Attendance vs. PTO

Recently several managers have complained “Suzie has terrible attendance, but since she’s using paid time off I can’t do anything about it, right?” To an HR person this is like fingernails on a chalk board. This question has the same feeling as the joke “The bank says I’m overdrawn but that can’t be true – I still have checks.”

Attendance and paid time off are two entirely different things. Just because the organization gives me several weeks of vacation and sick time, doesn’t mean I can take them whenever I want and no one can say anything about it. Attendance is important. As managers, we schedule and plan based on full attendance. We assume that everyone will be at work on every scheduled work day. Vacation should be scheduled in advance, so we can plan for it and make sure we have appropriate staffing. Sick days happen, but typically they should be few, and scattered.

So when an employee misses work on a weekly basis, but they have vacation time or sick time available, is that okay? No it is not okay. Unless I’ve scheduled and planned for that, or if they a valid FMLA in place, missing work on a weekly basis is not acceptable.

Some companies have elaborate systems to track attendance and to define acceptable attendance. There are point systems where every absence earns a set number of points every period of time without an absence removes points. In those systems, when an employee reaches a certain point level they receive some disciplinary action and at some fixed higher level they get terminated. The problem is that sometimes you wind up terminating some good people who had a “bad patch” and you wind up keeping people who have horrid attendance but have learned to work the system to stay just below the termination point.

The other issue companies grapple with is days versus incidents. If I’m out sick for 3 days, do I count that as 3 days, or as 1 instance? What’s worse – an employee who misses 1 day a week for 3 weeks, or an employee who gets the flu and misses 3 consecutive days? If you’re counting days they get treated the same. If you count incidents, one employee has one and the other has three. But on the other hand, if you only pay attention to incidents, then if that same employee gets the flu three times, while that’s only 3 incidents, they’ve missed 9 days of work. Is that okay?

I have yet to see a good system that works well in every situation. What I have found is that managers need to 1) create a culture where attendance is expected and 2) hold employees accountable for meeting those expectations. Be consistent. Poor attendance is not just a problem for marginal performers. If a great employee has poor attendance, deal with it just like you would with a marginal performer.

In one blog post I can’t solve all the evils of poor attendance, but I can say this – don’t let poor attendance bring down an entire department. Don’t fail to deal with an attendance problem just because an employee has paid time off available. Clearly set the expectations and then hold employees accountable to meet those expectations. The rest will take care of itself.

Why I don’t Like Anonymity

We’ve been talking lately about introducing a confidential employee hotline – a phone number where employees can confidentially report theft, fraud, harassment, whatever.  It’s a good idea. Lots of companies have them. Some have the calls answered internally while others use an outside firm.  But this post really isn’t about the hotline it’s about the question – should employees be able to report something anonymously?

Anonymity bugs me.  I get confidentiality.  I understand why someone would want to report something confidentially – like they saw their boss sexually harassing a coworker and they don’t want their boss to know it was them that made the report.  If we have such a hotline we have to be 100% committed to confidentiality and protecting the person who makes a report from any form of retaliation or retribution.  Protecting confidentiality is a given, but anonymity?

To me, anonymity is like throwing a grenade over the wall and running.  You don’t know where it came from, you don’t really know why it was thrown, and sometime you’re not even sure who it was aimed at.  Part of implementing a successful hotline is that there has to be consequences for intentionally reporting false information, but if the caller in anonymous, who can be held accountable?

Let’s imagine someone calls in and reports that a cashier is stealing from the register by under-ringing and then pocketing the difference.  Without a name I don’t if the claim is credible, but in the best interests of the business I have to check it out.  So, we watch the cashier more closely – in person and via cameras.  I probably have to tell some others who can help me watch and audit. Now several people have reason to believe this cashier is stealing. Even if we don’t find anything, we spend time looking and we’re always suspicious of her.  It could have a detrimental effect on her career.

What if we were later to find out that this cashier and another were fighting over an ex-boyfriend. Then we learn that the anonymous call was placed by the other cashier, just to get the first one in trouble – or maybe to keep us from watching the other one who was stealing.  ARRUGH!  If I had known up front who made the report I could have tested the reliability of the information and maybe saved some time, found the real thief, and dealt with a bad employee.

In a long-ago post I talked about the challenge of 360 evaluations and anonymity.  The theory is if no one knows who says what, then I can speak the truth because it can’t come back on me.  That’s true, but it’s also true that if no one knows who says what, then they won’t know if I lie – either for or against the one being rated.  And if I’m lying, what good is the 360?

I believe that society and business both work better if people are free to speak the truth (sometimes confidentially) without fear of reprisal but no one is allowed to speak anonymously.  If you don’t feel strongly enough about what you’re saying to put your name behind it, then don’t say it.  But understand; this has to go hand-in-hand with 100% protection of those who speak the truth that others might not want to hear.

