The Work-Life President
October 18th, 2008 by Cali & Jody
Both sides of the political spectrum are starting to agree that the next president will need to be an environmental or “green” president. What exactly that means is currently in dispute, but there is no question that the Environment (for lack of a better term) is now a permanent part of our political discourse.
Changes in the economy and the demographics of the workplace are bringing another low-flying issue into the fore. As Sue Shellenbarger notes in her blog, The Juggle, for the first time in U.S. history, both candidates have laid out platforms on work-life policy issues. It’s quite possible that our next president will also have to be the Work-Life President.
We have complicated feelings about government’s role in work-life issues. As we noted in this post about government teleworkers, we’re glad there are laws on the books that support employee schedule control. The Family and Medical Leave Act is a good start, even if in an authentic ROWE, many of its provisos would be irrelevant. You don’t need to protect people’s time if you’re measuring them based on results.
At the same time, as we wrote in our post about the FMLA, top-down laws aren’t going to change what people BELIEVE about work. Just check out the comments in Shellenbarger’s recent piece about the two candidates. You would think that jobs are a form of charity (as opposed to an exchange of money for services) and just having one should make you fall to your knees in gratitude.
Still, our next president is going to have to do something. Our labor laws were designed for a 20th-century, manufacturing economy. Now that many of us are knowledge workers (and 24/7, global knowledge workers at that), we need to embrace our new economic realities.
Why do we still have exempt and non-exempt workers?
How can you have overtime if your brain is always on?
Why do we still cling to the number 40 as a measure of what’s a full-time (aka “real”) job?
The laws will have to change someday, but even if they don’t in this next administration, our next president can provide leadership in how we talk about work. Instead of haggling over time, let’s bring back that American can-do spirit. Let’s talk about what we want out of our workforce, out of our family lives, out of communities.
In tough economic times it’s tempting to sell ourselves short. Just pay me and I’ll keep my head down and my mouth shut. But tough times can also be an opportunity to rethink how we’ve been doing things. We might end up with a work culture that looks different than it does now, but given how much work sucks, would that be such a bad thing?
What an interesting idea about 40 hours/week being determined by an industrial work environment. Knowledge work rarely fits exactly into that 40 hour/week mold, though, does it?
Both candidates have mentioned felxible work arrangements…I doubt to the extent of a ROWE, but at least some chatter is happening…
Wow…just call me Captain Redundant….sorry…
I finished the book and now on to The Four Hour Work Week. Much to think about and inspiraiton to follow my dreams, not the dreams of others alone.
You speak of our beliefs. I call them our BB;s. Born, Buried, Bought and Borrowed Beliefs. Oh how our fears cause us to hide behind masks of busyness when we bury our born beliefs and buy and borrow the dreams of others.
I am spreading the word and preparing myself and team to move towards ROWE.
I’m surprised more hasn’t been made of the fact that the next president will probably have to push back when people can start drawing social security and welfare benefits in order to keep the system solvent.
If that’s the case they might have to throw the employed a bone like ROWE or mandatory comp time for more than 40 hours a week.
With either candidate in the White House it should prove to be interesting. Whether improvements in our work environments come out of it remain to be seen.
The economy is in the crapper and will be for some time. Most states are facing looming budget deficits that will necessitate more cuts (people and money) because tax collections are down (because the economy is down.) Private businesses are closing up shop left and right — a lot of them through the ripple effect of major business’ closing or making major cuts.
For employees to fight for the right for more freedoms (i.e. telecommuting, no-time clocks, etc.) will be an uphill fight.
Federal and state laws/mandates won’t help employees unless the businesses believe that it will help their employees be more productive. If they don’t then they will just continue to remind us that they are the boss and we are the peon…
It’s interesting seeing the discussion on Sue’s blog degenerate into right/left bickering. ROWE is the real answer to what all sides want. It lessens the government’s involvement by giving everyone unlimited time off. There’s no need for FMLA, no difference between exempt and non-exempt workers, no vacation/sick pay requirements.
Health care costs drop because people in a ROWE are able to sleep and exercise more and are less stressed mentally and physically. Visits to doctors and specialists will become fewer as people invest in preventive medicine and early diagnosis. There will be no ‘I couldn’t get off work to get that checked’. Can you imagine how much less impact flu season (or any other season) would have since people would not be confined to the office and (un)knowingly spreading germs? Maybe then universal health care would seem more possible.
As we have seen from Best Buy’s example, it can also be good for businesses. It’s good for the environment as less energy is devoted to office use.
Uh, I would have gone into the cons section now, but I really can’t think of any…
@Matt - we feel the same way (bet you could have guessed that!). ROWE *is* the real answer to what all sides want. It’s so pure and full of common sense, that when it comes down to it politically, both sides can find fundamental things they agree with and can’t deny.
Also….a ROWE is green (environmentally speaking).
As I started out on what has now become an almost 2 hour commute - ONE WAY - I couldn’t help but notice all of the other commuters….poor bast***s! So, I got to thinking…a ROWE would certainly help lessen traffic (during typical rush hours) and/or at the very least stagger commuting times of workers.
Less traffic = less congestion = less pollution!!!!
@Michael Barata - speaking of ROWE being green, we’re involved in a new project here in MN. We’ve been selected by the MN Dept. of Transportation to partner with companies on the 35W corridor (major freeway in the Twin Cities) to pilot ROWE. The purpose: to get more companies thinking about work as something you *do*, not a place you *go* - so people aren’t all getting on the road to get to work at 8:00 a.m. Our goal: to solve the rush traffic problem in the Twin Cities once and for all. And get this - MNDOT is footing the bill for our consulting services with these companies. If you know of any organizations on 35W in the Twin Cities, this is a great time to get on board with ROWE!
Anyone - have contacts at 35W companies? Pass along their contact info or put them in touch with us at caliandjody@caliandjody.com. We’re interviewing companies right now to make employer partner selections…
Finally they understand that they have to do something about environment, I hope it’s not too late