I think that "Hard" conversations are avoided by managers because the power of Unions and regulation has gone too far.......
Im all for treating employee's fair and doing things in a moral and constructive manner, however the powers that Unions have, and the emergence of "No Win No Fee" legal claim means managers become accountable for even the most straight forward of decisions and have to defend these in court. Employee's know that even when they are in the wrong, kicking up a fuss is often in there interest, as the amount of red tape and evidence a company needs to defend its postion (no matter how right it is) makes doing so cost prohibited.............. Making a stance against wrong behaviours comes at a very big price for large business.
As an example I recently heard the tribunal of an employee who was claiming discrimination on the basis that he wasn't allowed to work overtime. The manager had asked him not to come in early because the work load wasn't there and hence overtime wasn't required. The employee decided to come in early anyway. When confronted by his manage he said the workload was there so he came in. The manager told him to finish his shift 2 hours early to compensate for the additional hours he had worked and that no overtime would be paid nor would he be punished in any way. Straight forward case that the employee was in the wrong and the manager treated it fairly (maybe too fair!!!!) in ensuring the employee didn't lose out despite blatant disrespect of a justified request ???
The employee wasn't happy so claim he was being discriminated against because another (female) had worked overtime before shifts on other days (weeks earlier). The fact he claim discrimination triggered an investigation meaning myself, HR, Union and him had to attend 2 x 1 hour meeting, plus meetings to investigate witnesses, a total of over 15 working hours lost at a cost of over £500.
The fact that I upheld the managers actions triggered a 2nd appeal, which will incur the same lost time and cost, meaning for 1 employee, with a completely unjustified case, will have lost over £1000 in work time verse paying him circa £40 for 2 hours overtime...... An expensive price to pay to with hold a principle.
The extremely sad point is this isn't isolated, employee's know that key words (discrimination) will trigger full blown investigations, and some people like to cause disruption knowing that unions and regulation will always protect them. The fact is that unfair treatment that once was common practice is ever decreasing (based on race, gender, sexuality etc) and while protection for these people is still correct and needed, unions / employment lawyers find them selves with less and less to do, and rather than accepting that society and the work place is changing for the better and they are slowly achieving their goals, they create more and more reason to "protect" people.
In my opinion until the balance of regulation / and union protection is better addressed manager will often take an "easy" / "cheap" option rather than a "hard" / "expensive" one, no matter how correct it may be.
I think that "Hard" conversations are avoided by managers because the power of Unions and regulation has gone too far.......
Im all for treating employee's fair and doing things in a moral and constructive manner, however the powers that Unions have, and the emergence of "No Win No Fee" legal claim means managers become accountable for even the most straight forward of decisions and have to defend these in court. Employee's know that even when they are in the wrong, kicking up a fuss is often in there interest, as the amount of red tape and evidence a company needs to defend its postion (no matter how right it is) makes doing so cost prohibited.............. Making a stance against wrong behaviours comes at a very big price for large business.
As an example I recently heard the tribunal of an employee who was claiming discrimination on the basis that he wasn't allowed to work overtime. The manager had asked him not to come in early because the work load wasn't there and hence overtime wasn't required. The employee decided to come in early anyway. When confronted by his manage he said the workload was there so he came in. The manager told him to finish his shift 2 hours early to compensate for the additional hours he had worked and that no overtime would be paid nor would he be punished in any way. Straight forward case that the employee was in the wrong and the manager treated it fairly (maybe too fair!!!!) in ensuring the employee didn't lose out despite blatant disrespect of a justified request ???
The employee wasn't happy so claim he was being discriminated against because another (female) had worked overtime before shifts on other days (weeks earlier). The fact he claim discrimination triggered an investigation meaning myself, HR, Union and him had to attend 2 x 1 hour meeting, plus meetings to investigate witnesses, a total of over 15 working hours lost at a cost of over £500.
The fact that I upheld the managers actions triggered a 2nd appeal, which will incur the same lost time and cost, meaning for 1 employee, with a completely unjustified case, will have lost over £1000 in work time verse paying him circa £40 for 2 hours overtime...... An expensive price to pay to with hold a principle.
The extremely sad point is this isn't isolated, employee's know that key words (discrimination) will trigger full blown investigations, and some people like to cause disruption knowing that unions and regulation will always protect them. The fact is that unfair treatment that once was common practice is ever decreasing (based on race, gender, sexuality etc) and while protection for these people is still correct and needed, unions / employment lawyers find them selves with less and less to do, and rather than accepting that society and the work place is changing for the better and they are slowly achieving their goals, they create more and more reason to "protect" people.
In my opinion until the balance of regulation / and union protection is better addressed manager will often take an "easy" / "cheap" option rather than a "hard" / "expensive" one, no matter how correct it may be.