Can employers see the bigger picture?
September 2, 2008
Yesterday I was talking about the legal and practical issues surrounding employee eye tests, which are all quite straightforward to manage. However new developments in vision correction surgery have created another issue for HR – should employees be signed off sick for this procedure and subsequent recovery or should the time be taken from the employee’s personal annual leave allowance?
This is a topic that has caused a lot of debate within organisations in recent years. Laser eye surgery is a personal choice of the employee rather than a medical requirement, and therefore could be seen to fall outside of unavoidable absence through sickness. This issue could also be debated in relation to cosmetic surgery, another area that has grown in relevance in the last few years as nose jobs and liposuction have become more accessible to everyday people and not just the rich and famous. Another issue is that if there were complications with the surgery and the employee subsequently became ill – would this period of absence be considered as sickness or would the employee have to continue to take the days from their holiday allowance? Although this illness would be ‘self inflicted’, so is a lot of illness (e.g. if an employee broke their leg skiing!)
The problem is that some surgeries that appear at face value to be cosmetic could in fact be medically required, for example some women who have breast reduction surgery do so because they have severe back problems (which probably keep them off work). Another example is an employee who suffers psychological or social problems due to a body issue, or heart problems due to being excessively overweight. Employers are not medically qualified to determine what is cosmetic and what is medical, and to try to use discretion for different cases could be asking for trouble. In terms of laser eye surgery, it is unlikely that an employee will be having this procedure done because of an associated psychological or medical condition, but another consideration for employers is the cost of future eye care that may be required if the employee doesn’t have surgery (i.e. more eye tests, and perhaps a contribution towards the cost of glasses). In relation to the cost of paying SSP or company sick pay for a couple of days for the employee to have the surgery, this could actually balance out in the long term, so is it worth rejecting a request for sick pay in these circumstances?
Another thing to consider is the fact that it’s not actually very often that an employee needs time off for cosmetic or laser eye surgery, so refusing a request for sick pay for time off to have this kind of procedure could actually be more damaging to the employer/employee relationship than the short term financial outlay of paying for a few days sickness’ absence. As we all know, the way employees feel when they’re at work makes a huge difference to the ultimate performance of the company, and having a supportive employer behind you when contemplating a potentially life changing procedure will undoubtedly have a knock on effect to the ongoing sense of mutual trust and respect. I’m sure there are exceptions, but overall I think that this is the bigger picture that employers need to see when dealing with these kinds of situations.
Employee eye tests
September 1, 2008
As part of health and safety legislation, employers have a duty to provide eye tests for employees who regularly use DSE (display screen equipment), and also to pay for corrective equipment (i.e. spectacles) where these are needed for DSE use only. This isn’t because using DSE has an adverse effect on a person’s eyesight, in fact research has found that there is no evidence to show that DSE work causes long term damage to eyesight. The problem is that prolonged DSE work can cause tiredness, short term short-sightedness and headaches, and these effects are much worse for people whose vision is uncorrected than those with good vision or the correct prescription glasses or contact lenses.
Of course, regular breaks away from the computer screen are also required to ensure employees avoid eye strain and the associated effects. The law doesn’t state exactly how regular these breaks should be, as DSE work varies, but a good rule of thumb is at least every four hours. Be aware though that this doesn’t mean that the employee should have a break from work at this frequency – a break from the screen could include attending meetings, doing some filing or reading form a paper based source. The number of breaks an employee should take from work is a separate piece of health and safety law and relates to a person’s age.
In terms of eye tests, there is no specific guidance on how often an employer should be required to pay for one, and no legal requirement to provide paid time off to attend an eye test, however many employers will include this entitlement in their eye test policies as good practice. Many companies limit the frequency of paid eye tests, generally to every two years, but others will take the lead from the optician who will recommend the period between eye tests at the time of the prescription. The law is a bit vague as to the amount an employer has to pay for corrective equipment if an employee needs to wear glasses specifically for DSE use, and there are quite wide variances in policies between different organisations. Some have a limit which is based on the cost of basic NHS frames and lenses, and can vary from between £45 to £100. Some employers don’t state a cost limit, but will say that the cost for basic NHS glasses will be covered by the organisation, and then the employee needs to show by way of a receipt from the optician how much this is, and how much extra they need to pay if they wish to purchase designer frames or special lenses (e.g. with anti-scratch or anti-glare coating).
