MLK Day Absentees

KarenTN

Martin Luther King day is not a holiday at our company. Yesterday, nearly every African-American employee at our Georgia facility either called in sick, called in with personal business, or just did not show up for work. Should these absences be treated as any other absence under the attendance policy or should we consider this to be "protected activity". We have no doubt this was prearranged. All employees have reported back to work today. We are a non-union manufacturer. Thanks for your opinions.

Theresa Gegen TX

I don't think it's protected activity, BUT before you discipline or take action against the employees, do a cost benefit analysis. Is it really worth it to make these employees angry about this issue.

Maybe next year, (since you know this will happen again) before MLK day, if the company will not give it as a holiday, tell the employees that they have to schedule it off, to get it off. Let them know that if they don't schedule it off, they will be subject to discipline if they don't show up. And I would suggest the company be liberal in allowing it off (consider allowing employees who have exhausted their vacation or personal days to take it as an unpaid day off). This day is obviously really important to those employees, and the company should try to show support to their concerns.

Good Luck

Parabeagle

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 01-21-03 AT 01:41PM (CST)[/font][p]I agree with Theresa in principle - but what about the employees that "just did not show up."?

I would think that under any set of circumstances, if an employee no show/no call situation arises, disciplinary action is warranted (unless, of course, there was no way the employee was able to contact the employer for plainly obvious reasons). At least the others had the courtesy to call in.

bananna

Sounds to me like you should look at your holidays and swap one for Martin Luther King Day! We just did that........

Don D

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 01-21-03 AT 02:52PM (CST)[/font][p]Of course it is not protected activity. Any behavior should be responded to in accordance with your company policy, not in accordance with who it might make "angry" if the policy is enforced, IMO. Employees not reporting for work is a behavior. It should not be considered in light of the underlying reasons they might give for not showing up. If your policy allows for sick leave and does not require a doctor's excuse, and they called in sick, treat it as a sick day in accordance with the policy. If it requires a doctor's excuse, then require one. The attorney's suggestion in the prior post seems to imply that your analysis should perhaps include the possibility of dispensing with behavioral consequences that might follow some emotional response to a holiday that other companies might observe, but that your company does not. The fatal flaw in that logic is that your consistency in policy application would suffer, if not crumble. Let's consider for a moment that a company might not grant Christmas Day as a holiday. What if all Christians were to call in sick on that day? Would the same logic apply? I believe your company policy should be blind to such factors as why a group of people might have chosen to abuse or ignore a policy. Otherwise, lets have a policy that addresses absenteeism, the procedures and consequences of violation, but, let's footnote it with: "Unless you have what you feel is a really good reason not to go along with our policy." But doing that would result in our being held hostage, wouldn't it? In the absence of collective bargaining, once an employer considers employee suggestions (if it chooses to) and adopts policies, they should be followed.

Balloonman

I agree with Don. Don't treat it any different than you would if this happened today. Follow the policy, and if there is punitive action called for for those who no called no show, do it!

If it meant that much to an employee they could have taken either a vacation or personal day or whatever your policy allowed. If they called in sick, it is a sick day. Don't make a big deal of it, but follow the policy. Those who called in sick will not complain if they get a paid sick day. You may have a few squeaky wheels, deal with them 1 on 1. Tell them next time to do it correctly, take the day off if it means that much to them.

My $0.02 worth.
DJ The Balloonman

LindaS

I agree with both Don and Ballooman. Treat these absences the same as you would on any other day. Making one exception inevitably leads to another, and another and so on. If people had vacation or sick time and your policy does not require the Dr.'s note, treat it the same as any other. Discipline those who would normally be disciplined according to company policy.

ritaanz

If our job was easy everyone would want to be in HR. I have always followed the company's attendance polcy in this case and similar to this. There is no way you can treat MLK day as "protected" and then ignore Good Friday, Rosh Hashannah, Columbus Day, Valentine's Day, Presidents Day, Ash Wednesday,Chinese New Year, May Day, etc. Do you see the where I am going? What makes this situation all the worst is that you feel it was prearranged by the employees. Why couldn't the employees have made arrangements in advance to take vacation time or personal time. Would their requests have been denied?

