Cathie's Corner Blog

(Published September 1, 2008)

 A couple of weeks ago I read an article in the newspaper about a new trend that's developing in this tight economy — employers cutting employees' hours to save on expenses. What surprised me about the article was that the writer clearly saw this as a bad thing. It focused on how hard it was for employees to make ends meet on a reduced schedule.

I couldn't help wondering about the alternative. Would they prefer an out-and-out layoff? After all, if you've got two employees and can only afford to pay one of them, seems to me you've got two choices: You can lay off one and continue to pay the other in full, or you can reduce the hours of both of them so that they each have some income instead of no income. 

If you take the first option, as an employee, I have a 50% chance of being the one that ends up with no income, but in the second option, I keep 50% of my pay and, in most if not all states, get partial unemployment benefits to make up some of the difference. That's a whole lot better than nothing but the unemployment compensation. 

I read a funny debate online a few years ago. An employer was eliminating a benefit because it had become too costly and the employer couldn't afford it any more. I think it might have been a costly health insurance plan that was being replaced by a less costly one, but I'm not certain any more. Several people were complaining how unfair it was that they wouldn't have the benefit any longer, and someone made the suggestion, in all seriousness, that what the employer should have done instead was lay off a few people to save money and keep the benefit. I couldn't help wondering how that person would feel if she were the one who lost her job so that her former co-workers could have a better benefit package. 

In today's tight economy, it only makes sense to consider all the options before going to layoffs. Granted, we are not the ones with ultimate responsibility for our employees' financial situations, but if we expect some loyalty from them, the least we can do is show some loyalty to them. Assuming, of course, that you do not have contracts or collective bargaining agreements that specify what you can and cannot do in such cases, you might want to consider saving costs with benefits reductions, hours reductions, or job shares before going to layoffs. 

Sometimes they can't be avoided. If you have to eliminate full-time employees, you have to. But if there are ways to save the costs you need to save without cutting positions altogether, it would seem, at least to me, if not to the writer of the article I read, to make sense. It's a tough job market out there, and employees who are let go might have a hard time finding other jobs. If it is possible to give them some hours instead of no hours, that would be my recommendation, even if the writer of the newspaper article disagrees!

Catherine Bannon is an HR consultant in Marshfield, MA (catherine.bannon@gmail.com). Bannon worked for 10 years in HR management before starting her consulting practice.

(Published August 25, 2008)

In the last few weeks, a couple of interesting dress code issues have caught my attention. They weren't issues that I had to personally deal with, but I thought they raised some good points. Sometimes you have to think outside the box, and you may as well have some idea of which way you may want to go.

The first issue was that of a colleague who had an employee who wanted to be able to wear his national dress, a kilt and tartan, to work. The employee was willing to accept any teasing that he might encounter from his co-workers, but it was important to him that he be able to display his national heritage. The other issue came from an article in the newspaper about gender-specific dress codes and male employees who wanted to wear shorts to work.

Being part Scot myself, I am aware that a kilt and tartan is formal dress for those of that nationality. In fact, my father discussed wearing his to my wedding! I personally think that kilts look good on most guys. But that's not really the point. The point is whether or not a kilt and tartan is appropriate to the company and the position. After a great deal of thought, my colleague decided that it was appropriate for this call-center employee, who had no face-to-face client contact, and granted permission.

As far as the shorts go, I'm a Northern girl and don't do well in the heat — even what passes for “heat” in Massachusetts summers. I'd never survive in the South! I've been joking with some of my friends that the way the weather patterns have changed in the last few years, I feel as if I'm living in the first reel of a disaster movie — you know, the ones they show on Saturday afternoons on the Sci-Fi channel. But again, the question is appropriateness, and to a certain extent, fairness. If women are allowed to wear shorts or skorts, then I don't see any reason why men can't. On the other hand, if shorts or skorts are forbidden for women, then I wouldn't allow men to either.

But are shorts for either gender appropriate in the workplace? That's for the individual workplace to decide. Dress codes are very company specific; even within the same company, the dress code can vary among positions and departments. “Appropriate” is an ever-changing word; what even the strictest employer would consider appropriate now is far more casual than would have been considered appropriate 100 years ago, or even 50. And what is considered appropriate in 2028 is going to be very different than what we consider appropriate now in 2008.

How much “outside the box” thinking you do is up to you. There's no one answer that's going to be perfect for everyone. You do have to consider your customer base and what they might be offended by. At the same time, you should be considering your employee's comfort and, in this economy, their wallets. Be consistent in your dress code policies so that no one feels obligated to go out and buy a lot of stuff to fit it, but be flexible enough to allow for odd situations (including changing weather patterns where applicable). Not many of us are going to be asked for permission to wear a kilt, but just in case you are, you might want to make a mental note of how far you're prepared to go to defend your dress code, and why!

Catherine Bannon is an HR consultant in Marshfield, MA (catherine.bannon@gmail.com). Bannon worked for 10 years in HR management before starting her consulting practice.