Telecommuters Work Longer Hours Than Office-Goers

Census stats show that people who work at home at least some of the time put in more hours each week than those who stay at the office. Karen Hopkin reports

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

When I say “telecommuting,” do you picture yourself easing into the workday in a pair of fuzzy slippers? Well, so does your boss. But the reality is, you’re both dreaming. Because a new study shows that folks who work at home at least some of the time put in more hours than those who stay at the office. That’s according to work published in the journal Monthly Labor Review. [Mary C. Noonan and Jennifer L. Glass, The hard truth about telecommuting]

Telecommuting for a portion of the workweek certain has its appeal. Avoiding the time and cost involved in commuting and presumably having a more flexible schedule and a better work-life balance are all potential pluses. But are employees really able to take advantage of such work-at-home perks?

Researchers took advantage of labor information from census bureau surveys and were surprised by what they found. First off, the proportion of people who work remotely remained unchanged from the mid-’90s to the mid-2000s the most recent data available. Second, those who do telecommute are more likely to work overtime, an additional 5 to 7 hours on top of the standard 40.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Which means that people who work from the comfort of home are not slackers in slippers. They’re more likely tech-savvy self-starters—who don’t know when to stop.

—Karen Hopkin

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe