In August 2018, the British Broadcasting Company (BBC) reported that Emails while commuting 'should count as work. The topic is not new, and has garnered coverage in American publications also. More on that follows.
The BBC focus is on commuters. It notes that we have seen an expansion in "wi-fi" availability in recent years, coupled with the ubiquitous nature of smart phones. These two have "extended the working day," according to a recent university study in Britain. This involved a reasonably broad population of "5,000 rail passengers on commuter routes into London." It concluded that "54% of commuters using the train's wi-fi were sending work emails," either getting a head start on the day or catching up on the way home.
There is supposition that this pattern has been present with smart phones and those who purchase digital plans. However, the train systems have recently been upgrading wi-fi connections on the commuter trains. This change facilitated access for those who had not purchased a digital plan, or who were reluctant perhaps to use their digital plan budget to perform work. This wi-fi expansion provided a somewhat controlled population whose use could be studied.
The BBC contends that the results of the study "raise questions about the work-life balance." And, it questions "if the journey has become part of work, should it also be recognized as part of working hours?" That may be a question of deceiving simplicity. At first blush, time spent working should be considered "working hours." That is the easy part. The harder part is the "blurring of boundaries," as to what is or is not work; The BBC also noted concerns of how that time is counted or accounted for. There is some suggestion that employers paying for such work would want increased "surveillance and accountability" regarding that time on the commute.
The BBC also sees greater societal benefit in the inclusion of this commute time in the official workday. It contends that the resulting shortening of the "in-office" workday would facilitate flex-time. The person who has to be "in the office" by 8:00 a.m. and working until 5:00 would necessarily be on the train before 8:00 and again after 5:00. This is familiar to everyone, the dreaded "rush hours." The BBC contends that if a worker is working on the train, that employee could board at 8:00 and could depart from work before 5:00. Thus, some volume of workers shifting their commute time and easing "rush hour" congestion.
These balance and compensation issues may include an examination of employer expectations, employee understanding, and the source of the technology. If an employer is providing the smartphone or other device, should that matter in this discussion? If an employee's performance evaluation includes the promptness of message response regardless of work hours, should that matter?
In America, the compensation issues may be different based on the type of employment responsibilities of the particular employee and the application of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). That law may require compensation for some employees, while not for others ("exempt"). And the accounting may be an issue as well. But, what is clear is that technology is empowering people to connect to communications and data. The question is not whether people can connect anymore (in most geographical locations), but whether and when people should connect, and what they are accomplishing when they do.
In America, the compensation issues may be different based on the type of employment responsibilities of the particular employee and the application of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). That law may require compensation for some employees, while not for others ("exempt"). And the accounting may be an issue as well. But, what is clear is that technology is empowering people to connect to communications and data. The question is not whether people can connect anymore (in most geographical locations), but whether and when people should connect, and what they are accomplishing when they do.
There are issues of "downtime," with some suggesting that there is a mental health benefit to a defined break from the challenges of the job. They see weekends and evenings as time that should be personal, and encourage a balance in work and non-work time. The work environment, in their perspective, is a stress generator, that should be switched off periodically. This sentiment was recently discussed in Stress and the Workplace (December 2018), from the perspective of finding balance in our lives. One critical point of that post is focused on whether work stress affects us at home, and likewise, whether home stress affects us at work.
The BBC notes that "working abnormal or long hours" may have significant impacts on us. It notes that such work "has long been linked with depression, anxiety, and even coronary heart disease," without citing any studies or authority to support those broad conclusions. It similarly extols the benefits of "psychological detachment during off-work time," on reducing "emotional exhaustion" and on improving our productivity when we return to work. Thus, there may be real benefits from clear delineations.
The BBC notes that this will be a challenge for employers, employees, and regulators. It cites a French law enacted recently, which affords certain workers "the ability to negotiate the responsibility to check emails outside standard working hours." The BBC contends that the effects of this law are "gradually gaining ground." Elsewhere in Europe, employers have placed outright bans on after-hours emails. Some have even configured their email systems to enforce limitations on when email can be sent or received.
