State Leader Develops New Telecommuting Plan

Ten years after the state adopted a telecommuting policy, only 140 of approximately 50,000 state employees had telecommuting agreements in 2007.

House Republicans and state employee unions want to increase that number.

House Republican Leader Larry Cafero of Norwalk is developing an expanded state telecommuting policy that would go into effect immediately. And in recent months, the Connecticut State Employees Association has been conducting a campaign to encourage Gov. M. Jodi Rell and legislators to support an expanded telecommuting program as well.

Cafero’s plan would permit some state employees who can perform their duties remotely to work from home once a week.

He and union leaders reason that telecommuting would help reduce the budget deficit while decreasing the state’s carbon footprint.

“We want to know why, with this being 2008, do we have so few state workers telecommuting 10 years after the legislature approved it?” asked Matt O’Connor, spokesman for the CSEA.

Although there is bipartisan support for expanding and implementing a new telecommuting program for state workers, the governor has not endorsed such a program.

Richard Harris, a spokesman for the governor, said it would be difficult to increase the number of state employees who work from home.

When you look at the things that state workers do — in many, many instances — it is difficult for them to telecommute because they interact directly with the public,” Harris said.

Cost Benefit

Linda Yelmini, director of labor relations for the state, doesn’t favor an expanded telecommuting policy. “Many private employers have reduced or completely eliminated these types of programs because experience has shown that lower productivity and lack of management control is often the result,” said Yelmini in an e-mail.

She supports the current legislation, which permits telecommuting under certain conditions and requires that there is a benefit to taxpayers.

Senate President Don Williams (D-29th District) also expressed concern about whether an expanded telecommuting policy would be a cost benefit to taxpayers.

“We need to see if a telecommuting program will save money for taxpayers and won’t leave these taxpayers with diminished services,” Williams said.

He said accountability in state business could be hindered by a telecommuting program. He also fears that the level of services provided by the state could decline if employees are allowed to work from home.

Employee accountability is not a new issue, said O’Connor of CESA. Some 25 years ago, when state employee unions negotiated flex-time schedules, the same concern was expressed, he said.

If only 10 percent of state workers telecommute one day a week, it would take nearly 5,000 cars off the road each day, he said. “Telecommuting is a great issue. The publicly stated opposition to telecommuting has been pretty weak. The real reason is a fear of a loss of control [of workers] on the part of management. There are ways to manage workers remotely.”

O’Connor points out that there are cost benefits to a telecommuting policy, particularly for those workers who have to drive into Hartford each day to pick up a state vehicle.

The state is looking into that specific issue, according to the governor’s office. All state agencies have been asked to evaluate how they can reduce redundant travel for employees, curb travel expenses and explore alternate state work sites.

Cafero maintains that although the governor is not really weighing in on the policy, she has encouraged privately owned businesses to utilize telecommuting in order to combat gas consumption.

The primary goal of his proposed telecommuting policy is to promote conservation that does not hinder employee accountability, productivity and supervision.

“I can relate to the long costly trip to work,” said Cafero, an attorney with Hartford law firm Brown Rudnick. “When it takes about $72 to fill up the tank, it is not pleasant using up a lot of gas to go to work every day.”