Before instituting a rewards program, it's important to answer these questions about absenteeism policies that may already be in place:

Are all unscheduled absences or only unexcused ones considered absenteeism? Is a sick pet a legitimate reason for missing work? The best policies don't differentiate between excused and unexcused absences so managers aren't forced to evaluate excuses.

Do employees need to adhere to rigid 9-to-5 schedules? Reliable, strict attendance is more crucial for assembly-line workers, for instance, than for traveling salespeople. Allowing "flex-time" - the option to work different weekday hours or on Saturdays - reduces the need to use sick time.

Having policies that employees can make up time - as long as X amount of work gets done in Y amount of time - makes it easier for people who have other responsibilities at home that impact work.

How many absences are paid? How are they classified? Avoid policies that encourage absenteeism, such as requirements that employees use or lose a certain number of sick days. That encourages employees to stay home when they're not sick because they feel entitled to.

Instead, permit paid personal days that can be used for vacation, illness or emergencies, and allow the unused time to accrue from one year to the next. Or permit employees to cash in unused sick time at 100 percent of its value.

What is the overall absentee rate? Is absenteeism more rampant in one department than others? Are there any patterns such as Mondays and Fridays? Analyze the root causes of individual and company-wide absenteeism. When an individual is chronically absent, it may be a symptom of bigger problems, such as alcoholism, drug abuse or domestic strife.

However, you might have a disproportionate amount of absenteeism in different parts of the business and that might be clouding a departmental issue. Excessive absenteeism in one department may indicate difficult supervisor or co-worker conflicts.

Are there specific attendance goals? Establish specific attendance objectives, such as less than two absences per quarter. Avoid making the program too complex or too restrictive. If the goals are not attainable, or the requirements to qualify are too stringent, the program is probably going to be disregarded.

HR Magazine

BACK UP YOUR MEMORY IN WRITING

Whether tracking a problem situation, recording the discussion of a meeting with an employee or providing evidence of formal action taken, making a written record is one essential part of the process for a manager. The documentation can be a critical element that allows an employer to effectively take an employment action and to defend successfully against wrongful or illegal action claims.

Be Factual: Focus on the specific, relevant facts of any situation. For example, when documenting an incident with an employee, include the following - 1) where the incident occurred; 2) date and time of incident; 3) what actually took place; and 4) who was present including witnesses. Avoid labels like stealing or insubordination that place your value or judgment on the events. Stick with observable facts.

Be Brief: Don't write volumes on every contact with an employee or employee-related situation. Focus on the key points. Evaluate your notes using the "stand alone' test. A document satisfies the stand alone test if another person understands the report without more explanation. A disciplinary document need only include - a) a factual account of what the employee did wrong; b) what is needed to correct the misconduct or performance problem; c) consequences for the employee; d) quotes of what the employee had to say; and e) employee commitment (or refusal) to change.

Avoid Opinions and Conclusions: Opinions are not often useful in defending an action. Include conclusions only when based on, and related to, specific, documented, admitted or established facts. In most situations the action taken or outcome is more important than a conclusion as to why something occurred.

Stick To What You Know Best: You are the expert on job performance and safety aspects of the work within your area. Stick to observations relating to these areas in your documentation. Don't make medical or legal judgments for which you are not qualified.

Include Your Name and The Date: This will help you to refresh your memory and allow you to be a credible witness later on. Documentation without name and date is far less useful.

Your purpose should be to maintain record for later use by yourself or someone asked to review the events. It is worth your time and effort to write it right. Avoid confusion and unnecessary problems down the line. A complainant's memory can be "fine tuned" to help prove an afterthought. Your written record can be a lifesaver.

Employers Resource Association

EMPLOYERS RAISE A SHIELD OF INSURANCE

Employment lawsuits and their costs continue to be a painful thorn in the side of employers. Enter employment practices liability insurance, which grew out of the widely used directors and officers liability insurance but, unlike D&O policies, covers the entire organization against various types of employment lawsuits. While many employers have yet to raise the shield of EPLI to protect themselves against lawsuit costs, some sources who are familiar with litigation insurance say the policies are rapidly becoming more common.

Protection Sought Against 'Monstrous' Costs

Employment practices insurance is increasingly being used by companies and offered by insurers. Employers are beginning to recognize the need to protect themselves against potentially "monstrous" litigation expenses.

Just a few years ago, fewer than 10 insurance companies offered EPLI policies. That number has more than tripled, with between 30 and 50 carriers now offering such policies. The cost of the policies can vary by jurisdiction and industry. While some employers will pay $15,000 for $1 million worth of coverage, others might pay $70,000 for the same amount of coverage. An employer in the retail industry, with its frequent exposure to employment claims and high propensity for class action lawsuits, would have to pay a higher-than-average price for EPLI coverage.

Until recently, the primary buyers of EPLI policies were larger companies that had risk managers on staff. As awareness increases and prices come down, however, more employers will purchase EPLI coverage.

Employers Forced to Examine Policies

The policies typically cover wrongful discharge and discrimination lawsuits, with defamation and negligent hiring claims often added to the mix. Not covered by EPLI policies, for the most part, are workers' compensation cases and litigation related to the Worker Adjustment Retraining and Notification Act.

As a tangential benefit, the process of purchasing EPLI commonly forces employers to examine their policies and procedures. Most insurers that offer EPLI require employers to have certain programs in place, and some insist on a full-scale audit of the company's HR department.

This type of scrutiny can be a great help to employers. For example, Chubb will not insure an employer with policies it deems inadequate. The four key areas that Chubb looks at are the employer's hiring process, performance appraisal system, termination procedures, and testing and training programs. When turning down an employer for EPLI coverage, Chubb provides a list of reasons that coverage was denied, giving the opportunity to remedy those problems and obtain the insurance.

An insurance company audit can have positive effects on a company's employment practices. But once they have EPLI, employers cannot slack off with regard to their HR policies. EPLI does not cover punitive damages, so it will not protect employers where some of the real big money is.

Insurance Also Brings Other Changes

EPLI can alter the way employment claims are handled. Management attorneys often serve as extensions of employers, and therefore are unwilling to give any advice that runs contrary to what a company wants to hear. With a litigation attorney picked by the insurer--as is the stipulation in many EPLI policies--the employer might be told that it has made a mistake.

If conflicts arise between employers and their insurers, EPLI coverage might result in extra litigation. Most insurance companies are not willingly going to cover intentional acts, such as sexual harassment, so employers could face a battle with their insurer on the heels of a lawsuit from a current or former employee.

Employers' first line of defense remains the active implementation and communication of effective workplace policies. The EPLI might give employers some peace of mind, but it remains to be seen how much employers can and will rely on it.

Bulletin to Management