If 53 Million People Could Potentially Commute, Why Aren't They?

In honor of the occassion yesterday, I posted an Earth Day-inspired article about the disunion between projecting a “green” corporate image and following through on the personnel and telecommuting end of what it truly means to be an environmentally-conscious corporation. Once I started down the path where that topic lives, I got frustrated all over again about the issue—I just don’t understand how, in this day in age, telecommuting is not the standard.

One report that will be discussed more in-depth below suggests that “as many as 53 million people could telecommute. Could? What do you mean, could? 53 million people? Out of the two billion cars some anticipate, this is a dent, no?

The study, which was undertaken by the Consumer Electronics Association and discussed in the journal Offshore, states that “presently, 3.9 million people in the United States work from home at least 1 day per week. With the average commute put at 22 miles, this saves 840 million gallons of gasoline per year—but that’s against total U.S. gasoline consumption at 146 billion gallons per year” (Matlin 2008). In environmental terms, this is an incredibly large impact for what amounts to some very small changes.

And about that projection of 53 million potential teleworkers? If they were permitted, even one day per week, to work without leaving their homes—without ever starting their engine in the morning--the savings on gasoline alone would be visible within one year--“Even at just 1 day per week, that works out to an 8% reduction in annual gasoline use” (Matlin 2008).

And decreases in gasoline consumption lead to more money in the pockets of consumers. And more money in the pockets of consumers leads to a healthier consumer spending. And more consumer spending leads to more businesses surviving the storm, etc.  But really, when we get down to it, the economy is not static and tends to reset itself—our environment isn’t so lucky.

The question I keep returning to is why? Telecommuting makes environmental sense, it makes business sense. What is missing, my dear employers? What can I do for you today?

What else do you need to further convince you that this is the right thing to do—not just for your own business, for the economy that it keeps it afloat, and for the speck of dirt we’re all doing a semi-lousy job of sharing.

What is it outside of sheer apathy, fear, business-based superstition, lack of trust, unwillingness to adopt new technologies, unfounded concerns about productivity, or general stagnation that is keeping you from seeing the viability, usefulness, and positive effects this could have on you and your bottom line?

Study after study confirms that it’s just plain irresponsible for businesses to make commitments to being green without allowing all employees to telecommute—at least all of them that possibly can. When one factors in the savings for businesses, particularly in large cities with ridiculous real estate costs, I still don’t understand why telecommuting arrangements are a possibility and not a standard.

In my discussions about this topic with business owners (from multinationals to locals) I really have found a pattern in the negative responses about offering telecommuting to employees. I can mention the business cost/savings issue until I’m blue in the face and they shake their head and imply that I don’t understand how business really works. But when I start talking “green” they inevitably look a little shamefaced.

Good!

The response pattern for employers who are not taking any strides is typically comprised of equal parts of apathy when it comes to the general, ho-hum matter of telecommuting, lack of information about how to make the shift, and simple unwillingness to budge from old proven systems of daily operations. Businesses are afraid of this change so maybe my timing is off—maybe I should wait until the economy readjusts, resets—then the time will be ripe again to carry out my missionary-type (sometimes over) zealous quest to convince.

Maybe I should wait for the ripe moment but I will not. And neither should any of you.

The answer to today's quiz is E. Did you really just scroll all the way to the bottom to check?

Source:  Matlin, J. (2008). Telecommuting benefits outweigh negatives. Offshore,68(12), 2-2.

Marketing Aside, It's Not Easy Being Green (Companies)

I don’t care how environmentally-friendly, organic, low-impact, free-trade-based a company or organization is in its line of products or services, if they do not permit telecommuting whenever it is possible within a given position, they are not a green company.

Period.

Despite all of the labels slapped on goods, despite all of the writing attesting to the delicacy of process in terms of footprint, green is not truly “green” if only the end product demonstrates environmental awareness. The end result is what ultimately sells but before it does, there are employees who make these things happen—people, individuals, who bring it all together.

The word “green” is beginning to lose its luster lately because just about every product, service, or marketable anything is touting itself as being somehow earth-friendly and without footprint. While there are indeed many goods and services that do conform to the true meaning of being “green” there are just as many that do not, thus pretty soon, (if not already) the word “green” will be deemed overused, outdated, and utterly meaningless.

Still, I have noticed that there are several companies who produce “green” goods and who suggest that they are doing their part to reduce waste, recycle, give back, etc. simply because of their process. They are missing the other half of the equation—the half that is essential when calculating just how environmentally heroic these organizations are.  They are focusing on the greenness of the output and missing the importance of the input—the workers and the duties they perform. A company that looks past this issue is not green and is far from progressive.

