Other 'job' 15

[controlnovice]

I just started working for another company, and now have 5 technicians working for me. They are Non-Exempt, Hourly, non Union. These particular technicians are a special group in that only one can back up for another. So, two are on one system, two on another, and I back up for the third.

One of the technician's hobby is refereeing highschool and younger football in the fall. 5 nights a week plus weekends.

I've only been here two months, and I've already heard that last fall, there were issues in the plant and he just left because he had to 'ref' a game.

I am now running into an issue where we need him to travel this fall, where he will miss his 'hobby'. He already said, not only will he not go, but he can not go because he already signed a contract to ref. He does get paid for some of the games.

I can understand family issues or emergencies precluding work, but this behavior is not desireable in the workplace.

Where do outside interests conflict with work and what can be done with an hourly worker who decides he doesn't want to work overtime? Again, we only have one other person to cover for him, and due to vacations, etc. he is not always available.

How is this handled?

______________________________________________________________________________
This is normally the space where people post something insightful.

 

[controlnovice]

My original question didn't include the fact that he has been travelling about 15% this year already (with no complaints - in fact has said he enjoys it), knew it could interfere this Autumn, and is just now saying he will not travel due to outside interests.

Travel was known.

______________________________________________________________________________
This is normally the space where people post something insightful.

 

[monkeydog]

You asked for travel this fall (mid September to mid December). He can not, or will not travel. So just start inteviewing other technicians. He will either realign his priorities or you will have his replacement. If anything you will have a back-up for the 3rd pair.

 

[ajack1]

It does seem that a bit of compromise would not go a miss here.

He does seem willing to travel for the rest of the year, so it is not like he is just being totally awkward; however the whole of the fall is a long time to be tied up.

I am not sure the attitude of the company actually helps anyone.
Q What are the penalties if he breaches his contract with the league?
A Not our problem

Maybe he would be prepared to travel more out of the fall and give up refereeing for one week or so in the fall as a compromise, if the company were not so heavy handed?

Back in my younger days I had similar issues when I played semi-pro rugby, but we always over came them with give and take from both parties.

The other thing that strikes me is the amount of people that just say sack him and get a replacement in. It must be a hell of a lot easier to sack people in the States than it is in Europe/ UK.

 

[DonPE]

ajack1:

In the US, most employees are considered at-will employees unless they have an employment contract. This means the employee can be fired for any reason whatsoever, and the employee can leave for any reason whatsoever. There are state-to-state exceptions to the "fire-at-will" policy, of course, but most employees just accept it and move on to the next company. Ironically, even many so-called "contract" employees typically fall under the fire-at-will policy.

Usually union employees and some professions have employment contracts. If you're really good at what you do, you can set up a contract with your company, but it's not easy.

It is indeed sad that people are treated as disposable items, but it's not going to change any time soon. Casseopeia had some good ideas for finding a solution.

My only observation is something that people should keep in mind when they say "just get rid of the guy". Its that employees don't form unions; bad companies do. I've seen it happen and it can get ugly.

 

[BigInch]

Sorry I'm a little late on this.

When are engieers going to give up this attitude of the company's all-powerful godlike ability to run every second of the lives of their employees? That went out more than 75 years ago. Just because you have to work many overtime hours unpaid and travel after hours and on weekends... whatever, because of your exempt status (lucky you), there should be no reason why you should want to apply the same conditions to employees that are not burdend with such rubbish. Hourly company employee policies apply only to the hours the employee is scheduled to work plus any mutually agreed overtime and on-call periods. If s/he is a backup for another employee, that requirement should only be applicable to the shift the employee is working plus any mutually agreed overtime and on-call periods. Overtime should be optional and agreed by both employer and employee, as well as on-call periods. Neither should not working overtime be a basis for penalizing the employee in future advancement or wages. When scheduled overtime is necessary, for backup or otherwise, it is obvious that the employer is underestimating his resource requirements and should be at fault. If that is a temporary condition only, some allowance can be given to the employer, however if such can be considered as a permanent or semi-permanent necessity of the employer, no. In the case where the employer is attempting to use his preceived position of power in the relationship to officially or unofficially require, or by threat of some alternative undesireable consequence to the employee, to force the employee into compliance the employer is taking an unfair advantage of the employee.

I always considered overtime as needed only when something got out of control. A time when productivity is decreased to such a low level that continuing to work it at such low efficiency might be "worth it" for a very very short time just to achieve some minute quantity of progress or achieve an important deadline, but if continued especially on a routine basis, should be a sign of grave things to come,... or a company taking advantage of its clients.

"I'm all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools. Let's start with typewriters."
- Frank Lloyd Wright (1868-1959)

 

[MortenA]

I think biginch has some good observations here!

If hes highly paid - is he easy to replace? How is is general attitude except doing overtime when it affects his hobby?

Im a scout leader and also like my hobby - and outdoor life in general. I also sometimes twists my work schedule a little to meet my obligations as a scout leader.

So give the guy a break if his work apart from this is fine! You dont know if a replacement has even more strange habits!

Best regards

Morten

 

[BigInch]

Morton, thanks for the encouragement... like I need it aye?

Not everybody lives to work. Working to live should be part of the deal too, but if the other extreme is your bag, don't try to make everyone help you carry your burden around. My best advice is, call it a night and go to a game with him. Maybe you'll both work better together too. Who knows.

... And heck, if it doesn't work out, send him on over. That's all I ask of my employees... unless there's a deadline to meet.

Remember, "The devil you know can be much better than the devil you don't."

