skyler@violet.berkeley.edu (06/20/88)
It was supposed, when computing firms starting expanding wildly, that computing would be a great field for women. Ideally, one did not have to be in the same building as other people to be in the same firm and working on the same project. This was supposed to mean that women could work at home. It was supposed to mean that computing would be a particularly inviting field for women. This doesn't seem to have happened. Has it? If not, why not? -Trish usenet ucbvax!jade!violet!skyler arpa skyler@violet.berkeley.edu
jbn@glacier.stanford.edu (John B. Nagle) (06/21/88)
Have you read "Processed World" magazine? The term "electronic sweatshop" has been used. Think of data entry jobs, with the computer monitoring attendance and performance, as the kind of jobs farmed out in this way. Fortunately it hasn't become popular. John Nagle usenet ucbvax!jade!violet!skyler arpa skyler@violet.berkeley.edu
ecl@mtgzy.att.com (06/21/88)
In article <11144@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> you write: > It was supposed, when computing firms starting expanding wildly, > that computing would be a great field for women. Ideally, one > did not have to be in the same building as other people to be in > the same firm and working on the same project. This was supposed > to mean that women could work at home. It was supposed to mean > that computing would be a particularly inviting field for women. > This doesn't seem to have happened. Has it? If not, why not? Because firms discovered that: 1) telecommuting often didn't work--many jobs require interaction with users, sales people, etc. 2) people still had to come in for meetings and such, so office space et al was still required 3) labor laws often made it difficult to employ people who worked primarily at home 4) OSHA laws often made it impossible to employ people who worked primarily at home Given that having people telecommute often failed to benefit the company and frequently was *more* difficult, many companies prefer to have the employees on premise where they can keep better tabs on hours, working conditions, and so on. This sounds "Big Sibling-ish," but that isn't quite what I mean. There's still a real feeling that the "team" is an important concept in business, and that having everyone at the end of an RS232 connection doesn't build that. Also consider how much faster things can get resolved in a face-to-face meeting rather than electronically. I'd love to do some telecommuting, but I don't see it happening real soon. (I'm also waiting for my personal aircar a la 1930's science fiction. Predictions don't always come true.) Evelyn C. Leeper 201-957-2070 UUCP: att!mtgzy!ecl or ecl@mtgzy.att.com ARPA: ecl%mtgzy@att.arpa usenet ucbvax!jade!violet!skyler arpa skyler@violet.berkeley.edu
tan@devvax.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Greer H. Tan) (06/21/88)
Regarding your questions about the computer field being the right place for women ... or rather the more ideal place for women because of the supposed preferred organization, and assuming that women *do* prefer more people contact and the alleged flexibility of the work. (I agree with those three descriptions of the computer science, field, by the way, but seeing as it is really only my opinion and I really wouldn't go so far as to say that this was fact ... thus the "quazi" mode of my speech ... ) Anyways, I do believe that in technology as a whole, perhaps computer science in particular, this organization based on people with experience *is* ideal. Having gone to an engineering school, and having associated with many many engineers, it seems that engineers tend to hold very little respect for anyone who hasn't proved him or herself in her field. Seeing as that would make managing a little more difficult if the manager can't get the respect of the workers, having a manager who has "risen from the ranks" seems to make sense. However, management training is also essential. I'm not sure if it is possible to train all engineers to become managers, but I figure a good design engineer, or systems engineer would have the same thinking mentality of a good manager, right? But ... I not saying what I really wanted to say. This bit about Computer Science being the field for women because it allows them to work at home. Excuse me, but do you realize the implication you are making? Or were you asking this question to try and get a reaction? Cuz, this question seems to assume that a woman's place is in the home and therefore a career that allows her to stay at home would be ideal! (And your question of course is whether this is true ... that women can now work at home on their computers). Well, first of all, yes, it is true. My Aunt is bringing up two wonderful kids and works 20-30 hrs from her home taking only a few hours a week to show up at meetings and