With the widespread changes that have taken – and continue to take – place in our society, it seems to come as little surprise that a need or desire for a changing work schedule was likely to emerge. Indeed, among the global community, the United States has arguably been somewhat delayed in coming around to a change of this nature. As pointed out by Nelson and Quick (2013), “Many nations have experimented successfully with various flexible work programs, and in some countries, laws have been enacted to make alternative work arrangements more accessible to employees” (p. 548).
Although the U.S. might have been reluctant to consider some of the initiatives of other nations, there appears to be a growing awareness of and appreciation for alternative work arrangements. While such a development might be quite welcome to many employees, it should be noted that employers also have the potential to benefit from such arrangements. It is reasonable to suggest that when employees have the freedom to choose when, where, and how long they will work, the prospect holds some attraction for many employees, albeit from many different reasons. There is a reality, however, that seems to question the fairness of having such an option. In her paper on alternative work arrangements and small IT firms, Gordon notes:
The availability of flexible options is not distributed equally among employed individuals. Consistently, research finds that workers who are most likely to have access to FWPs (flexible workplace practices) are professionals and managers who work in the service sector in industries unrelated to construction, transportation, education, or health industries” (Gordon, 2014, p. 767-768).
However, that particular aspect does not preclude a trend among a number of industries that are beginning to understand the advantages of alternative workplace arrangements. In order to have a better context in which to understand such arrangements, it is useful to review several alternative workplace arrangements, as excerpted below (Vollman, 2016):
• Compressed workweek: Instead of working a regular five-day workweek, employees put in longer days on certain days in exchange for other shorter days or one less day of work per pay period.
• Telecommuting: This option allows an employee to work remotely from home or some other location, as little as one day per week to a full time schedule.
• Flextime with “core hours:” Based on specific limits set by an employer, employees can choose their own work time in accordance with those limits. The employee will work full time, but for each day must be available in the office for x number of hours per day.
• Job sharing: One job is shared by two or more employees, which includes all the accountability, duties, and pay that would equal one full-time job
In general, there are going to be advantages and disadvantages – for both employees and
employers – that implement alternative workplace arrangements. Breaking this down, employee advantages can include work schedules that help ease stress on parents; an increase in job satisfaction; a stronger sense of company loyalty and commitment to success; and increased likelihood of employees remaining with the organization. Advantages to the organization are perhaps even greater: alternative workplace arrangements has the potential to increase productivity and decrease absenteeism among employees; decrease in the need for and expense of over-time; added enhancement for recruiting new employees; and getting the most value in terms of employee compensation and benefits (Gbemiye-Etta, 2007).
It is not surprising that implementing alternative workplace arrangements also comes with a number of disadvantages, both for the employees and the employers. With respect to employers, Bloch lists the following pitfalls and disadvantages that can result from implementing alternative workplace arrangements: when employees are not working together, there is a risk that there will be less cohesiveness of the team, and ultimately of the organization; working in a virtual environment, for example, limits social interaction, which can result in a lac of camaraderie among the employees; if business is not carried during regular hours, with employees present in the facility, the organization might experience a risk to its reputation; and there is the potential for a number of compliance issues and security concerns involved in alternative arrangements. This is especially cause for concern if confidential information is taken off the company premises, and stored elsewhere. Not have tight control over certain types of information can lead to serious consequences, should there be even accidental loss (Bloch, 2016).
Although alternative workplace arrangements work quite well for some employees, there are other employees that are more motivated and focused when they are in the office; not everyone has the discipline to be able to work in a less structured environment. Also, working at home can create a situation in which family, friends, or neighbors drop in because you are at home; they overlook the reality that you are working. A significant issue can arise where there is no clear distinction between home and work; for example, if you have flextime to take care of a personal issue, the boss might feel entitled to call you at home at night (Heathfield, 2016).
Clearly, the specifics that create and explain why organizations might be influenced to offer alternative workplace arrangements to employees are probably directly related to the needs of their employees. Many younger and older employees are looking for more flexibility in their schedules, based on perhaps very diverse reasons. Workers are no doubt feeling the burden of commuting, both in time and expense. Additionally, American organizations might want to be viewed as being current with the times, and might see the wisdom in using alternative workplace arrangements as a job enhancement. This has certainly been the case in many foreign countries. Depending on the size and history of an organization and its success, it seems that alternative arrangements and the impact on employees will serve as a positive driving force to increase productivity and growth in businesses. There are limitations as to how companies can lessen some of the burdens on employees, which could address the time and expense of commuting. In lieu of raising salaries, the decision to offer flexible working arrangements to employees appears to be a benefit for the employees, which is not actually taking any additional money out of the organization’s pocket.
The alternative workplace arrangements are likely to be a growing trend for the future. The technological advances and the explosion in the IT industry are strong reasons for embracing the trend. The United States clearly became aware of the importance of this trend when the Telework Enhancement Act of 2010 became law, pertaining to the federal government and its employees.
In response to whether or not the Act will have a beneficial impact for America in general, an article from November of 2010 suggests that the Telework Enhancement Act is likely to save American taxpayers some $15 billion annually. According to Citrix Online, the calculation involved in this assessment is based on work conducted by the Telework Research Network. The process, as explained by Citrix:
…leveraged the staggering costs of lost productivity from federal workers during last winter's snowstorms to determine the potential savings. The estimated $71 million a day lost by the government from federal workers not being able to work from their offices would pay for the five year cost of a telecommuting program (estimated by the Office of Personnel Management at $30 million) in just one snow day (Citrix, 2010).
It is notable that some 61% of the federal government workforce holds jobs that are ‘telework-compatible.’ Another compelling result of Telework’s study indicates that the nation could end up with very positive results; if those within the federal workforce that are eligible to work from home did so, only one day per week, government agencies, federal workers, and the country would be likely to see significant benefits. It is also estimated that for workers in government agencies, it is likely that there would be an increase in productivity in excess of $4.6 billion annually. This all sounds quite exciting, but there have been compliance issues as well as other issues related to the Act since its enactment as a law. This now appears to be a work in progress. Having said that, it seems as though the potential is well worth fully exploring – and, as much as possible, implementing – the telework program (Citrix Online, 2010).
Finally, the issue of whether or not the availability of alternative work arrangements for private sector employees in the U.S. should be mandated by law seems to be a tricky issue. Is it a fair argument to say that if the potential benefits for the federal government workers turns out as promising as it seems, does this mean that the same mandate should be imposed on business owners in the private sector? My first instinct is to say no; my second instinct is to say use caution. There has been a trend at the city and state levels to offer greater flexibility to workers.
According to Wiltz, “Some states and cities are going further, by applying the same rules to the private sector. At the beginning of this year, Vermont and San Francisco began mandating that private employers consider employees' requests for flextime without retaliation. New York City may soon follow suit” (Wiltz, 2014). Rather than enacting a mandate that requires the private sector to off alternative workplace alternatives across the board, I tend to thing that legislation based on “Right to Request” feels somewhat less heavy-handed. Many private sector organizations might be agreeable to something of that nature. However, a mandate seems to me to be a source of contention with regard to private sector employers.