An article in the New York Times touches a subject close to my heart:
The rapid decline in housing prices is distorting the normal workings of the American labor market. Mobility opens up job opportunities, allowing workers to go where they are most needed. When housing is not an obstacle, more than five million men and women, nearly 4 percent of the nation’s work force, move annually from one place to another — to a new job after a layoff, or to higher-paying work, or to the next rung in a career, often the goal of a corporate transfer. Or people seek, as in Dr. Morgan’s case, an escape from harsh northern winters.
Now that mobility is increasingly restricted. Unable to sell their homes easily and move on, tens of thousands of people like Mr. Kirkland and Dr. Morgan are making the labor force less flexible just as a weakening economy puts pressure on workers to move to wherever companies are still hiring.
Assuming that certain industries still maintain the strength to continue routine hiring/promotions, shouldn’t this sort of phenomenon fuel increased telecommuting?
Yes, not every corporate culture is conducive to telecommuting, and not every worker is well-suited towards working remotely.
However, I happen to have the good fortune for my day job to be with a company that has a fairly high degree of virutalness. Within reason, our staff are based wherever it makes the most sense. For several employees whom we really wanted on board, that means letting them either telecommute from home, or (as is generally the case for me) letting them telecommute in from a smaller, local satellite office.
We have a very conference-call / email / voicemail based culture here…and it works out well, I think. (That it fits my unique family circumstances is gravy.)
It’d be nice to see a few more companies adopt such an enlightened stance.