Disqus - Latest Comments for Undress4Success

Re: From Britain to Russia, National Exceptionalism Is Dangerous - Bloomberg

Kate Lister — Sun, 21 Jun 2020 10:11:52 -0000

I guess this is just an opinion so facts aren't required, but the author's complete disregard for reality is over-the-top.

"The economic benefits of close proximity are well known." - Really? What studies support that?

"Under “work from anywhere,” professional networks would fray, or wouldn’t even form." - I guess companies ought to stop going global then.

"Creativity would suffer." - Hmm. All the science I've read shows ideas are best spawned in private, and best vetted in groups.

"Career opportunities, particularly for young people, would diminish." - I'll bet the sky will fall down too.

"Lifetime productivity would fall." - Every study I've read, including meta-studies of peer-reviewed research show productivity increases with remote work.

We recently completed a 76-page report on the results of a Global Work-from-Home Experience Survey. Among the findings (from 2,800 respondents):
- Employees reported gaining back more than a half hour a day due to fewer interruptions. And that's during the pandemic!
- Only 6% don't want to work from home in the future. Seventy-six percent want to at least weekly.
- Their preference for work-from-home, going forward is half time.
- 76% of managers felt productivity was the same or better then when their people were in the office.
- On average, respondents felt equally satisfied with their performance at home vs. the office (71% vs. 72% respectively).
- Unpacking that, respondents felt significantly more satisfied with their ability to manage distractions at home (32 percentage points more satisfied than in the office), focus (29% gap), think creatively/innovating (18% gap), but less satisfied with collaborative work (25% more satisfied at the office) and coaching/mentoring (30% gap).

I don't get why everyone loves to make this conversation polar—it's all remote or all at the office. It's a mix that works best. Home is where you go to concentrate. The office is where you go to collaborate, at least when you don't have stay 6' apart and wear a mask.

Re: The Employee Experience: It’s Trickier (and more important) Than You Thought

Kate Lister — Wed, 17 Apr 2019 15:37:38 -0000

Great article Josh, but might I suggest you also bring Real Estate to the table? Workplace designers and strategists are deeply involved in the employee experience conversation. Often, a office renovation, expansion, consolidation, or move sets the stage for thinking about how the workplace impacts people. Sadly, all too often, these conversations do not include IT or HR. We're all dancing around the same fire but we're not talking to each other.

Re: The Death of Telework

Kate Lister — Thu, 16 Feb 2017 15:17:04 -0000

Great post John. Sharon Wall (GSA Regional Administrator) has a line I love, "Telework doesn't create management problems, it reveals them." In this global, mobile society, whether people are 9 floors, 9 miles, or 9 time zones away, they are connecting remotely. The days of managing by walking around are gone forever because, like Elvis, the people have already left the building. Office occupancy studies across the globe confirm this. A typical office is only 50% to 60% occupied during work hours. What a huge waste.

Depending on the industry, between 65% and 80% of US employees say they would like work at home at least part of the time. Multiple studies show 30-40% say would give up some pay for the privilege. The primary benefits are a reduction in the time and stress of commuting (a savings of, on average, the equivalent of 11 workdays a year for a half-time telecommuter) and increased control over one’s schedule. Two studies (including one by the Federal Government) showed an increase in employee satisfaction from just the offer of telecommuting, even among employees who don’t take advantage of it.

The benefits for employers are equally clear. A typical employer can save approximately $11,000 per year for every half-time telecommuter. Those savings are well-documented and the result of increased productivity, reduced real estate costs, lower absenteeism and turnover, and improved disaster preparedness. Work by the Gallup organization additionally indicates a positive correlation between employee engagement, something employers are struggling to improve, and telecommuting.

Let's stop calling it telework or telecommuting and deal with the reality that people are working anywhere, everywhere, and all times. Resisting it is useless. The genie is not going back in the bottle. What employers should be doing (the good ones already are) is putting the policies, practices, and training in place to optimize the results for people, planet, and profits.