In fact, to be conspiracy-theorist about it, I am quite worried about a company’s ethics and corporate culture if they go to great lengths to market their product or service as green while ignoring the telecommuting/alternative working possibilities. This would define a sinister company. It would do so because it becomes glaringly obvious that they are simply capitalizing on the marketing zing the green label carries without any of the crucial moral underpinning to support the ideas they appear to promote.

For a corporation, manufacturer, or producer of goods and services to be considered “green” there are far more considerations than simply the final product.  In addition to minimizing environmental harm through their process, packaging, and product, there should always be a demonstrated commitment to permitting as much telework as possible. No question about it. Otherwise, you might be tricked by clever marketing into feeling good about buying a product from a company that is far better at marketing than it is about truly respecting and implementing real-time high-impact positive environmental change.

I am not going to name names here. Let me just say this. If you happen to own one, watch television for as long as you can stand it and pay close attention to green marketing techniques in commercials. Whether companies do it overly “we are green because we…blah blah blah” or covertly (using themes, color schemes, and images all meant to promote a sense of green grass, blue skies, healthy and happy planet vibes) pay attention to how carefully they’re marketing themselves as people who care about helping planet.

Next, go to your handy dandy computer and type the name of the company into Google with the search term “telecommuting” or “telecommute” to see if you can find press releases, mission statements—anything from the company that discusses its efforts to reduce one of the biggest causes of greenhouse gas emissions we have going—commuters.

If you can find a report, what percentage of their workforce telecommutes and to what extent? Does their statement align with your view of what a company touting itself as “green” should be?

I apologize for what mean seem like a broadly pessimistic view. There are thousands of companies, large and small, that have been revolutionary in their telecommuting initiatives. And believe me, I will discuss them at length in the case studies and other tagged sections with time. I like to recognize people who do great things but I also like to call corporations on their bullshit, especially when it comes to this topic.

Yes, while there are thousands doing the right thing, there are many others who are on this big “green” bandwagon who have nothing to do with the environment outside of their marketing efforts. For these companies, going green is little more than an innocuous themed platform to sell.

Do you work for a “green” company in name and in practice? Do you work for one that emphasizes that their products and processes are green but not the input (the working structure)? Any comments about anything here are welcomed, as always.

An Earth Day Analogy

For this post, I am going to leave the specific matters of telecommuting and the environment behind for a moment (there are posts about that coming today) and merely address the simple issue of Earth Day.

I have spent several years advocating for positive enviornmental change via writing, research, and outreach. I believe these tools can be successful at toppling old systems of consumption and use. 

I am only saying these things so that you know that you can only get so angry with me when I tell you that I have some big problems with Earth Day.

Certainly, there is nothing wrong with the concept itself—I recognize it as a tool to generate awareness and action. But come on, unless people live in caves, it’s a pretty sure bet we’re all aware already. Still, it’s a positive day, especially since so many people get involved in local environmental activities to honor the day.

I guess it’s just that it’s too short and glancing to have the kind of impact that the environmental movement really needs. So, all day I’ve been trying to think of ways about how to communicate my sentiments about Earth Day and can only come up with an analogy, so it will have to suffice:

Think of Earth as your 90-year-old Aunt Edna who led an amazing life and whom everyone loves dearly. Throughout the year, she waits in her musty old house for visitors—especially family members—but no one ever comes to see her.

However, on her birthday every year, the whole family and her cluster of fragile old friends finally gets it together and arranges a massive party in her honor. There is cake. There might even be live entertainment. They celebrate her for all she means to them.

But when the party is over and her nephew, Rick (because don’t all old women have a nephew named Rick?) drives her home, she comforts herself with a lonely cup of tea, sets her hair in rollers, but does so sadly because she knows that now that her party has ended, everyone will forget about her and her neatly coiffed hair will go unnoticed tomorrow, and the next day, and the next day…

She knows that her birthday is the most special day of her year because it’s when her family—her children—remember her.

More importantly, she wishes they felt that way every day of the year, not just on the one special day devoted to honoring her.

Children: The First Unfortunate Casualties of the Remote Revolution?

Now that's a headline Nancy Grace would be proud of, no?

With the death of an era comes the inevitable collapse of once stalwart institutions and practices. New movements challenge traditions that are so culturally ingrained as to be considered impenetrable and indestructible. New innovations spring from the ground to replace outmoded customs; it’s a cyclical and time-worn truism.

