Laws We Don’t Need
July 3rd, 2008 by Cali & Jody
We’ll get this out of the way first: We’re keeping the Start Your Own ROWE Revolution contest open a little longer. If you want your boss to get that free book sent to him/her, tell us why you want or need ROWE!
Readers of this blog know that we’re not fans of traditional flexible work arrangements, but a recent article in Workforce Management has us rubbing our eyes in disbelief. The piece brings up some excellent points, including the fact that of 21 “high income” countries, the U.S. finished last in having laws that support flexible work arrangements. But the solutions that are being proposed make us cringe:
In December, Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Massachusetts, and Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-New York, introduced the Working Family Flexibility Act, which would grant employees “the right to request” reduced hours or an alternate work schedule.
If the bill is passed, employers would have to establish formal procedures for discussing employees’ needs and how to address them but wouldn’t be required to grant employees their requests.
In May, Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Washington, introduced the Family-Friendly Workplace Act. Under the bill, private sector workers would be able to work overtime and essentially bank that toward paid time off, or “family time.” Currently, only public sector employees have family time.
Taking the first bill first, isn’t the “right to request” something already covered by the First Amendment? Or does the Bill of Rights get suspended once you start collecting a paycheck? (We’re not experts in Constitutional law, so tell us if we’re wrong on this one.) Of course, all the free-speech-loving requests for a humane workplace don’t mean anything if the law doesn’t require your employer to act on that request. Furthermore, companies already have procedures for requesting a more humane work schedule. The reason more people don’t follow those procedures is out of fear of committing career suicide.
As for the second bill, how it is that you’re getting more “family time” by working more hours? Does that mean that the person who works an 80-hour week gets more time with their kids than someone who works a 60-hour week? To us that sounds an awful lot like that old marketing ploy, “The more you spend, the more you save!”
We’re not ruling out the possibility of the federal government playing a positive role in this fight. Blanket cynicism about ineffectual government doesn’t help anyone. But let’s not pretend that trying to rejigger old ideas about time are going to somehow magically make life better. Next time you see an article about a “solution” to the problem of work, put it to this simple test:
Does it give people control over their time? Does it focus on getting work done instead of on what work looks like? Does it give people real power to make choices about what is best for both their work life and their personal life?
If the answer isn’t a resounding “Yes!”, then move on. There’s nothing to see here.
Actually, private sector employees don’t have any first amendment rights with respect to their employers. Thus this proposed law (which IS silly and ineffective) would provide employees the right to make the request for flex time without fear of retribution.
The overtime for time off idea would work great…but in a traditional workplace, the hours only flow in one direction. If you want to work extra hours, you’re seen as a “company man” or (my personal favorite) “team player”. But if you try to take vacation, you’re Sludged.
Just try to take all of your vacation time at the same time. See what happens.