The Good and Bad Side of Telecommuting Essay Example

The Good and Bad Side of Telecommuting Essay Example The Good and Bad Side of Telecommuting Paper The Good and Bad Side of Telecommuting Paper Organizations are increasingly using telecommuting as a way to increase productivity and decrease costs. Employees also see positive results from telecommuting. Research shows however that there are negative sides as well. Governmental intervention beginning in the early 1990s almost put an end to telecommuting, but after debate, telecommuting has proven stronger than expected. Telecommuting: The Good, The Bad, and The Government Parents today face increased burdens as the cost of living continues to rise. Many single parent homes are troubled with the problem of caring for their children and working at the same time. Many rely on babysitters and family members to help, but others look to the government for assistance. In any case, meeting the bills is hard enough without the cost of a babysitter. However, today there is another choice: Telecommuting has become a new way for business organizations to employ people to work out of their homes that will keep up with the more fast paced society than the earlier modes communications. There are issues to issues to be overcome with telecommuting as well, but those issues are not as costly to those involved, usually. ITAC (International Telework Association Council) defines telecommuting as a work arrangement in which employees work at any time or place that allows them to accomplish their work in an effective and efficient manner (On-Line). Most reports on telecommuting suggest that this alternative has been positively received by both employees and managers (McNerney, 1995). However, by definition, telecommuting holds positive and negative factors for both the employer and employee. The organization and the employee must review these factors to determine if this organizational workforce design is right for them. According to McQuarrie, for the employee, positive factors include: reduced commuting time, reduced personal costs (travel, clothing, food), flexible working hours, greater autonomy, easiness to care for dependents (p. 82). The reduction of commuting time allows for positions in companies at such a distance that a position would not be possible without relocation. A lack of commuting is also favorable when the area surrounding the organization is susceptible to a high number of traffic problems such as congestion and multiple accidents. In areas like Los Angeles that have problems with exhaust, telecommuting offers cleaner air. According to the United States Department of Transportation and the United States General Service Administration (2000) Investments in telecommunications infrastructure that facilitate telecommuting should not only lead to transportation benefits, but may also have a synergistic effect on other transportation strategies required to cope with growing traffic congestion, urban air pollution, and national petroleum dependence (On-Line). The reduction of personal costs is favorable to the employees who see the reduction as money for other necessities. Flexible working hours offers a way to work around complicated schedules that otherwise would not be possible to work with. The freedom of telecommuting opens the employee up to new options that can be more beneficial such as mid-day exercise programs, choice of what task to perform first, community projects, volunteerism, and other civic activities. There is also an ease of caring for dependents that is not available through the conventional workplace. These dependents can range from children to elderly parents, but also, the employee may be disabled or terminally ill. In this case, telecommuting opens doors that otherwise would remain shut. The negative factors for employees include workaholism and isolation (McQuarrie p. 82). People have a need to interact frequently with others in a stable environment. Failure to maintain interactions will lead to a number of negative consequences such as anxiety, depression, and even physical ailments (Gainey, Kelley Hill p. 4). The organization experiences positive factors in the forms of higher productivity, reduced physical plant costs, selling point for new employees, and the ability to accommodate disabled or chronically ill employees (McQuarrie p. 82). The company saves the cost of office space and equipment by having an employee work at home rather than at a central office site. According to Fiona McQuarrie (1994) there is rarely any mention in the telecommuting literature of the possibility of the employer compensating the employee for home-based work by paying a portion of rent, mortgage, or utility costs (p 82). Lowered company costs enable a larger workforce that enjoys the benefits of autonomy. This in turn increases productivity both for the employer, through a larger workforce, and for the employee, due to increased â€Å"want to†. Another attracting factor for the increased work force comes from the selling point for new employees. The level of autonomy and other positive employee fac! tors entice new employees. The company can also reduce costs by letting the employee supply for their own special needs such as wheel chair ramps, handicapped toilets and so forth. The employee will already possess these necessities, but the company may or may not have them installed. Negative employer factors include loss of direct control and lack of a coordinated workweek. The lack of direct control is experienced through the lack of face-to-face training communication, low social contact, and lack of trust between management and employees. Only two of the various mediums of communication can be transferred electronically. It is currently technologically impossible to remotely express one’s self through body language, eye contact, and subtle meanings. Many telecommuters have expressed desire to return to their old arrangement of closer interactions with other employees. The trust level between management and telecommuters is low due to the two factions not necessarily knowing the other’s thoughts, views, and opinions. The lack of a coordinated workweek affects multiple employees because one employee’s work may depend on the completion of work by another employee. Steps have been taken by many organizations to combat the negatives for both the employer and the employee. The problems of isolation and loss of direction control have been solved by requiring the employee to commute to a central office or an organizational hub usually two days a week. This gives managers and employees direct contact and keeps the employee more in touch with the company. The problems of workaholism and lack of coordination have been met by job assignments that outline the nature of the work, the time frame of the work, and the need for completion which can be delivered during one of the weekly commutes. These assignments serve a dual purpose of giving limits and guidelines to the employees, but also in showing the employer’s dependency on the employee. The reformation of OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) that began in 1995 brought about new questions and problems for the possibilities of telecommuting. â€Å"In a letter to a Texas based company concerning the liability for a telecommuter’s home office, it was deemed that the organization be liable for the safety of it’s telecommuters home work sites† (Kerrigan p. 63). The letter, posted on OSHA’s website, caused an eruption of contention leading to the removal of the letter from the website. â€Å"An analysis by Mark Wilson, a Heritage Foundation research fellow, shows the recent policy blunder left employers in the worst of all possible worlds legal uncertainty† (Kerrigan p. 63). After debates between opposing sides of the issue, another issue concerning the liability arose questioning the safety telecommuters’ children in terms of hazards from the workplace. Another issue arising from the OSHA’s letter is the liability of company resources. Most firms are! covered when they add the computers, fax machines and other equipment to their general policy (Hoke p. 35), but this policy does not cover home offices. After much dissention, the U. S. Department of Labor, ruled, †Employers arent responsible for the health and safety of white-collar telecommuters after all† (Rosencrance p. 1). After the statement by the Department of Labor, OSHA rewrote its archaic definition of ergonomics and released a new ruling for telecommuters liability. â€Å"The Occupational Safety and Health Administration will not inspect home offices and doesnt expect employers to inspect them either†(Hoover p. 17). The new directive also gave relief to all employers for liability of the employees’ home offices. It continued to state, however, that OSHA would inspect home manufacturing operations when it receives complaints about serious health or safety violations or when a work-related fatality occurs (Rosencrance p. 93). The governmental â€Å"flip-flop† has left many employers leery of telecommuting, but the growth rate of telecommuters does not reflect a problem. Many new companies are taking advantage of its employees’ homes to relieve costs of physical assets. Some companies have reversed the role of the managers to a field position, allowing manager to have more face-to-face communication with employees as they travel from office to â€Å"office†. Some companies even legally accept liability of telecommuters through internal contracts and insurance. Today, the increasing rate of telecommuters is calling for the advancement of technology. This technology will lead to better and faster communication, however, it will bring its own set of problems. What tomorrow holds for telecommuters is unclear, all we can do today is examine and adjust the good, the bad, and the government. **Bibliography** Bibliography Gainey, T. , Kelley, D. , Hill, J. (1999). Telecommutings