MPs' Expenses - A solution

It seems that the topic of MPs' expenses has gripped the nation, or certainly given the media a timely distraction from depressing news about the recession. It seems to me that the whole idea of paying for second homes is out of line with 21st century working practices.

The argument for the allowances is that MPs have to work in two places and therefore need two homes. This might have been true in the 19th and maybe the 20th Centuries when they had to meet constituents face-to-face and also be present at Westminster. But now people can contact their MPs over the phone, meet them face to face on Skype, send them questions by email, contact them through facebook and comment on their blog. MPs are teleworkers and should be able to work satisfactorily from one base with occasional visits to the other when they have to be face-to-face.

Looking at the Commons chamber on an average day, the argument that MPs need to be ther for the debates is clearly rubbish. Except for times like PM's questions or a really close vote very few MPs are present. When they are in the building they listen for the division bell and then rush into the chamber to vote, usually following instructions from the whips.

So what we need is an Internet age work pattern for MPs. They should be able to vote remotely, engage in debates over the Internet and should keep their constituents informed by having a blog. Using video, they can hold face to face consultations and meetings and avoid excessive travel as well as second home allowances. There are plenty of people who do real jobs who have to travel to customers but who don't get a second home allowance.

But the real indication that Gordon Brown and other MPs of his generation are out of touch with the modern workplace came from his solution to the problem. He proposed an attendance allowance which would be paid for every day that an MP came into the palace of Westminster. This is 19th century thinking about work. It assumes that people can only work when they are in a particular building and completely ignores the way many people, including MPs, now organise their working lives.

To add insult to injury, Gordon Brown chose to make the announcement about this clever solution on YouTube. This is one of the new media that allow people to communicate without having to be in the same place and is an icon of 'Generation Y' who don't see why we have these antiquated work practices that are based on presenteeism.

So we can continue to try to solve the 'allowance problem' by tweaking the payments system, or we can use this opportunity to make a more fundamental change in the working practices of MPs and bring them into the Information Age. Nobody needs an allowance for a second home, because nobody needs a second home. They can have one home and stay in a hotel on expenses for those days they really need to be away. I suggest the government block books the hotel in County Hall across the river from the houses of parliament and uses that. Meanwhile MPs can set an example to the rest of the nation by using technology instead of travelling so much, thus saving the economy a fortune and saving the planet at the same time.

Peter

Business Friendly or Family Friendly?

On April 1st in the UK we are extending the legal right to request flexible working from parents of children up to age 6 to parents of children up to 16. As someone who promotes flexible working you might think this is a time for me to celebrate but in many ways I see it as a backward step.

If we introduce rights for parents and we don't give those to other employees what does that tell us about flexible working. It is obviously seen as an employee benefit which is given to parents because they have to manage the conflicting pressures of caring for children and working for a living. It puts it firmly in the 'family friendly' category and associates it closely with maternity leave as another major imposition on business. So it is hardly surprising that many businesses see the new legislation as yet further government red tape designed to help families at the expense of productivity and effectiveness at work.

This legislation also encourages a form of discrimination in the workplace. It says that people who have caring responsibilities should be treated differently from other employees. If there is any flexibility available it should go to them and not to others. It means that employers are encouraged to make a value judgement about the personal lives of their employees, implying that rearing children is a more worthy use of people's time than other activities like playing sports or enjoying the arts. If the new right is given only to parents and carers it can result in resentment and low morale from other employees who feel left out.

But by classifying flexible working as 'family friendly' makes people assume that it is not 'business friendly'. If it is an employee right that has to be forced on employers by legislation it must be something that is a cost to business. Presumably it means that people are less productive, less reliable, less loyal and absent more often? Well, the answer is 'no', 'no', 'no' and 'no'.

All the research into the impact of flexible working practices shows that employees are MORE productive, MORE reliable, MORE loyal and have LESS absenteeism. After all there is no reason why something that is good for employees had to be bad for business. In this case it's a win-win.

People who can get a better balance between home life and work life are likely to be less stressed and to choose working times when they are able to concentrate and feel motivated. If they are able to work at home or closer to home for part of their time they may avoid time-wasting, stress-inducing commuting. It is often the case that the home offers a more productive environment for work without some of the interruptions and distractions in the office. With today's technology and broadband connections many people can do large parts of their job without leaving home.

Employees are also likely to appreciate that their employer is prepared to trust them to manage their working time and repay this trust with more effort and dedication. They are less likely to leave to join another employer and are also less likely to take days off sick. Even if they are not feeling 100% they may be able to do work at home on days they are unable to get to the office.

