by Anita Campbell
September 28, 2008 at 11:53 pm
· Filed under Web Commuting
Two recent articles about telecommuting bring up an interesting question: in tight economic times, is it better to be a telecommuter, or work in an office?
One point of view says it’s better to be a telecommuter. Businesses can save on office space expenditures, and employees can save $1,200 a year on gas (assuming $4/gallon gas). Brendan Koerner writes in Wired.com:
“Given that it costs more than $15,000 per year to provide an employee with 200 square feet of cubicle, the savings would be significant — so great, in fact, that companies would still come out thousands of dollars ahead after springing for workers’ broadband and VoIP expenses.
Ditching the office could also provide businesses with a leg up in the scramble to recruit and retain talent. For starters, location would no longer limit a company’s employment pool — gifted Kansans wouldn’t be forced to uproot their lives for opportunities in, say, California. Also, based on the average American’s commute time, driving speed, and vehicle specs — and assuming that gas costs $4 per gallon — a telecommuter would save around $1,200 a year on fuel alone — an instant salary bump, of sorts.”
So, save money on gas and office space — that’s one point of view.
Now here’s the other: in times of layoffs, it’s risky to be a telecommuter because the first to go may be the telecommuters. Karen Burns suggests at U.S. News and World Reports’ On Careers blog that in tough times being a telecommuter can be risky:
“Employers are only human. Humans tend to take the easy way out. And it’s easier to lay off someone you only see rarely than to lay off someone you see every day and who has become an integral part of your work life.
You may have fought to earn telecommuting privileges. You may love the savings in gas and wardrobe expenses. You may know in your very soul that telecommuting has made you a more productive, and hence valuable, employee.
But please consider this annoying-yet-true cliché: out of sight, out of mind. It’s human nature.”
So in times like these which is it for you? Would you rather save money and have the convenience of working from home? Or risk being the first to go if layoffs come?
I’m not saying that companies are going to start making layoffs or that telecommuters would definitely be the first to go if that happened — just thinking about all the potential benefits and disadvantages.
Permalink
Great example of the two different types of employers – the glass half full ones (those smart enough to recognize the benefits of telecommuting) – and the glass half empty ones (those who lack trust in their telecommuting workforce).
For the sake of our economy – let common sense prevail – and let the glass half full – win!
Amanda wrote @ September 29th, 2008 at 9:12 am
That’s a good point. I’ve never considered the out of sight, out of mind aspect but I can see it as a consideration. In these difficult times, I can see how personal relationships with employers and coworkers could make a difference. Working at home without those personal connections could hurt you in the long run. They may lay off based on their lack of personal connection with you.
Hi Skip, good point about glass half full. Many smaller organizations encourage telecommuting and work-at-home employees and contractors because they can’t afford more office space.
So I suspect that for most small busineses, especially those with under 20 employees, there’s no choice but to encourage people to work at home. this is probably an issue for the larger end of small businesses and mid-sized to large businesses.
– Anita
I don’t know, but thank you for using “fewer” and not “less”.
aullman wrote @ October 5th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
I have heard the argument that companies are more likely to layoff telecommuters since they don’t see them every day. In reality, the decision to layoff or not to layoff is made by executives who probably don’t know the employees that they layoff personally anway.
The solution to the current economic situation is for companies to be as efficient as possible. Economics and efficiency determine whether a company will survive and whether employees get to keep their jobs.
Telecommuting is very efficient. Workers who don’t have adequate facilities in their home, can telecommute from a Remote Office Centers located near where they live. (Remote Office Centers lease individual offices, internet, and phone systems to workers from different companies in shared centers located around the city and suburbs).
This country spends $700 billion each year on imported oil. That is enough to pay for the financial rescue plan. The best way to keep that money in the economy is to cut back on imported oil.
Telecommuting and remote work programs can make a substantial impact on the oil consumed each and every day.
Why should people spend hours in their cars every day traveling to and from a centralized office, just so they can log on a computer system that is probably hosted remotely anyway? It is much more efficient to work from home or from a remote office down the street.
Innovation and efficiency is the way to economic recovery.
Remote Office Centers are fairly new, but can be found by searching the internet for “Remote Office Centers” in quotes or going to a free web site that lists ROCs by location:
http://www.remoteofficecenters.com
HTML-Tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Additional comments powered by BackType
