Enhance Programs to Provide Family-Friendly Workplaces Background The federal government has traditionally been viewed as a family- friendly employer with many programs in place to help employees balance work and family responsibilities. The Federal Employees Flexible and Compressed Work Schedules Act of 1978 gives agencies the authority to provide flexible and compressed work schedules for their employees.(1) The Federal Employees Part-time Career Employment Act of 1978 requires federal agencies to increase part-time opportunities for federal employees at all grade levels.(2) In 1990, Congress again tried to increase the availability of part-time employment for interested individuals by requiring the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to establish a job sharing program. The Federal Employees Leave Sharing Act of 1988 authorizes agencies to participate in voluntary pilot leave transfer and leave bank programs.(3) The federal government does not provide short-term disability benefits for its employees, except for job-related illness and injuries, so leave sharing helps employees maintain some or all income through a period of temporary disability or family medical crisis. The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993(4) provides up to 12 administrative workweeks of unpaid family and medical leave for federal employees.(5) In January 1990, the General Services Administration (GSA) and OPM implemented the Federal Flexible Workplace Pilot Project (Flexiplace) to gain experience and information from work-at-home programs, satellite work center programs, and flexiplace accommodations for disabled workers. Congress demonstrated continued support for the Flexiplace project in September 1992, when it appropriated $5 million to GSA to establish three telecommuting centers. The telecommuting centers will provide alternate worksites for federal employees who currently commute long distances between their homes and worksites in the Washington, D.C., area. Need for Change Changes in societal values and demographics indicate that family- friendly policies and workplaces will become increasingly critical for recruitment, retention, and improved productivity of employees. Family-friendly policies serve the needs of a diverse workforce struggling to manage child care, elder care, family emergencies, and other personal responsibilities while at the same time remaining committed to professional development and advancement. Governmentwide implementation of these policies will enable agencies to foster a quality work environment that meets the emerging needs of their employees and customers. The benefits of family-friendly policies are well documented: Recent studies of such companies as Johnson & Johnson and American Telephone & Telegraph show that helping employees resolve work and family conflicts boosts morale and increases productivity. The J&J study found that absenteeism among employees who used flexible time and family-leave policies was on average 50% less than for the work force as a whole. It also found that 58% of the employees surveyed said such policies were very important in their decision to stay at the company--the number jumped to 71% among employees using the benefits.(6) In 1991, the Conference Board concluded: Flexitime improves basic work conditions by allowing adjustments in commuting times, reducing anxiety about tardiness, and shifting management's focus away from monitoring attendance. . . . [F]lexible work schedules increase employee responsibility, independence and growth potential, thus motivating the employee. . . . Flexitime was typically mentioned as the arrangement found most advantageous in reducing absenteeism and turnover.(7) A federal employee writing to the National Performance Review stressed that part-time employment and job sharing is an important option for many federal employees. [W]orkers should be offered a chance to convert to part-time status whenever possible, if they think their finances will permit it, in order to have more time with young children or aging or infirm parents, or to attend to their own health problems, or to continue their education to stay abreast of changing technology. . . . Some individuals might want part-time work as an alternative or precursor to full retirement.(8) The Progressive Policy Institute's Mandate for Change emphasized that the federal government should take a leadership role in flexiplace work arrangements, including telecommuting. The federal government, which as one of the nation's largest employers led the way in the use of flex-time schedules, should begin to offer telecommuting options to qualified interested employees. In addition to the parenting advantages that telecommuting provides for families with small children, it offers economic and environmental advantages for society by reducing the number of commuters.(9) Flexiplace and telecommuting reduce individual and family stress, save valuable commuting time, reduce commuting and work-related costs for the employee, and increase civic involvement and volunteerism in nearby communities. Flexible work arrangements will generate environmental and energy conservation benefits by alleviating traffic congestion, reducing air pollution, and reducing consumption of fossil fuels. Evaluation of the federal government's Flexiplace pilot found that vehicle usage decreased for 82 percent of participants during rush hour and 35 percent of participants during non-rush hour; sick leave usage decreased for 45 percent of participants.(10) The evaluation went on to say: "More than 90 percent of the supervisors and 95 percent of the participants judged that Flexiplace job performance was either unchanged or improved relative to pre- Flexiplace performance levels."(11) OPM's final evaluation of the Flexiplace pilot concluded: Flexiplace shows promise as a mechanism for reducing Federal operating and health care costs. Indications of improved job performance (productivity), reduced usage of sick leave (benefits), improved health (health care), and reduced vehicle usage (transportation/energy issues) for a significant portion of the participant group suggest long run reduction in costs associated with these areas.(12) The evaluation found that the actual organizational costs of Flexiplace were minimal. More than 80 percent of supervisors reported no additional costs.