Another thing to consider is whether to use a specific optician or allow the employee to go to their own chosen optician and claim the cost of the test back. Having a specified optician would mean that the cost of the test per employee is the same, which is a consideration because the cost of tests can range from around £17 up to £30. However many employees have a long term relationship with their optician, and would prefer to go to their own chosen provider than one specified by the company. To overcome this, the company could agree to pay for a test up to a specified cost, e.g. £20, with the remainder paid by the employee, thus giving the employee the choice of attending a more expensive optician if they wish to. There are companies that provide a voucher service where the company purchases a few eye test vouchers at a specified cost, then these vouchers can be used at most opticians. This is a good option as the complication of the employee paying and then claiming for the test is taken away, and also many providers also supply promotional items such as posters, so that employees are better aware of their entitlements, and the employer’s reputation in terms of employee wellbeing is enhanced.
If you are responsible for an eye test policy then a good place to start for information and legal requirements is the HSE website.
Designing the office space
August 28, 2008
The physical working space of an organisation has big effect on the corporate image of the Company for clients, but can also affect the happiness, productivity and general effectiveness of the workforce. When re-designing an office space or relocating to new premises, the look, feel, layout and general comfort of a place needs to be carefully considered so that the company portrays the desired image, or even ‘brand’ to clients and employees, whilst at the same time ensuring staff have the most appropriate working environment in order for them to feel safe and satisfied in their work.
What image are you trying to portray?
The office says a lot about the type of business to customers, and is clearly an important factor in portraying the purpose and ethos of the company. Whilst you may see antique desks and big leather chairs in a legal practice or in a Director’s office in a company with quite old fashioned hierarchies or values, a more fresh and modern look is probably appropriate in newer industries such as media or internet related companies.
The other side to this is the image you are portraying to employees. If you wish to break traditional hierarchies and reflect a flatter, more open and democratic ethos, then managers and employees should have similar furniture and if possible, sit in the same open space. Open plan offices are now more common with different organisational structures meaning that better and more frequent cross-team communication is required.
In a previous role of mine the external and internal image threatened to clash at one point. This was a non-profit organisation which had resided in a grotty old building for years, employees were squashed in, the age of the building meant that the central heating was dodgy, the lighting was terrible and the floors were so uneven you sometimes found your chair sliding to one side at your desk. Then the company relocated to a brand new office which was spacious and airy, modern and had huge windows which provided fantastic light. Obviously this was a great change for the employees, but I remember at the time people worrying about the message that was sent out to funders and partners with a non-profit organisation moving to a swanky office space that was also occupied by interior designers and architects, and was obviously expensive. The fears never materialised and everyone could see what a difference a good working space made to the staff, but the story just goes to show how office image can have an effect on organisational image.
Lots of organisations use their office space as a continuation of their corporate brand, by selecting a colour scheme and style that reflects the themes of the company logo, published materials or company website. This is a good way of cementing the company brand and image, but beware, because if the company decides to have a re-branding exercise or becomes part of a merger/acquisition, this could turn into quite a costly exercise to change!
So, designing an office space isn’t straightforward. It’s a matter of getting the balance right between an external corporate image and an internal image that reflects the desired ethos of the company, as well as ensuring the space is ergonomically well designed so that employees are kept safe, healthy and productive.
Have you been involved in an office design exercise? What were the different issues you faced and what did you end up doing?
Dealing with HIV in the workplace
August 11, 2008
I’ve just read about a man that worked as a control room officer for the Greater Manchester Fire Service who is claiming disability discrimination against his former employer for the way he was treated when he was diagnosed with the HIV virus two years ago. Michael Ashton claims that he was threatened with disciplinary action due to taking too much time off work in the few months after he was diagnosed. Ashton has also stated that work related stress, caused by his employer’s treatment of him, caused his immune system to be even weaker than it would be normally, even with the virus. He feels that he has been treated unfairly by the Fire Service, and was offered no support in a time when he needed it most.
