Poor time keeping

[sterne.law@gmail.com]

I am sure many of us have issues with poor timekeeping. Some employers allow a period of grace, while others stick rigidly to the time rule. As employers we do need to account for the transport, and as much as it is a problem, we also know that employees use this as an excuse. When chatting to my managers a question that arose was when is a warning issued, particularly if we want to exercise some allowance for the various problems. Of course an answer of ‘depends on circumstances” does not help much so I put together a scoring system. Thought I would put it up for comment, thoughts and ideas.

5-10 minutes late = 1 point
10-20 minutes late = 2 point
20 minutes or more = 3 points

A warning, the relevant one (verbal, written etc) is issued when the employee has 3 points.
When a warning is issued, the points are removed and employee starts on zero.
Points carry over from month to month over a 2-month period, remembering if a warning was issued the points are zeroed. If the employee accumulates 4 points in the 2 months, a warning is issued. Thus being late 4 times by 5 minutes gets a warning, or 15 minutes late twice, earns a warning or a combination, say late by 15 minutes once and twice being late by 5 minutes, earns a warning.
It is possible that the employee might earn a verbal, 2 written, a final and ultimately dismissal, purely on this system. It may sound harsh but in essence, the employee has accumulated 20 points over a possible ten month period, meaning they were late 20 times, which is a problem.

Of course the first question being asked is what about the recording system. And I think each enterprise would work out a way. Some might just check the time books weekly or at end of the month and issue the relevant warning and carry over the points into the new time book, would be one way.

Comments please.

[Dave A]

There's something a little magical about a clock card system when it comes to time-keeping. I ran for years without one, but after a trot of pretty sloppy time-keeping we resolved to put one in. It really made quite a difference.

When it comes to being stroppy about it, my tendency is to look for repeat offenders. When it comes to valid reasons for being late, whether it's 15 minutes or an hour doesn't change whether the reason is valid. I know just how late they are does influence how much of a disruption it is to the business - but if "being fair" is about validity of reason, just how late they are shouldn't count for much when designing a disciplinary system. (just my opinion).

[IanF]

I instituted a time and attendance system.
When giving increases a 5% bonus was included. Then they lose 1% for each day they are late and the whole 5% if they are absent without informing us in advance. Most months you pay the whole 5%. But the workers know the cost if they are late. Of course it is applied with compassion.

[tec0]

Honestly if that 20 minutes is so important that you will fire people then it is time to look at your transport structure because I for one “if I was working for you” will take a photo of every traffic jam, pothole and keep records of every speeding ticket and let us not forget “extra hours because you have to be there 60minutes earlier than normal.”

And if that CCMA hearing comes I would state “I did everything humanly possible to get on work on time” hand them a hand full of photos and other records that “might be” relevant and then continue with the proceedings. Then I would love to be a fly on that wall.

See don’t get me wrong on your proposal I do feel people abuse excuses but sometimes one must understand that there are really not much you can do about this problem, because it is an inevitability that your employees will be late for work a few times, and by default “dismissal” becomes inevitable as well.

You are basically guaranteeing that your employees will get fired within the year “especially with our decaying roads and bad traffic”

There is some real potential for legal pitfalls here make sure that your system is not unreasonable and I bet you if you give your employees a bit of incentive they will not be late.

[daveob]

And if that CCMA hearing comes I would state “I did everything humanly possible to get on work on time” hand them a hand full of photos and other records that “might be” relevant and then continue with the proceedings. Then I would love to be a fly on that wall.

Besides any mass late arrivals due to transport sector stikes, etc, I would gladly also give the CCMA a copy of the time records of the other 25 people in the company that DID arrive on time for work every day.

and I bet you if you give your employees a bit of incentive they will not be late.

so what you're saying, is that the "bit of incentive" will magically make the traffic jams disperse and the pot-holes disappear ?

When I was an appy, we lived on the East Rand and I working in Jhb. I got up at 3am, walked an hour to the train station, caught a train to Jhb and then walked from the station to Jeppestown, all to get to work by 6:30 am.

I didn't use the traffic / roads / trains / sick dog / dead granny ( again ) as excuses - I simply did what I had to do to get to work on time - I was NEVER late.

The incentive -- keep my job.

So what's your excuse ? Pick one for the day / week.

[desA]

There's something a little magical about a clock card system when it comes to time-keeping. I ran for years without one, but after a trot of pretty sloppy time-keeping we resolved to put one in. It really made quite a difference.

In Sweden, a large company I consulted to, used a form of time-card system. Each employee had an electronic namecard which was swiped through the machine. As I recall, the financial controller managed the time-related issues. I suspect that their monthly payments were linked to their timekeeping.

