Transportation's Role in Reducing U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions ...

Transportation’s Role in Reducing U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Volume 2
the number of employees that can either take advantage of a compressed work week or
telework.
Cost-Effectiveness
The cost of implementing compressed work weeks to employers is typically minimal.
Program development and administration typically make up the largest portion of the
total cost. Compressed work weeks may also lead to increased facility and energy costs if
the workplace remains open over longer hours (U.S. EPA, 1992; U.S. EPA, 1998; VTPI,
2008), but may lead to decreased costs if an agency-or company-wide policy is
implemented that allows facilities to close entirely on certain days.
Cobenefits
Offering the option of a compressed work week can provide employees more flexibility in
scheduling work and personal commitments. This can lead to increased job satisfaction,
reduced stress, shorter commute time, and more free time on weekdays for employees.
Employees may use this time to become more engaged in their families and communities,
leading to stronger family support and a deeper level of civic engagement. However, not
all employees will prefer longer work days or have compatible personal schedules.
Therefore, if compressed work weeks are made mandatory, some employees are likely to
be made better off while others are worse off.
Compressed work week schedules can support mobility objectives by relieving traffic
congestion during peak periods, since participating employees work longer hours than a
traditional 9 to 5 schedule. For example, peak-hour commuters saved an average of 1.08
minutes in travel time on certain roadways after one large employer in the area
implemented a 9/80 schedule for 260 of its employees (Kelley, 2006).
Feasibility
While some companies have successfully applied compressed work weeks for many years,
there may be barriers to further adoption of compressed work weeks on both an
individual and a firm level. The extent to which there is potential for additional adoption
of compressed work weeks has not been widely studied, and may depend in part upon
other factors such as fuel costs and congestion that drive interest in travel alternatives.
Some particular barriers include:
• Increased facility and energy costs when workplaces need to operate or remain open
over longer hours.
• Perception or evidence that employee productivity may decrease as a result of working
longer days (U.S. EPA, 1992; U.S. EPA, 1998; VTPI, 2008).
• Incompatibility with some occupations, where employees are needed most during
normal business hours and on every work day.
5-83