8 Days a Week

The Caucus has a post about a few grumblings on the Hill regarding the new five day work week, and a few commenters have taken issue with the fact that it seems critical of a democrat complainer, but it's the comment from an unnamed "Hill Staffer" that I thought was interesting.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Working for a Congressman, I work 50-60 hours a week. And I can tell you that even with the “3 day” weeks last year my boss worked many more hours than I did.

They have back-to-back meetings throughout the day, and then in the evening they attend various fund-raising and campaign events.These sorts of events aren’t optional - they speak at organizations galas (ranging from the American Lung Association to trade groups, etc). Their fundraising events are mandatory as well - realistically speaking, an under-funded candidate has a meager chance of winning an election. (Don’t even get me started on how badly we need public financing of elections!)

In addition, imagine the demands on Members from distant states, particularly Hawaii and Alaska. Is it realistic to expect them to travel home every Friday evening and return 48 hours later? This new workweek will make it much more difficult for Members to attend meetings with constituents in the District, and I fear that it may become more difficult for them to keep in tune with the pulse of their districts.

— Posted by A Hill Staffer
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The question was asked if it's realistic to expect them to travel home every Friday and return 48 hours later. While I agree that traveling from Washington to California or Alaska or Hawaii and back once a week would be a seriously difficult thing to do, my question in return is: Why on earth would you want to do that? The legislative session doesn't last for the entire year, if I'm not mistaken. These guys get long holliday periods during which they could return to their home states, fund-raise, get the "pulse" of the district, etc. They could bring their families with them, like most people who get important, out-of-town jobs.

While I'm glad to hear that the three-day work week didn't really mean that congressmen and women really only worked three days out of the week (and I never really thought it did) I feel like I have to why they feel the need to try to live in two places at once on a weekly basis. We live in an information age. Constituents can communicate with representatives in the Amazon, if that's where they are, instantly and en masse, and these guys are having trouble getting the pulse of their districts? Do they live in districts where there's no internet access? Who's coming to see them in person back home who can't reach them with concerns in Washington? As for the fund raising problem, I don't know what to say about that (as I don't have any experience with fund raising) but I have to wonder if this is really something that has to be done on a daily basis, and even if it is, does the representative/candidate need to be at every event in person?

All I'm saying is it sounds to me like these guys have dug this hole for themselves by refusing to say to their constituents, "Look, I just can't come home every week. I'll see you in a couple months and you can tell me all about your problems then. In the mean time, I'm going to go off and do what you elected me to do."