I personally think that a no-show, or slow-show, should result in lost income for the time missed. A worked could be given an opportunity to make up for this, in cases where flexitime schemes are in place.

[tec0]

daveob > So what's your excuse ? Pick one for the day / week.

Ouch!

Well, here is the problem. See you woke up at 3 and walked for an hour. Today if you woke up at 3 am and you walk for an hour you will be dead “murdered” before 4 am. Secondly if you actually get to the train-station and belief me our train-station is a war zone. You will not get to work at all on account you will probably be bleeding out while you are stripped of your clothing.

Keep that in mind...

Now as for incentive: Just give the employee his 30 minutes on their payslip. If they pitch up for work 30 minutes before the time and start working then I see no reason not to. Yes keeping your job as incentive is probably also a good way of doing it.

But tell you what come lunch time all your employees will have a good long look at the job mail section because basically you just want to fire them anyway... So they will be shopping.

[tec0]

See the fact is, most companies have similar systems and it works effectively well. My 1 friend that works at a steel-mill clocks in 1 hour before sift change because A > he gets paid for that 1 hour and B > he can take his time driving to work with traffic and all. It is only when the roads are closed when he is late for work. And that happens only when the fog gets really bad...

So his incentive is A > get paid for an extra hour B > Find out if there was any mishaps or anything he must know. C > Can take his time driving to work. Now since he started showing up for work early. His friends started to do the same and there is a lot less stress... So much so that the big bosses started to take notice. Now this is the truth and you can say what you want. If you are the boss and you are willing to give a little you actually are getting a lot more...

[daveob]

Ouch!

Well, here is the problem. See you woke up at 3 and walked for an hour. Today if you woke up at 3 am and you walk for an hour you will be dead “murdered” before 4 am. Secondly ......

blah, blah, blah ... you're missing the point.

Yes, times have changed and at the time I lived in a white suburb, rode at the front of the train, etc. I accept that.

But what you seem to be missing is the fact that I'm not talking about the specifics here, but rather the general employee attitude to the job. In my hey-day, the job was the centre of ones universe. You didn't arrive late. You didn't bunk. You just didn't stuff around. The employer was giving the employee the opportunity to make something of himself. In my case, I was the first in the history of the company ( a large company ) to become a night shift foreman while still an appy, and thereafter the youngest 'account executive'. Why ? not cos I was bright - I admit I am not the Einstein in the family - I just work hard and was dedicated to my job and got the job done.

Now you can nit-pick all you want about what would happen if you were, today, in the same situation as I was back then, but the fact remains, I didn't make excuses. Didn't matter what the situation was - train / bus / dead granny / stike action / taxi delays, etc - fact was that I, and many others around me, made "a plan".

Yes, we had to sacrifice. Be it personal time / convenience / whatever, we made it happen.

Maybe your job just isn't important enough to you to make that kind of sacrifice. Maybe there are just so many others out there that feel the same. But just cos you've got common numbers, doesn't mean you're right.

Fact is, work performance has decreased, poor attendance has increased, job satisfaction is down, promotions are hap-hazard ( mostly hazard-ous ) and numerous other problems.

Who's to blame ?? The employer who is constantly being let down and is struggling to make, and keep, new business, and constantly can't find a single employee capable of fulfilling a managerial or supervisory capacity, or the employee who just doesn't care if the company survives, but runs and cries to the ccma one things go pear shaped ?

So what's your story ? You gonna sit there and think of more excuses, or are you going to be a "solutions" person ? Trust me - 30 years of work experience down the line, and I can promise you that you get a lot farther a lot faster being a "solutions" person.

Sure, if you got a genuine gripe, get it out your system and then move on.

Or as the movies say, "Make a dump or get off the pie".

Just a thought -- 2c

[tec0]

So what's your story ? You gonna sit there and think of more excuses, or are you going to be a "solutions" person ? Trust me - 30 years of work experience down the line, and I can promise you that you get a lot farther a lot faster being a "solutions" person.

What is my story?

Right first of I used to work for free at one of the largest companies in South Africa. I woke up at 5 got ready and “somehow” organized a lift witch I paid for by fixing old computers. Now hard work and dedication worked for you...

When there was an opening in this very large company who did you think got the job? Well not the dude that worked for free for a year and 3 months. “And before you say BS I GOT prove!” No someone’s daddy pulled a string and I was left with nothing and all my dedication and all my sacrifices were given a nice big nothing.

So yes hard work and dedication is a load of BS. People that are hard working gets abused and left out in the cold.

Still you know what the real messed up thing is??? You must prove yourself over and over again by accepting none-payment work for six f@cking months only to hear: Sorry but we got someone with qualifications.

