From Girl Scout cookie drives to workplace birthday clubs, non-work fundraisers have become a part of many company cultures. Should management be concerned?

There are no simple answers to this question. Most employers want to encourage a family-friendly company culture, but employee (and supervisor) solicitations often have a way of spinning out of control. 

Left unchecked, onsite “selling” can go from a harmless activity to an unwelcomed one that causes tension and can actually hurt morale.

No-soliciting policy?

In one recent survey, 22% percent of employers said they have a policy against soliciting. In most cases, the policy limits the times and places (e.g., break rooms only) where employees can engage in the activity.

Some employers have created bulletin boards where workers can post their fundraisers for interested co-workers.  According to the survey, about one employer in 10 has banned unapproved fundraisers entirely.

Another thorny issue: In some cases, the one doing the selling is a supervisor or an executive, even if the company bans rank-and-file employees from doing it. 

Unfortunately, this leaves HR/benefits in a real tough position. How can you be expected to enforce a policy that managers themselves ignore? It sets you up to be the bad guy, and also shows employees that the powers-that-be either don’t take the policy seriously or don’t think they need to follow the same rules.

Office sports pools: Harmless or harmful?

Odds are pretty high (pun intended) that your employees and/or supervisors have an office football pool going right about now and/or a March Madness pool during the college basketball tournament. If not, they’ve probably worked somewhere in the past where such activities have had the tacit — or open — approval of the top brass.

Is that a good or bad thing for your company culture?

Never mind the fact that the pools are rarely used for “entertainment purposes only.” Although wagering in office pools (and fantasy sports leagues) is technically an illegal activity in some states, the laws are rarely — if ever — enforced. In most states, the typical $5 to $20 office pool is legal.

A bigger, more practical concern: presenteeism.

Easy to spot, hard to stop

If you were to take a random walk around your office and glance at people’s computer screens, chances are you’d find more than a few folks who have game reports open in one Window and their work in another. Want to guess which screen the employee pays more attention to? Yup.

One estimate says March Madness costs employers nationwide $1.7 billion each year in lost productivity. During that time of year, many employees (and supervisors) are paid to do little more than check on how the teams in their office pool are doing in the NCAA basketball tournament.

Truth be told, even if your organization bans office pools, many employees will sneak glances at the scores, anyway. But people are more open about goofing off — and spend longer doing it — when they participate in a pool at work. Many supervisors simply look the other way.

Morale builder?

The typical reason given for allowing office fund-raising solicitation or sports pools is that the activity boosts morale and employee bonding. In reality, the morale-building advantages depend on your company culture and the demographics of your workforce.

One survey found that 30% of professional and business service employees eagerly look forward to participating in an annual March Madness pool at work. On the flip side, only 13% of employees in the hospitality industry expressed interest in the activity.

Gender also comes into play. Roughly 24% of male employees said they’re likely to participate in an office pool, while 11% of women do.

Bottom line: Some workplaces wouldn’t miss such activities if they disappeared. In others, the long-term morale boost cancels out the short-term productivity hit.

Flex-time programs are a great tool to stretch tight comp budgets. Here are four keys to programs that boost morale and productivity, while avoiding legal pitfalls:

1. Set clear eligibility policy

The less open-ended your eligibility policy the better, says strategic management consultant Bob Denney. Left to their own devices, some supervisors cut side deals with certain employees, causing resentment or, even worse, claims of favoritism.

The solution: Tie flexing directly to productivity goals and the attendance policy. Example: No flexing allowed on a department’s meeting days. By basing eligibility on meeting specific goals, you create measurable and fair guidelines for employees.

2. Use creative alternatives

Many firms limit flexing if it complicates staffing. But there are often creative solutions.

Example: If the CFO is worried about having enough sales reps on duty at peak hours, you may offer telecommuting during those hours.

3. Spell out comp and benefits impact

If some employees will be allowed to work less than full schedules on certain weeks, make sure to mention any impact on other benefits before the firm approves such arrangements.

Example: If a requested flex schedule could significantly affect a 401(k) open enrollment policy based on accrued work hours, bring the issue to the supervisor and employee’s attention sooner rather than later. To ensure FLSA compliance, make sure supervisors and Payroll know that OT rules still apply for non-exempt employees who flex.

