This idea, to me, strikes at the heart of the difference between productivity and reward based on effort — vs. — mediocrity and reward based on “clocking in.”

In the school system where my son attends, I see how they start training kids, from an early age, that just showing up is enough. To me, an effective worker is someone who gets the job done efficiently. If it takes a student or worker 3 hours to do a task, then let them do the task and then let them go home! Don’t keep someone on board for another 5 hours. They get tired and unfocused.

Why would anyone want to stretch out time and create needless busywork just to fill up additional hours? Instead, I’m sure employers would want to have absolute focus on the task at hand.

Why would an employer want to pay for anything besides results? I certainly see the value of hiring workers who provide high value and expertise rather than someone who just clocks in and thinks their job is to spend time at the office.

Here’s to businesses like Flexperience and In Good Company who will lead the trend in collaboration and employment for work-at-home moms.

As you said, we need to change the business model.

I was appalled when HP called in a number of their teleworkers a few years ago claiming that it was better for morale. Baloney. It’s cheaper for the bottom line to have telecommuters, and even cheaper than that to outsource to local telecommuting consultants (no need to pay for health insurance).

I have high hopes that the latest surge for “being green” will force companies to start working more with remote individuals and consultants. And that’s better for me.

It could also contribute to the wage gap between men and women who research has shown get paid differently despite having the same skills.

I think it’s a great idea and wonderful for the companies and the moms…let’s just make sure the moms aren’t getting the short-end of the compensation stick!

Aruni