And one more thing: running to the CCMA is disliked by the big bosses! Want to know why? Because they can’t get away with BS anymore...

Case and point: I know people want 200% out of every worker and yes you need to work hard to get ahead in life. BUT you get bosses that will just sit around and think up BS to get people fired so that they don’t have to provide training, and whatever else that was promised.

This time thing is just 1 more tool that is all it is.

[BigRed]

..... If you are the boss and you are willing to give a little you actually are getting a lot more...

lot more problems

I am in the situation that we have changed our working hours for factory staff to suit "them" as traffic was their biggest gripe.
So far, so good. The factory guys start 30 minutes earlier and end 30 minutes earlier. Time keeping (so far) has been good and the guys are actually a lot happier. They might have to get up earlier, but they do not face that horrendous traffic jam in the mornings and most miss it in the afternoons.

We have also wanted to do a points system, or no clock no pay or jump up and down screaming and shouting, but end of the day by giving a bit, one can get a lot..

M2CW

[tec0]

I had a scan trough the acts and “as far as I can see” if your system is in the contract you “probably” can fire someone after about 4 warnings. The warnings can be a verbal warning, written warning and final written warning then dismissal. However I would recommend detailed written warnings from the start to facilitate the CCMA in an inquiry.

All you need to do is prove “your point system” is just and consistent and your employees must be notified when they are in the wrong from the get-go. The most important factor here is to be consistent. If the CCMA picks up that you where lenient towards some workers, get ready because it will get ugly.

Just remember to inform all staff of the point system and also get confirmation that they where individually informed and that they understand how the system works and that the rules are made clear to them.

Still this being said: Get a legal buddy or someone to draft the contracts and make sure there are no misunderstandings.

good luck.

[tec0]

I don’t know if this holds any relevancy, however I think it might be a good place to start.

Labour Relations Act, 1995
Schedule 8: Code of Good Practice: Dismissal
9. Guidelines in cases of dismissal for poor work performance

1) Any person determining whether a dismissal for poor work performance is unfair should consider-

a) whether or not the employee failed to meet a performance standard; and

b) if the employee did not meet a required performance standard whether or not-

i) the employee was aware, or could reasonably be expected to have been aware, of the required performance standard;

ii) the employee was given a fair opportunity to meet the required performance standard; and

iii) dismissal was an appropriate sanction for not meeting the required performance standard.

Labour Relations Act, 1995
Schedule 8: Code of Good Practice: Dismissal
3. Disciplinary measures short of dismissal

Disciplinary procedures prior to dismissal

1) All employers should adopt disciplinary rules that establish the standard of conduct required of their employees. The form and content of disciplinary rules will obviously vary according to the size and nature of the employer's business. In general, a larger business will require a more formal approach to discipline. An employer's rules must create certainty and consistency in the application of discipline. This requires that the standards of conduct are clear and made available to employees in a manner that is easily understood. Some rules or standards may be so well established and known that it is not necessary to communicate them.

2) The courts have endorsed the concept of corrective or progressive discipline. This approach regards the purpose of discipline as a means for employees to know and understand what standards are required of them. Efforts should be made to correct employees' behaviour through a system of graduated disciplinary measures such as counselling and warnings.

3) Formal procedures do not have to be invoked every time a rule is broken or a standard is not met. Informal advice and correction is the best and most effective way for an employer to deal with minor violations of work discipline. Repeated misconduct will warrant warnings, which themselves may be graded according to degrees of severity. More serious infringements or repeated misconduct may call for a final warning, or other action short of dismissal. Dismissal should be reserved for cases of serious misconduct or repeated offenses.

Dismissals for misconduct

4) Generally, it is not appropriate to dismiss an employee for a first offense, except if the misconduct is serious and of such gravity that it makes a continued employment relationship intolerable. Examples of serious misconduct, subject to the rule that each case should be judged on its merits, are gross dishonesty or willful damage to the property of the employer, willful endangering of the safety of others, physical assault on the employer, a fellow employee, client or customer and gross insubordination. Whatever the merits of the case for dismissal might be, a dismissal will not be fair if it does not meet the requirements of section 188.

5) When deciding whether or not to impose the penalty of dismissal, the employer should in addition to the gravity of the misconduct consider factors such as the employee's circumstances (including length of service, previous disciplinary record and personal circumstances), the nature of the job and the circumstances of the infringement itself.

6) The employer should apply the penalty of dismissal consistently with the way in which it has been applied to the same and other employees in the past, and consistently as between two or more employees who participate in the misconduct under consideration.

Hope it helps

[sterne.law@gmail.com]

I don’t know if this holds any relevancy, however I think it might be a good place to start.

