Thursday, October 27, 2005

Pick up the &!#@$ Phone!

The AP is running a story on a Michigan woman who was discharged for missing work after seeing her husband off to war.  If I had a nickel for every termination that resulted from a lack of communication, I’d be richer than Bill Gates.

According to the story:

Boler recalled being asked, not ordered, to start back at her job Oct. 17, the day after her husband left. She told her bosses that she would try to return that day but if she could not, she would definitely be back Oct. 18, she said.

Although Boler was back home on the Sunday, October 16th (the day before she was ?asked? to report back to work), she decided not to go to work the next day.  Apparently, when she didn?t show up for work on the 17th, the employer called her—in the afternoon—to tell her she was fired.

Now why didn?t either party make a call on the morning of the 17th?  I would think that Boler owed her employer that much, but doesn?t the company also bear some blame?  According to the story, ?other factors were involved in the decision?, although the company spokesperson didn?t elaborate.  Now, I?m sure everything will come out in the wash (i.e., unemployment hearing), but it seems to be a case in which the employer took a short cut.  Missing work is an easy excuse to fire an employee, even if the truth is more damaging.

Tuesday, October 25, 2005

Stupid is as stupid does

I’ve edited a ton of employee handbooks over the years.  Making employment policies too specific is one of the most common mistakes employers make when drafting their handbook (particularly in discipline policies).  The incentive is to have the handbook address every possible workplace dispute in order to eliminate the discomfort in making a decision on whether an employee should be punished.  Basically, “the handbook told me to do it”.

I always tried to remind clients that situations will arise that no amount of specificity will address.  Take the case of Savvis Inc.’s CEO, who allegedly racked up $241,000 in credit card charges at a Manhattan topless club.  You can find stories, here, here, here and here.

Apparently, he’s been put on unpaid leave, but I cannot imagine that the infraction was detailed in the Savvis’ manual.

On a lighter note, the company has hired a firm to act as independent counsel for its Audit Committee, which is investigating the incident.  Why couldn’ I get this kind of assignment when I was a junior associate?

Friday, October 21, 2005

Is your Employer “Big Brother”?

An employer’s ban on fraternization among its employees, on-duty or off-duty, has recently made news reports.  Guardsmark, LLC, a company that provides uniformed security personnel to commercial entities, has a policy that states that its employees must NOT “fraternize on duty or off duty, date or become overly friendly with the client’s employees or with co-employees.” The National Labor Relations Board considered whether this policy (and others) violates the National Labor Relations Act, and concluded that it does not.

Some writers seem appalled that an employer would seek to regulate employees’ off-duty conduct to the point of banning fraternization.  One asks, “What if your boss could ban happiness”? But is this not a natural, defensive response to the burdens we continue to place on employers.

Our society and our legal system have increasingly held employers liable for off-duty conduct of their employees.  ?Quid pro quo? and hostile work environment sexual harassment claims often arise in after-hours contexts.  Employees seem to expect their employers to provide more and more ?protection,” even in situations that arise from domestic conflicts.  Employee dating also gives rise to claims of sex discrimination, including claims by ?other? employees who perceive favoritism resulting from the dating relationship as well as claims from those involved in dating after the dating relationship goes sour.

Can you blame an employer for trying to protect itself from becoming entangled in domestic situations, and having to be both ?parent? and ?police? in conflicts that arise from romantic entanglements?  Some say Guardsmark?s policy goes too far, even banning an after-work softball game or happy hour among coworkers.  Let us not be naﶥ. . . .  How many romantic relationships have begun at after-work happy hours, and where should an employer draw the line?the first flirt?  the first kiss? first base? something else?

Do not get me wrong here.  I do not like employer-imposed rules on personal relationships any more than the next person.  My guess is the employers do not like the rules either and do not want to be involved in their employees’ personal lives.  But if we are going to hold companies responsible for ?hurts? that arise from off-duty personal contact, we should not be surprised when those employers exercise what control they can over that contact.

Monday, October 10, 2005

What is Wrong with America’s Corporations?

Two signs caught my attention this past weekend.  A roadside marquee of a manufacturing corporation near my home says, “If your beliefs do not affect what you do, what good are they”?  The second “sign” that caught my attention is the title of an article, written by Candy Deemer and published in AMA Seminars (October 2005 - June 2006), “Bring the Heart Back into Corporate America.”

Have American corporations lost their heart, and if so, who is to blame?

Ms. Deemer?s article discusses the need for corporations to (among other things), put values before value (i.e. adhere to core values, even if that results in less profit); and the need for corporations to always be trustworthy.  However, I reflect back on the truth that a corporation is a legal entity?a corporation cannot do anything by itself.  Corporations take action (or fail to do so) only through the actions or inactions of its decision-makers.  Those decision-makes are not only the officers and upper management, but also include employees on the front line of the corporation--line employees, customers service representatives and sales persons, for example.

If America?s corporations have lost their hearts, it can only be because either (1) the individuals who make up that corporation have lost their hearts or (2) the individual employees (from the CEO all the way through to the entry-level position) are not acting in their jobs with the courage of their beliefs and convictions.  How many CEOs are willing to mistreat, burn-out or discard employees to make more profit?  How many middle managers fail to take a stand for fair treatment of their subordinates, perhaps because it could jeopardize their promotion?  How many Human Resources professionals ?look the other way? rather than speak out for what they know to be the right thing to do?  How many entry-level employees sacrifice their own beliefs and take action that violates their own core values simply to keep their jobs?

The only way to change the hearts of corporations is to change the hearts of people.  Are my core values more important to me than money?  Am I always trustworthy?  A call for corporations to ?have a heart,? must necessarily begin with taking a hard look at ourselves. 

Wednesday, October 05, 2005

Lost productivity…really?

CNN money reports that the Major League Baseball playoffs might “?cost employers about $225 million this year”.  That’s an estimate from an outplacement firm, which seems to be based on an eyebrow raising calculation of lost work time.  I guess employers should be happy, the same firm estimated that March Madness would cost employers over $889 million in lost work.

These kinds of stories certainly provide catchy headlines (they always seem to get my attention) but don?t really address the issue of lost work time, particularly as it relates to Internet use.  A quick Google search revealed some University studies which indicate that most workers use the Internet for work-related activities and, more interestingly, spend more time at home using the Internet for work than the time they spend at work doing personal stuff.

Keep this in mind when the Superbowl comes rolling around.