Attendance Control Programs: Summarizing My Thoughts

Last week a local newspaper ran a front page story about sick leave abuses in the Sheriff’s Department. Overall, sick leave usage was substantially increased over just a few years ago. It seems that the new Sheriff has not been nearly as diligent as the old Sheriff in policing sick leave usage among deputies in the corrections department. When interviewed the Sheriff indicated that he believed his hands were tied by the labor contract and the fact that the deputies were only using sick leave that had been legitimately accrued.

Maybe, but let’s think about that.

As noted in the last e-zine, the main topic for this month is the effectiveness of attendance control programs. As the above article helps illustrate, this is a timely topic and one I frequently receive questions about. Over the years I have reviewed a number of surveys conducted with HR managers on important issues. Tardiness and absenteeism has been, on every single survey, the number one concern. In a prior e-zine I wrote about no fault attendance programs that are based on a rolling twelve month period of time. I am not intending to duplicate that article but rather my intention is to share information, insights and observations related to the attendance issue that have been accumulating over the past 35 years of working with HR problems.

In public sector employment, my experience is that the most common accrual rate is roughly one day of sick leave for each month of work. At one time it was not uncommon to find many of the older employees that had several hundred days of accumulated sick leave. Sick leave was typically viewed as an insurance policy against potential illness. Thus, if you were not ill then sick leave days simply continue to accumulate. If there was a limit on total accrual, potential days of sick leave were simply sacrificed when the limit had been reached. This was viewed no differently than having fire or flood insurance on your house. While one paid for the insurance, the hope is that collection never occurs and the money paid for the insurance simply lost.

Current research indicates that the attitude about sick leave has substantially changed from insurance used to offset an undesired outcome to one of entitlement. Thus many employers, like the above reference Sheriff’s Department, find that a substantial portion of their employees, even those who have been there for many years, have little if any accumulated sick leave. In fact, the last major national survey (2003) contracted by the department of labor added a new statistic covering employees who come to work sick so that they can save their sick leave days for more enjoyable activities. This survey indicated that 7% of sick leave usage was impacted by this new category.

On the other hand, other employment data indicates that there is an offset against the high use of sick leave. This data indicates that today’s employee work on average 200 more hours per year in the U.S. then 30 years ago. Higher levels of sick leave usage may be substantially impacted by the longer hours of work.

Regardless of the causes of sick leave abuse, however, most employers are finding it necessary to implement some type of attendants control program. Hopefully you’ll find the following information helpful in assessing your current program and looking at how it can be modified to become more effective. I believe you should give careful consideration to a number of different factors.

First, how you communicate the importance of regular attendance is going to be very important. Obviously a single message is not going to be sufficient. I recently ran across an employee handbook that dealt with the issue of attendance differently than what I have seen in the past. Typically there is a section in the employee handbook spelling out actions that will bring about discipline. Poor attendance is typically identified in this section of the handbook with varying degrees of emphasis.

Oftentimes there is a separate section of the handbook dealing with the various ways in which employment can end. Quitting, retiring, being laid off and being discharged for cause are usually mentioned. The handbook I am referencing, took pains to identify poor attendance as a basis for separation from service and gave it top billing in this section. Employees were informed that attendance issues would result in discipline and multiple days of absence without notification would be considered job abandonment resulting in separation from service.

What I particularly liked about this approach is attendance was given a specific, separate treatment. This distinctive treatment allowed the employer to put a special emphasis on attendance during employee orientation and to highlight it in the event the disciplinary action became necessary for attendance problems. The bottom line is that you need to find ways to effectively communicate the critical importance of regular attendance.

Second, while modifying existing sick leave programs, particularly if you have a labor contract, will usually raise substantial employee resistance, the “new” attitude toward sick leave usage encourages at least some adaptation. One of the most common is to shift all of the various paid leaves of absences into a single category called paid time off (PTO). If the PTO program is properly administered, it can result in better attendance, less overtime and an easier job for the supervisor. While a detailed discussion of PTO is probably a good topic for a future e-zine, I want to emphasize two elements of a PTO program. The first is that the sum total of vacation time plus sick leave plus other personal leaves should be less than the total days of PTO, but that the employee is fully entitled to use all days of PTO.

