[lilcheesey]

--
Lilcheesey

[Terry Farrell]

It is a horrible name that infers working from home or other remote places
just as if you are at a work place.

Obviously, you cannot flip burgers remotely for McDonalds at home, but with
a remote connection, you can perform work on your computer and telephone
exactly the same as though at the office.

With the cost of energy rising so fast, teleworking is something that can
only grow because it makes so much sense. The main impediment to this at the
moment is that many bosses don't trust their workers to work unsupervised.
But for many computer-based tasks (Help Desks for example), there is
absolutely no reason why many thousands of workers commute to a call centre
when they can do exactly the same task from a small home office with
relatively little investment (telephone, laptop and broadband).

--
Terry Farrell - MSWord MVP

"lilcheesey" wrote in message
...

--
Lilcheesey

[Greg Maxey]

Terry,

Having recently retired from an organization employing over almost 500 Civil
Service employees; many of whom wouldn't actually do much work anywhere
(like a broken gun ... it doesn't work and you can't fire it), it is little
wonder that many bosses don't trust their workers to work unsupervised.
There are other pitfalls as well. We were located in central PA and had an
employee who "teleworked" from some remote place in Montana. We had to pay
travel and per diem cost each time she was required to attend functions in
PA. Also the employer is responsible for accidents and injuries that could
occur in that small home office. I don't think it is very professional for
a client to call a teleworker and hear the washing machine grinding in the
backgroud, the television or small child screaching.

Teleworking and especially governement mandated teleworking quotas is a
Union representatives dream. It is like a "Get Out of Jail" free card for
an employee who is habitually late for work. On the surface teleworking may
sound like an ideal step to minimize congestion and save on fuel, in my
view however it is better suited for Utopia.

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Greg Maxey - Word MVP

My web site http://gregmaxey.mvps.org
Word MVP web site http://word.mvps.org
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Terry Farrell wrote:
It is a horrible name that infers working from home or other remote
places just as if you are at a work place.

Obviously, you cannot flip burgers remotely for McDonalds at home,
but with a remote connection, you can perform work on your computer
and telephone exactly the same as though at the office.

With the cost of energy rising so fast, teleworking is something that
can only grow because it makes so much sense. The main impediment to
this at the moment is that many bosses don't trust their workers to
work unsupervised. But for many computer-based tasks (Help Desks for
example), there is absolutely no reason why many thousands of workers
commute to a call centre when they can do exactly the same task from
a small home office with relatively little investment (telephone,
laptop and broadband).

"lilcheesey" wrote in message
...

--
Lilcheesey

[Terry Farrell]

Yes and no to that!

I agree that there are many idle types who would try to take advantage.
However, there are plenty of reporting tools that can monitor what work is
being done (time on keyboard, how long apps are in use, number of phone
calls made and received, etc.). I don't see it as a Utopian dream. It really
depends on the job. Workers still have to attend a workplace: just not so
often. The requirement to attend the workplace should be in the contract and
negate any special need to cover transport costs.

I worked from home at least three days a week in my previous job (now
retired) and my wife still does work from home (for IBM) at least three days
a week. All of her colleagues work the same way too. So IBM seems to have no
problems with it. It is all down to the company culture and selection of
staff.

Think just how much difference it would make if just 25% of commuters worked
from home 3 days a week.

From my point of view, if I am calling my bank's help line, I'd rather talk
to someone from the UK - even with baby balling in the background - than
someone speaking incomprehensible English from Beetlejuice.

Terry

"Greg Maxey" wrote in message
...
Terry,

Having recently retired from an organization employing over almost 500
Civil Service employees; many of whom wouldn't actually do much work
anywhere (like a broken gun ... it doesn't work and you can't fire it), it
is little wonder that many bosses don't trust their workers to work
unsupervised. There are other pitfalls as well. We were located in
central PA and had an employee who "teleworked" from some remote place in
Montana. We had to pay travel and per diem cost each time she was
required to attend functions in PA. Also the employer is responsible for
accidents and injuries that could occur in that small home office. I
don't think it is very professional for a client to call a teleworker and
hear the washing machine grinding in the backgroud, the television or
small child screaching.

