/Big Mouth/ Homework heaven
11/05/2007 | Filed under Discover > Big Mouth
The country’s roads are collapsing under too much traffic. Why go to work to sit in front of a computer if you can do the same at home? It’s time for more flexible working conditions
Last month, millions of motorists signed an online petition against the government’s proposed road pricing scheme, and every one of them got a personal reply from the Prime Minister telling them to bugger off. I think both sides have completely missed the point. Instead of charging people to cut congestion, why don’t we use our computers to kill it altogether?
Every morning, millions of people commute to work, and a significant proportion of those people will spend the day slumped in front of a computer writing reports, answering emails, fiddling with spreadsheets and so on. More importantly, a significant amount of the time they spend in front of those PCs will be spent doing bugger all. Whether it’s browsing b3ta, writing a novel, updating the CV or playing Solitaire, PC users have become adept at looking busy rather than being busy. In some cases, I reckon people spend more time commuting to work than they spend doing work.
Britain is a broadband nation, so why are we doing impressions of veal calves on commuter trains or going slowly insane in traffic jams? If your job is PCbased, you can do it at home. If your job involves lots of meetings, you can meet via Skype or videoconferencing. If you’re spending half your day browsing b3ta, you might as well do it in your dressing gown.
Not all jobs can be done at home, I know, and not everybody is suited to homeworking. And even the most motivated of people may find the lure of daytime TV hard to resist. But instead of worrying about distractions, lie-ins or people walking the dog during working hours, companies should accept it and completely abandon the idea of fixed working hours. There are some jobs where being available 9 to 5 is essential, but there are even more jobs where it doesn’t matter whether you do your work at 7am, 3pm or 11pm. Done five days’ work in four? Take Friday off! Need to meet with the boss? Do it via webcam or conference call! Feeling a bit hungover? Have a lie-in and work late instead! The 9 to 5, 37.5-hour week is a throwback to a time when everybody needed to be in the same place at the same time, and in today’s world, it’s increasingly anachronistic. Instead of paying people for the time their buttocks spend warming office chairs, why not pay them for what they actually do? 10 years ago, technology wasn’t up to the job, but now it is.
Broadband is fast enough, reliable enough and widespread enough to make homeworking feasible in almost all of the UK, and the growing computerisation of jobs means that more people than ever before could work just as well (and in some cases, even better) from home. They’ll be happier, less distracted, more productive and financially better off. Their employers would reap the rewards, and we’d cut traffic congestion and overcrowding overnight.
Bookmark with:
Comments
Justin / 11/05/2007 / 15:14 / http://www.kreckermedia.com
While I agree with everything you're saying for the the reasons you've mentioned, and I like the idea of helping the environment, I don't like the idea of spending the majority of my waking hours at home. I did it for a while in college and it got old pretty quick. I've found I need a separate space, physically and mentally, to be able to focus on work. There is also a social aspect of work the I wouldn't want to give up. I have a lot in common with at least some of the people I work with and I enjoy interacting with them at work, not always necessarily on a professional level. I think there is still something lost in the communication in a video conference versus a face to face. Maybe I'm just old fashion ... although only 27. I think ideally we'd all just live closer to work and maybe walk once in a while. :)
James Whinfrey / 12/05/2007 / 09:15 / http://jameswhinfrey.co.uk
Personally I love the idea. There's no level on which working from home, and on my terms, doesn't appeal.
My question is whether the broadband network, admittedly reliable and fast now, has the capacity to deal with the wholesale uptake of remote working? BT isn't interested in spending the vast amount of money needed to upgrade the network only to have to make it available to the competition, and I can understand their point.
The infrastructure of this Country should be the responsibility of this Country, whether physical or digital transport. That way decisions can be made on a basis of global, and not restricted commercial, advantage.
As you point out it's all possible, but it's also all about money. Would the Chancellor, soon to be PM, want to miss out on all the tax revenue commuting fuel raises?
liz / 13/05/2007 / 20:44 / http://www.enterprisenation.com
Gary, we entirely agree; have a look at our site today to calculate how much time and money you could save if you worked from home.
www.enterprisenation.com
Firday 18th May is National Work From Home Day - give it a try and see how much happier, less stressed and how much more work you get done!