The second is that PTO is but one version of an attempt to stop rewarding employees for doing what we don’t want them to do. Sick leave typically can only be used if you’re sick. But, we don’t want people to be sick and therefore to be absent. Employees can use PTO without being sick, just like vacation. Having to use a vacation day (PTO) to cover an illness is not the same as using a day that can only be used to cover an illness.

Most importantly, notice that a PTO program can be fine tuned. One employer I know grants four days of sick leave each year but sick leave is used only on the second day of an illness. The first day is either unpaid or the employee can choose to use a vacation day PTO). This employer informs me that dramatic changes have occurred in employee usage by this simple change. Another employer I am aware of allows sick leave benefits only on the third day of an absence.

Here is a thought: if the standard homeowner was more interested in insurance money as opposed to their home, fire insurance companies would go bankrupt. Employees are no different, if they are more interested in using sick leave as opposing to banking it against future significant illnesses, then you’re sick leave program must be adapted to this attitude otherwise your costs will skyrocket.

Third, as previously noted, I have already written about no-fault attendance programs. There are a couple points, however, that I would like to emphasize about these programs as part of this e-zine. To begin, while they are probably the most difficult type of program to administer, they also have the greatest likelihood of either controlling the unwanted behavior or expediting the discharge of the employee. They are difficult because absences must be carefully monitored over a rolling twelve months. But, on the positive side, the reason for the absence is not important. The no fault program assumes that people become ill. A legitimate absence or two is of no significance in the no-fault program. It is only a repeated pattern that becomes an issue and that pattern can quickly lead to the termination of employment.

Additionally, the no-fault program operates in such a way as to give significant deference to the person who has incurred a substantial illness. This is true because the typical program revolves around an incident not simply an absence. An incident can be a one day absence or it can be a 45 day absence to recover from a heart attack. Since both are given exactly the same weight, the no-fault program does not work to the disadvantage of good employees who have a single, significant illness; hip replacement surgery comes to mind or something similar.

As noted, however, the challenge to a no-fault program is consistent management of the program. Records need to be impeccably kept and the employer needs to have the highest concern for consistency of application.

One final point on no-fault programs, what I particularly like about them is that they can be presented to emphasize that the employee is needed in the workplace. The quantity, timeliness and sometimes the quality of work suffers when employees are not present. It does not make any difference why someone is absent, the absence impacts work product. Thus, for the employer to attempt to distinguish between unexcused and excused absences may make sense as it applies to employee culpability, it makes no sense whatsoever on whether work is being performed. “We hired you because we need you and we need you all the time,” should be the message we send to our employees.

Fourth, now a word of caution. The law protects certain absences from any attendance control program. For example, an absence, covered under the American Family Medical Leave Act (AFMLA) cannot be the basis for disciplinary action under either a no-fault or other attendance program. Also, in many states, Illinois and California as examples, employees who are the victims of domestic violence or sexual abuse have special rights to employment and are entitled to the same protections found in the AFLMA. Likewise absences cause by jury duty cannot be used for discipline or discharge. Additionally, in some states being subpoenaed to testify in a criminal or civil procedure cannot be cause for disciplinary action. I suggest checking with your state department of labor if you are unsure or have questions.

Note: the only protection that the Employer has against abuse for any of the above situations is the right to demand proper documentation. Self diagnosis and/or self serving statements are insufficient to trigger the protections of law. You have the right to require the documents necessary to establish the truthfulness of what the employee is asserting.