This is a very sensitive issue. Whilst the treatment of HIV has developed so much that it is now possible for people with the virus to remain well for a long time, and are therefore able to stay in work, I can understand why many people hide their condition from their employers for as long as possible, especially when reading about cases like this one. There is a lot of prejudice against people with HIV, much of which is probably due to a lack of understanding about the virus, and fear of the risks associated with it. HIV is covered under the Disability Discrimination Act, and people with the virus are now covered under this legislation from the day they are diagnosed, which is just one reason for employers to devote some time to removing the stigma attached to HIV in their organisations. Some large organisations have policies specifically stating that discrimination will not be tolerated in relation to any employee’s HIV status, although for many smaller organisations this may be too specific. Aids campaigners have said that if HIV isn’t specified within discrimination policies, people won’t know whether they are covered. This could also be true for other chronic diseases, so perhaps it would be a good idea to list the types of diseases that are covered under the discrimination policy to make this clear for everyone. I would normally say that the way an organisation or management team behaves towards its workforce is the best indicator of its approach to equal opportunities and anti-discrimination. However it’s a big risk for an employee with HIV to tell an employer if they’re not quite sure what kind of reaction they will receive, so a sentence within a policy or handbook at least gives an indication of the employer’s intent to manage this issue effectively when needed.
There needs to be an open dialogue about this issue, as many problems can arise with an employee who is hiding their HIV status, but having to take time off to receive treatment, or may be off sick more often than other employees. As with any longer term illness or disability, an employer who is willing to discuss the implications with their employee and offer support and flexibility where needed will ultimately find a better performing and happier employee in the long term.
Has anyone had experience of dealing with this employment issue? What were the implication and how did you manage them?
What’s so important about health and safety?
July 15, 2008
I reckon that health and safety is likely to be one of the most neglected areas of people management in many businesses. For a start, it’s not exactly an exciting subject, with the image of dull health and safety specialists (like Keith Lard from That Peter Kay Thing!) and that reputation for nagging that people responsible for health and safety often attract. On top of that there are reams and reams of legislation to worry about and a wide variety of workplace considerations, so it’s not an easy job to take on. In a previous company I worked for, health and safety was a really important issue due to the nature of the work, yet the monthly health and safety committee was poorly attended and hardly anything ever actually came of it. It’s quite easy to see why, in a straightforward office environment, health and safety often takes a back seat to other, more sexy areas of people management like ‘engagement’ and ‘employer brand’. In industries that are more heavily regulated and have higher risks, then the subject is of course taken more seriously, but for office workers, many people just don’t see the issue.
New figures out however reveal that health and safety is indeed a big issue facing organisations today, with around six million people having sued their employer in the last year after experiencing work-related injuries or illnesses. Most of the problems related to back injuries or work related stress, which is something that millions of people experience every day, and it is important for employers to recognise this as a serious business risk. Clearly, apart from the costs associated with employee absences, there is also a real danger of the costs of legal action being taken against the employer.
The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has loads of information on workplace health and safety, including managing stress. Given the findings of this research, it seems that health and safety is a subject that no employer can afford to ignore.
Should employers provide air con?
July 10, 2008
I’ve just been asked about providing air conditioning for employees in the office. You might think this sounds ludicrous given the current weather conditions, but in fact this employee deals with all the IT systems for the company and therefore spends a lot of time in a hot server room.
As employers, are we obliged to provide air conditioning in the workplace? Well not in the office environment really. The HSE guidelines state that a minimum office temperature should be 16 degrees Celsius, but there is no maximum temperature given. However the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 gives employers the responsibility to provide a safe and healthy workplace for all employees, and there is a huge amount of legislation relating to health and safety that employers need to be aware of. In the case of the server room, there might be an argument for providing air conditioning, as there may be a danger of heat stress, which is where the body is no longer able to regulate its own temperature because of excessive heat. It would depend on how long the employee is expected to stay in the room as to whether this posed a serious risk.
Employers may be put off air conditioning in the office because of the cost and also the hassle of installing it. It is certainly true that installing air conditioning can be expensive, however could it be that the cost is offset in the summer months by the increased comfort and satisfaction of employees, and potentially the higher productivity as a result? Remember my article from a while back about how employees could provide ice cream in the hot summer months to help reduce hot weather-absenteeism? I think that a cool and comfortable environment is probably going to have a bit more of an effect that the provision of cold drinks and snacks!
If employers are faced with comments or requests from hot and disgruntled employees but cost is a major issue, there are always temporary or portable air conditioning solutions for particularly sticky days, or, as in my situation, for a small server room which is really the only place in the building that requires air conditioning. These options could also help to reduce any negative feeling from any employees who have environmental concerns relating to the installation of energy-sapping air conditioning systems.