to turn in her work. Second of all, I do believe that our children are our future. I would probably want to be at home or easily accessible to them at home when I have my own children. But, I would like that to have been my choice just as it is the choice of men whether they choose to be house husbands or not. The situation should not be a default to be the duty of a woman to work at home. I think the computer industry can be seen as an ideal work environment for raising a family because the one (if not both) parent is in this field and has the flexibility to spend more time at home, then homelife will once again prosper in middle class America. What do the rest of you all think? Greer H. Tan NASA JPL (Pasadena, CA) ====================================================================== For submissions, please use: usenet ucbvax!jade!violet!skyler arpa skyler@violet.berkeley.edu
cook@alliant.Alliant.COM (Dale C. Cook) (06/21/88)
In article <11144@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> you write: >It was supposed, when computing firms starting expanding wildly, >that computing would be a great field for women. Ideally, one >did not have to be in the same building as other people to be in >the same firm and working on the same project. This was supposed >to mean that women could work at home. It was supposed to mean >that computing would be a particularly inviting field for women. >This doesn't seem to have happened. Has it? If not, why not? > >-Trish > Actually it has here at Alliant. Our chief board layout person is about to go on maternity leave and the company has purchased a Cadnetix system for her to use at home. It is common practice for both men and women to handle child-raising responsibilities by dialing in from home. All of my examples are in the nature of temporary arrangements rather than full time operation from home. My guess (and that's all it is) would be that part of the reason for working at all (aside from the obvious one :-) is to get out of the house and into the society of work. We are a compnay of few meetings where everyone is still technical, so there is no real reason why a person couldn't do most things at home. But even those with long commutes seem to prefer to come in. We must be doing something right in the work environment satisfaction department! Now a question: has anyone else noticed a gender related difference in frequency/ability to use e-mail? My experience is that men seem to have little difficulty switching from face-to-face or telephone interaction to the electronic medium, but women do. -- - Dale N1US VOICE: (617) 486-1343 ARPA: cook@alliant.alliant.com SMAIL: 1 Monarch Drive UUCP: ...linus!alliant!cook Littleton, MA 01460
jks@uunet.UU.NET (06/21/88)
To: Path: mrmarx!jks From: jks@mrmarx.UUCP (Jan Stetson) Newsgroups: comp.society.women Subject: Re: Working at Home Message-ID: <1580@mrmarx.UUCP> Date: 21 Jun 88 14:52:09 GMT References: <11167@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> Reply-To: jks@mrmarx.UUCP (Jan Stetson) Organization: Decision Software Co, Cambridge, MA Lines: 11 > >Because firms discovered that: It's my impression that firms have never really tried it. Most of the prople I know who do substantial work at home do so by special arrangement with their employer. I suspect that fear of loss of control over employees etc. has precluded actually finding out what would happen. - jks -
carols%drilex.uucp@BBN.COM (06/21/88)
Bcc: Message-Id: <8806211611.AA25321@drilex.UUCP> Date: 21 Jun 88 16:11:49 EDT (Tue) From: carols@drilex.UUCP (Carol Springs) In article <11144@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> skyler@violet.berkeley.edu writes: >It was supposed, when computing firms starting expanding wildly, >that computing would be a great field for women. Ideally, one >did not have to be in the same building as other people to be in >the same firm and working on the same project. This was supposed >to mean that women could work at home. It was supposed to mean >that computing would be a particularly inviting field for women. >This doesn't seem to have happened. Has it? If not, why not? One problem is that, while hours for programmers are generally far more flexible than for those in other fields, supervisors aren't ready to relinquish face-to-face contact or to believe that employees will put in their hours at home. When I was working in Tredyffrin, Pennsylvania (for a corporation that shall remain nameless), it was common for women programmers to take maternity leaves of varying lengths and return to their jobs after several weeks or months. One woman wanted to work part-time at home during this period, and, I think, briefly did so, but eventually the setup was nixed by a higher-up because he didn't want to set a precedent. For better or worse, it's easier for a lot of managers to credit (in both possible senses of the word) an occasional few hours put in at a home terminal than to live with the idea of projects undertaken largely at home with occasional visits to the office. And women haven't yet taken in droves to independent consulting. It'll be interesting to see what the next few years hold in store. A side note: As a new employee at the company referred to above, I asked my officemate, out of curiosity, whether Company X had a paternity leave policy. "Not officially," she replied, "but the fathers always take a day or two off when the baby comes--nobody minds." :-( -- Carol Springs "Uncover the secrets of the Solar System and Data Resources/McGraw-Hill receive a FREE FM radio..."