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.
]]>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.
]]>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......!
]]>
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.
]]>
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.
]]>
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......
]]>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.
]]>
Those of you who read regularly (thank you!) will know that a few months ago I got a new assistant, an assistant of the fresh out of uni, bouncy and enthusiastic but inexperienced and naïve type.
Since then I've been trying to calm her down a bit while not curbing that natural get up and go. She wears me out just looking at her. The HRD posted recently about HR types and dogs (don't ask! Just go here) - well, if she had a tail, it would be wagging. Constantly.
The time has come to start thinking about her probationary review. The thing is, I talk the talk, I coach other managers in how to do it, I pride myself on being good at it, I give constructive and balanced feedback, credit where it's due, direction when it's needed etc etc, but can I tell you a secret?
I don't like it any more than the next manager.
Appraisals are different, I'm ok with them. You've got to know them, they've got to know you, you've got some history, you know what approach might work best with that person. Probations come at a time when you haven't had that long to get to know them, you're not sure how they're going to receive/react to whatever it is you have to say (and therefore how to pitch the message to best encourage the outcome you want) and suddenly they're in the hot seat and you're the judging panel.
Are they the perfect popstar? Is everyone wondering why on earth they're still here? Or have I given them the wrong song? (yes, ok, I watch the X Factor).
Fortunately for me she's doing well, even if she is trying to run before she can walk. I just need to slow her down and keep the tail wagging.
]]>
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?!
]]>The HRD's view ('Think Stink' - My hell Is Other People) at first made me howl with laughter (I'd been having a pretty bad day, so anything that lightened the day was a bonus). Rick at Flipchart Fairy Tales weighed in with a defence of the CIPD.
And so the debate goes on.
For what it's worth, here's my view. A good PR campaign? No, lets face it, it isn't. It's laughable. Obviously put together by a marketing team and/or agency that have no real knowledge of HR, and that comes through in the campaign. I think some of their pre-conceptions about HR have snuck their way in - did any of them think of actually asking some real HR people what they do (other than going to meetings - as the HRD points out)? Or how best to represent themselves? Or what bits of the job would be most worth profiling in order to attract people to the profession?
But over all I think it's another symptom of most of the HR profession's seeming need to prove their worth. As many others have said before (this is by no means an original thought), HR as a community seems both insecure and obsessed with introspective analysis and paranoia concerning 'how we're adding value', 'are we adding value?', 'how do we demonstrate we add value?', 'we are worth it, honest'.
Why can't we just drop the self obsessed introspection and do a good job, guided and supported by a professional body that knows what a good job is and how to get there? If we just focussed on that and got on with it, we wouldn't have to prove our worth.
And as for the 'hash tags' controversy, well, that just says it all doesn't it? The CIPD clearly aren't grown up enough to take criticism from the very community they are supposed to represent.
]]>I know, I should have said something when it happened. But that's just it - it just sort of happened. Mostly because I keep volunteering (doh!).
Conversations with the man-at-the-top usually result in a 'well done', and a vague non-commitant expression of intent to do something. What? I don't know.
So I ask myself - do I actually want to step back again? No not really. I'm enjoying the way the role has developed. I've developed too, and learnt a lot. But in my humble opinion, I'm now outperforming my original job description and salary. And now I want both the recognition and financial reward.
But, now here's the rub, I know the budget. I know there's no money. If I, as HR person, were having this conversation with the man-at-the-top about someone else I might be saying something along the lines of "but we don't need someone that experienced and qualified to do that job, so why would we pay for one?"
So maybe I've just outgrown my role. There's not a lot of progression opportunity here, so for the moment it's stay in the role I've got or move on.
Off to have (another) conversation with the man-at-the-top. Only this time it's about my future rather than my pay. Wish me luck.........
Yes, I know. Return on investment and all that. I do get it and I buy in. We sponsor the employee football teams. We have occ health regularly on site. We have a healthy option on the canteen menu (and very nice it is too). We have an online 'Wellness' programme and a six monthly 'wellness' week. We got rid of the chocolate and crisps vending machines (aaaahhh!). We regularly promote the benefits of giving up smoking. It's all good.
I do think it's important. I care about the wellness of our staff; I think we should do as a company, morally and ethically, with no thought of 'return on investment', it's the right thing to do. Also, if we care about the wellness of our staff, hopefully they'll care about the 'wellness' of our business. Plus, I want them to be healthy so they're off work less. It's win win.
But at the end of the day, I'm an employer. I have a contract with my employees that says, basically, 'you work and I'll pay'. I can do all of the above, but at the end of the day it's not down to me, at best it's got to be a joint effort. As the old saying goes, you can lead a horse to water......
Let's take me as an example. Not to beat about the bush, I am a lady of generous proportions. I don't consider it the responsibility of my employer to so something about it. It's up to me to make sure I'm healthy, to go out and exercise and eat healthily and get back to my old svelte self (ok, I was never that svelte, but I can dream goddammit!).
So while I think we should encourage, inform, advise, lets not take responsibility for something that is really down to the individual, and drive those individuals towards inaction by giving them a reason to make it someone else's responsibility.
Aaaahhhh panic panic panic! What if they find something?! Oh the shame! What if we were to get fined?! What would the man-at-the-top say! (Back of hand to forehead in dramatic fainting pose)...
OK, calming down, I'm sure all will be fine. We know the rules and we regularly audit, we have copies of everything we should have on file, and my esteemed assistant is even hotter on work permits than I am bless her.
Still, I can't quite quiet that inner churning (you know, that chest tightening, buttock clenching feeling of almost-panic). What if...what if...
Might just have to go and do another audit......
Well, we now have the results. After much campaigning and promoting (while trying not to cross over that 'but you made me do it!' line) we achieved a pretty good response rate of just over 60%. Last year we got back about half that, so I confess to feeling just a little bit smug.
I've yet to analyse the tantalisingly colourful facts, figures and stats provided in the report, but there's alot of green. I'm hoping that's a good sign.
We all know the purpose of the survey, as I said in a previous post on this subject, you ask the questions, they give the answers, you see where the issues are, address them appropriately, and everyone lives happily ever after.........
But the suspicion continues. If the results are too good, we made them up. If they're awful, our employees feel vindicated that we are as awful as they thought we were, and divide broadly into two camps:
1. Enjoying watching their management squirm and relishing their moment of power ("Yeah baby! Watcha gonna do about it?!") while adopting a military swagger and lobbying the Consultative Committee for change.
2: Heads hanging in despair, moaning to each other how they knew that anyway but nothing is ever done about it so what's the point.
If the results are middle of the road, without that sensational excellent/awful element, everyone just ignores them.
One thing's for sure, however we have done, and whatever we do to address any issues, you can never please everyone.
Caffeine required I think, (and possibly some sort of fat/sugar combination), before I get started....
]]>