The BBC sites a second survey of 2,000 employees, regarding how often they check their work email during off hours. About 40% said "they checked their emails outside of working hours at least five times a day." As a side note, I probably average at least twice that. The survey also revealed, consistent with the work balance discussion above, that "a third said they couldn’t mentally switch off at home, with work always looming over them."
In 2013, Forbes addressed the work compensation issue in America. It focused on a police officer "required" by his employer "to regularly check" email "beyond scheduled work hours." The case went to trial in 2015, and the court concluded that the officers were "performing work" by checking their email. However, the court also concluded that the officers failed to prove that they were "not properly compensated," according to the California Public Agency Labor & Employment Blog.
In a Chicago Tribune article regarding that litigation, an employment lawyer was quoted that "It's naive to think no one is going to check their email after work." One company CEO noted the challenge of stopping the practice: "We can't separate work and life," he said. "If it's going to happen, it has to be mandated." Thus, we again reach the earlier conclusion that people are inevitably checking their email or other work communications during their off time. The recent news from the BBC seems to support that as technology is increasingly accessible, we seem to be eager to embrace it and thus work more.
From the standpoints of work/life balance, stress, and compensation, there are concerns for the employer/employee relationship. The after-hours work may be disruptive, and stressful, and possibly the lack of compensation might be illegal.
The Converse, similar to that discussed in Stress and the Workplace (December 2018), may be worthy of discussion also. Although rare, it is likely that some people receive non-work emails, texts, and calls while they are at work. Does personal life invade the work environment? I know one worker who has a signal worked out with a teenage child. The worker receives a telephone call or text every day when the child arrives home safely from school. The employee assures me she never replies or responds, it is merely the "notice" of arrival she desires. Possibly that is the most minimal example of non-work communications in the workplace?
I knew a manager at a business who had, through mutual acquaintances, become "connected" on social media with someone who happened to work for her company, though in a different department. As we chatted one day waiting for a meeting to begin, she asked me what I thought her obligation was regarding her noticing that this "connection" often engaged in social media during the workday. We discussed the potential that her "friend's" postings might be generated through an uploading program, and not actually performed at the times represented. Her point, however, was whether she should even alert the "friend's" supervisor. Her concern was that the employee might be disciplined for accessing social media during the workday. Whether real or not, this manager perceived work time being diverted to personal use and acknowledged that discipline might result.
Perhaps the commentators cited by the Chicago Tribune are correct, that it is inevitable we will do personal tasks at work and work tasks at home? Certainly, doing personal tasks at work may lead to repercussions. Conversely, should doing work tasks at home necessarily lead to some reward, such as overtime or, for the "exempt" employee something like "comp time" away from work? That would not be dissimilar from the BBC's suggestion of a shortened workday.
In the broader context of stress, though, it is possible that these wi-fi, and email message issues are merely the tip of the iceberg. Even without a text or email, how many of us spend our commutes or evenings ruminating over the tasks or assignments of the day? How many of us struggle to put work out of our minds in the evening and on weekends? Similarly, how many of us allow personal issues to cloud our heads during the workday?
A worthy read is The Mindful Lawyer, featured in The Florida Bar News recently. On the subject of "leaving work at work," this provides some thoughts on how to disengage your mind from work when you arrive home. Some of those suggestions might apply equally to cleansing your thoughts upon arrival at work (though, likely not the "take a shower" or "Sit . . . with a glass of wine" suggestions). Perhaps the most helpful approach would be to individually, and thoughtfully, evaluate how we are each separating work from life, and focusing on drawing those lines for ourselves.
In this regard, I would suggest that the Chicago CEO's conclusion that "if it's going to happen, it has to be mandated" is likely asking too much of others. If I am eating excessive amounts of M&Ms, maybe it is my personal responsibility to recognize the implications and regulate my own behavior? If our employer locks us out of email, it will not prevent us from ruminating or worrying about work. If we are to make this work/life balance separation, it will require our recognition, analysis, commitment, and attention. If we are to have a balanced work/life relationship, the answer likely lies with us and those who surround and care about us.
