Making a stink at work (literally)

I bet many of us can think of past (or present) coworkers who were not pleasant to work with for different reasons. Sometimes personalities clash and work ethics differ. Even personal habits and hygiene can cause conflict, particularly in a close working environment.

The Smoking Gun recently ran two stories about a recent written citation at the Social Security Administration given to an employee for "uncontrollable flatulence" that created a hostile and intolerable work environment for coworkers. The first story details the citation (part of a formal progressive discipline process), and also provides the full 5-page letter given to the employee - including accounts of prior meetings with supervisors discussing the matter and a detailed timeline of the recent flatulence episodes.

A month later, the second story followed up with a report that the formal reprimand had been withdrawn after scrutiny from higher management, even before the initial story had been exposed.

Personal habits and hygiene can be a touchy situation in a work environment. Was the written reprimand warranted? I don't know. I suppose only the employee's coworkers know the extent of the problem. But I know that I have had experiences of having to discuss body odor, perfume smells, and bad breath with employees under my supervision, and it is always awkward and embarrassing for both parties. However, I have never had to resort to a formal warning or written documentation. And for that, I am grateful. 

Reasonable Accommodation for Mental Health Issues: The Case of The Houston Rockets and Royce White

Reasonable accommodation is the legal term for an organization's responsibility to enable a qualified individual to perform their job, usually in the case of religious beliefs or disability. For example, an employer may have to avoid scheduling an employee to work on Sunday if the employee's religion prohibits such activity. Similarly, the way a workspace is designed may have to change for an employee with physical disabilities, such as a wheelchair. Other accommodations of work duties, schedules, dress codes, or other company practices may have to be made is similar situations of religious observance or disability.

An accommodation is considered reasonable as long as it does not constitute an undue hardship to the employer. What constitutes and undo hardship may depend on the situation, the expense, the size of the company, their financial situation, the type of company, etc.

With regards to religious observance and physical disabilities, reasonable accommodation are fairly straight forward and reasonably well understood. But what constitutes reasonable accommodation or undue hardship for a mental health issue such as an anxiety disorder?

image from bleacherreport.com

In one high profile example, the NBA's Houston Rockets drafted Royce White, a basketball player with admitted mental health challenges, including anxiety that could affect his ability to perform his job. For example, he is extremely afraid of flying. For a professional basketball player who is on the road for half of the season's games, that is a big hurdle to overcome.

In a video interview from USA today, White's desire to have a trained mental health professional available to diagnose his condition before games seems reasonable. And his argument equating mental health to physical health is compelling. Legislation such as the Mental Health Parity Act of 1996 and the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 require health care plans that cover mental health to cover them in an equal manner to physical health coverage. However, these do not mandate that health care plans even cover mental health. And the 2008 law is still waiting for a final ruling from President Obama.

On the other hand, it seems that some of White's demands may be outside the bounds of reasonable accommodation. He reportedly wouldn't accept an assignment in the NBA's developmental league, which earned him a suspension without pay for breach of contract. And, as discussed by Sports Illustrated's Phil Taylor in the January 21 issue, even the request for medical decisions to be made by mental health professionals may not be doable under the the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between the NBA and the players' union (though one of the problems may be that mental health is not adequately address in the CBA).

The Rockets have tried to make some concessions, such as paying for ground transportation to away games when feasible. But how much does an organization have to do before it falls outside the realm of reasonable accommodation? If, even after attempting some forms of accommodation, the disability (physical or mental) significantly inhibits the ability of an individual (such as White) to perform the job (consistently play basketball at an NBA level), then it could be argued that the individual is thus not qualified for the job.

Recent reports suggest that the Rockets and White may be close to a deal, and I certainly hope this is the case. I am not sure what the right answer is or where to draw the "reasonable accommodation/undue hardship" line - only that more discussion into the often-ignored subject of mental health issues in the workplace is needed. This is one high profile example, but there are probably thousands of individuals and numerous organizations trying to navigate similar situations without much of a road map to guide them.

What's a couple more years?