Don D

IMO, I think the attorney/editor let her personal feelings override sound professional judgement with this one. And taking it a step or two further, Ritaanz, what about employers on the Texas border who employ a majority Hispanic employees who might feel really deeply about taking some of the holidays observed in Mexico? What about the large contingent of people in the south who always take Robert E. Lee's birthday off? Incidentally, that day is observed on the same day as MLK day. What about Ramadan? What about a million migrant farm workers in California who might want to observe a day off on the birthday of (I forget his name) their longtime leader and spokesman? This has nothing to do with race or emotions and everything to do with consistent policy.

Gillian

Cesar Chavez, and no, the attorney editor has not gone off the deep end. She merely suggested weighing the pro's and con's of taking any action. If the considered opinion is that this day should be treated as any other day do so. On the other hand disciplining the employees at this particular company may create more problems than going in another direction.

Don D

My better judgement tells me not to respond to your post, Gillian. But, you know I will anyway. The attorney editor's post was laced with about 4 or 5 personal opinions suggesting the company should consider granting the day off and not disciplining the policy abusers because of the emotionality (perhaps) of the subject. She also suggested meeting (perhaps privately?) with only this group next year to be sure they understand the policy and to try to ask them to follow it. The suggestion was also made that the company be 'liberal' and 'show support' for adding this as a holiday. For those reasons, I feel the response in total was more personal than reasoned. Again, just my opinion. Our company has this as a holiday for hourly employees and not for the office employees. Go figure. But, fact is, it's policy. All I do is administer it. And yes, Gillian, I fully expect that you would suggest abandoning any semblance of structure or consistent policy administration in favor of caving in to the demands or expectations of a group. I'm still your friend though.

Gillian

Our difference in opinion starts with the reading of Theresa's post. I see nothing personal at all.

Eliant

I agree with Don,
You must treat it as any other day. Do not hold yourself or the company hostage to the race card. Follow your company attendance policy if you have one. If the majority of your employees are African-American, your company may want to reconsider the number of paid holidays it affords the employees, or offer a floating holiday. In any case I reiterate, treat it all the same otherwise you will find yourself in a mess.

Theresa Gegen TX

I do not change my answer. The employer has to balance the impact of taking harsh action against how the employees will respond. The employer knows their employees better than anyone else on this forum, and can gauge what the reaction will be.

Even if this is not protected activity, I could see disciplined employee filing charges. They would be without merit, but could cause a lot of difficulty.

Also, if these employees have already banded together once, they could band together and try to start a union.

I wouldn't say "do nothing" would necessarily be the solution the employer wants to take. But, taking a harsh line with all of the employees also might not have the best results. It could backfire, and create racial division in the company.

I think sentivity to these issues is very important. And I don't think my advice would be any different if it was a Hispanic workforce, who wanted a certain day off that reflected their heritage and was very important to them.

Good Luck!

PS. I worked MLK day, and I was fine with it!!

Don D

Is your answer the same for the groups in the South who want to celebrate the birthday of Robert E. Lee? Just wondering.

Parabeagle

Well, Don, a little flexibility is called for, I think. I remember when the company I worked for bought a tug and barge co. in New Orleans and suddenly we found ourselves facing an open revolt because we wouldn't let them have Fat Tuesday off as a paid holiday!!!! We compromised: They got Fat Tuesday, but they had to work Veteran's Day while the rest of our co. was closed.

There is something to be said for gauging the political sensitivity of the company's environment.

Mike Maslanka

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 01-21-03 AT 04:42PM (CST)[/font][p]The real issue for this company is this:why did these employees do this? The issue of MLK day is,I suspect,a symptom of a much deeper problem at this company;it is an early warning sign that something is amiss.Regards from Texas,Mike Maslanka

valentine

I agree with Eliant, DonD and the others who are saying to follow policy. Once an exception is made to a policy, you've opened the door to a possible pandora's box.

We have a floating holiday for just the situation as described. If an employee feels really strongly about a particular holiday, they may use their floating holiday. Perhaps that is the solution to your dilemmia. Does your company have a floating holiday they could use?

