July 2009 Archives

TMCnet's Brendan Read today covered the news that The Telework Coalition (TelCoa), a Washington, D.C. based telework education and advocacy organization, has released a list of top ten reasons to have employees work from home.

I think the list is fine -- and overall I agree with its points. But for each of the points it raises I also see some challenges that could hinder the growth and adoption of teleworking solutions.

Just for the heck of it, I'll go through the list and offer my two cents for each of the points:
 
For the Employer and the Economy:
 
1. Improve the ability to recruit and retain skilled labor for enhanced productivity, creativity, and higher quality work from anywhere in the U.S.

I'm still not entirely convinced this is true. For one thing, just because there are qualified applicants for positions who live far from your offices (and are therefore unable to work on-site) it does not necessarily mean all these applicants want work-at-home jobs. Yes, it's true that you've broken down the geographic factors that inhibit recruitment, but saying your labor pool is now "everyone who is qualified" regardless of where they live is a misnomer, because not everyone who is qualified necessarily wants to work from home. Also, with a majority of "work-at-home" offers out there being scams, it's sometimes difficult to get good applicants to believe that the job you're offering is legit.
 
2. Provide the necessary competitive advantage and the ability to win in an increasingly regionalized/globalized economy by repatriating many of the hundreds of thousands of jobs that have been sent offshore

Frankly, I don't get this point. Won't companies still have to pay U.S. workers at competitive rates, even though they work at home? If workers in the Philippines work at lower rates, then why not have them as your teleworkers? When it comes to the economics of labor, I don't see how teleworking and "repatriation" are related.
 
3. Reduce real estate, facilities, and other overhead expenses

Okay this point I agree with completely - and it's so self-evident, how could I not? But it's only a positive thing for the employers, not the employees: If companies aren't paying for the space, then the teleworker is. For example, if you are required to have a separate office for your work-at-home job, then you are paying taxes (yes, I know you can get a tax break, but you're not fully exempt), homeowner's insurance, on the square footage, not to mention utilities such as heat and electricity. This is where teleworking becomes a sweet deal for organizations - they don't have to pay to operate as much facility, instead, they pass this cost onto the teleworker, often without additional compensation.
 
For the Employee:
 
4. Increase work/life balance, become self reliant, reduce stress, realize the opportunity to participate in local activities, and further one's education

I'm not sure this is really true. Just because you work at home doesn't necessarily mean your job will be any less stressful. Nor does it necessarily mean you'll have more time to do other things - that's really more a function of how long your commute is, as opposed to your workload. I guess if you have a long commute, it's definitely an advantage. Also, in most positions, if you come to an agreement with your employer to reduce your workload, you typically get paid less, and if you drop below 35 hours a week you might be denied benefits.
 
5. Retain a larger percentage of earnings for a higher quality of life

I'd like to see some statistics to back this up. From what I understand, most teleworkers get paid less than their counterparts who work in the office (can you name company that pays them the same or more?). And a lot of the time they don't get company benefits such as health insurance, which means the individual has to pay for it at higher, non-group rates. The main thing teleworkers save money on is transportation costs. Maybe your lunches are a little cheaper, too, since you can make them at home. I think it all comes out in the wash.
 
6. Provide hope and economic opportunity, especially in hard-hit rural areas for all workers and expand these opportunities to include:
 
(a) Military-service disabled veterans and others with disabilities
 
(b) Older workers who desire to remain in or need to reenter the workforce due to reduced retirement funds caused by the current economic conditions, and for part-time employment reducing reliance on costly publically funded benefit programs

I agree with this point fully. I think teleworking is a great solution for companies looking to recruit in rural areas. The big question is, will you find the talent you need in Northern Montana?  

 
For the Environment and within Communities:
 
7. Lower carbon footprints, greenhouse gas emissions, and improved air quality

Again, this is a good point and I agree with it fully. But teleworking will only reduce air pollution if we can get a significant portion of the population to work from home. One or two percent probably won't make that much of a difference.
 
8. Reduce dependence on foreign energy, especially petroleum products

Also a good point - but the debate over where we buy oil from, and whether we should, is kind of a separate topic.
 
