Spouses/Families of Military Deployees
Rockie
2,136 Posts
I would like some of your fine input on what I consider a shameful way of looking at things.
We have a certain segment of employees (small) who feel, for whatever reasons, some animosity towards spouses/families of military who have been deployed. Some of these spouses in particular have not handled their husbands being away very well, i.e. assistance with child issues and just the general stress of wondering day to day whether your husband is going to return home. One, in particular, has asked for special consideration during the time her spouse is away such as being able to flex her schedule to pick up children from day care on time, etc. This is a professional person who gets the job done, but might not work as many "hours" as a comparable co-worker.
Her supervisor wanted us to consider cutting back this employee's PTO bank and not giving her a pay increase during the time her spouse is away which might be as long as two years.
This was her rationale: "For over ten years (spouse) has gotten paid for being in the reserves. He will be eligible for military retirement with full pension as a result of his participation in the reserves. He and (employee) have enjoyed the extra money. His participation in this war is why the American people and government have trained and paid him over the past years. We all make choices. This was their personal decision."
Personally, I find this shameful. Our CEO is a very fair minded individual and said that he would never in any way, shape or form, advocate cutting an employee's salary because their spouse was away serving on military duty and they needed some extra consideration. He stated he would pay the difference out of his own pocket if need be.
I was just curious how the rest of you handle situations dealing with spouses and what types of concessions you have made for them.
Sorry to be so long...but I was hit with this email this morning and I'm afraid I'll be PO'd all day if I don't vent!
Thanks for listening!!!
We have a certain segment of employees (small) who feel, for whatever reasons, some animosity towards spouses/families of military who have been deployed. Some of these spouses in particular have not handled their husbands being away very well, i.e. assistance with child issues and just the general stress of wondering day to day whether your husband is going to return home. One, in particular, has asked for special consideration during the time her spouse is away such as being able to flex her schedule to pick up children from day care on time, etc. This is a professional person who gets the job done, but might not work as many "hours" as a comparable co-worker.
Her supervisor wanted us to consider cutting back this employee's PTO bank and not giving her a pay increase during the time her spouse is away which might be as long as two years.
This was her rationale: "For over ten years (spouse) has gotten paid for being in the reserves. He will be eligible for military retirement with full pension as a result of his participation in the reserves. He and (employee) have enjoyed the extra money. His participation in this war is why the American people and government have trained and paid him over the past years. We all make choices. This was their personal decision."
Personally, I find this shameful. Our CEO is a very fair minded individual and said that he would never in any way, shape or form, advocate cutting an employee's salary because their spouse was away serving on military duty and they needed some extra consideration. He stated he would pay the difference out of his own pocket if need be.
I was just curious how the rest of you handle situations dealing with spouses and what types of concessions you have made for them.
Sorry to be so long...but I was hit with this email this morning and I'm afraid I'll be PO'd all day if I don't vent!
Thanks for listening!!!
Comments
Until Congress passes legislation, similar to FMLA, which gives relief in the form of entitlement to spouses of persons engaged in military action, we will deal with this time and again.
The safest (meaning most defensible) approach is to treat it like any other missed work. The next safest approach would be to have a 'benevolence policy' in which you address the ability of the business to grant consideration to those affected by personal circumstances. Then you find yourself smelling the fresh paint on the brush laying beside you in the corner.
I agree with Rockie. Let's just find another reason to stick it to the military for their sacrifice and service. While we're at it, let's make police officers pay for their coffee and other perks. Having a spouse leave for war is traumatizing. Having the employer being alittle flexible with work hours and giving an earned raise is not out of line. This is not the same as having a spouse in jail or leaving them. These are HONORABLE people serving their country. They have committed no crime. These military folks risk their lives and now they have to worry about their spouses being discriminated against for their service. This is the thanks they get. I find this appauling.
However, the key that I see is, "this is a professional person who still gets the job done" Isn't that the bottom line issue? Does she have performance goals? Is she meeting them?
Yes there is an issue of flex time you need to address as a whole, but if salaried exempt you can't dock her pay. She is asking for flexibility........... doing it the right way, still getting the job done. You might look at allowing flex time in these circumstances, you could make it policy or not.