4. Benchmark your program

To track program effectiveness, look at yearly absenteeism, turnover and productivity rates as well as employee satisfaction survey results.

Your company also has to make sure the training itself gives everyone the same chance for success upon its completion. If not, you can be held liable for discrimination.

Gender bias claim upheld

In one case, a Texas-based restaurant industry employer was cited by the EEOC for disproportionately hiring and promoting women from its bartender training program.

Believing that women would sell more drinks than men, Razzoo’s policy was to hire eight women for every two males, even when male trainees outperformed some of their female counterparts in training.

The company had to pay $1 million to resolve the discrimination case.

Struggling trainee claims age bias

In another  case (Cross v. New York Transit Authority), an employee who performed poorly in a cross-training program convinced a court the program was biased against older employees.

After a few sessions, the training supervisor sent the woman back to her regular department.
He said the trainee couldn’t keep up with the most basic of assignments, so there was no point moving on to tougher tasks.

Because the employee didn’t complete the training program, she wasn’t paid for the time away from her usual position. So she sued for age discrimination.

In her suit, the employee admitted she had trouble with the work assigned in the training program.
But she claimed the supervisor set her up to fail. As proof, she pointed out the fact the other, younger trainees got to work on better equipment.

And the others received training manuals – she didn’t.

Finally, she said the training supervisor was supportive of other trainees and allowed them to learn at their own pace. But she was ridiculed when she made the same mistakes.

The court agreed with the employee. In his decision, the judge ruled the training program was discriminatory. The judge said it was possible the older employee simply wasn’t cut out for the work. But the supervisor didn’t give her a fair chance to prove herself.

If your firm has similar programs, remind supervisors it’s crucial to:

• make it results-oriented but provide all trainees with the same training materials and review process, and
• offer people guidance if they find the work confusing at the beginning.

A report in Medical News Today found that about 10% of people who use treadmills (either onsite at their jobs or at a gym) do work-related activities — such as making business calls or checking work E-mail — during their workouts.

I’ve noticed the same thing at the office where I work. We have an onsite fitness room, where my co-workers often take work materials to proofread as they pedal an exercise bike or walk on a treadmill. While I have never done that, I have taken work materials along during a long walk.

On the flip side, it’s also possible to exercise while sitting at your computer or doing other work actitivities.

But some experts say that this sort of multi-tasking isn’t necessarily something employers should encourage. It can serve to increase the risk of injury during exercise and also increase the stress exercise is supposed to relieve.

Of course, these experts aren’t balancing the demands of deadlines, meetings and home life with the need to create a little time to exercise — nor do they offer practical solutions other than platitudes such as “work smarter, not harder.” As a matter of fact, done properly, I’d argue that recognizing the inter-connected relationship between work and wellness goals is a step towards accomplishing both.

A growing number are willing, according to one analysis of Department of Labor stats.

Female employees in favor of the tradeoff greatly outnumber males. Approximately 10 % of women would prefer working fewer hours, compared to 5.6% of men.

The big reason, analysts say, is that full-time female employees are more likely to get caught in a work-life balance crunch.

In the typical U.S. family, women still perform a disproportionate share of the household tasks. Women who reported having a child under the age of 3 were the most likely to want work cutbacks.

On the flip side, 23% of employees say they want to pick up more hours to make more money. These trends make work-life benefit and flex-time opportunities easier for you to offer, while also cutting overtime costs for your non-exempt workers through work hour-pooling programs.

Are your policy and procedure manuals a lawsuit waiting to happen?

There’s no law that require you provide employees a benefits handbook or manual. But best practice is to have one, so long as you follow some basic rules for what needs to be in there, and what should never be in there. Three sections to review immediately:

• pay policies (especially overtime)
• FMLA, and
• paid leave.

Your choice of wording in these sections could make or break your company’s case if an employee sues. Following are three of the biggest red flags that many firms ignore.

Handbook Taboo #1: Overtime policy violates FLSA

Many handbooks contain the following dangerous statement: “Authorized overtime is paid at 1.5 times the hourly rate.”

