We heard about Gov. Ted Strickland’s move to limit flexible work arrangements for the state’s 60,000 employees. The piece cites the need to “maximize efficiency” during a budget crisis where “every dollar counts”.

Here’s our prediction for how this is going to play out:

The change goes into effect in May of 2008.

In the first three months, managers and employees stress out (and lose productivity) as they scramble to adjust to the new rules.

In the first six months, anyone who had based their lives around having some flexibility becomes demoralized and unmotivated.

In the first year, talented employees (you know, the ones who are good at maximizing efficiency) find better opportunities elsewhere.

In the second and third year, the word is out that the State of Ohio is not a place you want to work because they have a 19th century work culture.

In the fourth year, the (hopefully new) governor makes a speech about reforming and revitalizing the state workforce by introducing flexible work arrangements that motivate employees, attract top talent and maximize efficiency.

We have a message to Gov. Strickland and anyone else who wants to use the state of the economy to rob employees of flexibility and control: don’t. You may think you’re helping by circling the wagons, but no business or organization ever succeeded by acting out of fear. Now is the time to unleash your workforce, not hobble them with a rigid schedule.

We also have a message to the people of Ohio: make a stink. If you know someone who works for the state, stand up for them. And even if you don’t, it’s in your interest to help. The next time you need something from the state, you’re less likely to get good service if everyone is miserable.

We read this story in the Los Angeles Times about banning laptops in meetings with our faces scrunched up. Do managers really “remove chairs and force people to stand” and “get everyone to drink a glass of water beforehand” to make their meetings more effective? Was the author of the piece being sarcastic when he called these solutions “innovative”?

We empathize to a point.

Managers are “[f]rustrated by workers so plugged in that they tuned out in the middle of business meetings.” And that sucks.

But you know what also probably sucks?

Those managers’ meetings.

Here’s a tip for people who are having a hard time with people not paying attention: have your meetings be necessary. People aren’t stupid. If you are wasting their time, then they will tune you out. If you aren’t wasting their time, then they will give you their attention.

And don’t think that taking away the technology will solve the problem. The mind is a powerful tool. Employees may not be able to “tune out” without their laptops, but they can always think about sex and food.

This article in the Washington Post is yet another in a string of pieces we’ve seen over the years about women who choose to come back part-time after having kids, and how they accept reduced pay and benefits (and often risk their career) in exchange for the Holy Grail of Flexibility.

What jumped out at us while we read this story were all the percentages. One source has come back 60% while another has chosen to come back 80%. And this got us thinking: how do employers make sure that these women are doing exactly the right amount of work? How do they make sure that they are getting sixty or eighty percent? (Because it wouldn’t exactly be fair if employers got 65% or 87%, would it?) And how do these women give an exact percentage of their former efforts? Do they throttle back when they find themselves approaching the mark?

The answer, of course, is that neither employer nor employee are measuring actual output. They’re only talking about time. Even though common sense tells us that it’s absurd to look at work as a constant, steady stream of productivity, all the parties in this ridiculous game are assuming that if you reduce your hours by 20% then you must reduce your output by 20%.

This is a fantasy. It’s also a deeply unfair fantasy, especially for the employee. If you’re making $60,000 a year and you accept a 20% reduction of your former role, then you sacrifice approximately $230 a week in exchange for 8 hours. A manufacturing company that makes widgets might be able to argue that those 8 hours are worth $230. But the women in the article aren’t making widgets. They’re knowledge workers, and a knowledge worker can easily deliver that $230 worth of value in 32 hours.

Of course, you could also argue that a full-time knowledge worker could just as easily not deliver the full value of their weekly pay. But that just goes to our larger point about the absurdity of measuring an employee’s value to the business based on time. We want to see both employers and employees get what they’re due. That means employers paying employees based on the value of what they deliver (not the time it takes to deliver it) and employees taking accountability and delivering that value.

Bottom line: we have to stop chasing flexibility. Flexibility can only be based on time, and time means nothing in today’s economy.

We’ve been following the saga of New York City’s “congestion fee” plan, an $8 fee that would apply to the nearly 1 million cars that enter Manhattan everyday.

As we noted in a previous post, this kind of solution, while well-meaning, can only have a limited impact on the problem of overcrowded streets. That’s why we were very pleased to see this opinion piece in Newsday. Allowing people to come in at different times would help stagger traffic and avoid what the author calls “crush hour”.

But why not take that idea farther? The problem with flextime and other traditional alternatives to the daily grind is that they are based on management giving employees permission to act outside work norms. But as we wrote a month ago, traditional alternatives to work end up being a game of “Mother, May I?” that employees can lose at any time.

There is no reason why New Yorkers (who, last time we checked, had access to cell phones and laptops) couldn’t choose how, when and where they worked. Frankly, given how rich and complete the typical New York neighborhood is, there is no reason why people couldn’t work and live in their communities. And while it might seem silly to live in the Greatest City in the World only to work virtually, it actually makes a strange kind of sense. You’d end up taking part in the aspects of the city you enjoyed most, without giving over so much of yourself to the rat race.

Unless, that is, people like the rat race? Don’t tell us you honestly like the rat race . . . .

Unbelievable. Three hours after we put up our giveaway post and we’re all done. Ten people. Ten books. Ten happy endings.

Thanks to all of those who wrote in. And for those of you who missed it, you won’t have long to wait.

Cheers!

As we’re sure many of y’all know, our new book WHY WORK SUCKS AND HOW TO FIX IT is coming out this summer. To thank all of you (our first readers!), we have convinced our publisher to give away a free advanced copy to the first 10 people who email Allison (Allison.mclean@us.penguingroup.com). Send her your name and mailing address and put WORK SUCKS in the subject line so she’ll be sure to see it.

We’re incredibly excited for the launch of this book. We’ll have more details coming soon, but in the meantime, thanks again for your attention and your support.