Teleworking and especially governement mandated teleworking quotas is a
Union representatives dream. It is like a "Get Out of Jail" free card for
an employee who is habitually late for work. On the surface teleworking
may sound like an ideal step to minimize congestion and save on fuel, in
my view however it is better suited for Utopia.

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Greg Maxey - Word MVP

[Tony Jollans]

my wife still does work from home (for IBM) at least three days a week.

When I worked for IBM they were so concerned about confidentiality that
there was no way I could have worked from home - or even taken work home
overnight. I am legally bound for life by confidentiality clauses - although
nothing that I know that is still confidential could possibly be worth
anything now. They must have changed a lot.

--
Enjoy,
Tony

"Terry Farrell" wrote in message
...
Yes and no to that!

I agree that there are many idle types who would try to take advantage.
However, there are plenty of reporting tools that can monitor what work is
being done (time on keyboard, how long apps are in use, number of phone
calls made and received, etc.). I don't see it as a Utopian dream. It
really depends on the job. Workers still have to attend a workplace: just
not so often. The requirement to attend the workplace should be in the
contract and negate any special need to cover transport costs.

I worked from home at least three days a week in my previous job (now
retired) and my wife still does work from home (for IBM) at least three
days a week. All of her colleagues work the same way too. So IBM seems to
have no problems with it. It is all down to the company culture and
selection of staff.

Think just how much difference it would make if just 25% of commuters
worked from home 3 days a week.

From my point of view, if I am calling my bank's help line, I'd rather
talk to someone from the UK - even with baby balling in the background -
than someone speaking incomprehensible English from Beetlejuice.

Terry

"Greg Maxey" wrote in message
...
Terry,

Having recently retired from an organization employing over almost 500
Civil Service employees; many of whom wouldn't actually do much work
anywhere (like a broken gun ... it doesn't work and you can't fire it),
it is little wonder that many bosses don't trust their workers to work
unsupervised. There are other pitfalls as well. We were located in
central PA and had an employee who "teleworked" from some remote place in
Montana. We had to pay travel and per diem cost each time she was
required to attend functions in PA. Also the employer is responsible for
accidents and injuries that could occur in that small home office. I
don't think it is very professional for a client to call a teleworker and
hear the washing machine grinding in the backgroud, the television or
small child screaching.

Teleworking and especially governement mandated teleworking quotas is a
Union representatives dream. It is like a "Get Out of Jail" free card
for an employee who is habitually late for work. On the surface
teleworking may sound like an ideal step to minimize congestion and save
on fuel, in my view however it is better suited for Utopia.

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Greg Maxey - Word MVP

[Terry Farrell]

Tony

It did take them sometime to get over the security issue. Now you have to
use an IBM laptop issued to the individual for remote access and they seem
happy that remote security is good. But you have to have a lockable office
to work and to keep the laptop safe whilst unattended. In fact, hot-desking
is the norm and there have been fights over desk allocation!

Terry

"Tony Jollans" My forename at my surname dot com wrote in message
...
my wife still does work from home (for IBM) at least three days a week.

When I worked for IBM they were so concerned about confidentiality that
there was no way I could have worked from home - or even taken work home
overnight. I am legally bound for life by confidentiality clauses -
although nothing that I know that is still confidential could possibly be
worth anything now. They must have changed a lot.

--
Enjoy,
Tony

"Terry Farrell" wrote in message
...
Yes and no to that!

I agree that there are many idle types who would try to take advantage.
However, there are plenty of reporting tools that can monitor what work
is being done (time on keyboard, how long apps are in use, number of
phone calls made and received, etc.). I don't see it as a Utopian dream.
It really depends on the job. Workers still have to attend a workplace:
just not so often. The requirement to attend the workplace should be in
the contract and negate any special need to cover transport costs.