Thus it stands that with the large-scale migration to telecommuting the death of one of the most venerable traditions of the work-a-day world—a practice that has been revered since the beginning of modern working life—will too meet its end.

Take your child to work day.

I know, it’s cruel.

I came across a press release this morning from Polycom Inc., a company that makes high-definition video and voice communications products to make teleconferencing and remote communication a more substantive, rich experience. While I already got sidetracked looking at the types of way-expensive but geek-fit-inducing wares they hawk, I am also following this company because today, with a huge team of remote workers, they had an official “take your child to work day” in the most modern and appropriate way I can think of—through their own teleconferencing products.

As the Polycom press release states, “the company expects more than 100 children in nine locations throughout North America to follow their parents to work on Thursday…Polycom is hosting the even to give tomorrow’s workforce a peek at the kind of environments that are revolutionizing the way people telecommute—and in the process, maintain a better balance between their work and personal lives.”

The children will be able to “play” through these devices with other children in far-flung areas, but what really got me thinking that this is an exciting story is the description of the setup for Thursday’s take your child to work day. The release describes the scenario as being “room-sized set-ups with cinematic screens to personal desktop systems…[with] Polycom UltimateHD which delivers true HD video, content and audio…and allows meeting participants to pick up every nuance of a conversation, see facial expressions, make eye contact, and read body language—all essential to effective communication and collaboration.

While granted, this press release like all other press releases is intent on selling us an idea about the company or product, this is one that did not fall in the slush pile because I think it’s an inspiring way to show young people how their parents work in general (which is the general idea behind the traditional concept of taking your child to work anyway) but more importantly, that stereotypical notions of how work is done (getting dressed up, commuting, working in a distant cubicle that is far removed in any sense from one’s home life) are being shattered.

While the company certainly has a vested interest and capability due to their line of products, I think that many other industries can manage the same sort of remote child involvement activity, at least once per year.

With that said, for those who already telecommute, take your child to work day is a laughable concept--and not simply because of its lack of meaning. Actually, this subject of combining kids and work is one that might actually raise some hackles since it’s notoriously difficult for teleworkers (leaving all unrealistically rosy visions of what it’s really like to work from home, especially if you have children) to achieve the kind of balance between productivity and QT with Bobby and Susie.

A Relevant Diversion : "The Machine Stops" by E.M. Forster (1909)

I should state now that this post contains nothing of immediate consequence to most of what you’ll find here—now or in the future. With that said, however, I think that it’s important to anyone who feels the way I do about the possibilities of a Remote Revolution to carve out a small amount of time to read a work of science fiction from 1909—a work of fiction that emerged well before mass air transit, instant messaging, video chat…the internet in general. Globalization in general. Cultural and geographic homogenization in general. Contemporary society in general.

I do not intend to summarize or spoil the plot of the E.M. Forster story for you as the plot itself is not necessarily where the emphasis is, for me at least. Just please read it, will you? … You will note that the author has way of zapping you with some of the most powerful, altogether creepily familiar odes to technologies that were only theories or projections in 1909. These often wash over you at the end of every major paragraph and there is a certain delectable cadence to this pattern. You wait for it—that perfect parallel to the modern—and you get it. Simple. It’s a rewarding read like that, even if some of it is way farfetched (which I believe that science fiction can be to a fault in some cases)

You will recognize common forms of technology presented constantly and will likely, if you’ve never read it before, gasp at the stunning clarity of Forster’s predictions about technical instruments, isolation despite constant communication, and relationships between religion and “The Machine.”

These ideas have been done to death in science fiction. Every single one of them. I have read enough of it to state this with perfect confidence. However, one must remember that Forster was one of the pioneers of the genre, along with H.G. Wells, of course—and don’t even get me started on speculative relevancies in his works either. This is making me feel as though I need another blog. And I don’t.

My point is that there is tremendous value in speculation. And not simply for the sake of the entertaining task of thinking beyond our reality… I believe that science fiction, whether it communicates a future that is bleak, bright, devoid of humanity, or so full of humanity that it divides and then either kills itself or speeds heedlessly forward, enamored with its own progress—is a weathervane.

If this is true, is telecommuting the end of our humanity? Of our social nature? Of our ability to contemplate unique ideas without the input of strangers, many of whom may have written vast numbers of articles listed in endless numbers of directories, on the subject you want to know about it? Are we as new workers, living in new cities, in a better environment with more time with our families going to retreat and make that insufferably persistent sci-fi prediction that technology will take us over a self-fulfilling prophecy?

