Policy Drafting Question

deniseE

Which policy type do you find to be more useful in the long run: The general broad policy, or the detailed itemized policy?

As I've mentioned before, we are in the process of developing our first written policy/'procedure manual and some of the feedback from executives is that we are being too high end and trying to be too detailed.

I would appreciate your thougths on this...especially from an enforcement/defense standpoint.

Thanks!!!

HCCADC

We have more of a 'generalized' manual. It gives us room to apply it on a case-by-case situation. Obviously, we use past practices for every policy we have, but at least when something different comes up, we can apply it to fit the business need. An example would be our disciplinary policy: we explain the different disciplinaries we can take, but do not put it in steps. It really is dependant on the situation and its seriousness.

deniseE

I guess an example of a policy under debate is the "weapons" policy. We provided a list of prohibited items....others feel that we'd be in a better position if we said simply "weapons prohibited". Our attorney believes that the more detail we have, the better...managment seems to prefer the oposite.

Balloonman

The catch 22 to is you can detail yourself into a box. Zero tolerance policies are this way, you screw yourself over so you can have no management discretion.
If you list 20 different weapons on a list as prohibited, does that mean I can bring in something not on the list and that you cannot discipline me?
There is a pro and con to each way of policy writting.
My $0.02 worth.
DJ The Balloonman

HRH

You could list things, but add that the list is "not all-inclusive." It's the best of both worlds. The problem is interpretation; what IS a weapon??? We didn't used to think of boxcutters and plastic forks as weapons.....

Carey

We also tend to use more general language in our policies because they need to apply to all offices across the U.S. I checked our Anti-Violence policy and we give examples of prohibited behaviors (and use the 'include but not limited to' language), one of which is threatening conduct that includes 'brandishing weapons, including tools and equipment, as if intending to cause physical harm.' And also say, 'Weapons include but are not limited to firearms, knives, martial arts instruments and explosives.' I think this includes just about everything and leaves room for interpreting a non-weapon as a weapon if it's used in that manner.

Dutch2

We also go for the more general policies and not the very detailed specific versions. Very similar to that line on most all job descriptions; "Other duties as assigned."
Good Luck,
Dutch2

Don D

I have found the more generalized, broad policy statements to best fit the needs of management and the company, for the most part. The more specific the policy, the more you're in a box. But, for those policies that are accompanied by 'implementing procedures' the more detailed, the better. Examples of these are FMLA, attendance points policies, and production quotas policies. Employers crafting policy and procedural manuals should always look with an eye toward inserting advantageous disclaimers, such as; 'but not limited to', or 'not necessarily all inclusive', or 'may be advanced to a higher level of discipline as determined by the company' or, 'based solely on the determination of the company'. Avoid the Box. Avoid the Box. Avoid the Box. If you have a union or an overbearing state department of labor, some of these thoughts are of little value.

Policies pretend to be for the main purpose of advising and educating the employee. That may be 13% of it. The other 87% is to protect the employer's interest and give the employer defensible wiggle room. Just my humble opinion.

Remember that every single policy you write into your manual will later be pulled for production at a hearing of some sort and will sink you or save you.

deniseE

Don...I agree 100%....every policy we draft I try to imagine defending and enforcing it...and with some of them...it's just impossible...

one of the drafts requires managers (in the first round it was employees) to notify HR of all "amorous interdepartmental" relationships within 30 days of inception.

?????????????

I can't imagine being called to investigate this! How do we determine 30 days? How do we prove the relationship...especially if the parties are not forthcoming, as so many office relationships can be clandestine in nature...

it's not just me, is it?

Don D

Is that 'within 30 days of inception' or CONception. That alone could be confusing to most employees. I can just hear one exclaiming, "We're datin' but we ain't incepted yet!"

deniseE

my point exactly!!!!