Arkansas Blog

The placement of government agencies in outlying areas encourages long-distance commuting.

I have always advocated that, whenever possible, state agencies should have their offices in and around the State Capitol grounds, not in far-flung suburban agency castles. Besides being more convenient for the public, it minimizes sweetheart deals with developers and cuts costs. The size of the agencies' fleets, their fuel use, wasted travel time could be reduced. Walking would be more feasible or the use of on-campus shuttles could be encouraged.

There are many other benefits for consolidation of state agencies in one geographical area: security costs, communications, reduction of duplicative specialized facilities (meeting rooms, multimedia centers, board rooms), allow citizens and legislators to actually see the size of government. It allows the people who have to use state agencies to find the specific office, rather than have to drive all around central Arkansas to find the agency's offices secreted away in some commercial complex, or in its secluded castle.

Well then, what should the state do to reduce employee commutes?

If commuting fewer days per week somehow encourages employees to drive more, should we start having them commute six or seven days a week, or maybe drive home for lunch, as a way of getting them to drive less?

To see things like telecommuting and flextime, which have well-documented environmental, societal and financial benefits, positioned as some kind of plot to increase driving is akin to the Republican idea that government revenues are increased by reducing taxes.

And when you look at the advantages that flextime and telecommuting provide to single parents, or those who can't afford gas, or those taking care of elderly parents -- to argue against those work arrangements is not only illogical, it's mean. Like something straight out of Anne Coulter's mouth.

I interviewed not long ago for a writng job with the state. When I asked about the possibility of telecommuting, I was told in no uncertain circumstances "absolutely not."

In this age when we're all tied together by computers anyway, and with the invention and distribution of such devices as cell-phone provider based aircards, community-wide wireless networks, and DSL -- why the hell not? Are we so tied to the notion of an office that we go against pure common sense?

It's not just a matter of saving gas. Think of the office space that could be differently utilized or eliminated. If you have 10 employees in an office and ieght of them are allowed to telecommute part of the week, you can share desk and office space and eliminate four set spaces for employees. Meetings can be done face-to-face if necessary, but they can also be conducted by phone conference (which is very common these days) or by teleconference (hey -- here's a constructive, non-illicit use for webcams!) instead.

Does the desire to keep all of the enmployees under one roof come from a fear or mistrust of said employees? I can surely see why we need all of our legislators in one area -- for public contact. But surely there are employees whose physical presence doesn't have to be confined to the one government building in which they work.

My 12 mile (each way) commute is less than the average, but more than I'd like. When I bought my house, several factors came into play. I didn't want to live in West LR, period. Now, that being said, I'm glad I don't have the brutal commute of those in Conway, Cabot, and Benton. Those roads are saturated with cars populated by single drivers. However, when we make decisions concerning where we live there are more factors than the location of our jobs. Little Rock/North Little Rock are fine cities, but they do have some problems. Crime and schools will weigh into anyone's choices as to where they live. I don't have kids, so that was not a factor. I will not blame someone if they choose to live in Conway thinking that their children will get a better education there. I will not blame someone moving outside of the city core if their fears of random crime are founded or unfounded. I will not blame someone for seeking a home in a more affordable area.

When gas continues to rise, commuters will re-evaluate their options and make changes based on those options. I think we'll see much more carpooling, more effecient cars driven, and some might even move closer to work. Some day we may even see more user-friendly mass transportation.

The myth of the open road is now only reserved for car commercials.

"Does the desire to keep all of the employees under one roof come from a fear or mistrust of said employees?"

In a word? I'd say yes. I know it's an apples in a barrel argument -- one bad, etc. -- but given the caliber of A FEW employees I've seen, well, you cain't trust anybody.
BTW, that's not limited to state employees by any stretch of the imagination, nor do I think state employees are more prone to slacking off.
But one example (of many): before hubby retired, his boss hired a replacement. Hubby was supposed to ease off as replacement came up to speed. Never happened. In addition to slouching off to a secluded area to use his cell phone -- I would not have wanted to pay that bill -- the guy could find so many reasons for coming in late or taking off early, sick Fridays, sick the whole week of deer season, etc. etc. etc.
It got so folks made bets about when he would work a whole week. Toward the end that pool got pretty high. Just imagine how much work he would have gotten done had he been able to telecommute. My bet: he never would have gotten out of bed, except to hunt and fish and go to the mailbox for his check.
Telecommuting? Great idea, but it won't work with many people. Even the most trustworthy workers can be inclined to procrastination. Been there, done that. Noon Tuesday deadline? Tuesday morning is plenty of time. Unless you have a computer glitch, or somebody hits a power pole and the repair will take hours. Or your brain simply will not cooperate. Oops. Gonna miss that deadline. (It always helps if your boss is a worse procrastinator that you are. With any luck, he won't notice because he's pulling his own hair out.)

Max-

I guess I don't understand why this is a 'bad' idea.

I have a state-employee friend whose dept. experimented with flex-time several months ago. 10-hour days with one day off. It wasn't just for those with long commutes, it was for all. The workers liked it, and the work got done. Plus, less cars on 67, 30, and 430 (albeit not a bunch, but...).

I have another friend that telecommutes every day. She actually works all day and her company prefers it because that's less office space to have/maintain.

Seems to me, less cars is less cars-- which means less traffic, pollution, gas, etc.

What am I missing?

ARK. BLOG: I never said telecommuting was bad. I said figuring out a way for people to have four-day work weeks, or to force telecommuting into jobs not perfectly suited for it, SOLELY to reduce employees' gas bills, is a bad idea. Let the employees move closer to work. Finally, some people work better without supervision than others.

There is a competing upside/downside to a 10-hour 4-day workweek when we are considering "customer service" jobs in state government. The upside is that services such as issuing car licenses could be available when regular 8-5 (non-state) workers could drop by on the 10-hour days. The concurrent downside would be having either fewer days of the service or having fewer state employees available to perform those services (i.e., longer lines).

For those needing explanation: If the service was only open four days a week, there would be no reduction in the number of employees providing the service. If it remained a five-day service, at least one day a week fewer employees would be present to do the job.

If it is not properly implemented (but all of us know that it will be well thought out), it could result in a request for the hiring of more state employees, especially after a flurry of irate phone calls to legislators about lengthy delays at state offices. The consequence, even more commuters will be on the road ... five days a week.

Looking at how flex-time and four-day workweeks have worked in other industries could guide the implementation for non "customer service" employees. With 50,000 employees to sort through, that's going to take a while.

Let's see, Max--exactly how much opposition did you express to Beebe blowing half the severance tax increase on the highway system? Let me think...right! Exactly none.

In case you haven't noticed, we're in a long-term crisis involving both energy shortages and greenhouse gas emissions. A four-day workweek for everyone--not just state employees--is a part of the solution. Pissing away the severance tax isn't.

I get your worry that some people will make longer commutes. There are always some fools, and people desperate for work, among us. I was making a fifty-mile commute each way into Little Rock for several months until we could move back into town. I guarantee you that a making that trip only four times a week, and making my work day those four days a minimum of thirteen hours (ten for work, one for lunch, two for commute) wasn't going to encourage me to keep on truckin'.

A corollary of the energy shortage is going to be a serious decrease in American mobility. That's going to pull people and their workplaces geographically together over time. The four-day work week isn't going to do much to counter that.

Jim Lendall has it right when he says not every position is right for this schedule.

That's no excuse for you, Max, taking the lazy way out and saying "Too hard! Never mind". Government is supposed to solve the hard problems, not run away from them.