Fifth and finally, the above discussion focuses on threats, sanctions, discipline and ultimately employment termination as methods of controlling absenteeism problems. There is another side to addressing attendance problems. Do your employees experience the workplace as a positive, even if the work is not always the most personally gratifying? I have a strong suspicion that when employees enjoy coming to work that the Employer has substantially fewer problems with attendance. As you will note below, the next e-zine addresses the topic of making work a better place to be.


Next Month: so I already let it out, I plan to start a five part e-zine series on the topic of making work a better place to be. The first installment takes on the topic from a global perspective. The next four installments will break the global into specific component parts.

What barriers are there to imposing a ceiling on the accrual of vacation time?

The essence of this question involves the right of the Employer to impose a “use it or lose it” policy with regard to vacation time. Under this policy, for example, if an employee is allowed to accumulate 120 hours of vacation time, then his/her total accrual will never exceed 120 hours regardless of the accrual rate or the amount of vacation time actually taken. Since vacation accrual is typically noted on each paycheck, the amount shown on a paycheck will never exceed 120 hours regardless of whether any vacation time has been taken. Thus it is possible for the employee to receive less of a benefit then he/she is entitled to by not taking any vacation time.

One of my graduate students recently wrote a paper in which she found that in 2004 Americans gave back $22 billion worth of vacation time; obviously a very significant number which makes this a significant issue.

The question asks about barriers to imposing a use it or lose it policy. My first response is to note that it is a subject not covered under Federal wage and hour legislation. Rather it is the subject that is in almost every case covered under state regulations and found as part of administrative code (however that is depicted in each individual state). I have been most successful in finding information from individual states by looking for those provisions covering payment and collection of final wages and compensation.

I have yet to find any state that does not permit a use it or lose it policy, but the right of the employer to implement such a policy is always linked to two conditions. First the employer must clearly communicate its policy to employees. Second, the employee must have had reasonable opportunities to use vacation time. Since I believe there is always some risk to employers when employees receive a reduction in wages and/or benefits, my thought is that annual notification to each employee, perhaps the first week of January, of the use it or lose it policy and the amount of vacation time currently accrued would help fulfill the employers affirmative notice responsibilities. The employer would also, undoubtedly, be wise to have a system by which employees were given notice of potential accrual loss the pay period before any losses occurred.

Quote:

The entire world is a narrow bridge
But the main thing is not to fear.

Likutey Moharan 2:28

Continue reading...

Employee Discipline: Rethinking Strategy and Tactics

A short while ago I attended a social event and one of the other attendees had brought a local police officer as a guest. The two of us ended up in an extended conversation. It seems that he had just been notified that an appearance before the discipline review board was mandated. He was uncertain about what he was being called before the board and was clearly agitated by the fact. Our discussion focused on the way discipline was administered in the department and how the discipline review board was used as a tool of intimidation and fear.

Originally I had intended to write this e-zine on the topic of discharge for absenteeism. The above conversation, however, stimulated my interest in sharing some thoughts about why the discipline process is so often ineffective. My purpose is to focus on some basic principles that are necessary to ensure the effectiveness of your discipline program. I am offering the following seven points as a way to stimulate your thinking about the manner in which discipline is administered in your organization and the effectiveness of the discipline program.

First, the word discipline itself is intriguing because it has both a positive and negative connotation. “That child needs to be disciplined.” “She is a very disciplined employee.” How different these two sentences are. One uses the word discipline as a corrective action with the connotation of punishment in the context of something wrong. The other uses the word as an admirable characteristic related to effective performance. What I believe often gets lost is the fact that we ought be disciplining employees for the purpose of building a well disciplined team. Question, is discipline administered in your organization for the purpose of improving employee discipline? Or, do you simply punish people when they are bad?

Second, employees are disciplined for issues around misconduct and unacceptable performance. Yet when I have reviewed discipline protocols it is frequently obvious that they have been written to deal exclusively with matters of misconduct. The problem is that the two require distinctly different approaches. With matters of misconduct employees are disciplined with the expectation that whatever infraction has occurred will not happen again. Performance problems, on the other hand, are best dealt with by setting performance goals and then working with the employee over time to achieve those goals. Unacceptable performance does not generally involved an on and off switch. Rather it is a matter of growth and development. While an employee can be discharged for misconduct and/or for unacceptable performance, the path by which one arrives at the point of employment termination should be different.

