Telecommuting: Good Option, Bad Policy
A new University Human Resources policy for non-unionized workers (60.4.11), is raising questions among URA members. Is the policy beneficial or dangerous? Would we want to work under this policy? URA negotiators who have reviewed the policy give it the thumbs down.
The URA proposed a telecommuting provision for our first contract in Fall 2007 and management flatly rejected it.
Telecommuting can be mutually beneficial to workers and employers. Conversely, abuses of telecommuting by management have already been noted by URA members. Members have been pressured to work remotely on sick days, holidays, vacation, and weather emergency days.
The new policy is flawed in several ways. It begins:
Telecommuting is a privilege that may be granted under appropriate circumstances to individuals who are deemed suited. How can a policy be based on “privilege”? If employees take work home, is that a “privilege”?
Suitability for telecommuting is based upon the individual employee. This wording goes too far and allows supervisors to show favoritism about who gets to telecommute or not. We have already seen unfair treatment in departments allowing some people and not others to work an alternative work schedule.
In proposing contract language, we will include wording such as: “Requests to telecommute will not be unreasonably denied,” which will require supervisors to demonstrate if and why a person is denied this option.
Here is another example of wording that undermines the telecommuting option: In all cases, telecommuting arrangements are revocable and can be discontinued at any time. Again, the policy lacks protections for the employee. Telecommuting is a great perk only if the employee has confidence that it will not be discontinued suddenly and arbitrarily.
Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of this policy is the following provision: The university retains the right to make prearranged on-site inspections of the remote work site during scheduled work hours. There is nothing to be gained by invading people’s privacy by entering their homes. If there is a problem with deadlines or deliverables, that can and should be discussed with the employee at their regular work site, not at their personal residence.
It’s hard to reconcile these two provisions in the policy:
1. All costs… will be borne by the employee.
2. Departments are not prohibited from using university funds for reasonable expenses that are necessary to facilitate the telecommuting arrangement.
The contradictory wording again allows supervisors to show favoritism. Faculty currently receive research funds to help them pay for computer equipment used at home. Many administrative staff already use their personal home computer to support their work without any reimbursement from Rutgers. In Rutgers hierarchical world, we worry that the highest-salaried employees will also get the resources.
Some administrative staff already telecommute and find it contributes positively to work/life balance. Still, telecommuting is not a substitute for vacation, sick time or a home life. If you have been telecommuting in the past, you should be able to continue this practice. If your supervisor suddenly disallows it, please write us at union@ura-aft.org. This may be grounds for a grievance
We will soon be preparing proposals for our next contract. If you want to be part of the Contract Development committee and help formulate telecommuting and other contract language, please contact New Brunswick Vice President Kathryn Neal.