9. Have fewer traffic accidents, less congestion, and reduce the need for maintaining costly transportation infrastructures

Also a good point - and very closely related to #7.
 
10. Decrease the impact from disruptive occurrences. These range from terrorist attacks, natural incidents such as severe weather conditions, pandemics, transit strikes, and bridge collapses to everyday situations such as family needs, traffic congestion, and car trouble, through the use of a widely dispersed workforce.

I understand the concept of, and importance of, business continuity - and in general I agree with this point - but here is something else to think about: If your workforce a spread out everywhere, you might actually be increasing the risk of certain workers not being able to work. For example, you could have three agents who live on the South Carolina coast, and when a hurricane hits, you lose those three workers for the day. But if your headquarters was in Colorado, and you kept all your workers "on site," then you would never incur the risk of losing those three teleworkers in S.C., right? So just the same way there is risk of keeping "all your eggs in one basket," there is also a risk that one of the above-mentioned disasters will impact your workforce to some degree, if it is more geographically spread out. Then you have the challenge of reallocating resources, which is never as easy as they say it is.
 
Like I said, I think these are all great points -- and I know where this report is coming from. But the report fails to address two of the biggest factors that are inhibiting the adoption and growth of teleworking solutions: The ability to monitor employee productivity and network security. (Sorry, I'll have to save those two topics for future posts ... ).

I wish TelCoa would publish a similar report, only this time identifying the top ten challenges to making teleworking more viable, and how these challenges can be overcome.
 
A report today from an online news outlet in the Philippines speculates that outsourcers, in their quest to attract good talent, have raised wages for call center workers in that country way too much in the past five years -- and now that the recession has hit they are finding these wage increases "unsustainable." The news comes despite the fact that the call center industry in the Philippines is predicted to grow 15 to 20 percent this year.

 
In the article, Benedict Hernandez, president of the Contact Center Association in the Philippines (CCAP), said that salaries of call center agents increased annually by 10 percent, starting in 2004, when the industry experienced rapid growth as the Philippines became a preferred outsourcing destination. He said 10 percent year-on-year salary inflation is "simply unsustainable," regardless of whether the country is in a recession or not.

The concern for outsourcers is that the call center industry in the Philippines, which represents about 70 percent of the BPO industry in that country, will end up pricing itself out of the market if call center workers continue to get higher wages. The problem is, the outsourcers will have to pass the cost of these higher wages onto their customers - and this could cause companies to terminate their contracts and seek outsourcing in other countries where labor is cheaper. It's basically a no-brainer when you consider that roughly 80 percent of any call center's operating budget is labor.

The article indicates that there are two other factors that have caused costs to rise considerably for call center outsourcers in the Philippines: First, there was a high number of holidays last year, and when call center workers are required to work on holidays they generally get time-an-a-half or double-time wages. The article also mentions that there has been an increase in recruiting efforts - the recruitment rate among call center companies rose from 5 percent to 8 percent - and this also equates to increased operational cost. Many of the BPO firms now offer language training to their agents, which boosts the cost of recruiting and training. Recruiting and training has also become more expensive due to the overall growth of the industry, which in turn has led to a smaller labor pool to draw on and a shortage of qualified applicants.
 

I was pleased to read that call center outsourcer Ryla is planning to hire an additional 600 full-time employees for its center in Saraland, Ala.

According to the article, Ryla offers a range of customized customer contact services, including inbound customer care, tech support, help desk, outbound data collection, surveys, automated messaging, retention programs and back office process support. It also focuses on delivering on-demand, project-based solutions requiring quick ramp-up for crisis response, seasonal retail and political needs - a growing niche in the contact center industry for which there are few providers. Founded in 2001, the company currently employs 550 full-time staff at its Saraland facility and 2,500 company-wide.

The only thing I wondered is what contracts the company recently won -- and what is driving the current growth.

This news is like a shaft of light breaking through the storm clouds - because, let's face it, for the past couple of years we've been witnessing a lot more call center closings than openings. At the very least, most companies are cutting back staffing at their centers. It's a stark contrast compared to 2006, when it seemed two centers were opening for every one that closed or downsized.