"I'm all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools. Let's start with typewriters."
- Frank Lloyd Wright (1868-1959)

 

[dougantholz]

It seems from the companies perspective you have a few options:
1. Hire another employee to back up this one.
2. Hire another employee to replace this one.
3. Pound sand.

If an employee was say going to school, would it be more acceptable? What if the employee were fulfilling a religious obligation? Would your paradigm shift any? If yes, then it is a case of you have a problem with the hobby. If no, then you have a problem with employees having lives.

 

[Sideswiper]

I doubt that mandatory travel is actually a part of his job. He sounds like a good employee who has found a balance in life between work and fun. He doesn't have a problem, you do.

I'm surpised you don't know how to handle the situation. In your gut, your already know if you are going to fire him or if you're going to just going to be mad about it all the time.

 

[Compositepro]

There is no universal answer or policy to this issue. When I first started supervising people and had problem employees, I asked a retired friend for his opinion on how to handle the problems. His sage advice was that every employee has problems and talents. It boils down to the supervisor's judgement of whether an employee is worth the trouble or not.

 

[BigInch]

Yes, it is true that effectively it is so in any case. The issue is that the judgement should be made against fair standards, not against someone's unfair, or "biased" standards. In this case, the non-expempt employee is apparently being judged against exempt employee standards (to some degree), therefore (if that is true) such a judgement cannot be considered fair.

"I'm all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools. Let's start with typewriters."
- Frank Lloyd Wright (1868-1959)

 

[jut07]

What is with all these people saying to fire him? WTH? What would you do if someone told your boss to fire you? The OP has painted a pretty good picture of this employee. Firing him doesn't seem like an effective solution. Now you have no one (trained) to send out this fall. Talk about lack of foresight..... Heh, nothing will start things off right with your other new employees than a new manager firing a respected employee with expereince over a hobby. It will take about 10 years to earn back the lost respect.

As for the company's attitude "Not our problem" ...I don't even know where to start.

Casseopia was on to something. Find some kind of compromise like an adult.

On the other hand, is he completely in the right to bite the hand that feeds him? No. But I do HATE people whose lives revolve around work. And I have a deep respect for those of us who place priorities of life ahead of our employers (up to a point of course).

 

[apsix]

'But I do HATE people whose lives revolve around work.'

Now who is being extreme?

 

[MacGyverS2000]

But I do HATE people whose lives revolve around work.

Funny... as a business owner, I LOVE them! Of course, I HATE any business that expects work to be my first priority, but I see nothing wrong with someone who lives to work. It's their choice, they're free to make it.

And I believe "fire the guy" is simply a short way of saying "deal with his extra-curricular activities or look for someone without them". It's not necessarily a mark against that particular employee, only an employer who wants to fill a spot with someone who can make themselves available during that time period.

It may not feel right to get rid of the guy because he no longer fit's the employer's schedule, but there's nothing that says the employer can't change his wants/needs.

Dan - Owner

http://www.Hi-TecDesigns.com

 

[jut07]

After I got off my soapbox, I realized I did come off a bit extreme. Let me clarify if I may.

I don't hate the people, just the fact that some people let work dictate their lives and not the other way around. It is ultimately their choice though - you are right. (And it is great from a business owner's perspective.) However, I stand by what I said about firing the guy. There are plenty of solutions that don't involve those kinds of extremes, and many were already expressed above.

Keep HR out of it. Keep your supervisor out of it. Keep the government out of it. Everyone will benefit from that and I think we can all agree there.

 

[DRC1]

I vote for letting the SOB go. He gets paid top $ and knows he has no oppertunity to meet clients demands. What are you going to tell your client, that he can't get his plant up and running till after the Super Bowl? of course not. You will go and this guy will be watching, as will everyone else. You have a choice here. You can say the needs of our clients are important and we will have people on srtaff who will make reasonable accomidations in their schedules to provide satisfactory service to our clients, or we are going to accomidate our clients at someone's convinence. Overtime is extra because it is inconvient.
I'm not saying people should not have outside lives, but this is not about refing a football game. This is about an old time hourly employee trying to get the young management guy to take all the bad hours. Everyone is watching. Your move.

 

[jut07]

Has he been reffing for years prior just so he could intimidate the new, young manager when he came aboard? I don't think so.

Is traveling part of his job requirement/contract? If this has been answered, my apologies, but I could not find it.

I'm guessing this guy is good at what he does. Is it worth firing him and training a new guy because of a service he provides to the community? I doubt it. Another solution MUST be found.

 

[DonPhillips]

A good manager figures out how to balance his employee's need to ref with your need to get the job done. Perhaps during the fall, others pick up his slack and the rest of the year, he picks up theirs. Try to create a team where everyone helps each other. Try reading Southwest Airline's book "Nuts!"

(been there, tried lots of things, eventually had to fired one when promises were not kept)

Don Phillips

http://worthingtonengineering.com

 

[Enginator]

The first mistake here is treating a non-exempt employee like and exempt one. Non-exempts will have a whole different attitude and would never expect to be fired over not wanting to work overtime. You're the exempt guy. You fill in for him this fall and hope business picks up enough (or promote more business as you should, as an exempt) to where you can bring on another non-exempt to fill in next year.

One thing you need to consider is how YOUR superiors will feel about your reasoning for firing the guy. If you let him go because you want someone on board that you don't have to back up yourself, they may let YOU go. Be certain that they recognize the investment they have in your guy and expect you to protect that investment - with your own unpaid overtime if necessary. I certainly would.