Third, it is important to clearly distinguish between informal disciplinary acts and formal. Formal discipline (oral warnings, written warnings, suspensions) are usually less effective than the informal protocols (training, coaching, counseling and other softer forms of intervention) correcting and shaping employee behavior. For one thing, formal discipline is harder on the relationship between supervisor and subordinate and as such makes it more difficult to positively influence employee activities. But, formal discipline is frequently a legal or contractual necessity. My advice, do all you can informally before you move to the formal. Once you move to the formal it is generally very difficult to effectively utilize the informal.

Fourth, the culture of your organization is usually a stronger determinant of employee behavior then is your work rules and performance goals. Thus, disciplining employees may not be as effective towards changing behavior as the work you do to improve the culture; change the culture, change the behavior (this suggests another topic for an e-zine). At minimum what you need to be asking yourself when you discipline an employee is whether your other employees will support your decision to implement discipline or will they feel that your decision is unfair. While sometimes the perception that something is unfair is based on a lack of knowledge, where employees have the knowledge and your actions are viewed as inappropriate; then you have a much bigger problem than whatever you are attempting to address with the discipline.

Fifth, employee discipline tends to focus on eliminating what is not wanted. Their often seems to be an unstated assumption that if we eliminate what we don’t want, what is left will be what we do want. I doubt that this is true. If what we do want is an energized, enthusiastic and committed workforce does the discipline program help bring wayward employees into alignment with that objective? Or, does it focus on specific problems as opposed to the larger objective? You may find it advisable to benignly overlook certain problem areas while being diligent to pursue the larger goal.

Sixth, while I am a strong believer that informal tools are the best way to intervene into an employee problem, I want to be clearly on the record that you cannot ignore the formal tools if the problem has deteriorated to the point where it is clear that the informal approach will not work. When I ask human resource managers about the successful use of progressive discipline, the answer is almost always negative. They pretty much acknowledge that once they start into formal modes of discipline their goal is no longer to correct the problem but rather to satisfy whatever legal constraints there are on terminating the employment of the individual. My sense is that their reasoning is absolutely correct. If the problem by cannot be dealt with by coaching, counseling, a work plan, a memo of expectation, etc., then why do we think a two day suspension will change the employee’s basic approach to the workplace? From this perspective, therefore, the best approach I have seen to formal discipline is one found in a number of Teamster’s labor contracts. They call for termination of employment if an employee repeats an infraction, within a two year period of time, for which the employee has been previously given a written warning. The progression, then, calls for extensive informal efforts to work with the employee, followed by one written warning and then discharge.

Seventh, there is a quote from a Star Wars figure in a science fiction novel that I have often used when conducting training programs on employee discipline. It goes like this: “Always remember this; your enemy [misbehaving employee] is not wrong in his own eyes. If you keep this in mind you may make him your friend; if not, you can kill him [terminate employment] but without hate.” While recognizing that homicide is illegal in all 50 states, there is a huge amount of wisdom in this quote. I am oftentimes dismayed at the frequency with which the first principle (make the employee your friend) is ignored and instead we move directly to a vindictive action. While this is understandable within the context of the emotions that are sometimes created by serious employee misconduct, an immediate negative response will rarely bring about the desired impact on the employee and/or your work force. You can always move to discharge the employee but why not try something positive first?

I close this short essay on employee discipline by emphasizing the necessity to impose discipline “without hate.” I need say no more.

Next Month: Terminating for Absences

What options does an employer have when a supervisor begins a secret (or not-so-secret) relationship with a subordinate?