Questions, questions. Frightening ones. Ones that might seem counterintuitive to the very distinct bias of this blog--promoting mass, vast tentacles of networked, wired people who collaborate and ceaselessly communicate. 

Would such a future spell our doom? 

Forster’s concepts of isolating ourselves in rooms that are like hives, alive and buzzing with the steady, persistent, yet completely ignored and innate whir of technology, are perfectly valid. These ideas of exchanging the remote for the real are complex, striking, valuable, damning. This prediction, this statement that we can be content with a picture of a face versus a tangible speaking mouth within touching range (IM, video chat and teleconferencing) —this ceasing to think for ourselves and instead constantly rehashing and hashing again the ideas of others to learn, share, and grow (Digg, Reddit)—this strange process of putting great stock in strangers who follow along as we note, renote, and dictate our greatest passions alongside of our most mundane functions (Twitter)—to the point that we value their judgment more than we might value the thoughts of our own family members yet not knowing them personally

There is a darker side to a widescale shift to telecommuting. Being one who inevitably and often unconsciously selects books that promote these bleaker Tech-as-God ideas, I have no answer for why I have such hope about the actual future.

A future where workers are not simply workers.

But is this possible and where does it all end?

Will you go read the story already?

*Note* I might never have encountered this story if it weren’t for the longstanding work of a brilliant way-ahead-of-his time researcher named Ralph Westfall. He’s produced some brilliant scholarly pieces and has a flair for the speculative. Here’s his old-skool CV.

What Makes You So Special, Nation's Capitol?

Is Washington, D.C. a model for cities everywhere in terms of telecommuting?

According to the National Capitol Transportation Planning Board, in Washington D.C. (and as reported here) there are fewer drivers on the road in the nation’s capitol when compared to data from from just ver a decade ago. Although the article does not mention telecommuting directly, one has to wonder how much of this shift is related to a change in commuting habits.

According to the report, “Getting to and from the office now accounts for only one-fifth of area motorists’ trips. That number is down from roughly a quarter of all trips fifteen years ago” and while people are still using their cars quite often, they are “more likely to be running errands like driving to the gym or picking up kids from school.”

While the report doesn’t offer any sound news about what impact telecommuting might have had on this downsizing in the number of commuters, I spent some time looking into the ways the city has promoting teleworking programs to see if there was any direct correlation between city-wide pushes for telecommuting and the lessened number of cars on the road.

Before I begin, however, I am open to the idea that fewer people are driving in D.C. because it’s a complete nightmare. Morning commutes in the capitol are notoriously ghastly and yes, this is something I’m willing to consider. Still, it seems that there must be something more substantive behind the reduction in commuters other than the obvious reasons about aggression, congestion, and hassle….

Rather surprisingly, Washington D.C was named one of the best cities for telecommuters in 2006 after a study (found here) conducted by Intel and the research organization Sperling, and it was not simply because it’s one city that everyone wishes they could avoid commuting in either. It should be noted, however, that the city does carry the dubious distinction of having one of the longest on-average commute times, so this is a factor, but by no means the only one.

Rather, Washington D.C. is (and has been—one of the first) uniquely situated to become a model in the telecommuting movement. Why? Because it has invested time, energy, resources, and much-needed attention and also simply because it has a workforce that is particularly well-suited to mass telecommuting.

Two ways in which the city excels as a leader of the Remote Revolution are in terms of general working sectors and technological infrastructure. Washington D.C. is home to many white-collar workers who have been using technology for years to communicate and perform work. Taking work home to avoid the commute is more of a natural extension than it might be in other areas that have a lessened concentration of such workers. Secondly, the capitol city is home to more WiFi hotspots per capita than any other city in the United States, or at least this was the case in 2006 when the report was released. I had some trouble finding a more recent comparison or analysis of figures, but I imagine that they’re still at the top of the list—again, in terms of per-capita numbers.

The Obama administration’s emphasis on making the federal government a model for telecommuting initiatives even further helps carve out a place for D.C. as a leader in this push. Although the results have yet to become manifest in any real way yet for federal workers on the large scale, one can expect this to be carried out and lead to more remote workers in Washington D.C. over the coming years.

I realize that D.C. has a distinct advantage due to their higher numbers of non-manufacturing or on-site positions, but I think that their early push to expand broadband access—from shops and local parks to all public areas--is one of the first signs of a city doing something right.