From a legal standpoint, that’s the same as saying “Our organization is non-compliant with FLSA’s wage and hour laws.” Under FLSA, if a non-exempt employee works overtime – whether it’s authorized or not – you must pay the overtime rate. No exceptions.

What’s legal is to create policies designed to prevent unwanted OT before employees work it. For example, it’s fine for a hanbook to say, “All overtime must be authorized by your supervisor.”

For such a policy to be effective, however, it’s necessary to have formal procedures for OT-authorization. Your handbook must describe these steps (e.g., written permission from a supervisor), as well as any disciplinary procedures for breaking the rules.

But once the hours are worked, it’s too late not to pay for it. Even if you pay for OT (whether authorized or unauthorized), the mere suggestion in the handbook that you may be withholding pay for unapproved OT could get you sued under FLSA.

Taboo #2 : Vague language on FMLA coordination

Writing FMLA policies in your manuals is one the toughest challenges in creating a compliant handbook.
Federal law says that if you have a benefits manual, you must describe how FMLA overlaps with other company benefits.

Example: Do you require people to use available paid leave and FMLA concurrently? If so, you must include this info in the FMLA section of the handbook.

Otherwise, the employee is entitled to “save up” their 12 weeks of FMLA until after paid time is used up. The result is your organization’s benefits manual accidentally gives away extra family or medical leave that is now protected by the law.

What happens under these circumstances if you terminate an employee for attendance policy violations? Assuming that the excessive leave was the reason for termination, the chances are that court will look at what’s written in your manual and rule in the worker’s favor. 

Taboo #3: Unclear paid time-off policies

Whether you have separate sick time and vacation policies or a single paid time off bank, your manual should be crystal clear on how leave is accumulated, and when and how it may be taken. 

Example: If you expect employees to file written vacation requests signed by a supervisor, but your manual only says “written request” and neglects the need for supervisor approval, a request denied for lack of a supervisor signature may not hold up if the employee challenges it.

When reviewing your paid leave policies, make sure the manual is clear on its descriptions of:

• Eligibility. Do part-timers and/or temps qualify? If so, when?
• Accrual. How do you calculate the banks (e.g., one year of service = 18 PTO days per year)?
• Use. How soon can an employee take leave? Do unused days roll over to the next year or are they calculated on a use-it-or-lose-it basis?

Policies versus procedures

In re-reading any section of your manual, ask yourself, “Is this a policy or is it a procedure?”

Here’s the difference: A policy is where your company stands on a certain issue, such as a policy banning employees from smoking. A procedure is how you get things done. Example: Employees who participate in a smoking cessation program must submit for reimbursement through your Payroll department.

The sections in your manual that describe policies must contain:

• specific descriptions, such as, “Employees may not wear shorts to work,” and
• enforcement details, such as what will happen if an employee violates the dress code?

Meanwhile, sections describing procedures should also be as specific as possible.

For example, compare these two handbook statements for requesting family leave:

1. “If an employee is aware of a need for family leave 15 days or more before it is to begin, the worker must file a request for leave within 15 days of the start date.”
2. “If there’s a foreseeable need for leave, the leave request must be filed ahead of leave within a reasonable time. ”

The first statement is clear and protects your firm if the manual is challenged in court. The latter is open to debate – and possibly lawsuits.

According to a World at Work survey, a significant percentage of employers have decided to provide at lease a cost-of-living increase in 2009. Some are going beyond, both as a means of improving productivity and retention as well as being a means to offset recent increases in health-cost shares. 

But with inflation at 3.9% this year and the economy still in a slowdown, many firms find it tough to stretch their budgets. Instead, companies are looking for ways to help employees cut their own expenses, especially commuting costs.

The No. 1 strategy has been an increase in telecommuting and flex-time programs. After years of declining reliance on such programs, there’s been a 40% jump this year in the number of organizations offering flexible schedules, either as an incentive program or a standard method of staffing.

In many cases, these programs are more valuable to employees than cost-of-living raises. The reason, of course, is that there’s been almost a 20% increase in food costs and a 30% increase in the cost gasoline. Offsetting at least some of the gas cost from commuting to work is often worth more in real dollars than a raise — and the money doesn’t have to come out of the employer’s budget.