Comments on: Three Days for Death (or Why HR Policies Make No Sense)

By: Adam Hall

Adam Hall — Mon, 25 Jul 2011 16:53:00 +0000

I had a heart attack at work. I had 2 sick days accumulated, my manager told me (and my wife) that I should take off as much time as was needed for me to recover. I took an additional 5 days (doctors order) and upon returning was told I would be docked the 5 days. When I balked I was told it was policy and to accept it. One would think the manager telling you take as much time off as needed would not mean you’ll be docked half your paycheck. (I am salaried).

By: Nedwards

Nedwards — Mon, 03 Jan 2011 16:25:00 +0000

One pitfall of the “make adjustments when needed” approach is the potential for unequal treatment of different employees that may belong to one or more protected classes, based on the manager’s perception and judgement about what amount of bereavement time is needed. It is the compassionate thing to do, but that compassion may come back to bite you if you extend considerations to one employee based on the individual circumstances and do not feel that extending those same considerations to another employee (who happens to be of a different gender, race, age, etc.) is appropriate based on those individual circumstances.

By: Lisa Kaminski

Lisa Kaminski — Fri, 31 Dec 2010 20:10:00 +0000

Sounds like “First Break All The Rules” – love it!

By: fran melmed

fran melmed — Fri, 23 Jul 2010 06:13:05 +0000

@graceandspackle i wouldn't say the policy is mean-spirited, because i don't think that's the intention. i do think it's driven by a desire to have consistency and something to refer back to. i'd agree with @lance -- do you really need it? as @wallybock shows, companies that approach this with a measure of meeting the business needs while honoring the person's, reap the rewards.

@jimhertel, i'd love to think that HR helps create the culture through its own influence & leadership. so fair enough & good distinction.

f

By: Lance Haun

Lance Haun — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 22:09:59 +0000

I won't speak for Fran but a union environment is obviously different. Go back to the contract. If there is any flexibility, use it. Otherwise, tough. Unions typically value equality over fairness of circumstance. You get five days for the grandma who you never saw in Hawaii and for your spouse of 25 years.

Who says there has to be a hard policy in non-union environments? The only thing you can't do is make a decision based on a protected class issue. And making a hard bereavement policy because of those concerns has been a problematic thing in HR for many years.

By: Graceandspackle

Graceandspackle — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 21:58:31 +0000

What is the alternative? It's easy to say 3 to 5 days is mean-spirited, but how would you address from a policy point of view? In my experience, HR policy is formulated in a union environment where everyone has to be treated equally. When you have 100+ employees, how do you state the case-by-case approach?

By: Jim Hertel

Jim Hertel — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 21:50:07 +0000

I don't see HR as the issue here.

HR doesn't make policy in isolation, they typically have to get them approved by top leadership and bereavement policies don't typically designate how many days an employee can have off. They designate how many days an employee can have off with pay. The question of how much time and accomodation is made for an employee speaks to culture and leadership. You gave “the Company” credit for arranging more time off and placed blame on HR for writing what is a competitive bereavement policy. That doesn't feel like a fair distinction to me.

By: Wally Bock

Wally Bock — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 18:53:17 +0000

Let me share a story. My three children had a close relationship with their mother. When she died they were all devastated. Two of them lived out of state. Their companies handled the bereavement leave very differently.

One had a policy like the three days you describe. She used the time to travel back for the Memorial Service. The rest of the time she went to work where, by her own admission, she was "totally useless." A couple of months later she left the company.

Our son worked for a company that had been owned by the founders. It had been recently acquired by a larger company, but was still managed by the owners. One of them called him in and simply said, "Take whatever time off you need. Just keep us informed." They did not dock his pay or his sick and vacation time.

Our other daughter worked for a company where people can accrue Personal Time Off (PTO) and also assign it to others. Her friends, including her boss, gave her enough of their PTO so that she did not lose a dime of pay.

Where would you like to work?

There's another part to this story. When my daughter left the "three-day" company, I also sold my stock in it. I do not want to be investing in, and thereby supporting, any company that treats people like standard cogs in the gearwheels of commerce.

By: fran melmed

fran melmed — Wed, 21 Jul 2010 02:02:58 +0000

jeanne, kudos to you for looking at each situation in isolation. and what horrible circumstances for all. my father died 13 years ago (in fact, today's his birthday. how weird.), and i showed up to work the very next day and each day after because i hadn't a clue how to cope otherwise and we needed time later when we could clean out his house and deal with his affairs. my employer at the time partnered with me to figure out how to keep all things flowing and all people served. as you said, no neat little box exists to deal with these circumstances.

cheers,
f

By: fran melmed

fran melmed — Wed, 21 Jul 2010 01:57:32 +0000

my one hesitation about putting a number out there is that it's suddenly all about the number. managers know what they can afford and how to create workarounds. or they should.