The supervisor is an ahole in my opinion. Where does she get off in rationalizing about the pay/benefits they derive from him being in the guard. The RISK to serving your country, is that you could be activated in a war situation, and you could lose your life. You do not choose to have this happen you accept the RISK that it could happen in doing something, serving your country.
Can you tell I was in the military? :-) Bet the supervisor in question was not.
My $0.05 worth.
DJ The Balloonman
If you do cut the employee slack because her husband is deployed, what do you do with the employee whose husband, a policeman, is suddenly confined in a rehab facility after having been shot in a bank holdup? He was, perhaps, just as honorable, didn't want to be away from home for the next 6 months, didn't want to be shot, was putting his life on the line every day and now is unable to assist with childcare issues and can't mow the yard or pay bills. And let's add another wrinkle to the mix. The military family is white and the police family is African-American. Do you see where my analysis is coming from?
As an aside, in NYC (and many other locales), it is illegal for a police officer to get a free cup of coffee, sandwich, suit, gold watch etc. These are not considered perks, they are considered bribes.
In addition, sometimes HR must be tempered with kindness and understanding. It is called HUMAN Resources and there should be some kind of emotion attached at times. Facts are important, in addition to some emotion at appropriate times. HR is not about robots. We tell employees to come to us with problems or issues and so forth and if we had not emotion, we would not be doing our job. We get unique situations across our desks on a daily basis and have to have some human interaction with it.
The Forum, I think, is a learning and polishing tool. My remarks on this thread are intended in that vein.
You're the one who brought up being emotional, not me. I'm just addressing your comment that we are not robots and emotions do come into play in our field. Sorry you couldn't see that.
>>This is a professional person who gets the job
>done, but might not work as many "hours" as a
>comparable co-worker.
>
>Her supervisor wanted us to consider cutting
>back this employee's PTO bank and not giving her
>a pay increase during the time her spouse is
>away which might be as long as two years.
>
>This was her rationale: "For over ten years
>(spouse) has gotten paid for being in the
>reserves. He will be eligible for military
>retirement with full pension as a result of his
>participation in the reserves. He and
>(employee) have enjoyed the extra money. His
>participation in this war is why the American
>people and government have trained and paid him
>over the past years. We all make choices. This
>was their personal decision."
1. Does your company allow flex time?
2. What is the rational basis for withholding this individuals pay raise? If the decision is based on her husbands occupation, pay or benefits then you may have a problem with treating her differently than others?
3. Her husbands occupation should have no effect on how this employee is treated. This supervisor sounds like a perfect idiot.
Incidently, retired from U.S. Army and proud of it.
The parallel I have to draw is the wealthy doctor's wife that works. Is it justifiable to withhold raises, for which she would be otherwise eligible, simply because she's married to a wealthy doctor?
As for the flex time. I think you need to look within your company and see what you've offered in the past...in our office, we'd be OK as long as the work got done...in our call centers...we'd be more likely to offer a shift change...but coverage in that area is essential....you'll just have to see what you've done in the past...and what you're willing to do in the future.
What if she were a single parent??? What sort of flexibility would you grant???
Good luck...
And as you're dealing with this, I'd take a good look at the sup and make sure he/she really understands and is fulfilling his/her duties.
2. As other posters have said, I think the supervisor needs a reality check. Her rationale for her actions have absolutely nothing to do with the employee's performance. There is absolutely nothing work related in her arguments.
3. Any flexibility in the spouse's schedule should be dealt with in accordance with your company's time off policies.
4. For assistance, your employee may want to consider contacting her husband's unit's Family Coordinator. These coordinators run programs specifically designed to assist the families of deployed servicemembers and they are a tremendous asset.
I am in a ...... spirited mood today ..lol, and could easily argue either side of this issue. The thing is, Don is right, should it matter why? No technically not. However, the fact is the job is getting done and this is a proven performer. Is that the kind of employee you want to lose? No it is not, so how do we make this a workable situation? A flex time policy of evaluating how to utilize flex time is probably the way to go. Don is correct, doing it on a case by case situation is asking for big trouble. But sketching out a program, requiring that performance objectives are still met, is doable if it is not a position that requires coverage at specific times.