(13) Significant monetary savings will occur as agencies begin to include flexible workplace arrangements in their federal building planning and technology purchasing strategies. "[W]e anticipate long run reductions in facility costs with expanded utilization of Flexiplace. The ability of agencies to implement successful Flexiplace pilots with minimal funding, however, is a strong indication of the applicability of Flexiplace to diverse organizations."(14) The federal government should be viewed as a model employer in the availability and flexibility of quality of worklife programs that emphasize the tools employees at all levels need to manage their work responsibilities and personal lives more effectively.(15) Successful programs will foster interagency and intergovernmental partnerships, encourage cooperation between management and employees, spark collaborative ventures between public and private organizations, and bring harmony to the workplace and community in which they reside. Some of the problems and barriers faced by agencies and employees include: Legislative Barriers to Innovation. Federal agencies are stymied in their efforts to address emerging employee needs because most employee benefit policies are codified into law--literally requiring an act of Congress to modify them. Legislation bars most agencies from experimenting with different benefit policies; therefore, the governmentwide implications of options such as cafeteria benefit plans and flexible spending accounts are not known. In a 1992 report, the General Accounting Office stated: The likelihood of federal agencies falling behind their nonfederal counterparts in the work/family area may be even greater in the future. The rapid growth of nonfederal work/family programs, such as flexible benefits, flexible spending accounts, and child care assistance, suggest that these programs could well become standard employment policies in the future. Thus, whereas the adoption of work/family programs today may give an employer a competitive advantage, in the future, employers may need to offer these programs just to avoid being at a competitive disadvantage.(16) Legislative barriers prevent many agencies from implementing flexible work arrangements with their employees; some of the barriers for Flexiplace were waived for the duration of the pilot project when Congress passed legislation in November 1990.(17) Some examples of the limitations placed upon agencies attempting to provide dependent care services include a law that limits agencies to providing the facility and services related to the maintenance and operation of child care centers located solely in federally owned or leased space, and a September 31, 1992, decision of the U.S. Comptroller General that the law prohibits agencies from using appropriated funds for adult day care programs or contributing any financial resources to private adult day care centers.(18) Lack of Clear Agency Support and Implementation of Available Programs. Many agencies have not developed policies advocating the use of flexibilities available to help employees balance work and family responsibilities. In a recent survey of federal employees conducted by OPM, only 53 percent of employees with dependent care needs believe their agencies understand and support family issues. Approximately 38 percent of employees indicated that their agencies do not provide any dependent care services beyond Employee Assistance Programs. Approximately 77 percent of employees with dependent care needs who are currently working fixed schedules are interested in working compressed/flexible schedules.(19) OPM found that: [T]he employee survey data suggest that certain agencies may have internal barriers that make supervisors reluctant to approve employee requests to work part-time. Of the supervisors who have denied employee requests to work part-time, at least 19 percent did so because of internal barriers, i.e., the agency's internal systems made it difficult and/or that their agency stressed full-time employment.(20) Cross References to Other NPR Accompanying Reports Department of Transportation, DOT13: Create and Evaluate Telecommuting Programs. Endnotes 1. Title 5, United States Code, sec. 6120-6133. 2. Title 5, United States Code, sec. 3401-3408. 3. Public Law 100-566. 4. Public Law 103-3. 5. Title II of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 pertains to most federal employees covered by the annual and sick leave system established under chapter 63 of title 5, United States Code, and certain other employees covered by different federal leave systems. Title I covers non-federal employees and certain federal employees not covered by Title II. 6. Galen, Michele, Ann Therese Palmer, Alice Cuneo, and Mark Maremont, "Work & Family," Business Week, no. 3325 (June 28, 1993), p. 82. 7. Friedman, Dana, Linking Work-Family Issues to the Bottom Line (New York: The Conference Board, 1991), p. 51. 8. Letter from Marilyn S.G. Urwitz, federal employee, to President Bill Clinton, March 4, 1993. 9. Kamarck, Elaine Ciulla, and William A. Galston, "A Progressive Family Policy for the 1990s," in Will Marshall and Martin Schram, eds. Mandate for Change (New York: The Berkley Publishing Group, 1993), p. 174. 10. U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM), The Federal Flexible Workplace Pilot Project Work-at-Home Component (Washington, D.C., January 1993), p. v. 11. Ibid., pp. iii, iv. 12. Ibid., p. 45. 13. Ibid., p. 31. 14. Ibid., p. 32. 15. U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), Balancing Work Responsibilities and Family Needs: The Federal Civil Service Response (Washington, D.C., November 1991), p. 82. 16. U.S. General Accounting Office, The Changing Workforce: Comparison of Federal and Nonfederal Work/Family Programs and Approaches, GAO/GGD-92-84 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. General Accounting Office, April 1992), p. 15. 17. Public Law 101-509. 18. Title 40, United States Code, sec. 490(b). 19. U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Report to Congress: A Study of the Work and Family Needs of the Federal Workforce (Washington, D.C., April 1992), pp. 5, 6, 20. 20. OPM, Report to Congress, p. 26.
You can attach your comments to this document. If you enter your email address in the empty box below and click on the submit button, you will receive via email a form that allows you to link your views to the NPR hypertext.
Subscribe Unsubscribe No Action