. No matter where you are physically, if you're responsible, you'll do your work. I used to work at the biggest utility in Houston and there were many people that disappeared into the downtown tunnels for several "breaks" during the day. Or there were people constantly getting busted by security for internet usage and I think we all know people that simply don't work all day. I had a co-worker that would complete all her work by 2 and spend the next three hours visiting and talking with people on multiple floors in multiple departments.

The problem is that you are giving us a personal hypothesis and associated anecdote - and I would want far, far more than that before a government clerk starts mandating work processes and practices. There has been a bit of both academic and practical research into your proposition, and even some examples (such as the largely failed Yahoo initiative). As far as I know and have read, it is one of those ideas that sounds a lot better in theory than practice - kind of like solar energy. You should try to quantify your hypothesis with something more than "I think".

This bit of research might be a start: http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2012/06/art3full.pdf

[Dopo]

Originally Posted by key2thecity

They don't have to TELL them anything, but they can offer an incentive to reduce the traffic and congestion.

What incentive? Tax dollars?
How is the government going to verify that people taking those tax dollars actually do what they promised they would do?

[texsn95]

I don't know whether to laugh or cry after reading this thread, so I'll just post this.