Re: Big Idea 2015: The Future of Work Is Already Here

Kate Lister — Tue, 13 Jan 2015 16:43:31 -0000

Well said Maria. My line is, "the employees have already left the building." Organizations can either let things happen or make it happen. We need to stop wringing our hands about that and start embracing it in a way that helps them succeed.

Re: Can Google Revolutionize Email Again?

Kate Lister — Sat, 25 Oct 2014 12:05:28 -0000

I don't get it. It doesn't sync to gmail so if I need to go back to my desktop email or I'm not online, I can't access my mail.

Re: Too Distracted to Work: The Dark Side of Open Offices

Kate Lister — Tue, 18 Mar 2014 13:19:50 -0000

Are the savings worth it? If you do the math, it looks like NEAD saved about 80,000 a year in rent. Assuming an average salary of $80k and a person to sales ratio of 2:1, it would only take 2.5% decrease in productivity among the 20 employees to wipe out the savings. False economy?

Re: Some Managers Hope Next Administration Will Abandon Telework - Nextgov.com

Kate Lister — Sat, 14 Sep 2013 10:55:11 -0000

Did I say anything about productivity? What's happening is that leading employers are retrofitting spaces to include a mix of quite spaces and social spaces. Third places are becoming the place for concentrative work and offices are becoming places for collaborative work.

Re: Some Managers Hope Next Administration Will Abandon Telework - Nextgov.com

Kate Lister — Sat, 14 Sep 2013 10:53:11 -0000

Good to hear Tom. Thank you for bringing up the eldercare issue. I don't think employers have a clue about just how big that's going to be.

Re: Some Managers Hope Next Administration Will Abandon Telework - Nextgov.com

Kate Lister — Fri, 13 Sep 2013 18:40:28 -0000

Where did I say shared desks increased productivity? I said telework did. The jury is still out on the impact of open offices and shared desks on productivity, creativity and innovation.

Re: Expanding Federal Telework Could Save $12 Billion a Year - Nextgov.com

Kate Lister — Fri, 13 Sep 2013 18:35:47 -0000

Hmm. We're just back from a conference where about 1,000 federal managers eagerly listened to agency leaders about how they've succeeded with telework. We even toured GSA's recently renovated building that based almost entirely on hoteling. The building originally accommodated only about 2,000. By the time they're done, it will accommodate at least twice as many. As a result, they were able to give up a number of other office buildings.

Re: the danger of getting telecommuting wrong

Kate Lister — Wed, 09 Jan 2013 13:10:55 -0000

Here's my take on the Slate article and the bogus study it cites:

Here’s a classic case of a writer who has a premise--telework is bad for work-life balance--and then either finds research to support it, or twists the findings so they do.

My organization has read, cataloged, and tagged over 2,000 studies on various aspects of telework so I can say, with facts to back me up, that telework has proven to be good for employees, employers and the environment.

No one is forcing the people to telework. They choose to largely because it reduces stress and improves work-life balance. WorldatWork, the Federal Viewpoint Survey, and hundreds of other studies suggest that somewhere between 60 and 80% of employees would jump at the chance to work at home, at least some of the time. More than a third would even take a pay cut for the opportunity [WorldatWork].

So let's look at the studies quoted here starting with the one from the Monthly Labor Review (MLR).

It's bad enough that the study was paid for with our tax dollars, but it's even worse that those who quote it haven't bothered to ask some basic questions about its validity.

Here are some of the more glaring problems with the study:

1) The research is based on data from 1997 to 2004. Weren't we still using pagers back then?

2) Isn't it possible that the kind of people who take work home and work extra hours are the same people who are most likely to telecommute? Telecommuters are among the highest paid, trusted, and engaged employees [The State of Telework in the US. Yes, we published it, but the 100+ footnotes show that it is based on solid research and actual facts.].

