For all the sturm and drang over the taxes-and-transportation deadlock, Virginia lawmakers did manage to get a few useful bills passed this year. One of those is a measure, championed by Del. Timothy D. Hugo, R-Centreville, and passed unanimously by the House of Delegates and the Senate, that will encourage telecommuting in the state workforce.
The secretaries of administration and technology are ordered to establish a policy for statewide telecommuting and alternative work schedules. The legislation sets the following goal: “By July 1, 2009, each state agency shall have a goal of not less than 25 percent of its eligible workforce participating in alternative work schedules.”
That’s barely three years away. Pretty ambitious.
Potentially, there are two immediate payoffs. The first is obvious: Telecommuting/alternate workplaces will take state employees off the road during rush hour, providing a modicum of relief for traffic congestion.
The second benefit is less obvious and may require follow-up legislation: More state employees working out of home or in the field translates into fewer employees taking up space in state office buildings. The state needs to follow the lead of the federal government in shifting appropriate sectors of its workforce to “hoteling” accommodations. Hoteling eliminates permanent, personal desks for mobile employees. Instead, laptop- and cellphone-equipped employees reserve desk space only on days they need to be in the office. Some organizations have found they can cut their real estate space requirements by 50 percent or more. That may not be achievable for a largely desk-bound state bureaucracy, but the state clearly stands to save something by integrating hoteling into its plans for optimizing the size of its real estate portfolio.
There is a third benefit, although it is more difficult to quantify: Experience shows that enabling employees to work at home and in the field can lead to higher productivity and job satisfaction. But for now, the first two reasons — taking commuters off roads and reducing the size of state real estate holdings — should provide more than ample justification.