I worked from home at least three days a week in my previous job (now
retired) and my wife still does work from home (for IBM) at least three
days a week. All of her colleagues work the same way too. So IBM seems to
have no problems with it. It is all down to the company culture and
selection of staff.

Think just how much difference it would make if just 25% of commuters
worked from home 3 days a week.

From my point of view, if I am calling my bank's help line, I'd rather
talk to someone from the UK - even with baby balling in the background -
than someone speaking incomprehensible English from Beetlejuice.

Terry

"Greg Maxey" wrote in message
...
Terry,

Having recently retired from an organization employing over almost 500
Civil Service employees; many of whom wouldn't actually do much work
anywhere (like a broken gun ... it doesn't work and you can't fire it),
it is little wonder that many bosses don't trust their workers to work
unsupervised. There are other pitfalls as well. We were located in
central PA and had an employee who "teleworked" from some remote place
in Montana. We had to pay travel and per diem cost each time she was
required to attend functions in PA. Also the employer is responsible for
accidents and injuries that could occur in that small home office. I
don't think it is very professional for a client to call a teleworker
and hear the washing machine grinding in the backgroud, the television
or small child screaching.

Teleworking and especially governement mandated teleworking quotas is a
Union representatives dream. It is like a "Get Out of Jail" free card
for an employee who is habitually late for work. On the surface
teleworking may sound like an ideal step to minimize congestion and save
on fuel, in my view however it is better suited for Utopia.

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Greg Maxey - Word MVP

[Suzanne S. Barnhill]

I think that this sort of arrangement is usually best for salaried personnel
who are paid on the basis of results, not the time required to achieve them.

--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA

"Terry Farrell" wrote in message
...
Yes and no to that!

I agree that there are many idle types who would try to take advantage.
However, there are plenty of reporting tools that can monitor what work is
being done (time on keyboard, how long apps are in use, number of phone
calls made and received, etc.). I don't see it as a Utopian dream. It
really depends on the job. Workers still have to attend a workplace: just
not so often. The requirement to attend the workplace should be in the
contract and negate any special need to cover transport costs.

I worked from home at least three days a week in my previous job (now
retired) and my wife still does work from home (for IBM) at least three
days a week. All of her colleagues work the same way too. So IBM seems to
have no problems with it. It is all down to the company culture and
selection of staff.

Think just how much difference it would make if just 25% of commuters
worked from home 3 days a week.

From my point of view, if I am calling my bank's help line, I'd rather
talk to someone from the UK - even with baby balling in the background -
than someone speaking incomprehensible English from Beetlejuice.

Terry

"Greg Maxey" wrote in message
...
Terry,

Having recently retired from an organization employing over almost 500
Civil Service employees; many of whom wouldn't actually do much work
anywhere (like a broken gun ... it doesn't work and you can't fire it),
it is little wonder that many bosses don't trust their workers to work
unsupervised. There are other pitfalls as well. We were located in
central PA and had an employee who "teleworked" from some remote place in
Montana. We had to pay travel and per diem cost each time she was
required to attend functions in PA. Also the employer is responsible for
accidents and injuries that could occur in that small home office. I
don't think it is very professional for a client to call a teleworker and
hear the washing machine grinding in the backgroud, the television or
small child screaching.

Teleworking and especially governement mandated teleworking quotas is a
Union representatives dream. It is like a "Get Out of Jail" free card
for an employee who is habitually late for work. On the surface
teleworking may sound like an ideal step to minimize congestion and save
on fuel, in my view however it is better suited for Utopia.

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Greg Maxey - Word MVP

[Brian Mailman]

Suzanne S. Barnhill wrote:
I think that this sort of arrangement is usually best for salaried
personnel who are paid on the basis of results, not the time required
to achieve them.

Right, and what some companies do is have the teleworker/telecommuter on
regular conferences to outline stages of a project(s), dates they are to
be accomplished, and require progress reports.

It's fairly easy to measure task-oriented work

B/