From Girl Scout cookie drives to workplace birthday clubs, non-work fundraisers have become a part of many company cultures. Should management be concerned?

There are no simple answers to this question. Most employers want to encourage a family-friendly company culture, but employee (and supervisor) solicitations often have a way of spinning out of control. 

Left unchecked, onsite “selling” can go from a harmless activity to an unwelcomed one that causes tension and can actually hurt morale.

No-soliciting policy?

In one recent survey, 22% percent of employers said they have a policy against soliciting. In most cases, the policy limits the times and places (e.g., break rooms only) where employees can engage in the activity.

Some employers have created bulletin boards where workers can post their fundraisers for interested co-workers.  According to the survey, about one employer in 10 has banned unapproved fundraisers entirely.

Another thorny issue: In some cases, the one doing the selling is a supervisor or an executive, even if the company bans rank-and-file employees from doing it. 

Unfortunately, this leaves HR/benefits in a real tough position. How can you be expected to enforce a policy that managers themselves ignore? It sets you up to be the bad guy, and also shows employees that the powers-that-be either don’t take the policy seriously or don’t think they need to follow the same rules.

Office sports pools: Harmless or harmful?

Odds are pretty high (pun intended) that your employees and/or supervisors have an office football pool going right about now and/or a March Madness pool during the college basketball tournament. If not, they’ve probably worked somewhere in the past where such activities have had the tacit — or open — approval of the top brass.

Is that a good or bad thing for your company culture?

Never mind the fact that the pools are rarely used for “entertainment purposes only.” Although wagering in office pools (and fantasy sports leagues) is technically an illegal activity in some states, the laws are rarely — if ever — enforced. In most states, the typical $5 to $20 office pool is legal.

A bigger, more practical concern: presenteeism.

Easy to spot, hard to stop

If you were to take a random walk around your office and glance at people’s computer screens, chances are you’d find more than a few folks who have game reports open in one Window and their work in another. Want to guess which screen the employee pays more attention to? Yup.

One estimate says March Madness costs employers nationwide $1.7 billion each year in lost productivity. During that time of year, many employees (and supervisors) are paid to do little more than check on how the teams in their office pool are doing in the NCAA basketball tournament.

Truth be told, even if your organization bans office pools, many employees will sneak glances at the scores, anyway. But people are more open about goofing off — and spend longer doing it — when they participate in a pool at work. Many supervisors simply look the other way.

Morale builder?

The typical reason given for allowing office fund-raising solicitation or sports pools is that the activity boosts morale and employee bonding. In reality, the morale-building advantages depend on your company culture and the demographics of your workforce.

One survey found that 30% of professional and business service employees eagerly look forward to participating in an annual March Madness pool at work. On the flip side, only 13% of employees in the hospitality industry expressed interest in the activity.

Gender also comes into play. Roughly 24% of male employees said they’re likely to participate in an office pool, while 11% of women do.

Bottom line: Some workplaces wouldn’t miss such activities if they disappeared. In others, the long-term morale boost cancels out the short-term productivity hit.

You’ve probably mentioned it to managers a hundred times: When there’s a problem with an employee, make sure we have good documentation to back up any discipline. Employment law attorney Penelope Phillips explains a few hints that will make documentation better than “good.”

Phillips says the clues lie in several court cases she’s seen and how the right words have meant the difference between a win for the manager and a big cash settlement for an employee with a complaint. She says solid documentation relies on three pieces that every manager should understand. Here’s how they’re broken down:

1. Timing. Even good documentation can hurt your cause if too much time elapses between the incident and the date of the documentation. Two reasons:

• In the employee’s mind, the connection between the incident and the documentation becomes fuzzy. When that happens, employees start to believe they’re being treated unfairly.
• If an employee does decide to file a lawsuit over the incident, a judge might perceive that the supervisor was relying on a dim memory of old events.

There’s no hard-and-fast rule about timing, but the longer it’s put off, the greater the risk to the employer. All the better if the documentation is dated the same day as the incident.

2. Accuracy. Getting the story straight in writing is as much about what’s not said as what’s said.

Yes, managers should follow the reporter’s creed of The Five W’s – who, what, when, where, why – when putting together documentation. But most mistakes occur in the “why” stage.

Reason: too much “editorializing” about events. Examples:

• “Bob showed up late because he was drunk.” That leaves the documentation open to questions such as, “How do you know? Did you take his alcohol-blood level?”
• “You have a bad attitude about deadlines.” How do you define that? Better to describe a measurable behavior: “You failed to meet three important deadlines.”
• “I may not approve of your lifestyle, but that has no bearing on this problem.” Then why mention it? If circumstances are unrelated, there’s no need to bring them up.
• “You sexually harassed Carol three times.” That’s a legal conclusion made only by judges and juries. More accurate: “Carol complained three times that you spoke to her or touched her in a way she thought was inappropriate.”

3. Desired results. The point of any discipline and accompanying documentation is to change behavior. That desired change is another key to good documentation.

What’s a common mistake in this area? Consider, as an example, the situation of the employee who’s habitually late for work. Some supervisors in that instance will write “must be on time for 90 consecutive days” as an acceptable change in behavior.

So, what ends up happening? On the 91st day, the employee shows up late and says, “Hey, I followed the rules of your documentation.” And a judge will most likely agree.