3) The average half-time telecommuter saves 12 days a year by not driving to work [Workshifting: The Bottom Line Benefits]. Yes, that takes into account that not all driving is reduced with telework. The MLR study referenced in this article shows that the amount of "overtime" amounts to only 2 to 3 hours a week. Twelve days in exchange for three hours doesn't seem like a bad tradeoff to me.

4) Ninety percent of teleworkers feel being able to work flexibly improves their quality of life. It's about flexibility and being better able to both have a job and have a life.

5) Taking work home to work on your own time, the criteria in the MLR study, is not telecommuting.

By the way, I'm not saying that some teleworkers don't work harder. Research shows they give back an average of 50 to 60% of the time they'd have otherwise spent commuting, for example. That still leaves another 40 to 50% of commute time savings.

The Pew Study
Regarding the author's interpretation of the Pew study, his assertion that it's just the telecommuters who are answering email late at night is completely unsubstantiated. The Pew study concluded that we're all doing it.

The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) Article about Tracking Employee Activity
Quoting directly from the cited WSJ article, it says “The systems are used mainly to secure sensitive data and comply with government rules, but they also generate lots of personal information on employees' online behavior. To avoid violating employees' privacy, employers should tell employees they're being monitored and track only business-related activities, attorneys say."

The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) Article about OPM and ROWE
Regarding the Office of Personnel Management's (OPM) cancellation of the Results Only Work Environment (ROWE) pilot, the author is also missing some facts.

First, ROWE and telework are not synonymous. ROWE is based on creating an entire culture of trust that supports an “anywhere, anytime” work philosophy. That aside, what really happened (based on conversations I've had with high level OPM officials as well as the architects of ROWE) was that the pilot exposed the slackers. When people were being measured by results, they failed. Unfortunately, as government employees, they couldn't be fired.

In any event, I don't see how the ROWE outcome supports the author's premise that telework reduces work-life balance. If OPM found that some people weren’t working as hard when they weren’t in the office, that would suggest a better work-life balance, wouldn’t it?

The Reduced Travel Debate
There is much debate over whether telework reduces commuter travel. For those who do so full time (a minority, the national average is 2.4 days a week), it may actually add trips and vehicle miles. Rather than chaining errands with the commute, special trips have to be made to, say, pick up the dry cleaning.

Research by the Reason Foundation suggests that, depending on the frequency, teleworkers reduce their travel by 55 to 75%.

In any case, the reality is that the employees have already left the building--occupancy studies repeatedly show people spend 60% of their time away from their desk.

Thanks to technology, work is already mobile and the genie isn’t going back in the bottle. So whether your employees are 9 feet, 9 miles, or 9 time zones away, if you're not measuring by results, you're not managing, you're babysitting.

Re: the danger of getting telecommuting wrong

Kate Lister — Wed, 09 Jan 2013 13:07:17 -0000

Really well said! Sharon Wall, US GSA Regional Administrator's take: Telework doesn't create management problems, it reveals them.

Re: Has Telework Growth Slowed?

Kate Lister — Mon, 21 Nov 2011 14:43:07 -0000

Kate Lister of the Telework Research Network here. I'm the author of one of the studies you mentioned. I thought I might elaborate on the telework trend.

Our research (based on U.S. Census/American Community Survey data) shows that regular telecommuting (half-time or more) has increased steadily for the past 5 years. Though the growth slowed during the recession, it still far outpaced that of the overall workforce (which grew only about 4% in the same period and actually lost ground in 2009) and the self-employed workforce (which grew less than 2% from 2005 to 2009 and declined in both 2008 and 2009).

WorldatWork's data is based on a survey of about occasional telecommuting (as infrequent as one day a month). Their 2011 report showed that in the wake of a 74 percent increase in occasional telecommuters between 2005 and 2008, there was a small decline in 2008 and 2010. A little less than half of that decline was the result of decline in the overall labor market.

