Employees
August 01 2000
by Mike TuffreyBritish managers work the longest hours of any in Europe bar the Germans. Hardly surprising then that a flood of surveys shows large numbers asking for more time with their families, while expressing fear about the impact on their careers. Flexible employment is supposed to be the way forward, allowing employers to get the job done and employees more balance.
Up to a point. Much of this is down to money: how much employers will pay towards childcare costs; likewise how much is government prepared to subsidise childcare for the greater good of society; and - here's the truth - how much income will employees sacrifice in return for more time at home? We'll never know the answers unless more employees vote with their feet, so HR professionals have to weigh up the costs of replacing them with the costs of persuading them to stay.
For a decade, telecommuting has been held out as the other great solution to work-life balance, at least for white collar jobs. Indeed, as the information and communication revolution is gathering pace, this is starting to become a reality. (Note of caution though: remember how computers were going to create the paperless office?) Can some of the cost savings from hot-desking, slimmed down head offices and no commuting time be ploughed back into funding flexibility?
For community relations specialists, some scenario planning is in order: what happens if the hollowing-out of companies becomes a reality - where is the local community when many are working from home? how can a sense of common values be fostered in a more disparate company? what is the scope for meaningful employee involvement if long hours remain the norm? No easy answers but all part of staying relevant as the company changes.