Flexible Work Public Policy Platform
Posted May 27th, 2009 by Nanette FondasOn May 13, Workplace Flexibility 2010, an organization at Georgetown University, released its summary report: Public Policy Platform on Flexible Work Arrangements.
It’s a set of policy solutions to expand Americans’ access to flexible work arrangements such as compressed workweeks, predictable schedules, and telecommuting.
The report represents the end of a five-year review of research and listening to employer, employee, and consumer representatives on all sides of the issue, left and right, public and private sectors, management and workers. It tries to provide a blueprint for the White House, Congress, and other policymakers to make workplace flexibility more common in America today. It also gives examples of effective business practices.
Do you think the blueprint succeeds? Do you think these ideas will work? Can you think of other flexible work practices that the U.S. should pursue?
2 Comments
I’ve finished reading the document and I have the following concerns:
1) Recommendations for pilot projects – frankly there are plenty of “pilot projects” being done in selected industries and have been done for a a number of years. Aren’t these the projects that have given most of academia data so far? I don’t think we need more studies we need implementation. We have the data, we’ve been gathering it for years if not at least a decade by now. However, if pilot projects are to be adopted one of the requirements should be that the company(ies) be from an industry that has no actual program in place across the board, that way it’s the “resistant” industries/companies that get a real look at the possibilities and work out some kinks, not those industries/companies that have attempted to implement and mainstream flexibility for years. For example: we don’t need another “insurance” company to try implement FWA, we need someone like the construction industry to do it. I think any pilot program if not completed by the end of the 2nd year of this very willing and favorable administration, will be disastrous for any legislation efforts that would fallow and a hook for any future administrations not in favor of FWA to use as an excuse to remove funding and do away with the entire process.
2) Any legislation and/or pilot program has to include the concept of “everyone” without reservation for time of initial employment – because in reality some of us want to change work for that express reason of going to an enterprise/industry that is, or has the reputation of being, FWA friendly – years/months of employment, gender and any other means of establishing a “preferential selection group” as allowed participants in an FWA program vs. “everyone” will be detrimental to the end of making FWAs mainstream.
3) Lastly I wholeheartedly agree with the idea of “lead by example” and the Fed Gov should offer FWA programs throughout. The trick though I think is putting them in place with the appropriate legislation in time for them to “stay and stick” prior to the next election AND without possibility of removal in the future – that alone is a feat in and by itself.
[Reply]
Leave a Comment