When Did Working at Work Become Optional?
Posted by Molly DiBianca On December 31, 2009 In: Privacy In the Workplace , Social Media in the Workplace
The line between work and home is hardly visible. To describe it as “blurred” would be inaccurate. The reality (for most of us) is that the line can barely be seen and, for some, only fades into existence occasionally for short intervals. And there seems to be little debate about the validity of this conclusion. The debate begins only when the question is asked whether this reality is a positive or negative one.
For most, I believe it’s perceived negatively. At least it sounds that way when I hear it discussed. Because what normally follows is the argument that, because of the “blurred” line between work and home, a metaphor most commonly described with a visual of a worker whose Blackberry must be surgically removed from his hand, employers must permit employees a bit of “leeway” in their electronic follies. For example, the story goes, because employees may be expected to respond to a client emergency after normal business hours, they should be permitted to do some online shopping during the work day. Or, another story goes, because employees are working more hours than ever before, they have no choice but to do some online banking from their office. The need to send personal e-mails, browse the malls of cyberspace, and update one’s Facebook status takes precedent over the need to [gasp] work.
Oh, hogwash.
I just cannot buy into this nonsense. The argument that employees should retain some right of privacy in the e-mails that they send from the account provided to them by their employers, using the computers purchased, maintained, and serviced by their employers, on a network owned by their employers, using bandwith that their employers intended for use for work-related purposes, is a losing one to me.
Those who argue in favor of this alleged entitlement for online detours during the work day must forget that not all employees are exempt. In fact, most workers are non-exempt, meaning that they must be paid (by their employer) for all time worked in excess of 40 per week. (More in some states, mind you.) So , non-exempt employees who take short detours to e-Bay via the information superhighway during working time have one of only two impacts: either they are being paid for something they’re not actually doing—some might call that stealing, or they are getting paid time and a half for it because they need to stay late to get their work completed on time. There’s also a third option: that the employee completes his or her work in a hurry or in a half-done manner to expedite his access to the Internet.
To me, none of these three is an acceptable solution. Has it really become acceptable to demand we be given the choice to not work while at work? Maybe the manufacturing sector is the only one that hasn’t lost its collective mind by taking breaks of designated lengths at designated intervals but actually working during the rest of the work day. Not so novel, really, but seemingly a rarity in the office environment.
Comments
Posted by: Mark | December 31, 2009 10:49 AM
You bring up some interesting points, Molly, as usual. Seeing firsthand the perspective of small businesses with progressive workplace practices as part of my nonprofit's annual small business competition, I gravitate toward the counterpoint. While I definitely see your point about company purchased computer equipment and bandwidth, we see that with exempt employees especially, companies get value in having "perennially connected" employees be able to complete a priority task at odd hours -- such as at 9 or 10 at night, after they've had some time with their families.
I think to some extent companies have to bite the bullet when it comes to not always getting the best ROI here because, even in a down economy, there's still a skills shortage, and some studies find that half or more of workers are ready to bolt once the economy picks up. So it becomes a matter of giving them some personal leeway, or losing them entirely and having to spend more in the long run in recruiting costs.
Posted by: Molly DiBianca | December 31, 2009 3:13 PM
Mark:
I actually agree. I'm only referring to non-exempt employees in this instance, though. Exempt employees are a different story and, in my opinion, their permissible online activities will be dictated mostly by productivity questions.
And I should also note that I'm not suggesting an all-or-nothing approach for non-exempts, either. I'm a realist and certainly understand that there is such a thing as reasonableness and moderation. My only pain comes when I hear what sounds like a sense of entitlement, as in, "How dare my employer tell me that I can't access Facebook any time I want 'just because' I'm at work."
That, to me, is the difference.
As always, thanks for your excellent perspective and happy new year!!
Best,
Molly
Posted by: Uris Pacheko | December 31, 2009 8:45 PM
When you use the phrase "labor shortage" or "skills shortage" you're speaking in a sentence fragment. What you actually mean to say is: "There is a labor shortage at the salary level I'm willing to pay." That statement is the correct phrase; the complete sentence and the intellectually honest statement.
Some people speak about shortages as though they represent some absolute, readily identifiable lack of desirable services. Price is rarely accorded its proper importance in their discussion.
If you start raising wages and improving working conditions, and continue doing so, you'll solve your shortage and will have people lining up around the block to work for you even if you need to have huge piles of steaming manure hand-scooped on a blazing summer afternoon.
And if you think there's going to be a shortage caused by employees retiring out of the workforce: Guess again: With the majority of retirement accounts down about 50% or more, most people entering retirement age are working well into their sunset years. So, you won’t be getting a worker shortage anytime soon due to retirees exiting the workforce.
Some specialized jobs require training and/or certification, again, the solution is higher wages and improved benefits. People will self-fund their re-education so that they can enter the industry in a work-ready state. The attractive wages, working conditions and career prospects of technology during the 1980’s and 1990’s was a prime example of people’s willingness to self-fund their own career re-education.
There is never enough of any good or service to satisfy all wants or desires. A buyer, or employer, must give up something to get something. They must pay the market price and forego whatever else he could have for the same price. The forces of supply and demand determine these prices -- and the price of a skilled workman is no exception. The buyer can take it or leave it. However, those who choose to leave it (because of lack of funds or personal preference) must not cry shortage. The good is available at the market price. All goods and services are scarce, but scarcity and shortages are by no means synonymous. Scarcity is a regrettable and unavoidable fact.
Shortages are purely a function of price. The only way in which a shortage has existed, or ever will exist, is in cases where the "going price" has been held below the market-clearing price.
Posted by: Leanne Chase - leanneclc | January 2, 2010 10:11 AM
So are you saying that before the digital age employees toiled with no breaks whatsoever in their workdays? There was no standing around a watercooler, no social lunches, coffees, etc? Today's digital break is the 60's smoking break.
To ask workers to toil straight through their day (especially knowledge workers - who need downtime in their day to better think issues through and be more productive) is absurd.
A little downtime in an 8-10 hour day has always been part of a professional's life. Why should the digital age change that?
And for hourly workers...they should have scheduled regular breaks. All work and no breaks makes everyone dull at their jobs.