What is your city doing? Enough?

A Working Definition of the Remote Revolution

Contemporary information and communications technologies (ICT) are presenting an unprecedented opportunity for workers and employers alike to dramatically alter the way they understand work and what it constitutes. These technologies present opportunities to help us work towards goals of sustainability and to overcome the numerous environmental, economic troubles we face due to an imbalance in consumption, production, innovation, and adaptation.

A dramatic alteration in traditional concepts of what work means for us (and to us) will only come when these technologies are utilized in a manner that will allow, on a personal level, for greater flexibility and balance. The results of such a revolution on a personal scale would also have clear, countless, and immediate environmental and social benefits.  In other words, for every positive outcome of the widespread, mainstream shift to remote work wherever it’s permissible, there will be a host of equally beneficial outcomes that branch out to cover every aspect of our lives.

While some changes will be immediate and mostly confined to the smaller scale, over time, a mass shift to remote work (whenever positions allow) will lead to far greater changes on the macro level. Much of the task in the writing you see here will be on discussing the potential impact of these changes. Sometimes that means playing futurist and sometimes it means being a researcher to see how innovative movements have played out when organizations, cities, or individuals have made steps toward these dramatic changes.

I make no apologies about my decided bias. I feel that telecommuting can save the world, I do. Does that sound like a wildly exaggerated claim to make? Does it really? How many cars are on the road at any given time in any developed nation because they are commuting, often long distances, to a job that could easily (and as many studies show—more productively) be handled without office space—at least part time?

And the idea of unnecessary cars on the road to commute to a job that could become remote with minimal effort or output? Well, that is just the tip of the iceberg.

The widespread, mainstream shift to telecommuting--whenever it is possible within a position or task—promises changes that are so critical at this point in history, that stalling or making excuses about not adopting telecommuting when possible are simply dangerous. We are in an economic crisis. We are witnessing an environmental catastrophe. We are no longer conducting our lives in a way that is sustainable on this grand scale. It has to stop.

I firmly believe that we are on the cusp of a revolution akin to the Industrial Revolution, but in reverse. The Industrial Revolution caused a mass migration from the home; from the solid system of cottage industry and local bartering arrangements to the remote center of industry, which was so often in the middle of a larger city. It created and fed capitalism (which isn’t a bad thing—don’t peg me as a socialist yet) and it ushered in the idea of the suburban, the filth of the urban, the highly divided class system that has hitherto—and especially now—proved itself as unsustainable for long, unbroken stretches. For more about this, I encourage you to read this post about likenesses to the Industrial Revolution and the revival of cottage industry.

No, I am not saying it’s time for all of us to live Renaissance Fair style and start spinning yarn and selling cattle in the town square. That is utterly ridiculous. What I am saying is that we can have the same economy, the same basic set of jobs, the same level of forward-thinking technological and other progress, but without all of the commuting.

It is that simple.

This is not to suggest that it is going to be an easy transition—it will not be. While the instant effects of reduced costs for employers in real estate and operational costs will provide a needed boost for business, the cost cuts for employees in terms of transportation and other associated drops in cost will begin to create growing pains in the economy, in our cities, and in areas that were once centers of business and industry that relied on a steady influx of traffic from workers filtering in and out throughout the day. There are posts here (and many, many more to come) that will be objective in nature and will fairly present the problems associated with the shift—what I call “growing pains” for the period of economic, social, city, and other adjustments.

What is the Remote Revolution?

The Remote Revolution is defined and perpetuated by the contracting economy—a process that in itself is revolutionary because it represents a necessary downshift in unsustainable levels of consumption and waste.

The Remote Revolution is defined by its historical contingencies—mass awareness of environmental crisis, fuel concerns (and associated costs), a catching-up of poor city planning based on suburban living, a technological revolution that has exploded and allowed relatively affordable options to live without being tied to one’s physical workplace. In other words, the Remote Revolution is now more necessitated than overtly created.

The Remote Revolution is defined as a movement away from traditional, stagnant modes of work that emphasize and value the judgments of vast hierarchies of management as they observe and monitor perceived productivity.

The Remote Revolution is defined by its emphasis on humanity and family, thus it is devaluing the Protestant work ethic that propelled this country forward (or so grandpa always said) with long hours and a corporate culture that actively eschewed personal and family time.

The Remote Revolution encompasses concepts of worker autonomy, proactive environmental change, social and community restructuring, family and flexibility, sustainability in all areas…

It is going to change the world.