Wednesday, January 18, 2012

The Damaging Impact of Regulations Encouraging Defensive Management

This story is a little convoluted, but it’s extremely revealing. I’m going to cut the story up a little to put into a timeline, because it’s important.

Smiley said her job had became so stressful that she suffered a stroke and was off work for almost three months, beginning July 13, 2009, according to the court filing.

[...]

Smiley, 48, punched out of work for lunch Jan. 28, 2010, but remained at her desk to finish a project assigned by a manager because she did not plan to eat that day, she said.

Smiley, who had passed her 10-year anniversary with the company more than a month before, said another manager told her it was time for her to go to lunch and step away from her desk, but she refused. That manager observed Smiley working on a spreadsheet on her computer, answering the phone and responding to questions by people who approached her desk, according to a filing from the appellate court of Illinois.

[...]

The company’s human resources director then became involved, explaining that hourly non-exempt employees were required to take a 30-minute lunch break, a policy that had been in the company handbook for 10 years, according to the filing. Not following the policy would be a violation of Illinois’ labor laws, the HR director said.

The prominent location of Smiley’s desk, “which was directly at the front door of the office, made this particularly important for her,” according to the human resources director in the court filing. She and Smiley had “many discussions ... over her eating breakfast at her desk,” the filing states

“I knew you couldn’t eat lunch at your desk,” Smiley told ABC News. “I was under the impression that because I was punched out and I could do what I want.”

[...]

Like several states, Illinois has a law that requires employers to provide employees a lunch break. But the law cannot be read to require an employer to fire a worker who refuses to take a break in order to finish her work, said Michael LeRoy, law professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

“Nonetheless, Illinois is an employment-at-will state, which means the employer can fire someone for a good reason, no reason, or a bad reason, as long as it is not discriminatory,” he said.

The story goes on to tell us that she had initially been denied unemployment benefits, but an appelete court overrulled that initial decision. But the behavior here is more interesting to me than the legal aspects.

Here we have an long-term employee. Given her tenure, I think we can presume that she performed her duties adequately and to the satisfaction of management. She suffers a stroke allededly due to stress and was on a medical leave until September (or so) of 2009. Three months later she clocks out and is working through her lunch.

It is against Illinois state law for the company to NOT give her time for lunch and, in an effort to comply with that law, it is against company policy to eat at one’s desk. Presumably the policy is designed to force employees to leave their work area for lunch to make sure they aren’t sneaking in work. Management sees the woman working during her required lunch and fires her for not complying with company policy.

(As an aside, this whole discussion if foreign to me. I work through lunch, breakfast, and dinner all the time. My work schedule is dictated by the needs of the business - not by arbitrary time windows.)

So… put yourself in the mind of management. First, they create a policy the demands that employees leave their desks in order to comply with a state law mandating that employers offer a lunch. They likely, and understanably, interpreted the law as meaning that they would get in a heap of trouble if employees were caught working during lunch. One could argue that if employees made a practice of working at lunch, then even if there is a policy that they must take a lunch, the company culture coerced employees to work anyway. So they write the policy and enforce it in a way to prevent employees from sneaking in work during the mandated lunch time.

Second, this particular employee suffered a medical issue allegedly because of stress from work. Yet she is the one working during lunch and not taking advantage of the break, and stress relief, than a half hour lunch can provide. Not only is she breaking the policy, but she is also contributing to work stress that has led to past medical issues - issues that I’m certain would have to be financially covered by the company due to various regulations (short-term disability, workman’s comp, whatever). Furthermore, if the company is shown to have known that she was working through lunch in violation of the law and allowed it, some jury might find them liable for future stress-related medical issues.

At the end of all that… worried about future lawsuits; worried about complying with state law; worried about her health; and worried about consistent enforcement of company policy; they fired a long-term employee and decided that the cost of recruiting and training an adequate replacement was less that the exposure to risk.

That’s defensive management at its finest. I certainly can’t blame the management of the company for what they did. The laws are set up to make it far too risky for them to just sit down with the employee, explain the policy and the reasoning for it, and keep her on board. It’s a shame, really, that the law too often penalizes those who would “do the right thing.”

(6) Comments
Posted by Owen at 1157 hrs
Culture + Economy + Law

  1. An interesting and complex dilemma to be sure, with issues involving not just legal compliance and productivity of the company but also what would seem to be legitimate concerns about the health of the individual.

    And yet…I’m willing to be that there’s a better than even chance none of that was actually thoroughly considered. I bet there were at least a few people at multiple levels who did nothing more than think…rules are rules, that’s our policy and that’s as far as thoughtful consideration went.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 18, 2012 at 1506 hrs


  2. You could be right. If that’s the case, then it’s stupid management - not defensive management.

    Posted by Owen on January 18, 2012 at 1513 hrs


  3. My company requires lunch, but are very flexible and cool about it.  The one that bothers, and pleases, me is the requirement to to take on full week off of work each year to relieve stress.  I love taking a week off, but we only get 12 days of TAW, which includes sickness.  If 5 are required for that week we have only 7 more days for other breaks or sickness.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 18, 2012 at 1602 hrs


  4. I agree with your analysis, Owen.

    You really can’t blame the Management.  What we should blame is the onerous and sometimes ridiculous laws and rules that cause companies to operate like this.

    Sidenote: I, too, often eat at my desk while working.

    Posted by Brandon on January 18, 2012 at 1613 hrs


  5. Presumably the policy is designed to force employees to leave their work area for lunch to make sure they aren’t sneaking in work.

    Aside: we have the same policy at work.  But not to force us to leave for lunch, but because the smell of food in the office is distracting.

    I thought it was foolish - but I’ve come to agree with it.  No more popcorn smell in the middle of the afternoon.

    Posted by Brian Dunbar on January 18, 2012 at 2025 hrs


  6. I have been through this situation and the reasoning given by my employer was that it forced you to reenergize your body. They say you must allow the body to relax in-between tasks in order to be at your best productivity level. It also takes away an employee argument in that you can’t file a complaint because you were not allowed a lunch which I am sure employers have done. Funny though, salaried employee’s do not have to take the mandatory break for lunch, the reasoning is they are paid no matter what they do during their time at work, makes no sense to me but that is the way it was enforced by my employer. Just a hint if they want to get rid of you, they will find a reason whether you comply with their policies or not.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 18, 2012 at 2213 hrs


Commenting is not available in this channel entry.