Smashing the Spinning Jenny

The concept of Luddism came up in conversation today (in context of when discussing the immovable Tube unions who hold London to ransom on an alarmingly regular basis – get with it guys, or you’ll be replaced with tech – have you seen the DLR???).

In view of this, plus some hugely funny tweets from #clientsfh (clients from hell) made me cast my mind back to one of the classic moments of tech stupidity back in (what is now) the olden days.

The year was 1997. I was working in the ad sales team for Internet World magazine at publisher VNU, and received a very furious complaint telephone call as follows:

Him:

I have a complaint about one of your advertisers

Me:

OK, which one? Can you tell me which ad is the problem?

Him:

Page 88 [the classified pages at the back], the one at the top right.

Pause for me to shuffle through the magazine in question and find the ad, which is for a porn bulletin board – headline of “Free sexy images” or somesuch.

Me:

OK, I’ve found the ad you mean, what seems to be the problem?

Him:

Well, I call the number on the advert and all I get is a screechy noise

Me:

Oh. [starting to grin to myself] That’s because the number advertised is the one you’re supposed to connect to with your modem

Him:

What’s a modem?

Me:

It’s the thing you use to connect your computer to the internet.

Him:

(blustering) Well, I haven’t got a computer!

Me:

So, why are you reading Internet World magazine then?

Him:

I picked it up in the doctor’s surgery.

He remained furious right until the end, and seemed unembarrassed about the fact that he was so furious because he’d been denied his access to free porn.

Needless to say that by the end of the call I had the phone on loudspeaker mode with my colleagues and I crying with laughter in the office. Definitely better than any CD-tray-as-cupholder urban myths – and one that actually happened to me.

Recession? Sorted.

If I said that I could, in one fell swoop

• improve work/life balance for those people who’d like it
• reduce congestion at rush hour
• prevent layoffs
• decrease the need for dependents to be farmed out to childcare/old people’s homes
• increase staff loyalty & reduce churn
• make it easier to retain experienced staff nearing retirement age

would you be interested in finding out how?

The answer is simple – flexible working, offered to all – men and women, parents or not, at all ages.

I know I’m biased, due to having a toddler, and also about to be made redundant due to financial issues, but I do think if we reconsider the 9-6 commuter presentee-ism rat race there are many benefits that people would appreciate, and would often be more than happy to sacrifice a portion of their salary for.

Many people during the recession have been offered the chance of /coerced into working shorter hours in order to save the company money – often on the premise that this is a way to retain the jobs’ existence. I’d be really interested to hear if this has been met with enthusiasm where it’s been offered. I know that when I returned after maternity leave on 3 days a week, then increased to 4 days a week, many people – not just fellow parents were envious of this flexibility.

Add to this the man hours lost to rush hour traffic, the difficulty in juggling school opening times and holidays, the fact that many jobs can be done sitting at a computer almost anywhere rather than having to be in an office in an urban centre, and there are clear reasons that it should be considered, not just for parents (yes, of both sexes) but for all employed people.

Many people have outside interests, education, social commitments, transport issues that would make working a full 40 hour week difficult or impossible, or frankly – just not worth the constant juggling. If we’re all going to have to work till we’re 70 anyway then why not make as much of it bearable as you can, and prevent ourselves burning out.

I’d be mad to not see the difficulties of course – there would need to be a massive shift in the lack of trust and presentee-ism attitude amongst some employers, that assumes that staff are shirking if they’re not under a watchful eye. Also the logistics of ensuring coverage for clients/critical issues may be hard, but no harder than organising the rota of a supermarket with a few hundred staff with differing hours, surely? A bit of give and take can solve most problems I’m sure.

Some jobs require face to face meetings, and for staff to be contactable at expected hours – all this is possible within a flexible framework; and even jobs that would be difficult to fulfill in a short week can be shared between more than one person, with the understanding that they work together to make sure the job is done, and flex around each others’ needs if necessary.

Most worries about staff performance can surely be addressed with a combination of performance/delivery based targets and guidelines; and management who are willing to delegate responsibility to the employee themselves to get the job done, within a reasonable limit.

Please let me know if you’ve come across this in your workplace – I’m intrigued to see if I’m being over-optimistic (which I am wont to be) or not.