Fact is, we need to figure out ways to be flexible so we are valued by our employees, so the good ones don't leave us. Will a good deed be punished by a problem employee? Absolutely, that is why we are paid the big bucks, to deal with it when it happens. :-)
My $0.02 worth,
DJ The Balloonman
PS. I still think the supervisor is not only way out of line but a jerk to work for just based on the comments of the original post. :-P
But, having re-read the original post from Rockie, I would not hesitate to call the supervisor in and ask for an explanation of her thought process. I might even question the wisdom of having her in that role if this is indicative of her judgment. USERRA makes it illegal for the employer of the husband to discriminate against the husband in this case, but not the employer of the spouse, although I anticipate that USERRA will be altered to do that in the future.
No explanation should be needed by professionals in our field, but, as to the race issue, pigeon-holing people into various protected DOL-established categories does one thing and one thing only (as the law intends). It distinguishes them as having particular standing in the filing of charges. The more protected categories one belongs to, the greater their odds of prevailing when they bring action. That was my reason for speculating that the employee might fit a particular pigeon-hole. I could just as easily have conjectured that she might be an obese Catholic over 39. I can't imagine anyone finding that analytical hypothetical objectionable. If we do not consider these sorts of 'what ifs' when we consider our actions and how they might be perceived by others in the workplace, we are not fully functional HR professionals. I by no means implied that anyone would make their decision in this instance based on race.
I have a suggestion for the supervisor. If he is so jealous of the "extra pay and pension" that the spouse is getting - he can join the reserves too!
Are you saying that this employee is dropping hours (possibly to part-time) and as long as she 'gets her work done'wants to continue getting full-time benefits and regular full-time pay increases? If that's true you'll have other full-time employees wanting the same thing. And yes, may your lawyer help you if it's denied to someone in a protected class - Don's point.
Then if these employees can 'get their work done' with reduced hours, why are you paying full time people to fill part-time positions? You may be assuming that the supervisor has animosity, when it may be purely an objective position.
Flex hours may work fine if you're willing to offer that benefit to other workers. Allowing the same pay and benefits for one employee requesting reduced hours is surely going to invite problems.
BTW did anyone see the the advertisement in this week's Newsweek (right at the front of the magazine) for the National Guard Family Readiness Program? Awesome! What a coincidence!!!!
-Employee's husband goes to war.
-Employee asks for and receives permission to "flex her schedule." Presumably, this was done in accordance with company policy.
-Employee "gets the job done, but might not work as many ‘hours’ as a comparable co-worker." Does this mean that the employee works less than full-time, or that the employee doesn't have to work overtime to get the job done? Either way, shows an employee who has effective time management and good productivity. Why would anyone want to "punish" this?
Now supervisor wants to reduce PTO and deny pay increase, not because employee isn't working up to snuff, but because of what her husband is doing? There may indeed be valid reasons for doing this, but not the ones the supervisor stated. The problem, from what I read in the original posting, is not that the employee’s work has suffered with the flex time. To deal with this unemotionally as Don D has suggested, you would have to look at what problems the flex time and any other considerations have caused. What does the supervisor say is the problem with this employee? Or is the supervisor just jealous at some perceived “benefit” of having a spouse in Iraq? Would you cut an employee’s pay because his/her spouse got a large raise or won the lottery?
It could be that the flex time, granted in the first flush of sympathy, isn't working out for some reason. Since the husband's deployment is probably for at least a year, possibly two years, I think the issue could be revisited. The employee can be told that flex time isn't working as well as hoped, and be given some time to figure out how to deal with the child care issue without missing work time. If the deployment was only for a month or two, flex time could be dealt with. I can see how two years of this might be a problem. I wouldn't just reduce PTO and deny increase without giving the employee a chance to return to regular working hours. She at least deserves a warning about what might happen while she still has a chance to do something about it.