So any sensible employer will not just implement the divisive new legislation but will recognise that this is an opportunity to implement a win-win solution. Offering everyone the right to request flexible working is not a recipe for chaos but a way of enhancing business productivity. A recent government survey showed the 90% of the employers who have had requests from employees approved 100% of the requests. So people are not being irresponsible but are coming up with solutions that work for them and the business.

At a time of economic pressure we need to increase productivity and also retain our best people. For some businesses this will be the key to survival. If they miss out on the opportunity to use flexible working as a way of combating the recession they just may end up becoming one of the casualties.

Beyond Flexible Working

Since the turn of the 21st Century we have seen a massive growth in interest in new working practices generally under the umbrella of ‘Flexible Working’. The topic has moved from being a curiosity to being a part of business strategy and from an HR issue to being the concern of all managers. But despite that evolution, flexible working is still seen as an employee benefit alongside maternity leave and other ‘family friendly’ policies. This situation is endorsed by UK legislation that gives the ‘right to request’ flexible working to parents of young children and carers for other dependents.

So ‘normal’ working patterns are still seen to be a version of the ‘fixed time and place’ model established in the Industrial revolution and perfected over the next 200 years. ‘Flexible Working’ is something that is by definition abnormal since people have to request to change to it from their existing pattern. Granting this privilege is therefore seen as a management responsibility and the UK legislation very kindly gives employers a whole list of reasons they can use for turning down an employee’s request. So there is still a fundamental assumption in our approach to work, that it has to be done at a time and place dictated by an employer and that some flexibility may be generously given to employees if the management chooses to do so.

The model of work that we are still using today is essentially based on time. If you give me your time to perform a job, I will reward you per hour. If you are a ‘part-time’ person and work less than the normal hours you will be rewarded pro-rata. In many business cultures it is expected that people will work much longer that the contracted hours and are seen to be ‘loyal’, ‘dedicated’ and ‘hard working’ so they consequently get recognised, rewarded and promoted. What we are doing is rewarding effort rather than rewarding outcomes.

Paying people by the hour is the opposite of rewarding productivity. If you work slowly to perform a task you will get paid more than if you work quickly. If my solicitor takes 2 hours to sort out my legal problem I pay her twice as much as one who fixes it in an hour. If my plumber takes three hours to fix a leak he gets paid more than the efficient one who does it in an hour. We even encourage people to slow down their rate of work during ‘normal’ hours so a job runs over into ‘unsocial’ hours and we pay a higher rate to compensate. When people are paid for a fixed number of hours per week, as is the situation for the vast majority of employees, working efficiently and completing tasks quickly simply results in being given more to do to fill up the hours.

So whilst the current trend towards ‘flexible working’ is a step towards a more sensible approach to work it still misses a fundamental point. Who is responsible for getting work done? If management divides work into jobs and allocates them to people in return for a number of hours of their labour we stay with the current ‘industrial age’ model of work. If a group of people agree what they are going to achieve then each carry out the tasks necessary to provide the results required, we have a different view of work more appropriate for the ‘information age’. So by allowing individuals to take responsibility for producing results and rewarding them for outputs not inputs we have a new approach to work. This ‘Results Only Work Environment’ or ROWE for short, has been adopted very successfully by Best Buy, a Fortune 100 company employing 140,000 people worldwide. This proves that this is not just a fad amongst a few small companies but is a serious business strategy with outstanding results.

For more information about the Best Buy experience read the book 'Why Work Sucks and How to Fix it' by Cali Ressler and Jody Thompson

Common Sense re Maternity

I had the pleasure last week to attend the session run by the Equalities and Human Rights Commission where Nicola Brewer pointed out that extending the maternity rights for women was having the effect of encouraging employers to discriminate against women. At last someone has had the nerve to push back on political correctness and say something that is obvious.

I remember a couple of years ago an MEP (male) saying something similar and being immediately branded 'sexist' and out of date. Now someone else has pointed out the obvious it may be taken more seriously.

It seems to me that in an equal opportunities world we should not have such a massive difference between maternity and paternity benefits. If we have something approaching equal pay there is a 50% chance that the mother of a child is the higher earner in the relationship and for economic reasons should return to work as soon as possible leaving the father to have the major childcare responsibility.

However there are reasons other than money that will influence who takes which share of the childcare. So why not treat parents like adults and let them decide between them who takes the time (and money) for looking after a baby. Some other countries do this successfully so there is no reason why we shouldn't. It would then become more socially acceptable for fathers to become carers and some of the current gender differences and stereotypes would be eroded.

As long as we have a massive difference between maternity and paternity provisions we reinforce the steroetype of women having children and men having careers. This is a 19th century view of work which is totally inappropriate for the 21st century. Let's hope the politicians will now catch up!!

