flexible work arrangements
“Disengagement is not an employee problem. It is a hangover from the Industrial Age that invented a middle tier in companies so useless and intrusive that a cartoon strip called Dilbert is the best picture we have of how it functions.” Those are the words of author Chuck Blakeman. What do you think?
The workplace landscape has drastically changed, and we’re not just talking stand-up desks and exercise balls for chairs. It might come as a shock that as of 2010, over 2.6 million Americans telecommute. That’s over 20 percent of the U.S. working adult population. On a global scale, 20 percent telecommute, and 10 percent of those telecommute everyday…
The recent decision by Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer to ban working from home for “Yahoos” has been both widely criticised and applauded. The decision has been criticised for undermining the growing trend toward telecommuting and other flexible work arrangements which enable employees to better balance work/life challenges, especially important to women with children [...]
The recently publicized news regarding the ban of telecommuting at Yahoo has ensued in a debate about the benefits of flexible work from home versus the requirement to come into work. However the first thought to cross my mind was that this flexible work arrangement only applies to a very small and privileged sector of employees. For example, working in healthcare, I am very aware of the fact that this debate doesn’t apply to nurses or personal support workers.
I recently read a case coming out of the Yukon where an employee accused his employer of discriminating against him based on the ground of mental disability, which was contrary to the Yukon Human Rights Act.
Now that the big do is over, and the security fences are coming down in Toronto and Huntsville—hopefully—let’s take a moment to reflect on how all the hubbub of the G8/G20 summits affected local businesses.
As if you didn’t have enough to worry about with the weak economy and trying to hold onto your job: more employers than ever in the United States are offering their employees the benefit of flex hours, but their employees are refusing to take advantage for fear they’ll get the axe! Recent research in the US by the Center for Work-Life Policy has found that fewer workers are accepting offers of flex-time—scheduling their own hours combined with working from home—because they feel the need to be present in the office to make sure their employers know they are working, even if the employees are in fact more productive working on their own schedules.
Here’s a question that probably few lawmakers are interested in asking themselves: does human rights legislation make the people it is designed to protect less desirable to employers?
The reality of today’s workplaces is that employees are stressed because they not only face excess work duties, but they work long hours, which keeps them away from their homes, families and leisure for long periods of time. According to many HR and legal experts, the results of overworked employees are distraction and low productivity in the company, forcing employers to demand even more hours from their employees, among other things. Everybody I talk to seems to think that the solution of a four-day workweek should enhance employee effectiveness and productivity, reduce stress, improve employees’ enjoyment of work, and balance their work/life.