This file was prepared for electronic distribution by the inforM staff. Questions or comments should be directed to inform-editor@umail.umd.edu. Alternative Work Schedules Definitions The Federal Government uses the term "alternative work schedules," or "AWS," to describe two different work schedule variations -- flexitime and compressed work hours. Each of these represents a different kind of adjustment to the traditional fixed schedule of 8 working hours per day, 5 days per week, which begin and end at the same times each day. According to the Federal Personnel Manual, flexitime and compressed work schedules are defined as follows: * "Flexitime means a system of work scheduling which splits the workday into two distinct kinds of time -- core time and flexible time. The two requirements under any flexitime schedule are: (a) the employee must be at work during core time, and (b) the employee must account for the total number of hours he or she is scheduled to work." * A compressed work schedule for a full-time employee is "... an 80-hour biweekly basic work requirement which is scheduled for less than 10 workdays ... -43 Both of these AWS programs have multiple options available. Under compressed work schedules, for example, there are "5-4/9" workweeks (5 days one week and 4 days the next week), 4-day workweeks, and 3-day workweeks. Each of these requires the employee to work, under a fixed schedule, more than 8 hours per day. As a result of working these longer days, the employee is able to work fewer than 10 days in each 2-week pay period. In contrast, under the various flexitime options (flexitour, gliding schedule, variable day or week schedule, and maxiflex schedule), employees are only required to put in 8 working hours per day, but they have the flexibility to vary their starting and stopping times. Under some flexitime options, employees can also accrue "credit hours" when they do work more than 8 hours in a day (thus occasionally earning the right to take an extra day off by using their credit hours as if they were annual leave hours), but this is not a required aspect of participation in flexitime. Historical Perspective on AWS Programs While pervasive in the Federal Government now, AWS programs did not exist only 20 years ago. In fact, they were made a permanent part of Federal personnel regulations only in 1985. According to OPM, at the time of their inception, limited flexitime programs were possible only through some "creative" interpretation of existing time and attendance rules: The first flexible schedule in the Federal sector was implemented by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) in Albuquerque, New Mexico, in late 1972. Following the BIA experiment, flexible schedules spread to the Social Security Administration Headquarters (SSA) in Baltimore, Maryland, in 1974, and then to several organizational elements in various Federal agencies. Both the BIA and SSA began their experiments with flexible schedules because of employee tardiness, lost productivity, low morale, and, in the case of SSA, an extensive amount of leave without pay (LWOP). In both cases, when employees were allowed to select their arrival time under the flexible schedules, productivity and morale improved, and, in SSA, LWOP decreased. However, it was not until 1979 that more innovative and aggressive approaches were formally made legal. At that time, Public Law 95-390, the Federal Employee's Flexible and Compressed Work Schedules Act of 1978 (effective Mar. 29, 1979), established a 3-year, experimental program designed to test the feasibility and efficacy of using flexible and compressed work schedules. This legislation, based on proposals submitted by the Civil Service Commission (now OPM), authorized several new options, including "credit hours" and schedules running over 8 hours per day without the necessity of paying overtime rates. OPM was a key player in this experiment, as it was responsible for planning, organizing, establishing, and managing the test program. Moreover, the legislation required OPM to specifically evaluate the effects of the AWS program on six specific areas: the efficiency of Government operations; mass transit facilities and traffic; levels of energy consumption; service to the public; increased opportunities for full-time and part-time employment; and individuals and families generally. OPM's favorable conclusions about the AWS experiment in its September 1981 "Interim Report on the Alternative Work Schedules Experimental Program" led to Congress' passage of the Federal Employees Flexible and Compressed Work Schedules Act of 1982. The legislative history for this act nicely sums up the many positive benefits which AWS had brought to the Government and its employees: The benefits of [flexitime and compressed work] schedules to employees were over-whelming. Working parents could structure their work schedules to best attend to their children's needs. Appointments outside of the office could be more easily scheduled without the necessity of taking sick or annual leave. Travel times to and from the office were reduced. Employees generally had a greater degree of control over their work lives which provided them with more time to devote to non-work activities. The benefits of these schedules to government, when utilized in a proper fashion, were also significant. Hours of service to the public increased. Tardiness and absenteeism of employees were reduced. Energy consumption in buildings decreased. General productivity was enhanced. -44 As with most things, notwithstanding its many positive benefits, AWS did have some downside consequences as well. Again, according to the legislative history: ... improper use of alternative work schedules did have some serious repercussions. In some cases, productivity and work performance declined. Service to the public was delayed and hindered. Workers were unavailable when needed. Costs increased... The result of the experimental program showed that the use of alternative work schedules can be beneficial to all concerned when the schedules are used properly. While the 1982 act established AWS as an ongoing program, rather than a test, it also set a 3-year sunset provision on the program. During this 3-year period, OPM, GAO, and the House Subcommittee on Human Resources (among others) conducted further reviews and evaluations of AWS. The consensus reflected in these studies was summed up in 1985 testimony by GAO, which said: "Overall, efficiency of operations, service to the public, employment opportunities, and employee morale have improved." - 45 Given this conclusion, Congress made the authorization for AWS permanent in Public Law 99-196, which was signed into law on December 23, 1985. Current Federal Use of AWS Programs In making AWS permanent, Congress positioned the Government as a trend-setter in the use of flexible work schedules. As the Nation's largest employer, the Government, when it adopts a program like AWS, legitimizes the concept for many other employers who might otherwise have held back. Figure 3 (displayed earlier in the "Background" chapter of this report) demonstrated this effect, as it showed that over half of employers responding to one survey now offer flexitime, and this percentage is expected to increase among the responding employers to about 86 percent by the year 2000. In terms of actual use by employees, the Federal Government still leads the rest of the country. As figure 