By Stephen D. Bruce, PHR
Editor, HR Daily Advisor
Just My E-pinion
It’s Evil HR Lady 7, BLR 3. The majority of responses to our article about employer responsibility for off-site safety did echo her “Oh cry me a river” position. Here are a few examples. We are sorry we can’t fit more.
Click to see:
Evil HR Lady’s article
Our article responding to Evil HR Lady
All the readers’ responses to our article
Evil HR Lady is absolutely correct. Yes it is good to attract and retain good employees; however the bottom line is that employees exist to support and operate the business, the business does not exist to coddle the employees.
I say the men & women of this country need to “Cowboy up” and grow an actual spine.
If she’s Evil, then I guess call me Wicked. At what point do we stop to consider that as an adult in an oft-ambiguous world, you have to put on your big girl panties and deal with it?
Having read more than one or two of Evil HR Lady’s blogs I have the impression that she’s not as well versed in strategic HR a she would like us to believe. Her responses and this particular response demonstrate a certain shallowness. I certainly think that in this new economy and this post millennium world, decent employers need to take the more strategic view set forth in your article.
Seriously? As a woman, I’d be offended if my employer were condescending to me in the ways you describe here. Focus on giving me good management, good pay, and the resources to do my job, please. I’ll handle my own security outside of work. Because I’m, you know, a grown-up.
I absolutely agree that it’s in the employer’s best interest to help good employees get to and from work safely. And, the statement that the employer is “not required” to act in that area may be a little over-broad. If your employees visit clients or render services off-premises, your Workers Compensation is involved in all cases except a direct route between their home and their assigned office location.
See what everyone’s talking about! Check out BLR’s remarkable everything-you-need-for-HR website, HR.BLR.com, at no cost or risk, and get a complimentary special report! Get more info.
Right on Evil HR Lady!!! Employers offer jobs, they do not offer solutions to all the social problems someone can encounter. If someone is afraid of late hours or public transportation then don’t take a job far from home or with hours after 4pm. I am a 56 year old woman afraid of the water so I won’t be taking a job on an island and then expect my employer to build me a bridge.
Such a wonderful message. Even Nursing Homes have commuter vans for patients; why not other organizations get their commuter vans for employees? They can get monthly, weekly or biweekly payroll deductions as revenue just like the parking deck but better.
Tell you what: Regardless of the situation, comments such as “cry me a river,” “deal with it,” “get over it,” etc., seldom are helpful. They’re dismissive, reductionist, and signal that whoever is uttering them isn’t interested in listening, discussing, helping, or in all points of view.
I worked at a paper mill in Oregon in the ’80s. In the winter it was dark when I got off and there were no lights in the gravel parking area along the river. We had a big safety campaign but they never did light the parking area. I left after six months.
If we as employers take more interest in the well being of our employees, it can only better our company because the employee will reciprocate and take more of an interest in the company’s success even if for no other reason than a sense of obligation after the employer took care of the employee to the best of their ability.
If the commute is so horrible—what about the female employees banding together in a group to commute on their own? Why does everyone have to be taken care of instead of standing on their own two feet and figuring out some solutions on their own? Oh yes, I am a woman and there are a lot of women who need to stop being so wimpy.
Geez. It’s people like Evil HR Lady who give all in HR a bad reputation so that employees think HR is always doing something TO them instead of something FOR them.
Have you road-tested the biggest bargain in HR? Try HR.BLR.com at no cost or risk and receive a special report that’s yours to keep no matter what you decide. Get the details.
I’m with her. I think you (and other e-newsletters like you) go way overboard — perhaps to make your e-newsletter provocative? There may be a few instances where a few companies may want to offer some accommodations, but you seem often to go way too far in suggesting and/or “advocating” issues such as these as the norm.
Look—for argument’s sake, let’s say you don’t have to do anything in regards to your employees’ well-being once they leave your property. That’s all “fine and dandy” until one of your employees gets mugged — or worse.
What about offering self-defense courses at work for ALL employees?
After all, it’s not only women who are subject to safety-related problems during a commute. A course like this brings the workforce together instead of isolating one group from the other….
I know it’s difficult to do … but you may need to hold the community, local government, the transportation system and local law enforcement agencies accountable for providing a safe environment. Instead of absorbing additional competitive weakening burdens, perhaps the solution for the jobs provider is to move from the unsafe area.
