Serious and not-so-serious ruminations about telecommuting…
Finally getting to blogging about telecommuting again. In reading the American Electronics Association report of two months ago, I can’t help to think of the volume of short-sighted companies who haven’t yet embraced the concept. In case you’re not into click throughs, ruminate these findings:
- Telework is the practice of allowing, encouraging, and even requiring that employees work remotely part- or full-time, usually from their home, facilitated by collaborative information and communication technologies.
- The Telework Coalition estimates that more than 45 million U.S. workers telecommute at least once a week.
- As of 2005, 44 percent of U.S. companies offered telework options, up from 32 percent in 2001, according to Mercer Human Resources Consulting.
- Of the 1,400 CFOs surveyed by staffing consultant Robert Half International, nearly 50 percent said telework is the second best way to attract talent after salary; one-third listed it as the best way.
- A University of Maryland study found that 1.35 billion gallons of fuel worth $4.5 billion at current prices of $3.33 per gallon could be saved if everyone with the potential to telework did so just 1.6 days per week. (NOTE FROM STEVE: Gas is how much now???)
- Transitioning to an economy in which most of the white collar workforce teleworks at least some of the time offers the potential to lower the cost of business, increase productivity and access to workers, and reduce traffic congestion and greenhouse gas emissions.
Other than having to replace lesser managers who cannot manage remotely (that old command and control thing), is there a downside that people aren’t talking about? And why is it that RHI can’t survey heads of recruiting? When was the last time a CFO had to answer a question from a great candidate by saying, “No, we don’t offer telecommuting; you’ll have to relocate to New York City and work in the office.”
The Recruiting Inferno 