Happy Homeworking, Liz.
Brett / 14/05/2007 / 15:15 / http://www.saintkansas.com
My company produces web-based training, and ironically, we sell our solution as a way to reduce travel expenses. I say ironic because I still feel compelled to commute to the office only "to be seen." I actually work longer hours at home (there's no commute to tell me when to start or stop). Even if your company claims to support telecommuting, it seems there are always "old school" types who resent it and make it their business to police your seat time. I feel attitudes are a much bigger obstacle than the technology.
Jim / 15/05/2007 / 08:10 / http://free-nintendo-ds-lite.blogspot.com/
The idea is good but I don't see it working right now. One big reason everyone goes to work is because it is human to human socializing. You can discuss ideas and issues easily between each other and you also create a culture in the work area. All of this helps a company succeed. I could see it being possible if everyone has some sort of video phone system where you can pop in and talk to any coworker or boss at any time.
Mark / 15/05/2007 / 09:20 / http://www.collectiveid.co.uk/
I agree with some of this. Commuting in cars represents wasted time, resources and money.
I disagree about what time of day you need to work: While insomniacs might find it desirable to work at 3am, their clients are still going to want to communicate between the hours of 9-5. Other reasons for the working day convention include minor inconveniences like children, schools, relationships etc
Having happily worked from home for 3 years, I have recently moved my business to an office in order to escape the baby noise in our tiny flat and because working in closely with other people is fun. (Luckily for me I can walk / cycle to work)
As for broadband infrastructure, it's there already. Surely we just need to stop the major carriers from screwing us?
Mathew Browne / 15/05/2007 / 17:22 / http://www.mbwebdesign.co.uk
I absolutely agree with the opinion the author has put forward. Often, in an office environment, somebody can get away with doing nothing so long as they look busy. The same person, working from home and putting in a full 9 to 5, would probably get a raw deal; because they aren't *seen* to be busy, it's presumed they aren't.
David / 16/05/2007 / 18:08
Current working practices are a hangover from the industrial era where workers needed to congregate at the factory to take their place on the production line. We should have moved on from this. Technology certainly has.
Many of the excuses given for not employing flexible working practices or encouraging home working are pretty lame. Considering the enormous benefits to productivity, the environment, health, work-life balance, etc. flexible/home working should be in legislation.
Here are some arguments to consider:
Many people need to be in their workplace to do their job. True, and they always will. However, many, many people simply do not need to travel to a place of work every day. Let these people work from home and make it easier for others who must travel to do so.
Remote workers aren't trusted? Employers: don't employ *anyone* you don't trust!
People need human contact, interaction with colleagues. Home working does NOT mean 'never visit the office'. Get a balance, arrange meetings, brainstorm sessions, social events, etc. Often, it's good to separate work time and collaboration time - mix the two and productivity dives.
The homeworker gives up and moves back to the office: either they didn't get the balance right or they hanker for the 'office doss', where there's less pressure to actually get something done.
The technology has existed for a long time and it's true that what needs to change are attitudes. Businesses need a flexible, committed dynamic workforce; people need better more balanced, less stressful lives; a sane solution to traffic congestion is long overdue and the environment needs a chance to recover from the abuse we are giving it.
Change is needed and it really isn't that difficult to achieve. There are just too many major benefits to flexible home working for it to be discounted by a stack of lame excuses.
Gary / 16/05/2007 / 19:39 / http://www.bigmouthstrikesagain.com
Justin, Jim, you've both made essentially the same point - and it's a good 'un:
> I've found I need a separate space, physically and mentally, to be able to focus on work. There is also a social aspect of work the I wouldn't want to give up.
That's a big deal, but you can still have a social aspect or actually go to the office without the old-fashioned nine to five grind. For example a friend of mine's started a new job and they don't care what hours he works within reason, so if he fancies a lie-in he can have one. He doesn't usually, but he does escape rush hour, so he spends less time commuting, doesn't contribute to rush-hour gridlock, etc etc etc. And he's *delighted* by this, thinks his employer's brilliant and goes to work each day bright, breezy and full of beans. He wins, company wins, environment wins, people who actually have to be somewhere at 9am win because that's one less car on the road.
