Shouldn't the Same Rules Be Applied?
Monday December 1, 2008
News - I was sent a link to a rather interesting article that was published in the north shore news titled - Benefits of a mobile workforce are many. The article written by Steve Dotto provides the usual list of benefits and an overview of how perspectives have changed regarding the reasons for telecommuting.
What I found most interesting is the idea Steve has that those working remotely need to be paid using a new and different method. He states "If you can do your assigned work in three hours instead of eight, do it in three. Just do it!" So the people that work on-site and have the same tasks as the remote worker will get paid for an 8-hour day but the remote worker will only be paid for 3? I've worked in situations in the past where there were tasks such as Steve envisioned that could be done in far fewer hours than they actually took and once I was working remotely on a regular basis was able to do so. The actual consequence though was not that I was paid only for the actual time but as more work could be done - then more work was assigned. So rather than the company paying me for fewer hours, they paid for the same hours as a person on-site and got more work completed.
I don't think going the route of new compensation plans based on objectives accomplished would work well in reality - people would either pad their time on jobs or just do things more slowly. They might also decide they don't really want to work remotely either and then remote work programs (telecomuting) would be a moot point as there would be no remote workers.
Share your thoughts and let us know whether you think there should be new or different compensation plans for remote workers? Should remote workers be paid on the basis of "objectives accomplished"?
What I found most interesting is the idea Steve has that those working remotely need to be paid using a new and different method. He states "If you can do your assigned work in three hours instead of eight, do it in three. Just do it!" So the people that work on-site and have the same tasks as the remote worker will get paid for an 8-hour day but the remote worker will only be paid for 3? I've worked in situations in the past where there were tasks such as Steve envisioned that could be done in far fewer hours than they actually took and once I was working remotely on a regular basis was able to do so. The actual consequence though was not that I was paid only for the actual time but as more work could be done - then more work was assigned. So rather than the company paying me for fewer hours, they paid for the same hours as a person on-site and got more work completed.
I don't think going the route of new compensation plans based on objectives accomplished would work well in reality - people would either pad their time on jobs or just do things more slowly. They might also decide they don't really want to work remotely either and then remote work programs (telecomuting) would be a moot point as there would be no remote workers.
Share your thoughts and let us know whether you think there should be new or different compensation plans for remote workers? Should remote workers be paid on the basis of "objectives accomplished"?