H aRRgh!!

At the moment, as you'll be aware, unless it's disrimination related an employee can't bring a claim of unfair dismissal unless they have a year of continuous employment.

Which means you don't have to worry too much about following a fair procedure for Malcolm in production who's been there 9 months and keeps annoying the MD by parking in his parking space.

On the face of it then, David Cameron's plans to reform the Tribunal system to increase this period would seem like a good idea.  But is it? 

All the press attention this is getting bangs on about this being a backward step because we reduced the period from 2 years to one some years ago, sexual discrimination because women move jobs more frequently and are therefore more likely to be affected, discrimination claims increasing in which awards are uncapped so will be more costly, yada yada yada.

I have a more fundamental issue with this.  Is it right?  Should we be allowed to treat someone unfairly just because they have less than 2 years service?  Should we even have the one year period?  Aren't we just copping out of managing Malcolm properly?  Why wouldn't we follow a fair procedure?  

As far as I'm concerned, while getting it wrong is less risky for the business with someone who has less than a year's service, we should at least be making an effort to get it right from day one. 

Why Doctor Harriet?  Because I know exactly how a doctor feels when he/she tells someone what they do and gets chapter and verse on the person's health problems in the hope that they will:

a) give free advice/consultation

b) confirm the suspicion that it's wrong/unfair/a conspiracy

c) come up with a miracle cure

d) all of the above

As soon as I tell someone I'm an HR Manager, whether it be relative, friend or complete stranger, I get to hear all about their work place woes.  In a way I make a rod for my own back because I just can't help giving my opinion, which inevitably leads on to me giving advice.  Maybe it's a sign of these troubled times, but it seems to be getting worse.

My husband's cousin's wife's sister's husband called me last week to talk about a disciplinary meeting he's been called to.  Hang on, I'll give you a minute to work out what that makes him to me.............are you there yet?  In short, NOTHING.  I've never spoken to the man in my life.  And now I'm his free HR advisor guru woman.

A couple of weeks prior I was advising my Mum's best friend on her "unfair dismissal" (this wasn't just a random conversation, my mum set up an offical consultation - without consulting me I might add - I had my notepad out and everything).

I'm actually seriously thinking about taking out professional indemnity insurance.  I kid you not.

The start of a new year, and I've decided to try and revitalise the Staff Consultative Committee.  It's been running for quite a while, but to be honest it's all gone a bit flat.  It's a motion we go through.  Just an old habit really. 

Every couple of months we drag a group of people, who aren't really representative of the workforce, kicking and screaming to the conference room table, knowing they're doing it because nobody else wanted to do it and they got stuck with it.

The SMT member who Chairs it doesn't really get why we do it, or buy into it, and neither do they.  The perception is that they can't really influence anything at the end of the day anyway and that if they bring anything to the table we might do something with it but only if we get round to it and if it's in the interests of the Company.

What gets me is that, as a company without Union recognition, it could be such a great way of communicating, consulting, getting buy in, engaging.  But it's never been used as it should be really and I'm stuck with a history of disinterest and inertia. 

I'm not sure whether to try and work with what I've got or wipe the slate clean and repackage, rebrand it into something "new" to generate some interest and enthusiasm.  I think I'm probably going to go with the latter.

It seems a no brainer to me.....WHY would a Company not want to communicate and consult and engage with it's worforce, and WHY would the workforce not want to have some influence and involvement in what takes up a significant proportion of their lives?

aaRgh......!

The days are dark, mostly dismal, and it's that time of year when you arrive and leave work in the dark.  There's not even the Christmas break to look forward to (and if you returned to work rested, it's a miracle - my Christmas/New Year usually involves much stressful in-law and relative dodging).  I do hope though, that you all had a nice Christmas and New Year, and that Santa brought you all you asked for.

It's also the time of year where there are a plethora of viruses going around, and the combination of general January back-to-work flatness, sickness absence and here-but-not-really-well-enough-ness has conspired to make yours truly's working environment somewhat gloomy.

My suggestion that we should perk everyone up by inviting pilates/yoga/areobics type people in to do taster sessions in the restaurant as our January wellness event went down like a lead balloon.  Conversations generally along the lines of "Are you joking?  I barely have the energy to drive to work....(sniffle/sneeze).....no?  Well, good luck...."

I get the feeling attendance wouldn't be high.