The way I look at it, there are two basic reasons why the call center industry is shrinking right now: Number one is the economy. People simply aren't buying goods and services the way they used to, so call volume has dropped significantly. This is especially true for the retail and ecommerce segments, which have been hammered by the recession. It's also true for the travel and hospitality industries as well. Yes, it's true that some industries haven't had to make serious cuts yet - for example, banks, utility companies, insurance companies and service providers still need to provide live customer service for years to come, simply because that is the nature of those more "commodity-type" industries.

That leads to the number two reason why I think the call center industry is shrinking right now: These companies are increasingly automating their customer service using IVR and Web-based self-service options. Now, you might argue that that isn't really "shrinkage" - that it is, in fact, growth, because the companies that deploy these automated systems tend to save on labor costs and gain new efficiencies (dare I say even improve customer service?). And consumers are growing increasingly accepting of these speech-enabled self-serve systems. So when I say automation is causing the industry to shrink, what I really mean is that it is reducing demand for live agents - not that it is causing a reduction in call volume. And of course, the vendors of these automated systems only stand to gain from the trend.

One thing I've learned in my past few years of covering the industry is that there's no reliable way for measuring all of this. For example, people frequently ask me if there's any "running list" of contact center outsourcers in the U.S., including the clients they serve, how many agents they employ and how many inbound/outbound contacts they handle -- or, say, any other combination of interesting stats -- and I can tell you that no such resource exists that I know of. One reason why is that most outsourcers go to contract under strict non-disclosure agreements: which outsourcer a firm uses is considered a "competitive advantage," so it's usually information that the outsourcer is prohibited from sharing. Sometimes an outsourcer will list some of its top clients on it Website -- just to validate and position itself in the marketplace -- but very often you can't tell whether the clients listed are current or past ones - nor do you have any clue how big the contract is/was. Another thing to consider is that many firms jump around from outsourcer to outsourcer (a friend of mine once joked that its like switching insurance carriers, you just never stay with the same one for long) - and then there's also the fact the many companies are multi-national and thus have centers and customers overseas or near-shore as well.

So the bottom line is, it's extremely difficult, if not impossible, to measure the growth of the industry, and, by the same token, the effects of the recession on it, simply based on the number of reports about this center opening or that center closing - nor is there any reliable source for tracking its growth or shrinkage, due to things like automation or battered consumer confidence, either. (However I will give some credit to the leading market research firms covering the industry, such as Datamonitor -- I do think they do a pretty good job of providing a picture of the industry's overall health.) That's why I recommend taking any reports about the industry shrinking or growing with a grain of salt.
 

TMC's offices are located in Norwalk, CT, and every now and then I've enjoyed driving over to the South Norwalk ("SoNo") section of town to have lunch or maybe do some shopping after work.

It's a fun, bustling and vibrant part of town - with lots of shops and restaurants and bars.

But due to a recent parking ticket I got I will never go back there to shop again.

Yes, getting the ticket was my fault: You see, the city uses this new kind of parking meter that I'm not that familiar with - it has a red flashing light at the top that tells the parking attendant that the meter is out of time. At the time I parked, on the street, I thought the red flashing light meant there was still time left on the meter. When I looked at the meter, I could have sworn it said there was still more than 30 minutes left, but apparently I didn't look close enough.

When I returned my car about 30 minutes later, there was a parking ticket on my car. The fine? $25. And there were empty spaces in front of, and behind my car. Plenty of empty spaces everywhere, in fact.

"Wow," I thought, "$25 for failing to put .50 cents in the meter? That's kind of harsh."

Then I did what most people do: I forgot about the ticket, which sat in my car for the next few weeks.

Then I got a notice in the mail from the Norwalk Parking Authority saying that the fine had doubled because I was more than two weeks late paying it.

Now the fine was $50 -- for failing to put .50 cents in the meter.

I immediately paid the fine. But I was really put-off by this. In my opinion these fines are way too harsh.

