Argument No. 2 advocates of telecommuting employee fewer trips, thus saving time and less stress
Reducing the number of employee trips offer many benefits both socially and for economies of energy. But this reduction is not always as important as was hoped.
Reduced transport time for the employee.
"Since I started teleworking, I won three of transport by day ..." or "... I avoid two hours of traffic jams on the road ... "Or" Now I go to the customer without going through my office .... "
In reality, these gains are not always as obvious.
one hand, most employees are teleworkers in the company premises at least two days a week to meet colleagues and attend meetings. Compliance with this provision, provided in a large number of contracts telecommuting, ensures that the teleworker is disconnected from the corporate life. But that means the economics of travel time between home and work is only 40% over a 5-day week.
other hand, a number of telecommuters will continue to do what they did before, that is to say going to the customer or supplier directly from their home. This means that the time of transport are the same
Reduced stress related to transportation and schedule adherence
is an advantage which can be important whenever there is a need for means of transport and meet schedules (given that those are rare and those who come on foot or by bike in the company). Breakdowns and strikes in public transport, congestion or car breakdowns are very important sources of tress that reduces, in part, telecommuting.
Obviously this reduction is limited to days during which the employee is not getting into the business.
other hand, stress the schedule adherence of the company persists in large part if the teleworker must meet a "window of availability" (as we saw in the discussion of the argument # 1) .
Finally, the stress is sometimes replaced by those linked to local constraints, especially in the management of entries and exits of school to accompany or go pick up children.
