Change in work hours makes EEs unhappy.

nsauchuk · February 2004

For various reasons, management has decided to change the hours our EEs work. The majority of our EEs currently work 6:00AM - 2:30PM. These hours have been in place for approximately 7 years. We gave a 6 week notice announcing the new hours would be 7:00AM - 3:30PM. Needless to say, our EEs are very upset because they had no say in this decision. There's even a signed petition rejecting the new hours.

Does anyone have any advice on how you've communicated this type of change and/or dealt with a threatened mutiny?

Balloonman · February 2004

This is where I may not look like a very good HR guy. But if the decision was made after careful analysis and deemed a business necessity then the change needs to be made. You might look at for the future including the folks in the discussion, or at least get input. Do you have turnover issues? Could you easily replace people? You might inform the employees what the reasoning was behind the changes.
Then hold them to attendance policy, and or progressive discipline. They do have the option of seeking employment elsewhere.
My $0.02 worth.
DJ The Balloonman

lnelson · February 2004

We had the exact same change approx. 3mths ago and although the EE's were not happy about it no one quit.

The decision was based on customer requests for merchandise after 2:30 and us not being able to provide them with the service.

The ER has the right to change the hours without input from the EE's as long as you are a non-union workplace it may differ for Union.

Good Luck!

Rockie · February 2004

When I worked for a bank several years ago, the management decided to open on Saturday mornings and we went through much of the same thing...unhappy employees...childcare issues....etc..threatened to quit....

The "petition" thing also came up and employees were told if they went the petition route, they would be disciplined.

The decision was shared with employees (prior to implementing this and with a three month notice) that our customers had been asking for this service for some time and since customers were the reason for being in business, we decided to open for their convenience.

After a period of adjustment, employees accepted this and settled down to business. I suspect the same will happen in your organization. The new hours are pretty good. I come in at 7AM and sure as heck don't get to leave at 3:30!

Dutch2 · February 2004

We too are a bank that changed from the traditional lobby hours of 10:00 to 3:00 and started opening at 8:00 and closing at 5:00. All due to customer request for more convienent times to do their banking. There was much wailing and nashing of teeth and comments that the majority of our tellers would quit. We lost no one and now few ever metion the former schedule.
Good Luck,
Dutch2

Cinderella · February 2004

Rockie - I know that banks are generally non-union environments. However, if ee's wanted to "organize" and form a petition, wouldn't the activity be protected? As in, perhaps they were at the beginning stages of trying to form a union or join one or something? I honestly have no idea - but figured I would ask. x:-)

Don D · February 2004

I agree with the 'glass-slippered-one'. A petition is nothing more than a group statement. I think the NLRB might have at least voiced their opposition to the strong handed policy of telling a group they have no right to express themselves peacefully.

In the best of all worlds, sure, communicating the change to all employees well in advance and having them leave the room smiling and clapping, is a much desired event. And six weeks is ample notice for such a change.

We recently eliminated third shift, with maybe three days' notice. Things are decided in business for business reasons. It's great to get everybody on board and hope they buy into the decisions; but, alas, work is rarely a democracy.

On a philosophical note: Ain't it amazing that workers want tons of notice and opportunity to have input when things affect them like the one laid out here. But, they want immediacy if we're talking about no longer wearing ties, instituting casual Friday's, longer breaks, better working conditions or higher wages.

AluminumBoy · February 2004

Nice observation Don.

Just to play it safe since you have many ee's that have an issue with this, I'd recommend speaking to each person separately should they come forward to complain.

Union or non-union, always good to avoid having a group collectively dissent. Nothing wrong with group meetings to initially communicate and having a q&a session with the group...but after that, take complaints idividually.

I don't know what your environment is like (i.e. surrounding businesses and union attitude), but good to avoid any protected concerted activity issues. One on one communications will mitigate that concern (at least up to a point). If it doesn't, call a law dawg.

If you have two or more employees acting together over a job related matter, you' ve got to be mindful of this. The key word is "acting".

Good luck getting rid of the whining.

Nat · February 2004

I don't know if I would meet with each one individually. A business decision has been made. As was said previously, businesses are allowed to make changes in work hours. As someone once told me, "we are not in the business of employing, we are in the business of caring for people (we were a long term care facility)." So, sometimes we have to make decisions so that we can run our business as efficiently as possible and they may not always be popular decisions. We just implemented a policy where employees cannot wear artificial nails of any length and real nails cannot exceed 1/4 inch. Thought we'd have mass exodus but no one quit and everyone took off the nails (yes we have nail inspection). It will pass.

Cinderella · February 2004

"Law dawg" I like that one. x;-) Makes me want to call one of the lawyers and say "what up law dawg?" (or is it "wassup?" - I'm so unhip these days) 8-}

Rockie · February 2004

>Rockie - I know that banks are generally
>non-union environments. However, if ee's wanted
>to "organize" and form a petition, wouldn't the
>activity be protected? As in, perhaps they were
>at the beginning stages of trying to form a
>union or join one or something? I honestly have
>no idea - but figured I would ask. x:-)

Yep, you guys are probably correct in today's environment. This was back several years ago when employers ran the company with more of an "iron hand" approach and "management by fear" prevailed. Employees weren't quite a savvy as they are today.

hrdir03nafcu · February 2004

We went through a similar change 18 mos ago, although with the difference that we went from 9:00 - 5:00 workday, w/ 1 hr paid lunch for all, to 9:00 - 5:30 workday, with 30 minutes of the lunch hour paid time (the other 30 min is not paid time) for EEs working the full 8-hr day.

Our announced reasons for the change were: (1) to align our hours policy with the majority of the business community; (2) to be available 30 minutes later in the day for calls from our West Coast members (we're on the East Coast).

We did not include EEs in discussion before announcing the decision; we did make appoint of giving people almost 6 mos notice before implementing the new schedule.

There was much bitter complaining at the time, and it even came up again in a survey of staff last November. But the fact is that no one-- particularly, none of those who complained most loudly and bitterly-- has left over this issue.

While I'm very sympathetic to the practice of including EEs in discussion of workplacen changes that will affect them, I'm skeptical of the value of doing so in a situation like the one we're discussing here.

If EEs are included in discussion prior to making a decision, it's unlikely that many will come around to embrace a change that they oppose. If the ER then decides to change hours over the objections of EEs, I think the result may be that EEs are outraged over 2 issues (first the change itself, second, that the employer didn't listen to EEs) instead of just one. And so I'm inclinded to think that the result of just implementing a management decision would be less disruptive than implementing it after involving EEs in the discussion.

Some decisions just are management decisions-- and management just has to swallow hard and go forward, realizing that many EEs may be unhappy (at least for awhile).

Best of luck with your change of hours-- hope this was helpful.

nsauchuk · February 2004

Thank you for your response. After reading all the responses on this issue, I feel better and about what we are doing. We took all the appropriate steps in communicating this change and although we didn't give a 6 month notice, we feel the 6 weeks we gave is sufficient. The average tenure of our associates is 17 years and I don't think we will lose any over this.

I did meet with associates who had serioius concerns about child care etc., and many didn't realize how many resources they have out there that will help with after school issues, etc.

Thanks again everyone.

Change in work hours makes EEs unhappy.

Comments