FlexPaths 2011

It is oft-written about and much discussed (at least at this-here blog and company): many employees are clamoring for flexible work arrangements, senior executives support it…and yet there appears to be a bottleneck slowing or choking implementation of those flexible work practices.

What’s the problem?

So glad you asked. We’ve got very strong opinions about that (and solutions!).

When flexible work is accepted as the best way to manage people by two traditionally conservative employers -- the federal government and the military -- we are at a new stage.

According to Telework Exchange: 

Last week the House of Representatives passed HR 1722, the Federal Telework Improvements ACT. The House passed the telework bill (H.R. 1722) on July 14 with a bipartisan vote of 290-131—gaining 22 more votes from the previous vote in May.

By Karol Rose * Originally posted on Working Mother

Employers are often concerned about two kinds of risks regarding flexibility policies and practices – practical risks and legal risks. What could go wrong in implementing flexibility? Will I be sued? To protect against risk, it is imperative that risk managers and legal personnel understand a new area of the law directly related to flexibility.

Employers have been concerned about the risk that occurs when they offer flexibility. They worry, for example, about backlash from employees who do not have access to flexibility, or risks about security or injury from employees working remotely. But there's a disconnect between what employers worry about and what actually happens. In reality, the risk comes less from offering flexibility, than from implementing it in inappropriate ways.

By Karol Rose

The Chief Operating Officer of the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM), China Gorman, testifined in front of the House Education and Labor Subcommittee on Workforce Protections on June 11, 2009.

By Sandy Burud

No doubt there is a powerful trend toward workplace flexibility.  It is no longer a question of whether employers should make it possible, but how well they will do it. As if to emphasize that point, regulators have made it clear that employers cannot discriminate against employees because they have family responsibilities. They cannot, for example, hold people with child care or eldercare needs to stricter work schedules or pay people working part-time for family reasons less than others doing the same job on a full time basis.

In 2007 the EEOC issued guidelines guarding against this discrimination. Now, a number of key states have crafted legislation that would make it illegal. (New Jersey, Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Montana, New York and California, and others). This train is clearly moving.