I agree with evil HR lady on this one. What happens in employees’ private lives is theirs to deal with. It’s not up to the employer to manage their employees’ personal lives.
As an employer, I will provide a safe and secure workplace for my employees complete with a zero tolerance policy for harassment of any kind. Having said that, I am an employer, not a parent; and my employees are adults, not children. I want employees who are capable of problem solving.
Employers have enough crap to have to deal with to be concerned about what happens off-premises and outside of working hours. I personally don’t want the company involved in my life, or monitoring me, outside of normal working hours.
To suggest that it IS the employer’s problem is pure HR drivel … .
I concur with the Evil HR Lady and completely disagree with BLR. MTA trains/buses, Metro North, LIRR are a way of life for us New Yorkers. If someone feels threatened on the train, then find a job that keeps you home. I am all for safety but your position about this is ridiculous.
Thanks so much to all who shared their opinions.
Read all the readers’ responses to our article here.
While I agree that keeping employee’s you have invested in safe from harm, this isn’t always practical. At some point, employee’s have a duty of responsibility for their own safety. The originial article was full of good advice and to a larger degree, hyperbole. Perhaps the author’s of such articles need to filter their suggestions through the siv of practicality and common sense.
Though it is ultimately the employee’s responsibility to commute to their job, and employer that takes into consideration undesirable issues that are a necessity due to working hours, location, etc will win the hearts and minds of its employees and see great productivity as a result.
I owned a food company for several years and my cooks would work shifts that often ended between 3-4 am, in an industrial neighborhood where all the workers relied on public transportation. Most of the employees were young female immigrants.
As the owner, I did not feel comfortable leaving my employees in that part of town, at that time of night, with no personal transportation home. I instituted a carpooling program with our delivery drivers and paid them for the extra time to drive employees home.
In an industry that sees a lot of turnover, I never had an employee leave, my productivity was extremely high, and employees were usually the way I would find out about underperforming employees. They were invested in my company and my success because they knew I cared about them and their safety.
Was it required? Absolutely not. Was it smart both from an ethical and strategic perspective? You bet.
Doing the kind thing does not have to be at odds with doing the ‘budget friendly’ thing. Companies that think great benefits, whether we’re talking health plans or flexible working arrangements are extremely short sighted and don’t understand that the best employees will not only be drawn to, but loyal to truly great companies.
Well, this is lamentable. A whole plethora of emails based on an opinion. Wasn’t there anything more newsworthy to report than a sardonic article???
Not only is “cry me a river” and “cowboy up and grow a spine” insensitive, it trivializes the problem and reduces it an issue of weakness, or worse yet, the “bottom line”. Muggers, murderers and rapists don’t really care how assertive, hip and enlightened someone is, they just look for an easy victim. While it is certainly not the employer’s responsibility to provide transportation to and from work, if their place of business is located in a dicey or downright scary part of town, I feel the least they can do if offer as much security as possible to employees while on the premises, and as much as they can outside the premises. Security cameras, good lighting, the buddy system, helping to organize car pools… no, they are not required by law, but are they so hard to implement? Will you still feel impatient, exasperated and self righteous when, after leaving your premises, one of your employees has become a victim of a brutal crime? Will you tell their survivors to “put on their big girl panties”?
I read your response to the Evil HR Lady and I have to say that she is right for a number of reasons one being that our society today wants to make some one else accountable for every thing in our lives. We need to go back to the bad old days when there was personal accountablity when a “man’s word” was worth as much as a written contract. In those days people would step in to help a neighbor in trouble with out the fear of being sued if any thing went wrong.
A second reason to side with the Evil HR Lady is that the only way to find out if a person will need help to get to and from work safely is to ask. The last time I looked it was illegal to ask questions like: Do you have a car so that you can get to and from work? Do you have young children that you are responsible for taking care of? If you ask these questions and then do not hire that prospective employee will leave you open for a discrimination lawsuit that your company will probably loose if you can show that the question had no influence on the final hiring decision. Then the next question for your company is going to be then why ask the question? Your company could also face discrimination lawsuits if the person conducting the enterview is of a different gender, race, or age group.
So as was stated in a previous response lets all cowboy up and take responsibleity for our own actions.