This is another one of those topics that seems so trivial for HR professionals when they’re also dealing with things like redundancies, discipline and other employment law headaches, but it’s just another example of the effect a working environment can have on the satisfaction of employees and their feelings towards their employer.
First year of smoking ban a success, but it’s still hard to manage in the workplace!
July 3, 2008
So, 1st July saw the first anniversary of the smoking ban in public places, and there have recently been several news items on the success of the legislation, with around 400,000 people having quit smoking in the last 12 months, as well as other benefits such as the fact that you can come home from a night out and not be heaving over the smell on your hair and clothes the next day!
However, there are still some workplace issues relating to smokers that will probably never go away as long as cigarettes exist. These mainly relate to smoking breaks. Of course the vast majority of workplaces haven’t allowed smoking in the office for many years, so the problem of how much time smokers are allowed for breaks, and the fact that non-smokers don’t tend to have breaks as they don’t have a reason, has been a tricky issue for a long time. In my organisation this is handled fairly strictly. Every employee has a 15 minute break in the morning and one in the afternoon, as well as their lunch hour. Staff are not allowed to go for cigarette breaks except in their break times. For some people this can be too restrictive and loses the relaxed and trusting approach to working that many employees value, and I must admit I found it quite strange when I first started and everyone suddenly disappeared at 11 o clock on the dot! However it does mean that all staff, both smokers and non-smokers, are entitled to the same amount of break time, and if they miss it for whatever reason, then it’s hard luck and they’ll have to wait for the next break for a cigarette.
Another issue relating to smoking at work is that, according to a recent study, lots of employers have actually experienced productivity losses as a result of the smoking ban. The survey of 1,100 managers by Employment Law Advisory Services (ELAS) found that because staff were taking longer and more frequent smoking breaks, productivity was down in 71% of respondents’ workplaces. When I first read this I thought it just sounded ludicrous, I really couldn’t understand why the ban on smoking indoors would make any difference to the amount of breaks workers would take and how long. The only thing that should really be changing is the location of the smoking break area in some organisations, and to be honest not one workplace I have ever worked at has had an indoor smoking area anyway. However after thinking about it more, I can understand how smoking breaks might now take longer, as many companies have banned smoking anywhere on the premises, and this often includes the car park, so in some places (particularly places such as hospitals, where you’d think there wouldn’t be that many smokers anyway!) staff have to walk quite a long way to start their smoking break, hence increasing the time it takes. In these instances it would be more practical to have a smoking area or shelter close to the building so that smokers are actually able to assert their right to smoke if they wish to, but don’t take more than their allocated break time to do so. On the other hand, this can also cause problems, for example where I work the designated smoking area is quite near to the windows of other people’s offices and sometimes the smoke can drift into the office, especially when people light up as they’re on the way to the area instead of when they get there!
Of course there are always difficulties with this subject because there are different levels of tolerance of smoking with in organisations, and staff who are extremely anti-smoking will find it difficult to accept when provisions have been made for smokers to have cigarettes (and breaks) throughout the day. Ensuring the rules are fair for everyone is sometimes a ‘HR nightmare’ (this is a commonly used phrase where I work!) and sometimes you just have to accept that not everyone will be pleased with the outcome.
I’m sure these issues, and others, are really common in most organisations. If this is something you have to deal with, leave a comment explaining your experience.
Dealing with employee alcohol misuse
June 5, 2008
Employee alcohol misuse can cause a severe drain on organisational productivity and effectiveness, however
many companies are doing enough to tackle this issue, according to the CIPD. In a survey carried out last year on 500 organisations, four out of ten employers felt that alcohol misuse is ‘a significant cause of employee absence and lost productivity’. Despite this, the same amount of respondents had no policy in place to help managers to deal with the problem. Whilst it was found that organisations that provided rehabilitation support or counselling were much more likely to retain the employee after the problem was successfully overcome, the number of companies having these sorts of facilities in place were very low.
It has been reported today that this is a major problem in Wales, where one in 13 people show signs of alcohol misuse, and the problem is costing Welsh businesses more than £2billion in lost productivity and absence. A charity, called Pen y Enfys, is attempting to help employers tackle this difficult issue by providing awareness courses for managers and staff, as well as interventions for sufferers of alcohol misuse such as counselling to assist recovery and encourage a faster return to work. The charity has recently
completed a pilot scheme which has proved to be very successful, with some companies already signed up to the scheme which will officially start in September.
