Necessity may be the mother of invention, but sneakiness is the father. Just ask any employer who is trying to curb the use of iPhones and Blackberries in the workplace. Some employees are so good at texting that they can do it without looking. Secret Texting could be the next Olympic sport: “Look at that! A 360 behind the back twist while checking movie times in his sweatshirt pocket! That should rate at least a 56.7, Bob”.
Employers have to decide if they want to keep employees from checking in with their BFF while they should be helping customers. Diligent, consistent enforcement is going to be key. Some outlaw cell phones altogether. Not allowed in the building. If you can’t live without your phone, you should get a job at the phone company. The thinking here: if it ain’t within reach it can’t be used. Other employers have decided to allow their employees to text while on breaks: they figure if they offer a time for their use, the employee will wait until then. Hmmm.
Lawsuits are appearing in this arena: blogging nasty things about your boss, hackers in your social media site, freedom of speech, and privacy issues are all in play. If an employee texts f-worded threats to his supervisor for changing his schedule is that free speech? If an employee is fired for no-call, no-show, but says she texted her boss that she was sick, is that sufficient notice? Should she be reinstated? If the employee agrees to pay for text characters over a certain limit on the company’s phone, can the company limit what is said or is this a privacy issue?
I tell my clients that this is just the latest distraction at work. Be consistent or you can’t expect compliance. Do you allow personal phone calls? Are friends allowed to come visit your employees while they are on the clock? Do you care if your employees come in a few minutes late or are you a stickler for being on time? Do you have filters on the computers so that your staff cannot access porn sites and Facebook? How much control do you want over the myriad distractions in the workday? When you know the answer to this question, then you will know the policy you need to put into place.
Here are two abbreviated samples:
1). Engaging in social networking and texting during your day can negatively impact your productivity and work performance. Therefore it is your responsibility to regulate your social networking and texting so that it does not impact your productivity or cause you performance issues.
2). Employee’s own electronic media is not to be used during work hours on the work premises under any circumstances. Texting and the use of Internet based programs such as Facebook, [etc.] is a violation of Company policy and use of these programs either on Company owned property or on your personal property during work hours on the work premises can result in discipline up to and including termination.
In either case, consistent enforcement – as always – is key.Let me know what you think.
Showing posts with label texting. Show all posts
Showing posts with label texting. Show all posts
Monday, March 8, 2010
Friday, December 18, 2009
TO MEMO OR NOT TO MEMO
I wrote a memo to our staff last week, and I am wondering if it was too abrupt. It concerned emails. One of the department managers contacted me that her staff needed reminding about appropriate use of company email, and I knew of another inappropriate email that had come through from another employee, so I jumped right on it.
I usually write a short memo, and this was no exception. I did, however, add another section of explanation for those who like their memos longer and more detailed. But I thought the message was clear cut, and sometimes when you try to explain something simple you just end up making it more complicated.
Here it is: Do not use company email for anything that is not the business of the company. Period. And word every email with respect. No name-calling. Ever. Or company secrets.
What do you think? Too black & white? That’s what I am afraid of. I send emails all day long that only tangentially concern United Staffing: to the Chamber, to HRACC or Rotary members. Turning in my Tolosa columns. So did I just write myself a memo telling me I can’t do that anymore?
Why did I go so inflexible when I know better? I know that employee handbook policies should be written as guidelines to follow, but never so detailed as to leave no room for on-the-spot management decision making. Even a “zero tolerance” policy against harassment shouldn’t mean that every offense will be met with immediate termination. Only that every offense will be met with appropriate discipline that may include termination. The point in zero tolerance is that nobody gets a mulligan when it comes to harassment. HR has never been a rigid arena, so what was I thinking?
By the way, I have had no second thoughts about the second part of my memo: that dealt with respectful language. Email is forever and can come back to punish you for thoughtless (or worse) language. I have been told by more than one attorney that the delete button is a ruse, designed to provide a false sense of security in the user. Besides, if you are enforcing respectful language and treatment in the workplace, it should include emails, too.
Our company policies are clear on the subject of emails and doing personal business while at work, so my memo was meant as a reminder, and I attached a copy of both policies (again, for those who like to see the source and read the fine print.) Is it a zero tolerance policy about personal use of email, though? Or is a “reasonable” amount OK? Courts, you know, have the reasonable person criteria for evaluating an issue: what would a reasonable person feel about it? Know any who sit on juries? But I digress.
In my attempt to be clear I feel I have been unreasonable. Certainly unrealistic. And an unrealistic policy is usually not enforceable. Great: I have accomplished the exact opposite of my intention and have to write another memo explaining what I meant in the first place. But maybe I’ll have someone else draft it.
I usually write a short memo, and this was no exception. I did, however, add another section of explanation for those who like their memos longer and more detailed. But I thought the message was clear cut, and sometimes when you try to explain something simple you just end up making it more complicated.
Here it is: Do not use company email for anything that is not the business of the company. Period. And word every email with respect. No name-calling. Ever. Or company secrets.
What do you think? Too black & white? That’s what I am afraid of. I send emails all day long that only tangentially concern United Staffing: to the Chamber, to HRACC or Rotary members. Turning in my Tolosa columns. So did I just write myself a memo telling me I can’t do that anymore?
Why did I go so inflexible when I know better? I know that employee handbook policies should be written as guidelines to follow, but never so detailed as to leave no room for on-the-spot management decision making. Even a “zero tolerance” policy against harassment shouldn’t mean that every offense will be met with immediate termination. Only that every offense will be met with appropriate discipline that may include termination. The point in zero tolerance is that nobody gets a mulligan when it comes to harassment. HR has never been a rigid arena, so what was I thinking?
By the way, I have had no second thoughts about the second part of my memo: that dealt with respectful language. Email is forever and can come back to punish you for thoughtless (or worse) language. I have been told by more than one attorney that the delete button is a ruse, designed to provide a false sense of security in the user. Besides, if you are enforcing respectful language and treatment in the workplace, it should include emails, too.
Our company policies are clear on the subject of emails and doing personal business while at work, so my memo was meant as a reminder, and I attached a copy of both policies (again, for those who like to see the source and read the fine print.) Is it a zero tolerance policy about personal use of email, though? Or is a “reasonable” amount OK? Courts, you know, have the reasonable person criteria for evaluating an issue: what would a reasonable person feel about it? Know any who sit on juries? But I digress.
In my attempt to be clear I feel I have been unreasonable. Certainly unrealistic. And an unrealistic policy is usually not enforceable. Great: I have accomplished the exact opposite of my intention and have to write another memo explaining what I meant in the first place. But maybe I’ll have someone else draft it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)