Inter-office dating is a fact of the workplace. While not the most optimal of situations, they can be innocuous enough when responsibly managed. A major problem arises when there is a differential in workplace power – when one has authority over the other. An asymmetric balance of power leads to questions of mutual consent. How can a subordinate that enters into a relationship with someone with power over them be argued to have given the same level of consent? Just as troublesome, when the relationship comes to light in the workplace the cries of bias and preferential treatment, whether real or imagined, can have terrible effects on employee morale and productivity.

What, then, can an employer do in the situation of the secret relationship… what are the options? Outright banning will not work, as it raises questions of privacy rights and may just encourage such relationships to stay underground. Remember, employers are just as liable for the fallout from relationships they’re unaware of as those going on under their noses. Keep in mind, firing one member of the relationship has proven to be legally questionable particularly if the supervisor is male and the subordinate female — a standing policy of firing the subordinate would (rightly) open the employer to allegations of sexual discrimination.

The answer, I believe, is in recognizing what an organization has a right to control and what might be considered improper interference. You have the right to control that which can be destructive to the organization. My recommendation is to craft and enforce a carefully written policy on personal relationships in the workplace. The policy needs to have at least two sections:

1. The first is a statement about the purpose and intent of the policy itself. Emphasize the fact that the policy is not to interfere in the personal lives of employees but rather to protect the employer against situations where there is an obvious and counter productive conflict of interest; guarding against circumstances that can create legal liabilities and reduce employee morale.

2. The second section needs to carefully describe the actions that are prohibited. The prohibition, however, cannot be against a personal relationship but rather against the hiring and/or supervising of a relative or close personal friend. The policy needs to particularly emphasize that employees are expected to reveal relationships where there is a conflict of interest (supervising a spouse or significant other, for example); secrecy is the big no-no.

Also, I have to confess to a certain reluctance with regard to the recommendation that one should write a policy on this issue. In general I am not a promoter of policy writing as my experience leads me to conclude that more often than not policies can get the employer in trouble. For one thing, it is always difficult to predict all of the different ways that the policy may have to be applied. As a result the policy may rise up and bite you when you are confronted with an unusual set situation. Additionally, employers all too often write the policy and then fail to enforce it. The unequal enforcement of a policy is fertile ground for plaintiff’s attorney. In this case, however, I feel that the policy is absolutely essential. Employees have a right to personal relationships, even in a superior — subordinate situation. It is not the relationship itself that is at issue. Rather it is the impact of that relationship on organizational behavior that must be addressed. This can only be managed through the development of a clear policy related to controlling the potential damage from those personal relationships that are impacting the organization.

Finally, when I consider the question that was asked it occurs to me that the “secret” relationship must have been reported by a member of the team to a higher level manager in the organization. Even without the policy, the employer has the right to confront the supervisor about any actions that compromise his or her effectiveness as a supervisor (notice that it is not the subordinate employee that one should confront). There are a number of actions that the employer can choose to do including moving one of the two parties to a different workgroup, or insisting that the subordinate employee’s performance evaluations and work assignments be under the direction of an outside supervisor. The bottom line is that the problem needs to be directly confronted.

Quote of the Month:

The aim of argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress.

Joseph Joubert

Continue reading...

Making Work a Better Place to Be

This is the first e-zine that I have created in the last few months. I have spent the intervening time contemplating how I can better focus the e-zine as a HR tool. There are a number of changes that I have decided to implement. The most obvious of these is the look of the e-zine. A second objective is to make the e-zine more interactive. The addition of a reader question section is my response to this objective.

Perhaps the most significant change in focus, however, is my intention to tailor the e-zine towards my primary research and consulting interest: the creation of workplaces desirable to employees. You’ll notice that I have titled this e-zine Making Work a Better Place to Be. This title comes from a line in a song, It’s Amazing What Praising Can Do. The following are some preliminary thoughts about the steps that an organization can take to help build a desirable workplace.