Just this one parking ticket was enough for me to decide that I'm never going to park in metered parking in South Norwalk again (at least not if I'm the one driving). I know it was my fault - but here's the thing: I could easily make the same mistake again. So, knowing myself, I've decided that it's simply not worth the risk.

Maybe I'm being a bit immature and "babyish" about this - but it's just how I feel. Also, I can't help but feel that the Norwalk Parking Authority took away $50 of my money that I might otherwise have spent on lunch, or drinks, or merchandise from on the many shops in South Norwalk. (Hey merchants, wouldn't you have liked to get that $50?)

Like a Pavlov's dog, I am now "conditioned" to never do anything that might have the same result: I will never, ever park my car in a metered location in South Norwalk again - and most of the parking there is metered.

The other day I was thinking about this experience and realizing that it's just one more reason why online shopping has become so popular. Sure, you have to pay for the shipping on the items you order - but at the same time you are saving money on gas and, in some instances, parking. Not to mention the time spent driving to retail locations.

It's also a way to avoid getting a parking ticket that quickly escalates to become a $50 fine. To me, that's pretty good motivation to skip certain retail districts altogether.

I wonder how the merchants of South Norwalk feel about this. Are they pleased with the enforcement because it keeps parking spaces in front of their shops open more often? Or could it be that the strict enforcement and harsh fines are driving prospective shoppers away? Seems to me it could work both ways - but I'm wondering if it's more one way than the other.
 
I recently heard a somewhat disturbing story about a woman who applied for a call center job in Connecticut - she had all the proper qualifications including past experience and the proper skill sets - but she was turned down because of her bad credit score. This wasn't a job at a financial services company or bank, either - actually it was at an ecommerce company.

In fact, I've heard quite a few stories lately about people being turned down for jobs because their credit is less than stellar. It seems employers are increasingly doing credit checks as part of their background checks on employees. I can see doing it for sales reps at an insurance company, bank or financial services firm - but for a $10-an-hour call center agent position at an ecommerce company? Wow.

There was another article today in the New York Times about a man who had worked hard and overcome great odds to get through law school and earn his law degree -- he even passed the bar exam -- only to be declined for a job due to the amount of student loan debt he had. Talk about irony.

I think this is reaching the point of utter ridiculousness: If people can't get decent jobs because of their credit reports, then how will they ever get out of debt, and how will we ever get this economy turned around? A few years ago, when companies were starting to do these credit checks more frequently, it seemed like only high paying jobs with lots of responsibility were the ones where your credit score was a factor the hiring process. Now that the unemployment has skyrocketed, it appears that even low paying jobs -- at big box stores, supermarkets, restaurants, gas stations, etc. -- are requiring background checks that include a peak at the applicant's credit picture as well. Considering that, in general, Americans' credit scores are currently getting worse, as opposed to getting better, it seems this is a topic that might warrant some attention - maybe even some revisions in the laws that apply to such background checks.

I suppose there are legitimate reasons why employers don't want to hire people with credit problems - it's an issue of trust, and I do believe that the way you handle money is a reflection of how responsible you are. But then again, this is basically a new form of discrimination that's entirely legal, and I'm not sure I agree with it.
 

Recent Comments

  • PaymentGuru: Yeah, I agree with you. We can easily earn money read more
  • Concierge: This is the greatest post I have come across so read more
  • jack: intersting stuff. i guess im late too because i just read more
  • Jonty - Call Centre Helper: Microsoft have been trying for a while to make a read more
  • Vaibhav: Outsourcing always have fruitful result to the oprational firm's. read more
  • daniel143 daniel: To succeed, enterprises should leverage contact center technology broadly into read more
  • Greg Howlett: I will add that you also have to watch the read more
  • John Micheal: we are inviting you to try http://www.conciant.com the true virtual read more
  • ML: There are already ways to fake fingerprints. It's call fingerprint read more
  • Anon: There's a lot more to the cvsa story: http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/story?id=1786421 read more

Subscribe to Blog

Categories

  • VoIP

Blogroll

Around TMCnet Blogs

Latest Whitepapers

TMCnet Videos