Canadian HR Reporter

CANADIAN HR REPORTER May 2, 2016 INSIGHT 19 Allowing employees to work from home Is productivity lowered when employees have remote work arrangements? Question: Our organization has been ex- ploring the option of allowing employees to work from home, but some managers have expressed concerns around lost pro- ductivity. To encourage more fl exible work arrangements, should we allow employees to work remotely? Answer: Lost productivity is a concern for all employers. And there are many factors that impact productivity such as absenteeism, employee dissatisfaction and inef- fective management practices. There are a few prominent CEOs, HR professionals and even employment lawyers who claim fl exible work arrangements are to blame for lost productivity. Unfortunately, even senior HR practitioners make haphazard decisions based on widely held misconceptions. ere is much debate around the issue of remote workers, and employees are constantly find- ing challenges balancing their personal and work lives, but the majority of these discussions are not based on research. HR professionals should em- brace evidence-based decision- making when deciding if remote work arrangements hinder or en- hance productivity. When looking at the overall evi- dence, studies show productivity actually increases as a result of telecommuting. ese employees are typically more engaged, log more hours at work each week and, ultimately, are more productive. A 2014 study by professors at Stanford University and Beijing University entitled "Does Work- ing from Home Work? Evidence from a Chinese Experiment" provides strong evidence that telecommuting benefi ts both the employer and employee. In as- sociation with CTrip, a Chinese travel agency that employs 16,000 people, researchers randomly as- signed 250 call centre employ- ees to work from home or the offi ce for a nine-month period. Results showed those selected to work from home were 13 per cent more productive than their offi ce colleagues, spending nine per cent more time on calls and handling four per cent more calls per minute. In addition, these workers were sick less often, reported increased rates of job satisfac- tion and turnover was reported to be half that of offi ce workers. And CTrip estimated savings of about $1,900 per employee for the nine-month duration of the experiment. It is worth noting, however, that the Stanford study found promo- tion rates for remote workers dropped by 50 per cent. is is why it is important for HR and line managers to have open and can- did conversations with employees about the potential drawbacks of telecommuting, while ensuring there is no discrimination as a result of employees seeking such arrangements. What is interesting is that about 70 per cent of full-time millen- nial workers would be more sat- isfi ed in their jobs if they worked remotely using cloud software, according to a 2014 Conference Board of Canada report. So it is important for HR professionals to understand the needs of the diff erent generations. Many organizations today are promoting telecommuting as an effective cost-cutting strat- egy. Lower overhead is realized through savings associated with a mortgage or lease, utilities, janito- rial services, offi ce supplies, coff ee and water expenses, offi ce equip- ment, furniture and even transit subsidies. Companies that have em- braced telecommuting have ex- perienced significant financial savings. Aetna reported it saved US$178 million in real estate costs, while Cisco Systems re- ported it gained US$195 million in productivity within the fi rst year of adopting its telecommut- ing policy, according to media reports. at being said, remote work arrangements aren't suitable for all organizations and job types. Positions that are customer-facing and require employees to meet with clients on a regular basis would not be suitable for remote work arrangements. However, remote work ar- rangements can be ideal for the vast majority of administrative and creative offi ce tasks. Establish policies, build culture of trust It is important to establish writ- ten policies and procedures for remote work arrangements. HR should provide training to man- agers and employees on these policies to ensure requests are handled in a transparent and fair manner. It may be a good idea to stress that eligibility is only reserved for full-time, permanent em- ployees and not all positions may be suitable for remote work arrangements. It is also important to mention management reserves the right to reverse telecommuting arrange- ments or even deny employee re- quests if they feel they are unable to maintain operational feasibil- ity and quality standards. That being said, managers should be reminded performance is measured by results, not physi- cal presence, and, therefore, should not refuse requests simply because they don't trust their direct reports. In fact, the biggest barrier to telecommuting within most orga- nizations is a rampant culture of distrust towards employee actions and behaviours. Establishing a culture of trust is the most important factor for a truly successful and healthy employer-employee relationship. Organizational trust should not simply be a slogan that is arti- fi cially espoused by HR but must be embraced in the actions of line managers. Unfortunately, every organi- zation is going to have a few bad apples, but this should not be the reason to justify micromanaging and distrusting employees. Once a culture of trust has been clearly established, it is important to train and encourage line man- agers to embrace technological tools that enable meetings to be conducted virtually through We- bEx