--Time-Life Books 24 Hartwell Avenue carols%drilex@bbn.com Lexington, MA 02173 {bbn, ames!ll-xn, harvard}!drilex!carols
carols@husc6.harvard.edu (Carol Springs) (06/22/88)
In article <11144@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> skyler@violet.berkeley.edu writes: >It was supposed, when computing firms starting expanding wildly, >that computing would be a great field for women. Ideally, one >did not have to be in the same building as other people to be in >the same firm and working on the same project. This was supposed >to mean that women could work at home. It was supposed to mean >that computing would be a particularly inviting field for women. >This doesn't seem to have happened. Has it? If not, why not? One problem is that, while hours for programmers are generally far more flexible than for those in other fields, supervisors aren't ready to relinquish face-to-face contact or to believe that employees will put in their hours at home. When I was working in Tredyffrin, Pennsylvania (for a corporation that shall remain nameless), it was common for women programmers to take maternity leaves of varying lengths and return to their jobs after several weeks or months. One woman wanted to work part-time at home during this period, and, I think, briefly did so, but eventually the setup was nixed by a higher-up because he didn't want to set a precedent. For better or worse, it's easier for a lot of managers to credit (in both possible senses of the word) an occasional few hours put in at a home terminal than to live with the idea of projects undertaken largely at home with occasional visits to the office. And women haven't yet taken in droves to independent consulting. It'll be interesting to see what the next few years hold in store. A side note: As a new employee at the company referred to above, I asked my officemate, out of curiosity, whether Company X had a paternity leave policy. "Not officially," she replied, "but the fathers always take a day or two off when the baby comes--nobody minds." :-( -- Carol Springs "Uncover the secrets of the Solar System and Data Resources/McGraw-Hill receive a FREE FM radio..."--Time-Life Books 24 Hartwell Avenue carols%drilex@bbn.com Lexington, MA 02173 {bbn, ames!ll-xn, harvard}!drilex!carols
jane@decwrl.dec.com (Jane Medefesser) (06/23/88)
My $0.02 on the subject: I am allowed the flexibility to work at home as often as I need (due to my own illness, transportation problems, childcare difficulties or whatever.) I have found that for myself I am far less productive at home than when I am in the office. Why? Distractions. At home the doorbell rings.. the neighbor's kids scream.. my kid wants some apple juice. The interuptions are constant and once I tear myself away from the terminal it's difficult to come back to it before doing "just a few dishes" or "just1 load of laundry" first. Secondly, all my reference material is in my office. I don't have access to it at home. I don't have a printer at home (it's difficult for me to program without that latest hard-copy of my code. Some people can find the bugs using their crt and paging through screen by screen. Not me. *I* need the whole picture.) Thirdly, at home I have to work at 1200 baud. (Those who know me well have heard me complain of this before.) My company only offers 1200 baud Hayes modems for employee use. I can't afford to get myself a 2400. I get so frustrated working that slow that I often don't do as much. Lastly, there is the before mentioned human contact. When I am home working you can't reach me by phone (tied up on the modem). I can't run accross the building and ask the local C guru why my pointers don't point. I know women (men too) who do "publishing" type work from home. (editing, word-processing, etc.) Apparantly that kind of work is ideal for the home environment. (It works for them.) I also have a friend that started his own business (IBM communications - he's doing quite well, by the way) in his own home and now runs the business from his home. But his employees (2, I think) all work there with him. (Probably drives his wofe nuts...) So it depends on what you're doing and with whom, I think....