Flexible Working Good for Business

This week I attended the launch of a report from the CIPD and British Chambers of Commerce entitled 'Flexible Working: Good Business' which reinforced the message that new ways of working are not just 'Family Friendly' but also good for the bottom line. The report ( http://www.cipd.co.uk/NR/rdonlyres/1E768AF2-4E20-4ADC-B4A4-90E8F105FCB7/0/flexwrkgudbus.pdf ) was launched by the Shadow Chancellor, George Osborne, which shows that this topic is getting attention at a high level in political circles.

I pointed out to George that current legislation only gives the right to request flexible working to carers and that this gives out the wrong message (ie it is good for work-life balance not that it is good for the bottom line). I asked if a Conservative government would either remove the current right or extend it to all employees. He responded that they would not be removing the current right and that David Cameron would be making an announcement later this week about extending it.

Yesterday David Cameron made his announcement at the launch of the Equal Opportunities Commission report 'Enter the Timelords'. He stopped short of saying he would extend the right to all employees and just said he would extend it to all parents, so he hasn't quite got the message yet!! ( see http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=JJL4JX4DVO1PXQFIQMGCFFOAVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/2007/06/14/nparents114.xml )

However the EOC report is BRILLIANT. It's the best summary I've seen about the state of flexible working in the UK and the benefits it can bring. It splits flexible workers into four types Timelords, Remote Controllers, Shift-Shapers and Time Stretchers. It is a very readable report and despite the fact that it quotes me in several places is a very persuasive tool to promote flexible working!!

DO read it NOW ( http://www.eoc.org.uk/PDF/Transformation_timelords_report.pdf )

Peter

Flexible Work For All

Yesterday the UK press were covering the issue of extending the legal right to request flexible working to all employees. Beverley Hughes, the Minister for Children, was suggesting changes to reflect the growing demand of people to be able to work flexibly. Her proposal is that all jobs be advertised as possible part-time or flexitime positions, unless there is a sound business case not to.

This raised objections both from the CBI representing large businesses and the Federation of Small Businesses. They are arguing that "The needs of business have got to be respected” and are making tha assumption that it is good business practice to continue with the current situation or to introduce the right for all empoloyees over a much longer period.

At present carers for young children have the right to ask if they can work flexibly, they have no right to actually get it if the employer states that it is bad for business. This right extends to other carers (eg people with elderly parents) in April.

So at the moment employers who implement the minimum legal requirement are effectively saying that they give a right to employees who are carers but not to others. So they are discriminating against people who don't have children or other dependents. They have taken the view that caring is a more valuable use of their employees personal time than say working for a charity and are prepared to adapt working practices to fit in with some employees lives and not others.

If the employee has to show that their job can still be done with a different pattern of work then why would't every employer offer this to every employee? Instead of having a division between carers and others why not give all employees the opportunity to work flexibly? By definition it will only be done in the job doesn't suffer, and the employer can define and monitor this. In fact employees who work flexibly have a better work-life balance, are less stressed and more productive than those forced to work fixed patterns. So this is a WIN-WIN, for employer and employee.

Because the Government has introduced legislation as 'Family Friendly', they have convinced business that this is good for employees and bad for business. Actually it should be introduced as 'Business Friendly' since it is a sensible way to maximise the productivity of human resources.

The suggestion that the right to request should be introduced slowly is not sensible. In any organsation there is a limit to the flexibility available for employees without the business suffering. If the first people in the queue take up the available options then the people further back will be left with little choice. It is good business sense to offer all employees the right to request now and not wait to be forced by some future legislation.

Peter

Road Charges

I recently had a request to sign a petition about potential road charges in the UK. the email concerned said " The government's proposal to introduce road pricing will mean you having to purchase a tracking device for your car and paying a monthly bill to use it. The tracking device will cost about £200 and in a recent study by the BBC, the lowest monthly bill was £28 for a rural florist and £194 for a delivery driver. A non working Mum who used the car to take the kids to school paid £86 in one month. On top of this massive increase in tax, you will be tracked."

Whilst I hate the idea of paying more tax, particularly when none of it will be used to improve the roads, I'm not sure I should sign the petition. If the pricing system discourages people from all travelling at the same time, in the rush hour, then it might be a good thing. Since employers are not rushing to introduce flexible working and therefore insist their employees travel at the most congested times, maybe some financial disincentive will work. I guess outraged employees will approach their bosses and ask more forcibly for the ability to flex their hours or to work some of the time from home.

There was an uproar when the congestion charge was first inroduced in London but now everyone accepts it and it has reduced the traffic jams on the roads. I guess we wil have the same objections to road charging but ultimately accept that if we insist on travelling in the rush hour we will have to pay for it.

Peter