Telecommuting Job Markets
The last five years have seen two trends take off: independent (or semi-independent) contracting for IT, and offshoring development work. Both of these bode well for telecommuters in the workplace... eventually.
Here in the Seattle area, independent IT and development contractors are everywhere... and so are jobs for them. If I post a resume on Monster, Dice, or any other job board, I am pretty much immediately inundated with offers for 3- to 12- month development contracts on small- to medium-sized projects. I don't usually want them, due to the inflexibility (no vacation time, and they're just long enough that I don't usually want to commit to 6+ months without any time off), but they're there. I must confess their presence doesn't do much for the idea of corporate loyalty -- their fixed length implies they're not interested in any commitment themselves, and their ubiquity means that anyone with the skills to get one isn't really trapped in their current job. Rather than weeks or months of interviewing to get real employment, a developer can often snag a few months of contract work within a week or two just due to the sheer number of these positions.
Offshoring development work, as much as people complain about it, does get managers used to the idea of employees that they can't see and which don't even work the same hours as they do. Of course, they have the comfort of knowing that wherever these employees are in the world, they do have some other manager breathing down their neck. And they're also undoubtedly comforted by the mounds of process these firms tend to use.
I think its the combination of these trends that is starting to produce automated, telecommuting job boards for development and IT workers. The two major ones right now are Rent-a-Coder and oDesk.
Rent-a-Coder's main flaw to the U.S. telecommuter is that it works too well. The jobs people tend to post on Rent-a-Coder are straightforward, self-contained dev jobs for one person. They're usually no more than a week's work. Rent-a-Coder works as a reverse auction -- people put in proposals for how long the work will take, advertise themselves a bit, and state what hourly rate they're willing to work for. Rent-a-Coder is a pretty reliable way for a skilled developer to find quick, straightforward, and usually easy work.
However, it's just as easy for developers in India or China. Rent-a-Coder, being a virtual job market for people who will never meet their employers in person, is truly a global market. If you're a teenager or college student, the $15-20 an hour that development work usually goes for might sound pretty good, but skilled professionals usually find themselves priced well out of the market. Overseas developers with 10 years of enterprise Java experience put in bids of $13.50/hr... anyone in the U.S. or U.K. who can compete with their qualifications usually doesn't want to compete with their prices.
oDesk aims to be a different sort of market -- they target companies looking for "homeshoring." It works more like a traditional job market, in that people post themselves with a rate requirement rather than just bidding on projects. It's less one-way than Rent-a-Coder. In addition, being targeted at more serious projects (there are a lot of long-term things on oDesk; it's not so biased at Rent-a-Coder's usually-tiny projects), the providers often command more reasonable (from a U.S. perspective) rates. Their current home page quotes providers with rates up to $65/hr. for some skillsets... though it quotes some at $14/hr. as well, so obviously there's a lot of variability.
oDesk, however, goes far beyond Rent-a-Coder's simple matching. Essentially, they aim to be a virtual temp agency, a Volt or ExcellData for the nation. They provide all their contractors with standard software (SVN and BugZilla for tracking and version control, but also presence and videoconferencing software, timecard software, etc.) and have relatively standardized contracts.
On the bright side, oDesk recognizes that the biggest hurdle companies have to hiring telecommuters is one of trust -- managers, unable to track what people are doing since they're not in the office, need proof that they're actually doing work. My preferred solution to this problem would be to track work -- that is, integrate with the version-control tools, bug tracking software, etc. to demonstrate tasks actually completed, and use status report deliverables to have employees state their progress and bring up issues so that if someone is falling behind managemnet is informed beforehand (or can fire an employee when he fails to meet a deadline not for failing to meet the deadline, but for failing to track toward it and lying about it in the status reports until that time.)
oDesk, however, does not take my enlightened, employee-friendly approach. No, they have a different way -- spying! oDesk's software screenshots the telecommuter's machine every 10 minutes to give remote managers a gallery of activity to browse. They also generously provide their contractors with a videocamera, so managers can watch you wherever you are. And the logs show not lines of code, or checkins, or bugs, but rather the number of keystrokes and mouse clicks per minute you've made. The result is that you can get all the stress, lack of privacy, and constant monitoring of an "open-plan" cube farm right in the comfort of your own home! Also, oDesk keeps 30% of whatever you're paid.
Obviously, I think oDesk is, to some extent, missing the point. On the other hand, they're a business, and their customers are not just the employees but also the employers. That trust gap is one of the most important things for them to bridge in order to get employers comfortable with telecommuting employees. In the long run, I think it's a good thing for telecommuters -- having hired a few people through oDesk, a manager is likely to be more comfortable with employees he can't see, and less inclined to protest the idea when someone comes along wanting to be a truly independent remote employee (this time without keystrokes-per-minute clocking.) This said, in the short run, well, I wouldn't work for them.