• The different HR functions have to work together as a system. Recruiting, training, compensation, evaluation, and promotion all need to be in alignment with each other. All too often the different functions have different managers which result in a lack of alignment.
• The primary determinant of the employee satisfaction with the workplace is undoubtedly the organizational culture. A lot has been written about how to build a high performance, positive culture. The problem is that in all too many organizations very little has been done to consciously work on creating the culture. As a result the organizational culture is a product of the informal interactions of employees.
• I am convinced that the work we do with new employees during the first three months of their employment is a critical factor in shaping a positive workplace. This honeymoon period is the best time to shape positive attitudes and to ensure that the new employee is appropriately integrated into the culture.
• If you read the book, First Break all the Rules, you will find the empirical evidence to establish that one of the most significant factors in retaining high performing employees is the relationship between the employee and his or her immediate supervisor. Supervisor training needs to stress this fact above all others.
• There is an old adage, “I am professional; I do not need to like you in order to be able to work with you.” While in too many cases that adage needs to be true in order for work to be completed, the other side of the coin is that high performance is most certainly a product of alignment and collaboration. More importantly, working under the stress of unhappy relationships clearly does not create a positive workplace.
• Workplace conflict is important and necessary because it is the stimulus to needed change. Feuding and disputing are all too often an unfortunate side product of conflict. There is no positive benefit to feuding and disputing. Every organization needs to adopt methods by which to encourage constructive conflict without the feuding and disputing.
• Recognizing the contributions of each employee is one of the most powerful tools management has to encourage high performance and positive change. Not all recognition programs, however, work. Designing and implementing a recognition program that accomplishes its objectives is critical to organizational effectiveness. Additionally, the employee recognition program is a critical tool towards building a positive workplace.
• Employee recognition, high levels of collaboration, positive supervisor and subordinate relationships, all of these are wonderful. Unfortunately, there are times when management must demonstrate the ability to have a “hard edge” in order to ensure that these positive expressions will dominate the workplace. Disrespect, dishonesty, maliciousness our all cancers in the workplace and must be stamped out. Thus, where positive steps fail to resolve the problem, firm, fair, effective, formal discipline must be administered which includes the right/responsibility to remove the cancer from the workplace.

As you have probably surmised, each of the above bullet points is destined to become the focus of a future e-zine. My intention is to provide both concept and action steps. My hope is that you will find this material helpful to you.

Next Month’s Topic: B.S., F.U., B.H.: Dealing with Obscenity in the Workplace

Reader Question

Due to illness and vacation, I was left short-staffed. I had to have two of my employees work nine days in a row in order to maintain minimal staffing. Was I in violation of any laws by scheduling such a long stretch of work?

Federal legislation is silent on the topic of maximum weekly working hours for most non-minor employees, as long as minimum wage and overtime laws are observed. State laws frequently add some restrictions, however. For example, both California and Illinois have statutes requiring one full day of rest for every seven-day period.

California allows for longer stretches of work than six days for situations that reasonably require them, as long as there are enough days of rest in a calendar month to make the ratio of days worked to rest days at least six to one. Illinois does not make this exception, but lifts the requirement from executive, administrative and professional workers (among others). Consult your state Department of Labor for more information on this and other topics relating to wage and hour legislation.

Note: Do you have a perplexing HR question? Send us the question by clicking on thehawthornegroup@msn.com and let us take a shot at answering it. We will select one question each month and research it. Please indicate whether we have permission to publish your name and organization when identifying the question .

Books of the Month

Professional Growth Are you tired of the ditty, ‘think outside the box?” Then, you will find value in reading this month’s fast paced selection which encourages us to get back to the basics.

Get Back in the Box – Douglas Rushkoff

Personal Growth Parker Palmer is one of my favorite authors and his most recent book explores in a very meaningful way the path to being a whole person

The Hidden Wholeness – Parker Palmer

Quote of the Month

Character cannot be developed in ease and quiet. Only through experiences of trial and suffering can the soul be strengthened, vision cleared, ambition inspired, and success achieved.

Helen Keller

Continue reading...