(AFP/Remy Gabalda) copied from here

A hotly-debated pension reform bill has recently passed in France. One of the main provisions was changing the retirement age from 60 to 62, which happens to be Early Retirement age here in the U.S.

Public opinion in France was against the change, but the Government went ahead, citing the need to make the change because of increasing debt and people who just keep living longer.

What I find somewhat humorous is that some of the most vocal protestors are high school students. 60 must seem ancient to them, and 62 is like having one foot in the grave already!

In reading some recent research on work attitudes, specifically about retirement, it is interesting that a vast majority of workers do not actually retire when they are eligible to do so, even when they have sufficient funds to live comfortably without working. Many workers even choose to return to work after retirement because they need the structure, fulfillment and meaning that work brings to their lives.

But I suppose that even if most workers continue working past the age of retirement, they would prefer to have that choice of retirement, instead of being forced to work a couple of extra years.

Workers Compensation Can Be a Pain in the Butt

The Iowa supreme court overruled a lower court in the case of an employee in for a rural water district in Iowa who was injured after shaking his derriere as a greeting to a fellow employee.

The lower court had ruled that Norman Vegars was ineligible for workers compensation on the grounds that he was engaging in horseplay at work. Vegars waved his butt as a greeting to his coworker, Casey Byrd, and Byrd attempted to return the unusual greeting by bumping the booty with his truck window. Unfortunately, he was off the mark and somehow smacked Vegars in the backside with his truck bed, leading to the workers compensation claim.

While the Iowa supreme court did not rule in favor of Vegars, the court did overturn the initial ruling against him and sent the case back to the workers compensation board to determine whether the butt-shaking activity should be considered in line with the course of his employment.

NY Jets Harassment Being Investigated

An accusation of harassment by players and coaches of the New York Jets football team against a female reporter is currently being investigated. The full story can be found here.

This story brings up an important point regarding harassment. It is not just something an organization needs to worry about between employees, or from supervisor to subordinate. Harassment can also be directed by an organization's employees toward an individual or group of individuals outside of the organization - such as vendors, business partners, customers or (in this case) a reporter. (An organization's employees can also be harassed by those outside of the organization.) The fact that Ines Sainz, the reporter in question, is both female and a minority representative (she works for a spanish-language Mexican TV network) adds further depth to the harassment claims.

The NFL and NY Jets are looking into the situation and Jets management has already apologized publicly for the perceived misconduct. But the situation and investigation are far from over.

Two Employees Terminated for Leaking Private Information

Two state of Utah employees are in hot water after they used a state government database to compile a list of 1300 names, addresses, birthdates and phone numbers of suspected illegal immigrants. The list was then distributed to multiple law enforcement agencies and new media organizations.

Leaders on both sides of the immigration issue have condemned the actions of the two state employees, as distributing protected information is against both federal and Utah state laws (and even harsher penalties can be assesed for stealing of state records).

One of the two employees has already been fired and termination of the second employee (a 15-year state employee) is currently in process. The state of Utah is also looking into whether criminal charges should be pursued.

More information on this story can be found here, here and here.

The Purpose of HR

I am working right now to put together a training on the subject of effective HR practices, and one of the first questions I plan on asking the training group is this:

"In one sentence, how would you describe the purpose of HR?"

In my research (a.k.a. Google search), here are some of the answers that I came across:

• HR's duty is to bring the best people into the best position.
• HR exists to protect a company from its employees.
• The purpose of HR is to fulfill organizational goals by implying tools which focuses on enhancing performance with concern for its employees.
• The purpose of human resources is to live.
• The HR department is to is there to guarantee that the right candidates get appointed to the right task at the right time and the job offered to them utilizes their capabilities to the maximum, adding to self-motivation and leading to better performance.
• HR is there to hire and fire.
• The HR function is to hire, train, motivate and support productive employees.
• An effective Human Resource department facilitates the execution of your company’s mission within the boundaries of employment law.
• HR's sole purpose is to take the fun out of work for everyone.

I have my own thoughts on the issue, which I will save those for another post. But I want to hear your perspective. Do any of the answers listed above ring true to you? Or is there a better way that you would describe HR's purpose?