The WorldatWork report also says: "At first glance, the data might lead most to conclude that teleworking stalled in 2010. However, the decline likely is due a combination of factors: fewer Americans in the workforce overall due to high unemployment, higher anxiety surrounding job security, and lack of awareness of telework options."

On balance, the small loss of occasional telecommuters reported by WorldatWork is about equal to the gain in those who do so regularly. Perhaps companies realized they could save money by converting occasional teleworkers to regular ones.

Re: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/nov/18/bill-promoting-federal-teleworking-goes-to-obama/

Kate Lister — Fri, 19 Nov 2010 19:17:08 -0000

Yesterday's passage of the Telework Enhancement Act of 2010 (H.R. 1722) could save taxpayers over $15 billion a year! The staggering costs of lost productivity from federal workers during last Winter's snowstorms--estimated by the government at $71 million a day--would pay for the five year cost of a telework program for federal workers (estimated by OPM at $30 million) in just one snow day.

While 61% of the federal workforce holds a telework-compatible job, less than 8% of those eligible do so on a regular basis. Using assumptions from a 2006 study by the U.S. General Services Administration (conducted by Booz Allen), the Telework Research Network estimates that that if those eligible employees who wanted to work from home (79% according to a recent Federal Telework Study) did so just one day a week (the level set by H.R. 1722):

Agencies would:

- Increase productivity by over $4.6 billion each year - equivalent to 26,000 man years of work
- Save $850 million in annual real estate, electricity, and related costs
- Save $2.3 billion in annual absenteeism
- Save $3.1 billion in annual employee turnover
- Improve continuity of operations
- Improve work life balance and better address the needs of families, parents, and senior caregivers.
- Avoid the ‘brain drain’ effect of retiring boomers by allowing them to work flexibly
- Be able to recruit and retain the best people
- Offer fuller employment for disabled workers, rural residents, and military families

Federal Employees would:

- Achieve a better work-life balance
- Save $800-$2,700/year in transportation and work-related expenses
- Collectively save 114 million gallons of gas / year
- Suffer fewer illnesses

The Nation would:

- Save almost 6 million barrels and $465 million in imported oil
- Reduce greenhouse gases by 1 million tons/year—the equivlient of taking 193,000 cars off the road
- Reduce road travel by 2.3 billion miles/year
- Reduce road congestion thereby increasing productivity for non-teleworkers as well
- Save over 1,900 people from traffic-related injury or death each year and save $234 million a year in related costs
- Improve emergency responsiveness
- Reduce pollution from road work and new office construction
- Preserve open spaces
- Alleviate the strain on our crumbling transportation infrastructure
- Reduce terrorism targets of opportunity

Kate Lister, Principal Researcher
TeleworkResearchNetwork.com

Re: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/nov/18/bill-promoting-federal-teleworking-goes-to-obama/

Kate Lister — Fri, 19 Nov 2010 19:11:44 -0000

While 61% of the federal workforce holds a telework-compatible job, less than 8% of those eligible do so on a regular basis. Using assumptions from a 2006 study by the U.S. General Services Administration (conducted by Booz Allen), our Telework Savings Calculator estimates that that if those eligible employees who wanted to work from home (79% according to a recent Federal Telework Study) did so just one day a week (the level set by H.R. 1722):

Agencies would:

Federal Employees would:

- Achieve a better work-life balance
- Save $800-$2,700/year in transportation and work-related expenses
- Collectively save 114 million gallons of gas / year
- Suffer fewer illnesses

The Nation would:

Kate Lister
TeleworkResearchNetwork.com

Re: http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/217473

Kate Lister — Mon, 08 Nov 2010 13:54:53 -0000

Where are the facts to base this article up?

1) "...many people report some level of dissatisfaction with electronic communications"
What study did he read? How many is that?

2) "...work-anywhere telecommuting trend seems to be in decline"
Really. The census bureau doesn't seem to know about this trend. Their numbers how just the opposite as do about a dozen other studies on the topic.

