Exploring Yahoo's "No Work From Home" Policy

By Mason Bolton III

There has been a huge bally hoo surrounding the new "no work from home" policy, recently instituted by Marissa Mayer, CEO and head honcho over at Yahoo.

Since then, I've been following this story, trying to determine in my own mind how I feel about it. Work at home is certainly valuable to employees, so the real question on the table is whether it benefits the company too?

The policy has been cast as insensitive, draconian, and even anti-woman, but I think it is none of these things. Whenever the "work at home" policy arises, it is important to go back to the question above - WHO benefits the most.

If the answer is the employees, then you have your answer. The company must be run for the benefit of the company, and NOT for the benefit of the employees. It's that simple. It is Mayer's purview to decide just what IS in the best interest of the company - and she has decided that "work at home" does not meet this criteria.

Yes, a company should try to meet the employees half way. Free coffee, team building exercises, even floating holidays are all popular ways that companies use to improve employee morale - but even these are not entitlements. If they begin to negatively affect the company's ability to progress AS a company, then employees can purchase their coffee at Starbucks - can they not?

I've heard complaints that it affects the work/life balance, that flexibility is required to keep employees happy. We should remember that employees are there to WORK first, and to be happy second. If one of these has to go - then surely it must be the latter, or there will BE no company, and that won't make any body happy.

As for flexibility, I am sure that Mayer is no tyrant. I have worked for technical companies as an engineer myself - and I can tell you that when you gotta be out - then you gotta be out. Nobody is going to stomp on you.

Even if we consider the TYPE of employee, nothing changes. If the employee is on salary (exempt) then "work at home" might be thought of as a right - but it is not. The company has somewhat less control over your time - but they still control WHERE you spend it when you ARE on the clock.

An hourly employee (non-exempt) has the right to demand overtime for any additional hours required of them by the company, but here too - WHERE you work when on the clock - is the right of the company to decide.

So there you have it - the "work at home" question in a nutshell.

This article won't put the issue to rest - but hopefully it will add a new perspective to the issue. Working for a company is just that - WORK. Nobody has a right to anything not covered in their contract - and you won't find the right to work from the location of your choice covered there - I think I can promise you.

Companies aren't always right - don't get me wrong - but in this case - I think Mayer well within her rights. After reading the foregoing - What's your take?

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Mason_Bolton_III