How far can monitoring your workforce go?
Posted 29 February 2008 at 7:56AM by Ian Betteridge in Doing business online
According to a survey of 300 businesses by the Centre for Public Health at Liverpool John Moores University, one-third of employers believe they should take an interest in how much their employees drink, even outside working hours.
The employers quoted in the survey claim alcohol has an effect on health, and poor health means poor performance at work - so how much you drink is going to be of interest to them.
But the same could be said of many other things: how you eat, how much you exercise, and even how often you brush your teeth. Does the fact that all of these could affect your work allow an employer to "take an interest" in them?
Clearly, someone turning up at work drunk is going to be an issue for any business. But how far should companies push this? And at what point does taking an interest in what your employees do out of office hours cross over into being intrusive about their personal life?
Is this a step towards businesses simply acting as nannies for their employees? Has the "nanny state" been replaced by the "nanny company"?
Tags: bt, bt broadbandoffice, john moores university
New feature: Rate this post!
Average rating: 4/5
Comments
2. At February 29, 2008 10:14 AM, boon wrote:
When it comes to important issues such as drinking the very nature of the problem it could develop into is a public health issue. PUBLIC being the optimum word here.
If an employees problems begin to affect others then we should all take a greater interest in each others lives.
Some issues after all like poor hygiene can be a sign of greater issues like depression. Could it all be a cry for help?
3. At February 29, 2008 10:37 AM, 'Macho Man' Randy Savage wrote:
Ooooh yeah, there has been a "nanny state" for years and it is getting worse.
Workplaces monitor everything and start to treat employees like...well I was going to say children, but even then children have some choice, I would say employees are more and more treated like babies/cattle.
One work place I know of, is now getting people waving flags around and watching everything there employees do, including how long they go to the toilet for...next step will be "wedlock" collars that explode if you move more than 10 yards away from your desk!
This new "people friendly" approach to workplaces, really helps people feel happy in there jobs, we all cant look after ourselves so need help/pushed in the right direction at all times, we just dont have the right mindset or enough free will to be able to think for ourselves now
4. At February 29, 2008 11:52 AM, John Taylor wrote:
Your point about "brushing teeth" etc is silly as clearly that is very unlikely to impact on work. However as an employer who over a 20 year period had 2 employees who had drink problems which impacted on their work, i know the dangers to both other employees and visitors to your place of work. I had to sack them both after certain instances. However taking an interest is a bit of a nebulus term. What does it mean? Spying on them is completely unacceptable but so is ignoring erratic behaviour in the work place. I concluded common sense was the best solution. If an employee wants to get bladdered on Friday night that is up to him. But if he turns up Monday, for work the worst for wear then what happens next is up to me
5. At February 29, 2008 12:19 PM, Ian Jenkins wrote:
Alcohol is the single biggest cause of crime and distress outside warfare! and its legal I have been a Volunteer Mentor for some Years now and this issue is not going away there are many worrying aspects to the abuse of alcohol one that rarely seems to be aired is the huge difference in the levels of tolerance to drink each individual has. What's OK for one person is Danger to another. I hear what's being said about "The Nanny State" and I do understand the concerns. We all need to be more responsible in our own consumption of alcohol, and yes we do also need to keep a watchful eye on those we employ after all we are jointly responsible for their health and safety at work!
Ian Jenkins
www.accessentertainment.co.uk
6. At February 29, 2008 2:41 PM, Hulk 'The Real American' Hogan wrote:
In response to 'Macho Man' Randy Savage, in some respect's 'brother', some work places are driven by certain figures wither it is stats or dealing with customers in a set amount of time, but they need to allow some flexibility, oooooh yeah.
All those hulkomaniacs out there need to have some creativity in the work place, as that is what drives a company an it's future, having this nanny culture would just deter many people from working in the first place.
- Hulk Hogan
7. At March 3, 2008 12:53 PM, David C Pickard wrote:
As a longterm employer I am duty bound to ensure that my employees are working within their capabilities both mentaly and physicly,likewise, the employee is duty bound to advise me of any factors that are affecting their ability to perform their duties in order appropriate action can be taken to safeguard their wellfare. There is a big difference between possitive interaction between employer and employee and the so called "Nanny State" which dictates constantly and updates constantly what we should and should not do, this and the accompanying "Hearts on their Sleeves Brigade" are
constantly causing hesitation when possitive action is required which in truth has brought us full circle to the current situation of Total Social Disorder and the loss of our current youth. In simple terms my parameters as an employer is total respect for the employee and in return I expect the same. I am not there to Police them I am there as part of a Team of Proffessionals my input being organisation and cost management, employees that require policing will be given short shift but are usualy nipped in the bud by their fellow employees who will advise them that that is not the way we work around here.Done properly Possitive Management leads to a happier work atmosphere.
8. At March 4, 2008 2:44 PM, Ian Betteridge wrote:
John says: "Your point about "'brushing teeth' etc is silly as clearly that is very unlikely to impact on work."
Not really - I've certainly known people who've had to take time off owing to root canal work and other nasties. Isn't that just as much a "health issue" - and thus of interest to employers?
9. At March 5, 2008 12:34 PM, Carl wrote:
I wouldn't mind if the compnay took an interest in my "time away" as long as they monitored my workload as well. This would mean that they would not be able to hide when I ask for a pay increase to support my lifestyle and to reflect all the extra work they put on me and my fellow workers day in day out. :)
Post a comment
As 14 days have passed, comments are now closed for this entry.
1. At February 29, 2008 9:16 AM, Hulk 'The Real American' Hogan wrote: