There’s a four-letter F-word in the American workplace, and it’s not the one you’re thinking of, pottymouth.
It’s “flex,” as in flextime, flexible work arrangements (FWAs), which can include part-time, compressed work weeks, job shares, shifting start-end times (for example, 10 to 6 instead of 9 to 5), telecommuting, occasional work-from-home arrangements or other approaches.
In other words, the bane of many an old-school manager’s existence (let’s all picture Dabney Coleman in the movie “9 to 5”).
Studies have repeatedly shown that such arrangements are good for business — they save companies millions of dollars and boost morale.
You hear that, Dabney?
And yet, there has been a general resistance to the idea, as if work and family are a zero-sum game, one or the other, pick a side.
Up until now, flex has been the work arrangement that dare not speak its name — those who have them are afraid to talk about them too much, for fear they may make others jealous, or have their arrangements taken away.
I have a flexible work arrangement, and it has made all the difference in my life as a mother. A few of my mom friends at other companies also lobbied for (and got) FWAs, and were told to keep it on the down-low, lest others catch on and it set a (cue the spooky music) precedent.
Apparently, there’s nothing worse than a precedent being set, even if it’s a precedent of people being able to direct their own work schedules rather than being chained to a desk for 10 hours a day in an office model that is hopelessly out of date.
I’m happy for those of us who have FWAs and grateful to have a supportive employer, but until it’s an option that’s readily available to all workers, I don’t count it as much progress. There are millions of people out there who are too afraid to ask about flexible schedules, for fear that it will make them seem uncommitted, lazy, not “in it to win it.”
Or, for fear of getting canned.
That’s where NYC Comptroller Scott Stringer comes in, with some recently proposed legislation surrounding FWAs. It’s called “Right to Request,” and if passed, it would create a formal mechanism for workers to discuss flexible work arrangements with their employers without fear of retribution.
Here’s the thing: It doesn’t make the companies do anything. It just provides a formal framework for employees to discuss their schedules without being told, “You’re outta here.”
So what made the comptroller push for this legislation, which would hugely benefit, well, everyone, but especially parents and those caring for elderly relatives? (New York City’s senior population is slated to increase by 40 percent in the next decade, making this an especially big concern.)
“On a personal level, my wife and I understand just how difficult it is to raise two little boys and have professional careers. We obviously have resources to meet that challenge,” Stringer tells me. “But every day, it’s a question of who takes who to day care, to the doctor, to pickup, when’s Gramma coming over so I can go to a meeting in Queens. Then we think, imagine being a single parent having to work to pay that rent, who might be thinking, ‘I want to have a safe space to have a conversation with my employer [about my schedule.] Just because I said X doesn’t mean I don’t want a robust professional career. I don’t want it to put me at the back of the line.’ ”
See? Even Scott Stringer has day care pickup woes!
But here’s the thing that really excites me about this Right to Request business and Stringer’s emphasis on flextime as a business practice — IT IS GREAT FOR BUSINESSES. (I write this in all caps so it’s easier to read. Businesses are people, you know, but they have poor eyesight.)
According to the report that was recently released by the Comptroller’s Office, “Families and Flexibility: Reshaping the Workplace for the 21st Century,” NYC-based consulting and account firm Deloitte saves more than $45 million a year with its flexible policies, mostly by reducing turnover, as training a new employee costs 1.5 times the departing worker’s salary.
Aetna, one of the largest insurance companies in the US, reported that it saved $78 million in real estate costs by increasing its number of telecommuting employees to 47 percent in 2012 (a huge jump from 9 percent in 2005).
Some industries don’t lend themselves well to FWAs, and that’s fine.
But as Stringer understands, progress often starts by simply having a conversation. By companies willing to try a different approach to what a workday might entail, as Brigid Schulte writes about so convincingly in her book, “Overwhelmed: Work, Love, and Play When No One Has the Time.” A solution that is good both for businesses and for employees is a win-win.
“I believe that if we don’t begin a conversation about flextime in the workplace, NYC will lose its competitive edge,” says Stringer. “The work force is going to change, and I want to see New York be at the front of the train.”