I do agree that the social aspect is important, though. I've been working from home for nine years now and I go a bit stir crazy if I don't get out and about every second night or so. Pubs matter more than ever when you homework, heh.
Mark -
> While insomniacs might find it desirable to work at 3am, their clients are still going to want to communicate between the hours of 9-5. Other reasons for the working day convention include minor inconveniences like children, schools, relationships etc
Yep, I agree. There are also tax implications, cost implications for the extra time spent at home and so on. It's not for every job or every individual, that's for sure. But there are still ways to deal with some of the issues, so for example I know of one firm that offers "term time" hours for parents of young kids - they're off when the kids are off and their hours are such that they're able fit their working hours around standard childcare hours, and so on.
One thing I'm not so sure about though is clients needing you between 9 and 5. Surely more and more communication these days is asynchronous (eg email) or across different time zones anyway? Sure, call centre jobs or face to face jobs need you to be there at particular times, all kinds of office jobs are time-sensitive, but I'm not sure *all* jobs are all the time. If that makes sense.
I think too, there's a timetable culture in a lot of big employers. Not just the long hours thing - leaving at 5pm is for wimps! - but the "we have a meeting every day at 9am, and another one at 12, and another at 4.30, and if it weren't for all those very important meetings nobody would ever achieve anything".
I've actually seen what happens when that's applied to a phenomenally successful bunch of homeworkers who were pretty much left alone as long as they got results - which they did, in spades. Then the company started to worry about the potential for skiving, so they brought in daily (and then twice-daily, and sometimes thrice-daily) timetabled conference calls, and began making the homeworkers account for every second of their working day, and start coming into the office every few days for meetings. And in every single case their morale, their productivity and their target achievement went through the floor.
Brett -
> I actually work longer hours at home (there's no commute to tell me when to start or stop).
Same here. Too-long hours, and it's too easy to work seven-day weeks every week, particularly if you don't have a regular salary. That's the downside, and there are loads of others. But I only have a wee bit of space in which to rant, so I may well come back to that sometime.
> I feel attitudes are a much bigger obstacle than the technology.
Definitely.
James -
> My question is whether the broadband network, admittedly reliable and fast now, has the capacity to deal with the wholesale uptake of remote working?
I don't see why not. They reckon it's up to the job of video on demand, which is pretty intensive stuff.
Liz - sorry I can't take part on the 18th, but for me that's National Stop Working From Home And Take A Much Needed Week's Holiday Day :)
Ian Mayman / 24/05/2007 / 22:52
I heard about homeworking groups that are independent of employers where people get together, sometimes from different companies and just got on with their job. The location is subject to change and convenient to the individual, and of course people can go and work with more than one group if they need a change of scenery, or a change of 'colleagues'.
This idea means location is often near to home so a smaller commute, hours are sometimes not fixed - depending on the employer, and homeworkers at these venues (be it a hired office or a cafe) get the benefits of the social aspects of working with others.
Chris Simms / 13/08/2007 / 10:39 / http://www.bondara.co.uk
Gary, thanks for your great comments. Whilst we are (and should be) heading in this direction, there are several hurdles the industry and we as human beings need to overcome. In my opinion the industry will find it easier to adapt to a 'working from home' system than probably many of us of workers will do. But good things lie ahead...
* Discipline
My partner and I have started to work from home and it's surprising how many of our friends have openly admitted to us that they would not be disciplined enough to work from home. Employers would have to support workers during the transitionary period as they shift to a 'work from home' system. Thanks to broadband this should be a doddle. Can you imagine how excited Bill Gates would be to add a new program called 'WorkSupport' to his ever expanding Office suite!
* Relationships
It's amazing also how many of our friends have mentioned to us that they would find it hard to be around their partner 'all day'. We've all got too used to a quick 'hi and good bye' in the morning and the next time you see your partner again is over dinner. In the short term many my guess is that many would struggle - but that’s only because most of us don't know any different. We'd need to adapt.
A final word...
It's no secret that technology (mobiles, internet, etc) has broken down communication and the human contact between people. But if things do go according to your article - could technology in the long run actually bring us together again? Would we be forced to learn to communicate with our partners again which in turn would improve family life as a whole?