5 below shows, more Federal workers are on flexible work schedules than are workers from other sectors of the economy. The Federal Government's 19-percent participation rate for flexitime use by full-time wage and salary workers is almost 50 percent higher than for private sector or State government employees, and over three times the rate for local government employees. Figure 5 Percent of Full-Time Wage and Salary Workers on Flexible Work Schedules, by Category, May 1989 Category of Employer Percent of Workers on Flexible Schedules Federal Government 19% State government 13% Private sector 12% Local government 6% Source: Unpublished data from a May 1989 supplement to the "Current Population Survey," Bureau of Labor Statistics. Since an aggregate percentage such as that shown above can mask widely different situations among agencies, in our questionnaire we asked agencies to estimate what percent of their employees "have the opportunity to participate in at least one type of alternative work schedule." Of the 16 agencies which offered an estimate, 13 said that at least half of their employees have the opportunity to participate in AWS, while 1 each said 0, 20, and 30 percent, have this opportunity. Moreover, of the 12 agencies which were able to respond to a question asking for an estimate of how many employees "actually do participate in some form of AWS," 6 said over 50 percent, while the rest said fewer than 50 percent. As regards the trend in employee participation, 14 agencies believed that use of compressed work schedules had increased in recent years (5 said "Increased substantially" and 9 said "Increased minimally"), while none believed it had decreased. For flexitime, 12 agencies believed that its use had also increased (l said "Increased substantially" and 11 said "Increased minimally"), while 1 agency said flexitime use had "Decreased minimally." AWS as a Work and Family Benefit A recent article addressing work and family issues succinctly described why AWS programs are needed. It said: Traditional work schedules can cause problems for employees with families because (a) excessive work hours prevent workers from spending enough time with their families, (b) the work day either starts too early or ends too late and thus does not allow for quality time with their families, and (c) work schedules often do not mesh with child care arrangements. -46 As suggested by the legislative history quoted earlier, Congress apparently saw similar consequences of traditional work schedules and determined that AWS had the potential to aid Federal employees in balancing their work and family lives. Recent MSPB research would appear to support this conclusion, at least on the level of showing that substantial numbers of employees consider AWS to be a valued benefit. Specifically, the Board asked a large Governmentwide sample of Federal employees what role selected benefits play in retaining current Federal employees. When given a choice of 13 different factors and asked, "How does each of the following affect your decision to stay with or leave the Government?," 49 percent of responding Federal employees listed "Flexible work schedule" as a "reason for staying in Government," while only 10 percent said it was a "reason for leaving the Government." Forty-one percent said it was "neither a reason to stay nor leave." -47 In fact, taking this perspective one step further, it is interesting to note the 1981 research of Halcyone H. Bohen and Anamaria Viveros-Long, who sought to determine the effects of flexitime on different categories of employees. They hypothesized that flexitime would reduce stress and that employees with the most work-family stress would benefit the most from flexitime (i.e., dual income couples with children and single parents). To their surprise, the researchers found that "...the families most helped by a modest flexitime program are those with the fewest work-family conflicts, namely those without children." In explaining their survey results, researchers Bohen and Viveros-Long concluded: Plainly, the magnitude of the logistical, energy and time demands on families with two employed parents, or a single parent, cannot be dramatically altered by minor changes in daily work schedules. Ironically, the reverse may also be true. That is, parents with young children may be precluded from varying their schedules--even when they have a flexitime option--because the logistics of their lives are so fixed. For example, the schedules of the babysitter, child care center, school, or other parent may dictate when they can go to and from work. In light of these findings, the researchers offered two important insights: "...a small degree of flexibility helps a lot with little problems (i.e., the logistics of single adult families); but it helps only a little with big problems (i.e., the logistics of families with children and employed parents," and "...people can have positive attitudes towards the idea of choice in the scheduling of their work while still recognizing the limitations of the modest version of flexitime examined in this study." -48 The Future of AWS Within the Federal Civil Service It is perhaps the types of "positive attitudes" spoken of above which led Federal employees to consider flexible work schedules as a "reason for staying in Government" in the Board's survey cited earlier. In any event, given these positive attitudes, it is unfortunate that more agencies do not more aggressively publicize the availability of AWS programs. In our questionnaire, we asked agencies, "How often does your agency mention AWS coverage in recruiting brochures, job announcements, interviews, etc. when it applies to the job being advertised?" In response, 1 agency said "Most of the time," while 16 agencies said "Some of the time" and 3 said "Never." In addition, two agencies said "Don't know/Can't judge." In a similar vein, we also asked agencies what effect AWS had on the morale and productivity of their employees. Of those agencies able to make a judgment, about half said AWS had minimally improved morale, while the rest said it had substantially improved it. Regarding productivity, almost half of the responding agencies said AWS had improved it, while the rest said it had neither improved productivity nor hurt it. Putting all these pieces together, we believe that Federal agencies are on the right track regarding use of AWS programs. From the above data, it is clear that AWS programs are having a meaningfully positive effect on agency operations and employees. Agencies able to offer an opinion believed that morale had improved, and if a major reason to have programs such as AWS is to recruit and retain a high-quality workforce, morale impacts such as those shown above are certainly desirable outcomes. Moreover, since the positive impacts of AWS substantially overshadow the relatively few downside effects reported (a few agencies said AWS made it minimally more difficult to supervise employees), agencies should be looking for more opportunities to expand use of AWS and to better publicize its availability. Since the Federal Government is already a leader in this benefit area, it makes sense to capitalize on this fact, and use it as a marketing tool in recruitment efforts. To the extent that AWS also gives some productivity enhancement to agencies, this can be viewed as "icing on the cake" -- not to be dismissed, but not a prerequisite for expanded programs either.