Just as an aside -- I had to go to an unemployment hearing and they looked at a particular policy. We lost because they said we didn't follow it to the letter. I now am very careful to adhere to policies.

System

I'm sorely outnumbered here, but I think this might be a concerted activity that's protected by the NLRA. Given that the NLRB is unpredictable and pro-employee, I could imagine them ruling that this was a strike protesting the company's holiday policy. If you made a list of goofy NLRB rulings, this wouldn't even make the Top 50.

Hammering down on these employees would be double-daring them to file an NLRB complaint or to contact a union. Like Mike said, this is more than an attendance problem.

James Sokolowski
Senior Editor
M. Lee Smith Publishers

Parabeagle

You might be right, but I think it could be a stretch -- but then, NLRB did extend Weingarten outside of the union context, so they do pull some unpredictable moves.

I still think, even though only the on-site HR person can gauge the political climate, that the concept of equal treatment of people who have violated a policy (i.e., attendance) is important enough to risk the possible risk of an organizing campaign.

Rockie

I agree that if MLK day is not a recognized holiday at your company, then the same rules as any other holiday that is not recognized should apply. If people just don't show up, they should be disciplined as if they didn't show up on any other work day. There are only so many holidays a company can afford to give employees (unless you are state or federal government and look how good they are doing financially!).

We encourage employees who want to take off any holiday that is not recognized by the company to use a PTO or vacation day; en mass defiance is not the way to get what you want and may end up backfiring into an en mass termination.

Balloonman

Well I found $0.02 in my pocket this morning so I figure what the heck.
As an individual who has worked in 5 manufacturing plants I thought this post has taken an interesting twist.
While some manufacturing plants are well run, and have insightful and wonderful supervisors often it is not the case. It does not really matter how well run it is, there is always, always a contingent that is unhappy for one reason or another. It is true in every workplace.
I am not sure what percentage of the workforce you were talking about taking Monday off, 10% or 40%, to me that would be of interest to know. Given your geographical location, this may be a more sensitive issue, so yes you may want to evaluate if you were to add an additional holiday in the future, or have floating holidays etc.. That would just be good business. However for those that just did not show up. I think that clearly identifies them as employees that you probably do not want. I don't care if they are black or white, I have never had a no-call no-show by any employee I considered to be in the top 30%.
You big issue will come if an abscense on Monday will result in termination or suspension, short of that you will probably not have much of an issue.
Take a look at those that did not show, without calling in, see if they are not that 20% (problem employees) that take 80% of your time. I am willing to bet many of them are. So when they do throw a fit when you stick to your policy, calmly state, if you would have just called in as is required it would not have been a big deal. I don't know if you have a point system or what, but no-calls no-shows typically get harsher treatment.
Oh well, I think I have used up my $0.02 on this topic today.
DJ The Balloonman

marcus

I definitely agree with the opinion that, absent having MLK day recognized as a company holiday, that unauthorized absences need to be dealt with under your absenteeism policy. To do otherwise is to invite further challenges, and soon you'll have a bigger mess. Marcus in Wisconsin

marcus

>I definitely agree with the opinion that, absent having MLK day
>recognized as a company holiday, that unauthorized absences need to be
>dealt with under your absenteeism policy. To do otherwise is to
>invite further challenges, and soon you'll have a bigger mess.
>Marcus in Wisconsin

Dasher

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 01-22-03 AT 09:31AM (CST)[/font][p]A high degree of sensitivity is called for here. Those HR managers who think this should be treated as "any other absence" may be missing the BIGGER picture. The fact that a group of employees took this kind of action leads me to believe that they feel strongly that their concerns (and not just this one holiday) are not being addressed by management. I agree that policies and procedures are important and must be equally and fairly administered. However, we must always remember that the policies are for the good of the company and the company is made up of living beings. Fairness can be open to miss-interpretation and unless management took the time to really hear these employees, they are not being fair. Organization are not "giving in" to a group when they honestly and openly discuss issues of importance to the group. It does not always mean that you adjust your policy -- but it sounds to me like concerns were ignored and the employees felt put in a bind. It it had been addressed, there would be no reason the employees would not use leave or leave without pay.

