Quote:
|
Originally Posted by light_of_foot
I think not. Rules are made for a reason.
|
That is quite often false. I cannot count the number of times I've encountered rules or laws that were made with little or no thought as to the consequences. Newspapers thrive on reporting situations where laws are more of a travesty than the transgressions they were designed to prevent.
That said, it is easy to see both sides of this issue. Many of us have been known to arrive at work late, so it's a common transgression. However, few of us have the situation presented here, where there is literally a contract in place dictating that work coverage must begin at a certain hour. In this case, I think the employee was unreasonable to arrive late consistently. I've heard it said that frequent tardiness is a sign of latent aggression, and that seems to be the case here.
THAT SAID, I also can see her point that there was no problem resulting from her actions. No breach of contract had occurred (though I find it hard to believe that her coworkers were there 100% of the time and no call overflow had ever occurred.)
What I'd have done in each of their positions:
- As manager, I'd have backed off a little but told her that she would be suspended a week without pay if it ever occurred that her tardiness resulted in a breach of contract (ie. a call not being answered.) That gives her the control she's apparently seeking and lets her choose to get there earlier to reduce her risk. That would probably have gotten her there closer to (but still not before) 9AM.
- As the employee, I would not have returned to the dept. once the SLA time was moved to 9:30. An unyielding boss is rarely one you want to be paired with. Seek the boss who keeps hands off until there is a problem to be fixed.