Admitting to personal bias here: I'm the daughter of a 30 year Army veteran and have four brothers in the Army—one active duty career guy and three reservists. My baby brother heads for Iraq next month--his tour of duty could be 12-36 months. This will be my third brother to see combat. All the reserve pay my brothers have received has been earned--they work for that money, give up weekends and evenings during the week. Most of my brothers have taken military classes on their own time to improve their chances of promotion. To cut a spouse's pay, at a time when the family's income is probably being reduced--active military pay is frequently much less than pay in the private sector--seems a bit harsh. I would work to find other alternatives.
Just my 2 cents.
Cammy
Your suggestion that the supervisor is jealous and your comparison to a family member wining the lottery is way off base.
Her supervisor wanted us to consider cutting back this employee's PTO bank and not giving her a pay increase during the time her spouse is away which might be as long as two years.
This was her rationale: "For over ten years (spouse) has gotten paid for being in the reserves. He will be eligible for military retirement with full pension as a result of his participation in the reserves. He and (employee) have enjoyed the extra money. His participation in this war is why the American people and government have trained and paid him over the past years. We all make choices. This was their personal decision."
I interpreted this as meaning that the supervisor feels that because the family has/will benefit from the husband being in the Reserves, there is a fair and reasonable basis for cutting PTO and denying a pay increase. If someone would offer a different explanation, I would be very willing to consider it.
I agree that there is probably either a performance issue or, as you stated, an issue with reduced hours/same benefits. But that needs to be the cause stated for the reduction/lack of increase--not a statement about the spouse earning extra money/getting retirement pay from the Reserves. I also think it would be considerate of the company to let the employee know that the reduction/lack of increase is coming, so that she could make other arrangements to return to full time hours if necessary.
Instead of the lottery example, how about this one: Oh, we don't need to give him a salary increase this year. In addition to his wife's job, she is also selling on Ebay and I heard she made $2,000 last month. They'll be able to continue selling on Ebay when they retire, so we don't have to give him a raise this year." I was merely trying to find an example of the spouse getting extra money and a company basing the employee's salary on that. Perhaps the lottery was a bad example.
In our small town, some employers pay their employees who are also members of the volunteer fire dept for time spent off the job, answering fire/rescue calls. We are considering this, although I wonder how work comp fits in!!!
We feel that they are providing a very important public service and if no one volunteered because they couldn't afford to miss the work, we'd all be in a world of hurt. We do rely on said employee to check out minor work comp injuries for us, so we benefit from his volunteer job.
I think the link between this and a spouse winning the lottery is legitimate.
There are valid reasons to reduce pay, but one of them is not taking into account a spouses income or potential to earn money.
This situation may be having business issues with the flex time, but it cannot take the actions suggested for the reasons provided. I would love to hear an update from the original poster.
a. Cut the wife some slack. Work with her on time until she can get secure alternate arrangements made. (I.e. joins a car pool) The slack need not be forever, but a few months.
b. Fire the insensitive Clod who is her supervisor. It's people like him who will bring about additional legislation (if the war continues) and give us HR people MORE regs. to live with.
c. I do not put the serivce to your contry in the same category and needing time off to care for a sick family member, etc. The men and women who are in the military are performing a service for every citizen of the US of A and they and their loved ones should be handled with special consideration.
Well, I feel better -- got that off my chest!!!
>company,
>c. I do not put the serivce to your contry in
>the same category and needing time off to care
>for a sick family member, etc. The men and
>women who are in the military are performing a
>service for every citizen of the US of A and
>they and their loved ones should be handled with
>special consideration.
Although I do not disagree with your sentiment, this is a great example of the professional advice from Human Resources to the company decision makers being totally an emotion-based recommendation. How I, in particular, personally view service to the country and my personal analysis of how it compares to caring for a dying relative or who or how many other ancillary persons may benefit from either, is entirely irrelevant in such a consideration.
And to press the point, if you turn on your television right about now, you will see thousands of people who disagree with your statement that 'men and women in the military are performing a service for every citizen of the US of A'.
A good sign to have on our wall is this: "I will sometimes cry with you and, on occasion, may have a time when I will hug you and hold your hand. Although the person in this office is often emotional and certainly has emotions, that person does not make professional business decisions based on emotion. It simply is not best practice."