There’s one more reason I don’t like anonymity.  I think I misspelled it every time I typed it.

Can I Dock an Exempt Worker for Missing Work?

Here’s the scenario, my staff accountant (an exempt worker under the FLSA Administrative Exemption) has an attendance problem.  He’s used up all of his vacation and sick time and continues to miss work.  Can I dock his pay for the time he’s missed?

Well, like all good questions, the answer is – maybe.  Let’s start with the ground rules.  Here’s what the DOL says.

“Being paid on a “salary basis” means an employee regularly receives a predetermined amount of compensation each pay period on a weekly, or less frequent, basis.  The predetermined amount cannot be reduced because of variations in the quality or quantity of the employee’s work.  Subject to exceptions listed below, an exempt employee must receive the full salary for any week in which the employee performs any work, regardless of the number of days or hours worked.”

So, if he works any time in that week, he needs to be paid for that week – the full week.  But, there are some exceptions.  Here’s what the DOL says on that (with emphasis added by me):

“Deductions from pay are permissible when an exempt employee: is absent from work for one or more full days for personal reasons other than sickness or disability; for absences of one or more full days due to sickness or disability if the deduction is made in accordance with a bona fide plan, policy or practice of providing compensation for salary lost due to illness (you can reduce their pay because you are instead paying them sick time); for penalties imposed in good faith for infractions of safety rules of major significance; or for unpaid disciplinary suspensions of one or more full days imposed in good faith for workplace conduct rule infractions.  Also, an employer is not required to pay the full salary in the initial or terminal week of employment, or for weeks in which an exempt employee takes unpaid leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act.”

As usual, the DOL does a good job of explaining things in a manner that doesn’t always answer the question and then leaves it up to the courts to clarify. So, here’s a summary of do’s and don’ts.

1 – Don’t ever reduce an exempt employee’s pay by less than a full day.

2 – If you have established plans for sick and vacation pay, you can allow an exempt employee to use vacation or sick time in half-day increments, but if they run out, don’t dock them for missing time. You can discipline them, but don’t reduce their pay.

3 – Before you elect to suspend an exempt employee without pay, make sure that reason is significant.  If you want to suspend them because you want them to have time to “think about if they want to continue to work for your organization”, then make it a paid suspension.

Now, I can hear you thinking, “What’s the risk”.  The risk is that if the DOL’s Wage and Hour Division finds out what you’re doing (i.e. docking an exempt employee’s time for using too much sick time) you run the risk of losing that exemption.  That employee now becomes hourly and you owe him any overtime he works in the future, and possibly in the past two years.  Also, all other employees in that category could be reclassified as nonexempt and you have the same overtime penalties.   That whole issue could also get the DOL to audit all of your exempt employees and they might find other jobs that you’ve classified as Exempt but they rule are nonexempt. Let me tell you, you don’t want the DOL mad at you.

So, establish an effective attendance policy, and discipline all employees consistently based on their attendance – but don’t reduce the pay of an exempt employee.  Typically if someone is missing too much work, then they are not getting their work done and you can clearly fire them for that.

Too Good to Fire?

Now that the banking crisis is past us, we can forget that phrase “too big to fail”, right? Probably not – too big to fail is now part of our lexicon. In fact, here’s a spin on that idea that I see all that time – and I wish we could forget it too. Have you ever seen a situation where there is an employee who regularly leaves a trail of hate and discontent in his or her wake? This is an employee that regularly upsets coworkers. They are frequently the office bully. Tears are not uncommon sights in people they work with. But, even though these folks are hideous to their coworkers, the boss refuses to even confront them – much less fire them. Why!?!?

Too often the boss considers them “too good to fire”. The boss says, “While she may be a Tasmanian devil in the office, that woman could sell ice cubes to an Eskimo. Without her we won’t be able to make our third quarter numbers.” Or maybe it’s something like, “I know he’s hard on employees, but he’s the only one who knows what he does. If we fire him it will take 6-12 months to find a replacement and we can’t afford to have that position open for that long.”

Is anyone really that good? Undoubtedly there are times (although I’ve never seen one) that yes, that person is what the company needs this minute. But if that’s true, it is very, very, very, very rare. (Did I get enough very’s in there?) Yes, terminating that high performer could cause the organization some short term pain. Terminating them without first planning how you’re going to deal with their absence might be a really bad idea. But keeping them around, as a cancer on the organization will cause you long-term problems that far outweigh the short term benefits.

