Working remotely is a solution many organizations have considered to accomplish a number of goals. “Telecommuting” suffered a setback when Yahoo altered the way they did business and called all their remote workers back to the main office. But despite the move by Yahoo more and more organizations are moving to remote working on either a part-time basis or even fulltime.
Numerous articles have been written on the advantages of having remote workers. They include higher productivity, reduced stress, and lower costs to the company in the form of reduced office space.
In my email the other day was an announcement that the National Labor Relations Board is considering closing the Jacksonville, Florida office and instituting a Resident Agent arrangement. As the press release said “This proposal is being considered in connection with the Agency’s ongoing efforts to reduce costs by decreasing office space and by taking advantage of new technologies and workplace innovations, which enable employees to work remotely.” Pretty forward thinking. As it turns out the NLRB already has Resident Agents in Providence, Rhode Island; Knoxville, Tennessee; Salt Lake City, Utah; Newport News, Virginia; Western Massachusetts; and Spokane, Washington.
So my question to you is if the Federal government sees the value of having remote workers, value to both the company and the employee, why don’t you?