HR Professional - February/March 2009 - (Page 11) LEADERSHIP M AT T E R S BY DEBBIE BENNETT ALTERNATE WORK ARRANGEMENTS A s the economy weakens and employees struggle with commuting costs, attention has turned to alternate work arrangements. Last summer, U.S. House Majority Leader, Steny H. Hoyer, proposed H the idea of a four-day work week for federal e employees, to be implemented by the end of the f fiscal year. Employees would work four 10-hour days instead of five eight-hour days. But is that the best solution? Proponents of the four-day work week argue that with fluctuating fuel prices and greenhouse gas concerns, it makes sense to limit commuting. I In his proposal, Hoyer argued that a compressed w work week would keep one-fifth of employees o off the roads on any given weekday, saving taxpayers money. And there would be more e energy savings if federal buildings didn’t have to p provide heat, air conditioning and lighting five days a week. State and local governments in the U.S., i including New Mexico, Virginia and Utah, have i implemented similar programs. In July, Nova Scotia politicians announced they would consider it, and were looking to Utah to see how its system, which was predicted to save $3 million a year by turning off the heat a and power once a week, was working. Canadian c companies, such as LSM insurance in Markham, Ont., have offered the possibility to employees and the city of Hamilton is also considering it. Back to reality W While the benefits may be valid, it’s not a magic b bullet. The idea that Thursday could become the n new Friday is fine for those who work Monday to F Friday, but many employees live in a 24/7 work e environment. A four-day work week is not going to reduce fuel consumption or alleviate traffic c congestion for those already working in jobs o outside of 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. business hours. And e even those who sign up would have to stay home in order to reduce fuel use. Who does that on their day off? There are other issues to consider. Does a reduced work week really mean there will be no loss of productivity or decrease in service? It depends whether those services can reasonably be delivered during the extended hours. Restaurants and retailers can’t consider it, for example. Indeed, it will be off-limits for many organizations, either because their clientele is not interested in the earlier or later hours or because there simply is not enough work on a daily basis to fill 10 hours. Joan Jessome, president of the Nova Scotia Government and General Employees Union, told CBC that not all employees can accommodate a four-day work week. A 10-hour day means less time for family and other commitments. Will all childcare providers be willing to work the extended hours required to accommodate their clients? What about our capability to sustain productivity for 10 hours at a time? It is unclear how the concept co-exists, if at all, with the capabilities of an aging workforce given the increase in the demands on the health care system that occur with aging. We all want to reduce our carbon footprint. The question is how. Until concepts such as this are carefully researched, we should approach with caution, especially in this economic environment. A well-intentioned program that has the inadvertent side effect of negatively impacting productivity could alleviate one problem, but trigger another. Debbie Bennett, CHRP, is chair of HRPA’s board of directors. w w w.H RThoughtLeader. c om F e b r u a r y / M a r c h 2 0 0 9 11 http://www.HRThoughtLeader.com
For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.