3) "...more companies are requiring their employees to be on-site"
Hmm, my research based on a synthesis of over 250 case studies, scholarly reviews, research papers, books, and interviews with the nation’s largest and smallest virtual employers and their employees, corporate executives, telework advocates and naysayers, top researchers, legislators, legal representatives, leaders of successful telework advocacy programs in both the public and private sector, and venture capitalists who have invested in the remote work model, shows just the opposite.

4) "In quite a few organizations..."
How many? More than the 80% of Fortune 1000 companies that allow telecommuting?

5) ". . .core-time mandate ensures that communication and contact between everyone flows more easily and efficiently, and reduces the multitude of messages left on voice mail or e-mail."
What century is this? Study after study shows that a combination of synchronous and asynchronous communication is more efficient and less disruptive.

6) " . . . positive working relationship. This cannot be created electronically."
Don't tell the thousands of companies that are making it work.

7) "The rush to a highly flexible scheduling system for employee hours has revealed a number of disadvantages..."
How many? What are they? How do they compare to these advantages:

If those employees who held telework-compatible jobs (about 40% of the population) and wanted to work from home (about 80% of the population) did so just half of the time (roughly the national average for those who do):

The Nation would:

- Save 289 million barrels of oil—equivalent to 37% of our Persian Gulf imports
- Reduce greenhouse gases by 53 million tons/year—27% of the President’s 2020 goal
- Reduce road travel by 115 billion miles/year saving $2 billion in road maintenance
- Reduce road congestion thereby increasing productivity for non-telecommuters as well
- Save 100,000 people from traffic-related injury or death
- Improve emergency responsiveness
- Reduce pollution from road work and new office construction
- Preserve open spaces
- Reduce the number of latchkey kids
- Alleviate the strain on our crumbling transportation infrastructure
- Reduce the offshoring of jobs and homeshore some that have already been lost
- Raise the standard of living in rural and disadvantaged areas
- Open new avenues for workforce retraining
- Reduce terrorism targets of opportunity

In total, that’s an economic impact of almost $650 billion a year!

In all fairness, this article isn't a poorly researched as one I read a couple of weeks ago in the Vancouver Sun ( http://www.vancouversun.com.... At least Entrepreneur offers its readers a chance to comment.

Re: President Obama Pushing Telework for Federal Agencies

Kate Lister — Tue, 19 Oct 2010 21:29:18 -0000

A new Telework Research Network study shows that a company could save $1,100,000 if they allowed 100 workers to work at home just half the time. Conducted independently but released as a whitepaper titled 'Workshifting: Bottom Line Benefits' (sponsored by Citrix Online), the study quantifies the business, individual, and societal impact that regular telecommuting could have on the nation, and for small to mid-size companies. Nationwide, the impact would exceed $645 billion.

Businesses with 100 teleworkers would annually:

- Increase productivity by $575,000 by getting more work done with the same number of people
- Save $304,000 in real estate, electricity, and related costs
- Save $113,000 in absenteeism related costs
- Save $76,000 in employee turnover
- Improve continuity of operations
- Avoid environmental sanctions, city access fees, etc.
- Improve work life balance and better address the needs of families, parents, and senior caregivers.
- Avoid the ‘brain drain’ effect of retiring boomers by allowing them to work flexibly
- Be able to recruit and retain the best people
- Better address the needs of disabled workers, rural residents, and military families

Visit http://tinyurl.com/3ybga87 to download a copy of the whitepaper. A webinar based on the study is at http://tinyurl.com/22r86t2 (sign in required).

More than 30% of U.S. workers say they'd take a pay cut for the opportunity to work at home, and 80% of all workers say they want to telecommute. Yet less than 2% of U.S. employees work from home the majority of the time (not including the self-employed), although at least 40% hold jobs that are compatible with telework.

The Telework Research Network has synthesized over 250 case studies, scholarly reviews, research papers, books, and other documents on telecommuting and related topics. The company has interviewed the nation’s largest and smallest virtual employers and their employees, corporate executives, telework advocates and naysayers, top researchers, leaders of successful telework advocacy programs in both the public and private sector, and venture capitalists who have invested in the remote work model.