and video conferencing. While technology may be in- timidating to older generations of workers, young millennials are relying on these types of technolo- gies in their everyday communi- cations, which may impact overall organizational commitment and engagement in their work. Yaseen Hemeda is a product developer at Carswell in Toronto and co-author of HR Manager's Guide to Succession Planning. He can be reached at yas- een.hemeda@thomsonreuters.com. For more information, visit www.car- swell.com. Accommodating medical marijuana Employers should know the facts before responding to employee requests I was recently at a conference in Moncton, N.B., where I spoke on the issue of ac- commodation of medical marijuana in the workplace. I enjoyed the numerous questions I received and discussions I had with attendees on this developing and controversial subject. One issue that arose related to the impact of medical marijuana on an individual's ability to per- form her duties at work and the fact that, in some cases, there may not need to be any accom- modation at all. Although the issue of medi- cal marijuana often engenders a visceral reaction from people based upon pre-existing notions of marijuana use, the reality is accommodation of medical mari- juana should be approached no diff erently than any other form of accommodation. In the course of my presenta- tion, there was discussion regard- ing the potential need to accom- modate impairment that would be caused by medical marijuana. One attendee spoke to me after my presentation and pointed out that unlike the typical recreational marijuana user, an individual who is using medicinal marijuana, in accordance with a doctor's pre- scription, may not experience any impairment or be "high" like a recreational user. Not being a doctor, I was un- able to comment defi nitively on this, but the point is an important one. Before making any determi- nation about the need for accom- modation, an employer would have to assess the impact of the medication (whatever it may be) upon the individual and his abil- ity to work. is would require clear docu- mentation from the prescribing physician regarding the impact of the medication on the individual in question. If there would be impairment, then some accommodation is likely to be required, which could include modifying his work schedule, modifying his duties or a temporary leave of absence. However, if there is no indica- tion there will be impairment, or that any impairment would be minimal and, keeping in mind the person's job duties, would not cause concern, then no ac- commodation may be required. Obviously, like any other form of accommodation, this would have to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. is raises another important point: While many employers are reluctant to request information from an employee due to privacy concerns, there is nothing wrong with requesting documentation that is reasonably required in order to assess the need for ac- commodation and the available options. Employers can seek out infor- mation regarding the impact upon the individual's ability to carry out her job-related functions, but they should not ask for diagnosis or other private information about the employee. Looser controls Medicinal marijuana also raises another concern, which is unique. Unlike other forms of medication, which are tightly controlled and consistently produced, medicinal marijuana — particularly in light of a recent court ruling that would allow users with prescriptions to grow their own — is not. In other words, while every single Extra Strength Tylenol is the same, one gram of marijuana can diff er greatly depending on where it was grown, how it was grown and how long it was grown. As a result, there can be dra- matic diff erences in the impact upon an individual's ability to do his job. It is diffi cult to say how an employer should resolve this, other than to request as much assistance from the prescribing physician as possible. Accommodation of medicinal marijuana is to be approached the same way as any other prescrip- tion medication. Many employ- ers do not require employees to report the use of medication that might impair their ability to their job — they should have a policy that requires this, and enforce it consistently. Any time a request for accom- modation is received, it should never be rejected out of hand. Em- ployers should have a consistent process for all accommodation requests. Furthermore, employ- ers should be educated on me- dicinal marijuana to ensure they are not predisposed to respond to questions based on pre-existing notions. As we have seen in recent years, protections aff orded by human rights legislation have evolved. is includes the addition of new grounds, as well as the fact that existing grounds are being inter- preted more broadly. is trend will only continue and requests for accommodation will increase and be more varied. Employers will be exposed to sig- nifi cant liability if they fail to re- spond appropriately. Stuart Rudner is a founding partner of Rudner MacDonald, a Toronto- based employment law fi rm. He is the author of You're Fired: Just Cause for Dismissal in Canada, published by Carswell, a omson Reuters busi- ness. He can be reached at srudner@ rudnermacdonald.com. Stuart Rudner GUEST COMMENTARY Question: Our organization has been ex- ploring the option of allowing employees to work from home, but some managers have expressed concerns around lost pro- ductivity. To encourage more fl exible work arrangements, should we allow employees Yaseen Hemeda TOUGHEST HR QUESTION Protections offered by human rights legislation have evolved.

• Cover