Telecommuting from a Flexiplace

By Robert T. Grieves

Fans and foes take second looks at work-at-home programs

Ah. The electronic cottage. Just four years ago, Alvin Toffler in The Third Wave described a halcyon future when people would work at home connected to the office by inexpensive computers. No more commuting. No more expensive office buildings. Higher productivity since employees would not be constantly interrupted as they are at the office. Wrote Toffler: "Our entire economy would be altered almost beyond our recognition."

Now that idealized world to come is undergoing heated revision as more and more people use their homes as places for computerized work. In experimental projects across the U.S., several hundred clerical and professional workers have agreed to abandon the office and work at home on computer terminals electronically linked to their firms' office computers. In management jargon they are "telecommuting" and work at "flexiplaces."

An estimated 15,000 electronic work stations are now in operation in the U.S. Jack Nilles, a director at the University of Southern California's Center for Futures Research, forecasts that in the early 1990s 12 million computers will be sold annually. Other experts predict that within 15 years as many as 10 million people will be working from home.

While the advantages of computerized work at home have always been obvious, futurists did not always see the darker side as clearly. The first drawback is that executives fear they will lose control over employees. "Management does not trust the worker at home without close supervision," says Arthur Brief, a New York University professor. "Employers are concerned if somebody is not standing with a whip over employees' heads and saying 'Produce.' "

Companies often select their best and brightest employees for teleworking because those workers require little super vision. Even so, the designated home workers may feel out of touch with the office and fear the possibility of being passed over for promotion because they are out of sight. Says Nilles: "You need good management to make the programs work."

Companies are also discovering that working at home may not result in significant savings. Says Frederic Withington, vice president of Arthur D. Little, a business consulting firm: "Superb devices will be available, but at relatively high cost because of deregulation."

Labor specialists and union leaders have a strong distaste for the home office of the future. They fear that computerized workshops will bring back the exploitation of turn-of-the-century sweatshops. Says Donald Elisburg, Assistant Labor Secretary for employment standards in the Carter Administration: "Put out of your mind the idea that the sewing machine is somehow different from a computer terminal." Union officials maintain that employers will circumvent minimum-wage and child-labor laws, curtail health benefits and force workers to buy office equipment usually paid for by firms. Last October the A.F.L.-C.I.O.

passed a resolution that called for a ban on computer home work, except for the handicapped.

Companies that have experimented with work at home have enjoyed a few successes but also some failures. Mountain Bell, the Denver-based subsidiary of U S West, the new telephone holding company, found that executives who worked at home writing course-instruction manuals for computer programmers increased productivity by 48%. But not all these home workers liked it. Three out of the eight managers who enrolled in the program dropped out. A female manager wanted to get back to the office after gaining 20 Ibs. in two months because she was always running to the refrigerator for snacks. A male executive, beset by marital problems, found that being in the house all the time contributed to his divorce. The third dropout missed social contacts with his friends and could not discipline himself at home.

Some employees, of course, have no difficulty in adapting to work at home.

For the past three years Angus Reynolds, 47, a Control Data consultant, has used a terminal supplied by the company in his Reston, Va., home to review software.

Says he: "Whenever I wanted to get something done, I would usually take it home to work on so that I could get away from the distractions and hubbub of the office."

Lorraine Bernstein, 55, a Control Data manager in Pasadena, Calif., keeps track of twelve employees in two offices by using a Control Data computer and a telephone. Says she: "It saves wear and tear on you. I look at it as expanded time for work." Bernstein used to spend two hours daily commuting to and from her office.

Ann Blackwell, 32, of Pontiac, S.C., processes more than 1,500 physicians' and employers' claims a week for Blue Cross/Blue Shield of South Carolina on an IBM Personal Computer that she keeps in her den. She earns 160 a claim, which is comparable to the wages paid to office workers. Her husband Tim, a Blue Cross executive, brings home 300 to 400 claims each night and returns the processed forms every morning. Says she:

"It's a great system for me."

Work at home is far from being the promised land that Toffler and other futurists predicted. And if home projects are to succeed, they demand a greater level of cooperation between labor and management than is now found in many U.S. corporations. The technology of teleworking is relatively easy; the management of it will be much more difficult. --By Robert T. Grieves.

Reported by Gisela Bolte/Washington and J. Madeleine Nash/Chicago

With reporting by Gisela Bolte, J. MADELEINE NASH