How many other good employees are disengaged, or actively leaving because of this person? How is your turnover being affected? While this person might be a good salesperson, are they really building the kind of relationships with clients that can be sustained? Are they the kind of relationships that fit your corporate values? Are your short term numbers really more important that the long term health and sanity of the rest of your team?

As a leader, in encourage you to seriously challenge anyone who pushes to keep a destructive employee just because their individual performance is good. Take a hard look at your corporate values, and the real cost of keeping that person around, and then make a decision for the long term, not just next quarter’s goals.

When is a Donation not a Donation?

It’s a balancing act.  Organizations want to be good corporate citizens and so they donate money, time and materials to worthy causes.  I strongly encourage this, and I encourage them to find ways to allow employees to help direct those donations to organizations the employees are involved in or who are close to their hearts and lives.  I’m also a strong believer that individuals should donate and give what they can to organizations they care about.  It is part of our responsibility as citizens to take care of those less fortunate or to support those organizations who are improving the lives and health of all of us. Americans are the most generous population in the world and we should continue and increase that whenever we can.

The challenge comes when you try to do both at the same time.  Many organizations participate in activities that bring “worthy causes” into the work place and give them a chance to directly solicit employees for donations. Now if you’re an HR person and concerned about maintaining a union-free environment, you know what challenges this presents, but often we do it anyway. The difficulty comes when employees feel corporate pressure to financially support the organization’s chosen charity.

Here’s a real story … a third party comes into the work place to make a presentation about their organization to your employees.  This is a well respected community organization who receives substantial corporate gifts annually.  After the presentation the speaker wants to play a “wheel of fortune” game.  Around the wheel are various items the charity needs – each with a value of $20. The “game” is that employees are asked to step up, “donate” $20 and spin the wheel to see how their donation will be spent.

It’s a clever game, and would probably work well before dinner at a fund-raising event, but is it appropriate for an office? How does an employee resist the peer pressure when other employees slap down one or more twenties to publicly show how much they support this charity.  What about when the boss looks at you with a raised eyebrow wondering why you haven’t “played the game” yet?

Here’s another … a normally “business professional” dress organization offers employees a chance to donate $5 per day to wear jeans one week.  In itself not a bad scheme, but then the manager steps up and says I will pay for four days for each employee and I expect you to pay for the fifth day.  Not, “if you choose to donate I’ll match you,” but  I EXPECT you to.  Now it’s not voluntary, it’s extortion.

As I said, I believe in charitable giving and encourage both organizations and individuals to do so as much as they can. I am perfectly okay with organizations encouraging donations and arranging for appropriate charities to educate employees about what that charity does and why they need financial support.  I’m even fine with organizations offering payroll deduction and other ways to facilitate taking money from employees to give to charities.  What I don’t like is any form of pressure or coercion.

I want people to give as much as they can afford to give – not as much as their manager thinks they should give.  I want them to give because they believe in the charity they are giving money to – not because they feel pressure from their peers or their boss to reach a corporate goal.  I never want someone to feel that their support (or lack of) will in any way influence their performance evaluation or career development.

As a leader – remember that charity begins at home. Help your employees to appreciate everything that they have – and everything they receive from the organization, but then let them make their own decisions about what they can afford to give away and who they give it to. 

A donation should be a gift, not a requirement.

Pets in the Office

We’ve never really been “pet” people.  Oh, we had a cat for a long time – 16+ years – but she was mostly an outside cat, very low maintenance.  Also, I have a Red Oscar (fish) that’s been with me for at least 10 years and he’s really big enough to eat (almost 12” from nose to tail) but again low maintenance.  Well, a few months back my son moved home from college and brought his Doberman Pincer “puppy”.  She’s now a full grown dog –and we’re now “dog people”.  Don’t get me wrong, she’s a sweet and well mannered dog and other than occasionally chewing up the wrong things she is nice to have around, but she’s not near as low maintenance as we’ve been used to.  Between feeding, walking, playing, and picking up after, having a pet around can be a time consuming option.  So, what about pets at the office?

Two ways to look at this.  First, I have a client that manufactures dog treats. Needless to say, the company is staffed with dog lovers and those in office are allowed to bring their dogs to work. While they are mostly well behaved, it is not uncommon to be met at the front door by 4-6 dogs all wanting to say hello and be petted.  They romp around the hallways and sleep under their owner’s desks.  Everyone has a drawer full of treats and none of these dogs is in any danger of starving to death.  There is the occasional barking fit when a stranger walks in or when one dog takes another’s favorite toy.  Dogs walk in and out of meetings – requiring the doors be opened and closed.

Is having dogs at the office really a good idea?  On par, at least for this company, the answer is clearly yes.  Sometimes they are a distraction or a nuisance, but generally they are friendly, companionable and relaxing.  Given a well drafted pet policy it’s feasible for many organizations to embrace four-legged pets at work.