Best bet: Establish a standard for long-term behavior and set out the next disciplinary step for any violation of that standard: “If you’re late again, we will consider suspending you without pay for a period to be determined.”

The scene:

“Well, we’re unhappy about losing you,” said HR manager Dana Wiley as she closed out the exit interview with Jeremy, a once-promising employee who quit after only three months. “But good luck.”

Right after they shook hands and Jeremy walked out, Dana got on the phone with Jeremy’s manager, Phil Ramirez.

“You know why Jeremy’s leaving, right?” Dana said after they got through some small talk.

“He told me he felt he had a better chance to advance with the other company,” Phil replied. “Did he tell you something else?”

Continual bad-mouthing
“He sure did,” Dana said. “Jeremy said he’s leaving because Jenna Nevin told him this was a bad company to work for,” Stu continued. “In fact, he says she talked that way nearly every day.”

“I should have known,” Phil sighed. “She’s been bad-mouthing the company for a long time now, ever since we changed the compensation structure. I’ve talked to her about the problem, but nothing’s changed.”

“Why do you put up with it?” Dana asked.

“Despite her attitude, Jenna’s still one of our top producers,” Phil noted. “And in a lot of months, she’s the top producer.”

“I understand,” Dana said. “But what about the consequences of having her come into contact with other employees, especially new ones. That can be toxic.”

“You’re right, Dana,” Phil agreed. “So, what should we do about it?”

If you were Dana, what would you recommend to Phil?

Dianne Duncan, HR director, Franklin, VA
What Dianne would do:
This employee has to understand the overall negative effect she’s having on the the company. To get that point across, I’d meet with her to let her know what’s happening as a result of her complaints, and that it has to stop.
Reason:
It’s possible that she’s already aware of the effects of what she’s said, but before doing anything else, that would have to be made clear. Once that’s done, you can consider discipline for further incidents.

Don Haverkamp, HR director, Portland, OR
What Don would do:
Our approach is that behavior and attitude are parts of a person’s overall performance. With that in mind, I’d treat this as a performance problem and use whatever system we have to improve that part of the person’s performance. If it calls for progressive discipline and even eventual termination, then that’s the course we’d take.
Reason:
You can’t excuse a bad attitude just because someone’s numbers are good. In fact, I’d predict that if her attitude went uncorrected, her numbers eventually would go down.

Tom Petersen, HR director, Eagle River, AK
What Tom would do:
First, I’d try to find out exactly what she was saying and whether there was any truth to it. For instance, did she say the company cheated her or lied to her? If so, and there were no grounds for serious charges like that, I’d recommend discipline and possible termination. I wouldn’t be so tough if all she was saying was she should get more money, or something like that. Certainly, I’d address it with her and tell her she’s risking discipline.
Reason:
If she’s going to say terrible things that have no basis in truth, you have to deal with the situation decisively.

Can we use pay cuts as disciplinary measures?

Question
We’re having problems with employees who repeatedly violate company policies. As part of progressive discipline, can we cut their hourly rate of pay for a fixed period – for instance, three days?

Answer
Cutting pay rates can be tricky because of various state laws and, if appropriate, collective
bargaining agreements (CBAs), warns Jane Dalton, an attorney with Duane Morris LLP.

If we assume that your state doesn’t prohibit hourly pay cuts and there’s no CBA, you can cut rates as a disciplinary measure, but (a) be sure to give the employee written notice that the next violation will result in a cut and (b) consider mentioning the pay-rate penalty in your employee handbook.

900 numbers for reference checks: worth the money?

Question
We’ve been hearing about those 900-number phone services that you can call to check an applicant’s references for a per-minute charge. Any opinion on their value?

Answer
They usually don’t provide any great insight, although you might use them as a supplement to other reference-gathering resources. That’s the suggestion of attorney Wendy Bliss, who wrote the book “Legal and Effective References: How to Give and Get Them.”

Most 900-number reference services just provide basic info, such as verifying dates of employment. You won’t get much more than that.

The good thing about presidential campaign politics is that it can bring people together at work. The bad thing about it is that it can bring people together at work.

We’re getting to the point in the campaign when people start picking sides for real. The Mike Gravels, Duncan Hunters and other pretenders have been weeded out, and now the stage is set for Us vs. Them.

And that raises two questions: 1. Should you try to put a lid on political talk in the workplace? 2. Can you?

When to step in

Let’s answer the second question first. Yes, you can restrict what people say and when they say it. The First Amendment to the Constitution doesn’t give people a blank check to say whatever they want whenever they want. Believe it or not, the Founding Fathers recognized that you’ve got a business to run.

The answer to the first question is a little trickier. But most experts say to take a laid-back approach.

Or look at it this way: Did you try to stop discussion in your company the Monday morning after the Super Bowl? Of course not. People are going to chat about some topics, and if they’re not talking politics, they’ll be talking about something else.

Your best bet: Deal with over-the-edge types individually. If their political discussions get intimidating or disruptive, give them a warning to lighten up. If they ignore the warning, you or another manager can and should take action. Just make sure the you apply discipline uniformly and it’s not perceived as singling out anyone.

But let’s get to the important part. Did we mention that you’re crazy if you don’t vote for …