This is a great example of a scheme which will help employers to deal with these difficult issues, using the expertise of trained professionals who are better equipped to help individuals recover and return to their jobs as soon as possible, which is beneficial for both employer and employee. The following is a list of key things that employers can do in relation to this workplace issue:
- Develop a clear policy on alcohol misuse. This should not only be a list of rules and regulations, indicating what employees are not allowed to do and the consequences, but should cover the support and assistance that is available to individuals who find themselves in the position of having an alcohol problem. The hardest part of dealing with a problem for an individual is admitting it to
themselves and to others, so a very negative policy that takes a hard line won’t get you anywhere.
- Managers need to be trained in how to spot potential alcohol misuse and also what to do in this situation. Front line managers are the most likely people to see the behaviours that will identify where there is a problem as they will normally work quite closely with their staff and will also be responsible for managing performance, which is likely to be affected.
- Develop relationships with expert organisations that deal with these issues every day. These organisations should be able to provide training or advise on where this can be found, as well as providing as
sessment and counselling services as and when required.
- Providing an employee assistance programme (EAP) for all employees is a good idea, as many people dealing with alcohol problems (or indeed other issues such as debt or relationship problems) will not wish to go to their manager or even the HR Manager with this, as they may be embarrassed, or may have concerns that they will risk their employment by bringing this to their employer’s attention. An EAP is normally avai
lable for a set fee per employee per month and is totally confidential for the individual, as the employer normally only receives information about how many people have used the service per month or other period. Many EAP’s combine a telephone advice service with the opportunity for face to face counselling and the ability for the employer to refer employees for specialist help.
I’d be interested to hear if anyone has had to deal with this issue in the workplace, and how it was handled.
Summer sickies
May 13, 2008
I’ve just read an article that made me laugh. Apparently around 70 per cent of UK workers have been tempted to pull a sickie in the last couple of weeks because of the gorgeous weather we’ve been having. This isn’t the bit that made me laugh, what did make me laugh is that the article said ways to incentivise staff to come to work would be offering free ice cream or picnics! Hmm… a free ice cream when you’re at work or one for 99p when you’re skiving off, what would you prefer? I think if you’re the sort of person to phone in sick when it’s sunny you’re not likely to come in for a nice picnic.
Other incentives that sounded a little less ridiculous included earlier finishes in the summer, provided all hours have been met. This is an extension of my discussion yesterday about flexible working and the benefits this can bring.
I think that it is definitely likely that occurrences of pulling sickies increase during the summer. But committed workers will be less likely to do so, so it’s important that people are managed effectively to ensure they are happy and motivated at work. Also, absence management must play a part in this – if someone has a pattern of stomach upsets every time the sun comes out then good absence management systems will pick up on this, as will effective management.
At least there’s one good point to this story – given the weather over the last couple of years we’ve probably not got anything to worry about once May’s over – nobody wants to pull a sickie when it’s throwing it down!
Revitalising sleep deprived staff
May 6, 2008
Just recently I’ve not been sleeping well at all, (see recent article on current academic pressures for the main reason!) and today I feel like the walking dead! So I was quite interested in an article I found in an old copy of People Management about some companies that treat sleep deprivation as an important employee well-being issue. According to a recent study, almost half of the UK workforce feel that they’re not getting enough sleep, so this could potentially play quite an important part in things like productivity and attentiveness of staff.
The article highlighted three companies who have made provisions for staff to have a ‘power nap’ during their working day. Travelodge used a meeting room to set up hammocks, Procter and Gamble set up a ‘sleep pod’, which blocks out light and noise, and a hotel called Abode launched a ‘recharge and refresh’ package to allow staff to squeeze forty winks in between their working periods. I reckon this is a very rare occurrence in businesses, but it’s a great idea. I’m not sure of the exact scientific benefits of power napping, but it certainly works for me. When I was in school and college I used to work in my summer holidays at the place where my mum worked, and we’d regularly drive to a tranquil lakeside spot near work to have a half hour kip in the car at lunch time. It was a bit of a struggle waking up sometimes but I’m sure it helped me to be more productive and alert in the afternoon.
I can’t see this ever happening where I work now – apart from the obvious issues of where to house such a scheme, we’ve probably got too many pranksters who wouldn’t let anyone have a bit of peace to sleep – you’d probably wake up with pen all over your face or something! The way I’m feeling at the moment though, it would probably be the best benefit ever!