It is now time to do what should have been done in the first place -- have a meeting with ALL employees. Explain the current leave policy and the fact that when one does not arrange for leave in advance the company does (whatever your policy is). However, you had better be sure that you do not have cases where others have not called in but were not disciplined or given "a break" and allowed to use leave or whatever. The company would be leaving itself wide open for a disparate impact discrimination suit. And it is just not necessary.

Theresa and Gillian are right on this one. Before a bigger mess is made -- deal with the situation as you would with any sensitive issue facing your staff. These employees want to be treated just like everyone else -- listen to them, consider their requests, and then make a management decision that you can be proud of. Communication is the way. But the key is not to go off on a tangent about race -- either way!

I intend for this post to be helpful and not divisive. I do not often post, but you all have given me such good feedback on this forum, and on this one I believe it is particularly appropriate that I offer my point of view.

pecohr

The worlds not black and white (no pun intended). I also agree with Theresa and Gillian and several of the other posters. There's more going on here than just the day off issue and it should be addressed on its individual merits vs a blanket policy.

JulieinGA

There is nothing "protected" about ANY employee refusing to adhere to company policies. You should treat your "no-shows" as you would any other employee who violates policy (if, in fact, your organization has a policy against employees failing to report their absences). Your employees accepted jobs with your company. In exchange, they should expect to follow your policies with regard to holidays, work schedules, reporting absences, etc. If your policies are fair and equitable to all employees, you have nothing to worry about.

vmiller MO

The concept of "protected concerted activity" in the nonunion context can include a "work stoppage." Thus, under the current NLRB interpretations, employees can engage in a work activity to demand additional holidays, vacation days, etc. It is thus not reasonable to consider that the NLRB Regional Offices would take the position that employees banding together to have MLK declared a holiday to be protected, concerted activity. Thus, disciplinary action should be taken only after thought and consultation with legal counsel.

Protected, concerted activity is defined as two or more employees acting together to improve their working coditions. It does not matter how fair or unfair the company's policies are. The NLRA gives employees the right to act collectively.

DeidreFR5

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 01-24-03 AT 07:42AM (CST)[/font][p]At a previous employer, when MLK first became a holiday, we allowed employees to use either their birthday (floating holiday) or personal day to celebrate. We later used this policy if other employees requested unique holidays (ie. Chinese New Year; we had a diverse population). This way we were flexible and every one received the same number of paid holidays. However, employees needed to request the day off in advance, not just not show up. Not showing up would be grounds for disciplinary action.

Ethel

DeidreFR5's advice is emminently fair. Although MLK Day is especially important to one minority group, today in the US there are many minorities. As Don pointed out, how can one minority be more important than others? We are located in Texas and the largest minority in this state is not black. However, by taking DeidreFR5's approach, all groups are given fair and equal ways to observe days that are of interest to their specific ethic group.

Don D

I think it's a bad day at black rock (as we learned in the old cowboy movies) when we (employers) ratchet up a bunch of knee jerk, fearful reactions to employee violations of policies, whether individually or as perceived groups. It might be suggested by some lawyers that every time we have two or more employees misbehaving, violating policies or involving themselves in activities that invite discipline, the HR guy or gal better retreat to his/her office and wring their hands over who might slam an NLRA manual down on our desk. To hell with drawing such unneeded, odd conclusions every time two employees join themselves at the hip and exhibit violative behavior. To be protected activity, there must at some point be an assertion that it is or a claim made that it was; it can't merely be an inference or fear. Such response by a company equals management inaction by paralasis. Craft fair policies, treat employees fairly, enforce company procedures and policies accordingly, train your employees and supervisors and move on down the line. If I look out the window this afternoon after shift change and see two employees crossing the street to the gas station/snack store, I'll be damned if I'll consider the fact that it might be protected/concerted activity that they're engaging in. And our lawyer would invite their lawyer to show that it was. Just my opinion. Sorry to be so wishy-washy.