Within the past few days I've seen bulletin board postings that have brought up old feelings about how paternalistic we in HR have been and how much more so we've become. It would be more accurate to characterize this as "maternalism" since so many more women than men are in HR than when I first entered the field, and perhaps my reactions are a gender thing.
The first posting stated that, after many consultations and warnings with an employee for a negative attitude, poor public relations, yelling at customers, and a total inability to answer phones with any civility, it had finally been decided to terminate employment. But because the employee had two small children, and because it was getting near to Christmas, the question was raised whether or not they should wait and, even so, how could they terminate and still allow her to get unemployment insurance?
There were seven responses to the question when I last visited, and not one had the same reaction and response that I did. The last time I had such a reaction -- which is hard to describe, but involves raised hackles and a little nausea -- it was due to a woman asking that the company she worked for to pay for boarding her cat since her job required her to travel several times a month. (That is so classic that it remains in Labor Pains and in at least one of my articles on line.) But the latter was from a "greedy" employee; the former from a too-sensitive HR administrator. Few things actually get such a rise out of me, even worse than the remaking of Miracle on 34th Street and Brian's Song.
Anyway, as for the employee with the lousy attitude and unemployment, the answers are fairly simple. Discounting canning or caning her since our HR person was so adamant and didn't seem to want to adopt the two kids, one simply can refuse to contest an unemployment claim. Even behavior so egregious as to lose a company customers can be "forgiven" by the company. Perhaps a better alternative would have been to ask for the employee's resignation, but as I said in my posting, if she refused, you're forced to terminate and fight any unemployment claim. That probably wouldn't sit well with our HR saint.
Am I being to hard on the HR person? Probably, even though she said that it was the president of the company who had "a big heart." (Her quote, but my reaction was "big heart, small brain." See http://www.ewin.com/articles/paternal.htm) Still, where does our caring for employees stop? Doesn't there have to be reciprocity? Of course there does!
If the employee was (and this is a quote from a question I received last year) "the sweetest, but dumbest person one could ever meet," and simply couldn't do the job, then by all means, let her have unemployment. But keep her through the end of the year? Uh, uh. If Christmas wouldn't be looming, it would be Groundhog's Day or another event that would forever scar the kids. You simply don't keep an employee on payroll who either cannot do the job or who may actually cause damage.
Good or bad, is the company really the employee's keeper? It was partially true in some small companies in New England in the 1850s. It was still somewhat true in the 1960s and 70s. It couldn't be farther from reality since the 1990s, and I doubt that the pendulum will ever swing back, no matter how maternalistic HR departments become. The psychological contract remains in effect: so long as the employee works hard and achieves goals, the company pays a decent wage and gives benefits. So long as the company pays a decent wage and gives benefits, the employee works hard to meet goals. The company can and should have some compassion, but the company is not the parent of the employee.
The very basis of the psychological contract is a quid pro quo which is not in evidence in many of the proposed "benefits" that HR has fostered in the last several years. No, I do not fault the HR manager in this and many other instances. I think that some mothering of employees is a normal reaction to the sweeping layoffs and pay cuts by senior management, devoid of compassion and often involving all but senior management. Therefore, the HR manager often feels that she or he is not appreciated either. It's no wonder that so many feel a little schizophrenic today. "Don't forget to close the door on your way out."
Now I'm going to tear you in another direction. I stated at the beginning that there were two postings that got to me. The second had to do with the death of George Harrison. An HR Manager in the West had allowed several employees to "go home after they had heard the news on the way into work, but were too distraught to work." The manager wanted to know whether she should dock sick leave or vacation or just let the employees have the day off. What am I missing here? Naivety on the part of the manager? Slick or sick employees? True, I do not believe that "Harrison defined a generation." I can't think of any individual who defined a generation ... although Jerry Garcia? Nope. He only defined an ice cream.
Some companies allowed employees to go home on September 11. That was certainly appropriate. Some companies brought in psychologists and grief counselors, actions which I thought were literally extraordinary and not called for west of the Mississippi unless the employee or company had a relationship with someone or company in the World Trade Center or Pentagon. We were indeed devastated by the events of 9/11, but is it HR's responsibility to give comfort of this nature? Perhaps a better question is, where else could we send employees who are so effected by events of a death or catastrophe? Ministers, rabbis, priests... other outside sources. Most of us do not have the wisdom of Solomon and shouldn't represent ourselves as ombudsmen.
Yes, it's sad that George Harrison died so young. Yes, it's great that he left us his music. But unless our HR manager who asked the question is only 16 and still screams when she sees Ricky Martin, perhaps we need HR managers with more maturity, aka experience, AKA skepticism grown of years. I'm sorry, but it's only okay to scream if you still see Elvis.
When you leave the house in the morning, where are you going? To work. What do you do at work? Work. So, outside of a few catastrophic events which affect us directly, we should expect others to be at work to work. And when they do, we'll continue benefits and decent wages. Do not reward negative behavior. It only sets others' expectations for the same consideration.
Dissenting opinions are welcome. Mail them to me at ewinning@ewin.com
All Rights Reserved. Copyright 2001. E. A. Winning Associates, Inc.