Using the latest Census data, and assumptions from dozens of government and private sector sources, they company developed a model to quantify the economic, environmental, and societal potential on telecommuting for every, city, county, Congressional District, and state in the nation. The model has been used by company and community leaders throughout the U.S. and Canada to quantify the extent to which telecommuting can reduce greenhouse gases and petroleum usage, save money, improve work-life balance, increase employee loyalty and turnover, reduce absenteeism, increase productivity, and reduce highway congestion and traffic accidents. It's available free on the web at http://tinyurl.com/32bzqau along with a model that allows companies and communities to quantify their own potential telecommuting savings. Custom calculations, based on over two dozen variables and 60 parameters, are also available to evaluate unique community and company situations

Kate Lister, principal investigator, and Tom Harnish, senior scientist at the Telework Research Network are authors of a popular press book, 'Undress For Success—The Naked Truth About Working At Home' (Wiley 2009). The book has won the praise of top telework and worklife advocates including WorldatWork, the Canadian Telework Association, the Sloan Foundation.

The Telework Research Network research has been quoted in the Wall Street Journal, Harvard Business Review, and dozens of other publications. More about telecommuting, the pros and cons, who's doing it, and other resources for companies, individuals and researchers is available atTeleworkResearchNetwork.com.

Re: Referral Counter

Kate Lister — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 21:24:46 -0000

If you're a writer and you're not reading Deb Ng's blog, http://FreelanceWritingGigs..., I highly recommend it. I follow very few blogs that always deliver great content, but she sure does. I don't know how she so consistently gets to the heart of the matter.

Re: Referral Counter

Kate Lister — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 11:33:23 -0000

I referred social media guru Scott Allen (http://socialmediaismymiddl... for an AMEX Open writing gig with KillerAces.com (http://killeraces.com).

Re: DISA telecommuters can work just fine even with more snow

Kate Lister — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 20:46:56 -0000

Kudos to DISA and the many other agencies that have embraced telecommuting. Productivity improvements and being able to work during a snowstorm are just two of the many benefits of a home-based workforce. Telework offers a relatively simple, inexpensive solution to some of the world’s most vexing problems.

Currently less than 3% of the U.S. workforce telecommutes the majority of the time (not including the self-employed), but 40% hold jobs that could be done from home. If those employees who could telecommute did so just half of the time (roughly the national average for those who already do):

- The nation would save 453 million barrels of oil (57% of Gulf oil imports)—a national savings of $31 billion per year (at $70/barrel)
- The environment would be saved from 84 million tons or greenhouse gases a year—that's over 40% of President Obama's goal for GHG reduction by 2020.
- The energy potential from the gas savings alone would total than twice what the U.S. produces from all renewable energy source combined.
- National productivity would increase by 6.2 million man-years or $200 billion worth of work each year.
- Businesses would save $194 billion annually in real estate, electricity, absenteeism, and turnover.
- Employees would individually save between $2,500 and $11,000 in transportation and work-related costs (not including daycare and eldercare costs)
- Employees would gain back an extra 2.5 weeks worth of time per year—time they’d have otherwise spent commuting.
- Communities would save over $3 billion in highway maintenance because 180 billion fewer miles would be driven each year.
- 150,000 people/year would be saved from traffic-related injury or death.
- $18 billion a year would be saved in accident-related costs.

In total, that's an economic impact of over $750 billion a year.

These conclusions were derived from our web-based Telework Savings Model. Based on the latest U.S. Census American Community Survey figures and data from over a dozen authoritative studies, the model calculates what every city, county, region, Congressional District, and State in the nation could save through telework. A custom calculator allows companies to change dozens of our standard assumptions to better model their own situations. It has been used by hundreds of company and community leaders throughout the U.S. and Canada to make the case for more telework.