root@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (The Beach Bum) (06/24/88)
In article <11144@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, skyler@violet.berkeley.edu writes: > It was supposed, when computing firms starting expanding wildly, > that computing would be a great field for women. Ideally, one > did not have to be in the same building as other people to be in > the same firm and working on the same project. This was supposed > to mean that women could work at home. It was supposed to mean > that computing would be a particularly inviting field for women. > This doesn't seem to have happened. Has it? If not, why not? I have only worked for one computing firm, but several other jobs were ameniable to working from home on occasion. I have generally been one of two or three actual computer literate employees. And this is how my experiences with telecomputing have gone ... The resistance which I have seen as far as my doing work from my house has come from other employees who do not understand telecomputing. Upper level managers, who can use spreadsheets or other tools over the phone, seem willing to use the phone lines and are understanding of my doing so. Bosses always seem interested in new toys and terminals and modems seem to be a popular item. Clerical workers, who have no use whatsoever and no understanding of telecomputing, find the strange and random hours quite upsetting. These employees present the greatest obstacle to having more employees telecompute. Their jealousy and hostility seems to be very disruptive and demoralizing. I see the greatest room for expansion in the middle ranks. However, these workers are marginally computer literate in most cases, and the expense of a personal computer equipted with the needed software is prohibitive. The solution might appear to be using dumb terminals and modems rather than PCs. However, first I have to get the bosses around here to use the dialup lines more often. - John F. Haugh II
craig@uunet.UU.NET (Craig) (06/27/88)
There is a company here in the UK that specialises in 'Working from Home', F International Group plc (to give it its full title) was set up by Mrs. Steve Shirley with the express intention of providing an environement where home working was easy. The policy is an equal opportunities one with both men and women working from home and covers all levels of the organisation, not just professional ones (although I can't imagine the cleaners working from home :-)). This doesn't mean it is perfect - they were unable to organise workplace child care facilities and they are not without their critics. However they do support the womens movement and are concerned to get it right. As a for instance they are currently sponsoring the Women into Computing conference being held here at the University of Lancaster and are also involved with the University of Salford student sponsorship scheme. It can work if tried. Craig. -- UUCP: ...!seismo!mcvax!ukc!dcl-cs!craig| Post: University of Lancaster, DARPA: craig%lancs.comp@ucl-cs | Department of Computing, JANET: craig@uk.ac.lancs.comp | Bailrigg, Lancaster, UK. Phone: +44 524 65201 Ext. 4476 | LA1 4YR
ron@topaz.rutgers.edu (Ron Natalie) (06/28/88)
You have the exact opposite problem, your distractions are at home, mine are at the office. I've been working rather undisturbed all morning over a 9600 baud modem and I was only interupted twice, both taking less than 30 seconds a piece. In my office, people come in and out, the phone rings, etc...much more distracting. It's easier to work at home or work at the office late at night. -Ron [I wouldn't be surprised if this was gender-related and/or related to whether or not you have a family. TR]
sommers@njin.rutgers.edu (Mamaliz @ The Soup Kitchen) (07/08/88)
> You have the exact opposite problem, your distractions are at home, > mine are at the office. > -Ron > [I wouldn't be surprised if this was gender-related and/or related > to whether or not you have a family. TR] Well, Ron's case at least is not gender related, or related to whether he has a family. ( While he is working at home, my partner and I are also working at home (we just started a small consulting firm/software house) and there are usually one or two other people working at home and often two kids running around the house. I have no choice but to work at home (I have some strange disabilities) and so we bought our house KNOWING it was going to double as an office. Three rooms in the house are devoted to WORK (for 4 working adults). We have 10 phone lines. N modems including 2 2400's and Ron's 9600. A bunch of computers, most donated by employers who know we work better from home. When a member of our household is in one of the home offices (one is mine, the other two are split up) they are undisturbable. When they leave their office they are reasonably fair game. The children (2 and 6) have a computer at home, and probably watch more Sesame Street then is good for them. They are pretty good about not interupting work, and never go into the main office unless an adult invites them in. They have also become surprisingly computer literate for their ages. Housework is done during what other people would consider coffee breaks (i.e. when if you look at that piece of code one more time you will scream). Dinner has recently become iffy, as I have a deadline and I am chief cook...but we expect that we will finally come to a meeting of the minds on that. The important thing about working at home is setting rules. We have been doing it for at least 3 years now (although Ron goes into work daily, I never go near an official office, and mg and rehmi work about 50/50 home and office). Things change, but we like it this way. liz