Labour Relations Act, 1995
Schedule 8: Code of Good Practice: Dismissal
9. Guidelines in cases of dismissal for poor work performance

1) Any person determining whether a dismissal for poor work performance is unfair should consider-

a) whether or not the employee failed to meet a performance standard; and

b) if the employee did not meet a required performance standard whether or not-

i) the employee was aware, or could reasonably be expected to have been aware, of the required performance standard;

ii) the employee was given a fair opportunity to meet the required performance standard; and

iii) dismissal was an appropriate sanction for not meeting the required performance standard.

Labour Relations Act, 1995
Schedule 8: Code of Good Practice: Dismissal
3. Disciplinary measures short of dismissal

Disciplinary procedures prior to dismissal

1) All employers should adopt disciplinary rules that establish the standard of conduct required of their employees. The form and content of disciplinary rules will obviously vary according to the size and nature of the employer's business. In general, a larger business will require a more formal approach to discipline. An employer's rules must create certainty and consistency in the application of discipline. This requires that the standards of conduct are clear and made available to employees in a manner that is easily understood. Some rules or standards may be so well established and known that it is not necessary to communicate them.

2) The courts have endorsed the concept of corrective or progressive discipline. This approach regards the purpose of discipline as a means for employees to know and understand what standards are required of them. Efforts should be made to correct employees' behaviour through a system of graduated disciplinary measures such as counselling and warnings.

3) Formal procedures do not have to be invoked every time a rule is broken or a standard is not met. Informal advice and correction is the best and most effective way for an employer to deal with minor violations of work discipline. Repeated misconduct will warrant warnings, which themselves may be graded according to degrees of severity. More serious infringements or repeated misconduct may call for a final warning, or other action short of dismissal. Dismissal should be reserved for cases of serious misconduct or repeated offenses.

Dismissals for misconduct

4) Generally, it is not appropriate to dismiss an employee for a first offense, except if the misconduct is serious and of such gravity that it makes a continued employment relationship intolerable. Examples of serious misconduct, subject to the rule that each case should be judged on its merits, are gross dishonesty or willful damage to the property of the employer, willful endangering of the safety of others, physical assault on the employer, a fellow employee, client or customer and gross insubordination. Whatever the merits of the case for dismissal might be, a dismissal will not be fair if it does not meet the requirements of section 188.

5) When deciding whether or not to impose the penalty of dismissal, the employer should in addition to the gravity of the misconduct consider factors such as the employee's circumstances (including length of service, previous disciplinary record and personal circumstances), the nature of the job and the circumstances of the infringement itself.

6) The employer should apply the penalty of dismissal consistently with the way in which it has been applied to the same and other employees in the past, and consistently as between two or more employees who participate in the misconduct under consideration.

Hope it helps

Hmm, I thought this post was going to get some response, most of it seems very emotional and takes a certain standpoint. A bit more on the theory or thinking behind the system.
1. Fisrtly i do not believe in a grace period - a rule or law is a law. If we start adjusting laws or making allowances the consequences are anarchy, disorder and confusion.
2. Secondly I believe firmly, as per some posts, that more appreciation of a job is required.
3. The essence is not to creat a system or way to get dismissal, that is very easy. In fact the very opposite, the idea was to create something that makes a certain allowance for difficulties but without letting it run wild. In other words 5 minutes late could be strictly treated as late and warrant action, the consequences of which would lead to dismissal. However, by the same token if we allow a person to continously be 5 minutes late, with no action, then we are condoning or allowing such late coming. Hence the concept is such that we are making an allowance but it is kept in check, using a measurable, consistent and clear methodology.
The incentivizing is to a certain extent good, my problem is that persons who were always on time may now get benefit, but the previous late comer gets teh same, but I suppose working on a whats past is past concept it makes sense. My preference is to use the disciplinary record in a score carding portion of incentive schemes.

[tec0]

In all honesty if one wishes to implement a strategy where every moment is calculated and measured to perfection, perfection itself becomes a weakness and then the system crashes. Make no mistake if you have a top employee and he or she ended up being late everyday for a month because “something happened” Your policy will force that person out of his or her position.

Not only do you lose a good employee over 5 minutes. Your other employees lose faith in you. And more importantly they will lose faith in themselves. Make no mistake your actions will have consequences that will affect your business and your social structure amongst employees.

See when it comes to one’s job it is hard NOT to take things personal “especially” if it involves your ability to earn money. So don’t kid yourself there is an appreciation for once job. BUT if you are going to act ruthlessly towards the people you employ they will act ruthlessly when you as the boss makes a mistake. And trust me mistakes will be made because we are human and I belief that, that part is not recognized.