Canadian HR Reporter - Sample Issue

CANADIAN HR REPORTER July 10, 2017 INSIGHT 19 Brian Johnston TOUgHeST HR QUeSTiON Dave Crenshaw GUeST COMMeNTaRY Trendy practices may be killing productivity Dogs at work, offi ce baristas and company trips can have adverse consequences In recent years, we have bid adieu to the workplace of old. We look back fondly on TV shows and movies such as e O ce, O ce Space, and Glengarry Glen Ross as relics of our not-so-ancient business ancestors. You remember those old tropes: the sterile, stuff y offi ce environment, the business suits, the cubicles, and the obligatory break room with a coff ee machine that spit out watery Folgers. In some instances, these changes are improvements. Modern com- pany policies are built more from cognitive psychology and economy theory than e Art of War. Many companies run their businesses less like the Marines and more like a '90s jam band — a scrappy organization complete with me- ticulously crafted licks, booming percussion, pulsing rhythm sec- tions, and a willingness to make and break rules as you learn what works and what doesn't. I recently wrote an article that discussed the massive distraction that is the open offi ce plan. e piece hit a nerve, and it highlights the temptation for human re- source leaders and C-suite execs to overstep on culture growth and undercut the things that are truly important to average employees. ese programs and services are meant to project a casual en- vironment, lure in recruits, and keep workers plugging away. While superficially tantalizing, they run the risk of being distract- ing at best and an HR nightmare at worst. If you're mulling over the implementation of one of these programs, consider the follow- ing question: "What is the result we're truly trying to get for our workforce?" Here are three examples of practices that have the potential to get you the opposite result of what you intend: Animal house Offi ces, big and small, have be- gun boasting in their recruiting documents about their offi ce pet. Some companies even include profi les of the pet in their online recruiting literature. Other com- panies will recruit with the adjec- tive "dog-friendly" before "offi ce." Many cite studies suggesting offi ce dogs reduce stress and in- crease co-operation. While the presence of office animals might be a godsend for some, they also perpetuate dis- tractions and attention switches. This "switchtasking" can cause work to take longer, employees to make more mistakes, and increas- es to stress levels. Distractions are costly, both in terms of productiv- ity and the bottom line. Let me be clear: Service dogs are not what I'm referring to. Individuals with physical or psy- chological challenges often rely on these pets to assist with daily tasks. Animals such as these are well-trained to help, not hinder. Yet everyday house pets are rarely as trained to behave in the offi ce. Few animals calmly sit and look cute. Employees have re- ported to me that offi ce dogs of- ten wander in search of food and attention. What's more, folks with aller- gies now must deal with sneezing and asthma attacks from fur and pet dander. ose with a deep- seated fear of animals must con- front trauma daily. Animals, when left to their own devices, have the potential to cause disruptions, messes, al- lergies and a loss of focus by being too darn cute. Instead of instituting an "every- one bring your pet" policy, the so- lution to the problem is an ample work-from-home policy. Make it an option, not a mandate. People benefi t the most when they fi nd their unique productivity rhythm. Some work best with music or with a fi dget spinner. Some simply work better while at home. Coff ee time "Hey, I'm going on a coff ee run, want to join me?" Some compa- nies feel like this very question is enough of a distraction in the modern workplace that they've decided to cut out the "run" part by hiring an in-offi ce barista. Em- ployees can order their premium, half-caf coff ee in the offi ce and take it back to their work station. Beyond the obvious expense is- sues, there are a few problems with this system. ink of the logistics. People get to work at nine in the morning only to see a line of folks clamour- ing to get that morning pick-me- up. You can imagine how distract- ing the concentration of ceaseless chatter emanating from that side of the offi ce might be. Nearby em- ployees may fi nd it diffi cult to fo- cus on a project, take phone calls, or have meetings with clients or shareholders. A healthy offi ce is a happy offi ce. Instead of installing a state-of-the- art Lavazza espresso machine, adopt a culture that rewards tak- ing regular breaks and getting a good night's sleep. A daily "work oasis" takes roughly 10 to 20 min- utes and is something people can do a few times per day. It might be watching YouTube, tinkering with offi ce toys or, yes, going to grab a cup of coff ee with a friend. Establish a pattern and structure that allow employees the freedom to discover their own fun. It doesn't really matter what you or your employees choose, as long as they are the ones who choose it. From there, you can build out bigger, more elaborate breaks. Culture club Planning the next company off - site outing? Perhaps you can plan a short drive up to wine country followed by an elegant dinner at a nearby chateau? Well, that sounds lovely — if you're prepared to han- dle the resentment. Many people fi nd some of the more silly or grotesque company expenditures diffi cult to handle when they feel they are underpaid for their work. ey ask, "Why would they not spend that money on me?" "Culture" can mean a lot of things to a lot of people. For smaller companies, culture may be about smaller — yet relatively pricey — gestures, such as an in- door virtual golf range. For larger companies, like