As for me, I look on the bright side.  Spring is on the way.  While everyone else is in semi-hibernation mode, it's an opportunity to look at a few things that I don't usually get time for, things we'd like to do or could do better.  Catch up on some reading (HR related of course).  Plan my summer holiday (definately not HR related).  Batter the senior managers with my HR gospel while their defenses are weak (cue evil laughter). 

Nope, it might be a dismal time of year, but there's plenty to be cheerful about, honest. 

Happy New Year to you all.

Last week I told you all about our new-ish payroll system.  Well, this week it's really come up trumps.  In the transfer of data from our old payroll system to our new one, some gremlin in the system decided to carry on paying a highly respected, highly paid employee who left just over 2 months ago.

In the confusion of changeover last month we missed it so she's now had 2 months pay and owes us about £9k.

OK, I thought, it's a mistake, I'll ring her, she must have noticed (after all, you don't get an extra £4.5k in your bank account without wondering where it's come from, surely?!), she left on good terms, she's not the type who wouldn't say anything or keep/spend it, and we'll get it back.  Right?

Wrong.  First she denied she had it.  She had closed that bank account when she left.  Then when I asked her if she could, just for our peace of mind, let me see her bank statement to prove it so I could then go back to the bank and chase them (as neither payment had bounced back to us), she admitted she did have it and had noticed the mistake immediately.

However, she felt that she had done everything she needed to do to inform the company she was leaving, resignation letter, exit interview etc etc, so if the company then decided to carry on paying her it wasn't her problem, and not only had she chosen not to say anything, she had already spent most of it. 

She only got the last £4.5k on Tuesday!!  How do you manage to spend £4,500 in 2 days??!!

I've managed to negotiate a 'repayment plan' with her, but what came out of it for me is the extent to which we assume we know someone just because they work for/with us.  The public persona isn't always the private truth.  And there's some truth in the corruptive power of money.

Ho Ho Ho!  It's that time of year again....

We all know what's it's all about; some people go, others wouldn't be seen dead, someone will cross the line, most people will drink too much, the majority will dance badly (if enthusiastically), and the following week will be a hotbed of gossip concerning who got off with who.

But what is the role of the HR person at such a 'do'?  Can you let your hair down, get plastered, make inappropriate comments to your boss and throw up in the loo before passing out in the stairwell?

Or are you the voice of reason and order, solemnly sipping orange juice and soda, warning Kevin from accounts to stop fondling the interns and rescuing Tracey from sales who's managed to drunkenly lock herself in a toilet cubicle?

It's my view that as an HR person a certain level of aloofness needs to be maintained to be able to sustain a professional image.  You can't be best mates with everyone when next week you might be advising on their disciplinary.

You also have to maintain a level of appropriate behaviour.  You can't discipline someone for inappropriate swearing if you yourself suffer from a chronic case of potty-mouth. 

But how do you avoid being seen as (or in fact becoming) the party police?  This is a question that has so vexed members of my HR network that many simply don't attend.

Answers on a postcard please......

A couple of months ago the powers that be decided to purchase and implement a shiny new "HR and Payroll" System.   It's now in and up and running and we've all been trained and are getting used to using it.

However, now having used it for a little while it's showing some distinct lack of finesse on the HR side.  It's a bit odd in some of the ways and places you enter data, and even odder in the way it collates and reports on said data.  It also doesn't capture a couple of blindingly obvious things you need to know from an HR point of view. 

What numpty chose this HR system, I thought, and proceeded to do some digging, both internally and externally.

What became apparent was that it isn't really an HR system, it's an accounting system with an HR bit tacked on.  Below the surface is a big beast that manages all our company finance.  Accountants thinking abut what HR needs?  Not so good. 

The point for HR?  It feeds all the payroll data you can think of, on a weekly basis, in an insane amount of detail, into a weekly 'real time' report, for management MD level and above, so they can see absence, wages, % time lost, overtime etc etc. 

Big brother is watching you.

So it's not about an IT solution that makes HR more efficient at all.  Which was how they sold it.  No wonder they didn't trial it anywhere first.  In fact it's a complicated spider web of a system that you need a PhD in to make it work properly.

I feel cheated. 

Conversations with my son....

Small Boy:    Mummy, I want to be a scientist!

Me:               Are you going to come and work for mummy's company and make (product)?

Small Boy:    Why?

Me:               Because thats what the scientists do there.....

Small Boy:    Do you make (product)?

Me:               No, I look after all the people who make the (product)

Small Boy:    Well, that's not much of a job!

What can I say?!