Over the past several years, we have reviewed and cataloged over 250 studies on telework and related topics. We've interviewed dozens of virtual employers, employees, advocates, and even venture capitalists who've invested in the remote work model. Our research has been quoted in the Wall Street Journal, Harvard Business Review, Washington Post, and dozens of other publications.

Frustrated, by managements' reluctance to allow their employees work untethered, we aimed our popular-press book Undress For Success -- The Naked Truth About Making Money at Home (John Wiley & Sons 2009), at creating a ground-up telework movement by empowering employees to negotiate, find, or create work at home opportunities. Jack Nilles, the grandfather or telework, wrote the foreword the book. It has won the praise of work-life and telework advocates including the Telework Coalition, Telework Canada, WorldatWork, and many others.

It's time to make the road less traveled the way to work.

Kate Lister
http://TeleworkResearchNetw...

Re: Going Virtual

Kate Lister — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 15:34:33 -0000

In spite of all the play telecommuting gets in the press, less than 3% of U.S. employees consider home their primary place of work. If those with work-at-home compatible jobs did so just half of the time (roughly the national average for those who already do):

- Corporate productivity would increase by 6.2 million man-years or $200 billion worth of work each year;
- Businesses would save $194 billion annually in real estate, electricity, absenteeism, and turnover;
- Employees would individually save between $2,500 and $11,000 in transportation and work-related costs (not including daycare and eldercare costs;
- Employees would gain back an extra 2.5 weeks worth of time per year—time they’d have otherwise spent commuting.
-The nation would save 453 million barrels of oil (57% of Gulf oil imports)—a national savings of $31 billion per year (at $70/barrel);
- The environment would be saved from 84 million tons or greenhouse gases a year—that's over 40% of President Obama's goal for GHG reduction by 2020;
- The energy potential from the gas savings alone would total than twice what the U.S. produces from all renewable energy source combined;
- Communities would save over $3 billion in highway maintenance because 180 billion fewer miles would be driven each year;
- 150,000 people/year would be saved from traffic-related injury or death;
- $18 billion a year would be saved in accident-related costs.

In total, that adds up to an economic impact of over $750 billion a year!

Re: Going Virtual

Kate Lister — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 15:26:42 -0000

Congrats on your decision to make the road less traveled the way to work. I'd be happy to send you a copy of my book, Undress For Success—The Naked Truth About Making Money at Home (Wiley 2009). It covers the who, what, why, and how of working from home.

For employees, it offers advice on how to successfully pitch a work-at-home program to your boss or find a new employer who loves the idea. For freelancers, Undress For Success offers a guide for how to find, price and get paid for their work. And for those who want to start a home business, it reveals the motivations, talents, and resources they’ll need to get started; identifies best-bet home businesses; and offers true stories about what it’s like to work and sleep under the same roof.

For employers or government leaders, the book quantifies how an at-home workforce can save money, increase productivity, reduce attrition, slow global warming, and much more.

I hope your experiment shows others the way home!

Re: Going Virtual

Kate Lister — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 15:08:56 -0000

I'm curious. How many employees are involved in the experiment? If you'll let me know, I'll calculate the carbon impact of your move. Or, if you prefer, you can do it yourself at http://undress4success.com/...

Re: eBook pricing may force an eBook Napster soon

Kate Lister — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 11:41:09 -0000

I'm with you Jeff. The publishing industry has had fair warning that the meteorite is headed this way. If they continue to stand their ground, they'll go the way of the dinosaurs.

Frankly, I'm amazed that a Napster/PirateBay-like competitor hasn't already eaten them alive. We wrote our first book for a major publisher almost fifteen years ago. Negotiating for the electronic rights at the time was a no-brainer. We made far more in electronic distribution (starting with floppy disks if you can imagine), than they did in book sales. When we wrote our latest book, it was like pulling teeth to get the publisher to even allow us to distribute review copies electronically.

Can you spell mass extinction?