Google, for ex- ample, entire departments are created simply to off er employees more culture. There's a good chance your company culture cost does not meet an employee's total em- ployee cost, which goes way be- yond your monthly salary. Still, as a leader of a company, sending the right message means putting employee happiness above perks. Company culture does make a diff erence. However, culture is more metaphysical. It's about a shared belief about successfully building the company, not just fun things to do or cool things to put in the offi ce. You need to pay employees a competitive wage before you spend your money on excess. Are the salaries you off er competitive or are you scraping the bottom of the barrel and working with what you can aff ord? Not every business can aff ord to pay each employee a minimum of $50,000 per year with benefi ts. However, if there is money in the budget, you may want to caution on the side of salary rather than culture. ink about which negatively — or positively — impacts pro- ductivity more: Hiring low-tier talent and then potentially clean- ing up after their mistakes, or hir- ing top-tier talent and benefi ting from their expertise? Of course, paying more isn't a guarantee you'll hire better em- ployees, but it certainly has an impact on the pool of applicants you'll receive. Culture does matter, but only after the essentials are taken care of. What employees need is enough money to pay off their student loans, benefi ts they can share with their spouses, and job security that will ensure they will be able to send their children off to college with relatively minimal student debt. Once you've taken care of employees, you can then make the eff orts to talk about cultural spending. Dave Crenshaw is a master of build- ing productive leaders. He has written three books and counting, including e Myth of Multitasking. His fourth book, e Power of Having Fun, will be released in September 2017. As an author, speaker and online instructor, Dave has transformed hundreds of thousands of business leaders world- wide. For more information, visit www.davecrenshaw.com. Dealing with personal days, religious holidays Does an employer have to grant additional days to non-Christian employees? Question: If an employer off ers all workers a certain number of fl oating personal days in addition to statutory holidays, does it have to grant additional days off to non- Christian employees for their holidays or can it have them use their personal days? Answer: The answer turns on a combination of an employer's personal day policy and human rights considerations. Employ- ment standards legislation dic- tates statutory holidays but is si- lent about personal days. The concept of floating per- sonal days is more prevalent in the United States than in Canada. e idea is simple; an employee is given several — often paid — fl oating personal days per year that she can use for personal rea- sons, including religious holidays. Employers off er these days so employees will largely have un- limited discretion in choosing their days off. If an employer wanted to limit this discretion, it would have to create a policy for religious holidays. Any such policy should be based on the law that has grown out of human rights decisions. Discrimination on the basis of religion, creed or religious belief with respect to employment is widely prohibited in Canada. A schedule of work based on holidays recognized under pro- vincial employment standards legislation is secular in nature and non-discriminatory on its face, but a work calendar that permits time off to celebrate Christian holidays, yet requires work on the holy days of other religions, is dis- criminatory in eff ect (see the 2008 Markovic v. Autocom Manufac- turing Ltd.) e employer has a duty to rea- sonably accommodate employees seeking time off for religious ob- servances, and the employee has an obligation to participate in this process. In most circumstances, accommodation can be achieved through scheduling changes that do not result in a loss of pay; "Where the 'problem' is the need for time, the solution is the en- abling of time," according to the court in Markovic. Courts and tribunals have sug- gested the appropriate approach is for an employer to provide an employee with options to accom- modate time off work for religious observances, including making up the time on another day, working on a secular holiday when the facility is operating, switching shifts, adjusting shift schedules, using outstanding paid vacation or providing a leave of absence without pay: See, for example, the 1997 Richmond v. Canada (Attor- ney General). e Supreme Court of Canada's decision in the 1994 Chambly (Commission scolaire régionale) c. Bergevin is an example of a work- place where scheduling changes could not provide a reasonable accommodation because teachers can only teach when the school is open and the school board was required to provide three days of paid leave. However, Chambly was a labour law case decided on its own facts. e predominant view is that reasonable accommo- dation generally does not require paying employees for time off for religious observances. An employer should try to reasonably accommodate an em- ployee seeking time off for reli- gious holidays. In the absence of a policy, it cannot mandate how an employee uses her personal days. However, given that most employers can accommodate through scheduling changes that do not result in a loss of pay, and that employees are not required to be paid for time off for religious observances, it is more likely the employee will use fl oating person- al days for religious holidays if she wants to be paid for these days. Brian Johnston is a partner at Stew- art McKelvey in Halifax. He can be reached at (902) 420-3374 or bjohnston@stewartmckelvey.com.

• Cover