But what about human pets?  You know, the boss’s favorites?  Is it okay for managers to have favorites?  Like so many things, the answer is “it depends.”  Regardless of your ideas on “fairness” all employees are not created equal.  Some are more responsible than others. Some work harder, or faster, and just do a better job.  Some can be counted on to have higher levels of emotional intelligence.  Some are just funnier – and more fun to be around. A good office team as some of each of these – diversity is a good thing.

When you need someone to handle a difficult customer or calm an emotional employee, having someone with high emotional intelligence is important.  But, when a detailed statistical analysis needs to be done, I’ll go with analytical ability over emotional intelligence.  And, when I need to plan the Summer Picnic, I’m going for the “fun” guy over the “smart” guy.  Is playing to employee’s strengths the same as playing favorites? 

If you wanted to plan the picnic but I asked Bob to do you, you might feel like I gave the fun job to my favorite ,where as I’d see it as utilizing my resources.  I need to be aware of how you feel (my emotional intelligence test) and be prepared to address the issue.   Real favoritism – treating employees differently for non-professional reasons – can kill the moral in an office and render a manager totally ineffective.  Favoritism can lead to charges of discrimination and harassment. 

Funny story – and only in California – a group of employees sued their employer claiming sexual harassment because the boss was showing favoritism by giving all the good assignments to the employee he was currently sleeping with. They won. 

Yes, it is okay to have pets in the office. Four legged ones pose a different set of challenges but can be much more rewarding.  (I do suggest indoor/outdoor carpet.)  But, having favorites based on something other than their ability to do the job is a really bad idea.

The Importance of Orientation

Orientation – to Orient – to familiarize (a person) with new surroundings or circumstances (Dictionary.com) or – to adjust with relation to, or bring into due relation to surroundings, circumstances, facts, etc. (also Dictionary.com). Two different perspectives on the same process? How about the “new” word Onboarding? I’ve already told you what I think of that. Let’s look at these two definitions and, as my high school English teacher used to say “compare and contrast.”

For too many companies, orientation is sitting “the new guy” (a non-gender specific term) down with a stack of forms and a pen. Orientation is completing the I-9, filling out W-4s, signing acknowledgements and agreements, and enrolling in benefits. All of that is important, but if that is all you do, you’re missing the key components of a successful orientation process.

Before we go into the “what’s” of a good orientation process let’s talk just a minute about the “why’s”. Every new employee is nervous. No matter how qualified they are or how much they know about their new job and company there are still lots of unknowns. The boss seemed nice in the interview but is she really that friendly? They said this was a “fast-paced” environment, but how fast is fast? Will my coworkers like me? These question and more are running through the new guy’s head. A good orientation process will help with these questions. If an employee can connect with the organization and feel like part of the team they are much more likely to have higher levels of job satisfaction and a lower likelihood of quitting. They will also have shorter training times and higher levels of productivity.

So, on to the “what’s”. The first definition was – To familiarize (a person) with new surroundings or circumstances. Start with the big picture and then narrow things down. Make sure the new guy knows about the organization and its history to put his job into perspective. There should be a discussion of the organization structure so she knows exactly where she fits into the big picture. An important part of orientation is to help the new guy get acclimated – where does he sit, who are her coworkers, where are the restrooms, when is lunch – that kind of thing – so include a tour of the facility along with introductions to coworkers and other key contacts. Maybe assign a “buddy” to provide some “social mentoring” for the first few weeks.

The second definition was – to adjust with relation to, or bring into due relation to surroundings, circumstances, facts, etc. There is a subtle but interesting variation. The first part was all about helping the new guy acclimate to the physical world. This part is more like the Borg on Star Trek. You need to assimilate the new guy. This part of orientation deals with policies and procedures. It’s about explaining proper behavior and creating an understanding of the culture. Unlike the Borg, this process is not intended to remove any trace of personality or individuality, but it is important that the new guy understands how she should behave. Too often I’ve been involved with employee relations problems where the offending employee says “Nobody told me I couldn’t do that.” Too often they are right. We tend to think that “professional behavior” is standard enough that it does not need to be explained, but I’d argue that point.

Whether you call it new hire orientation or onboarding and whether you take a half-day or a week, don’t cut corners on helping the new guy get acclimated – to both the physical work environment and the culture. Help him understand how his new job is a cog in a larger mechanism and that you want her to be satisfied and successful.

We were all “the new guy” once. Help ‘em out. Make sure orientation is more than just a stack of forms and a pen.

A Word About Vacations

Summertime – and the livin’ is easy. Well not as easy as it should be. The economy is still struggling. The unemployment rate is not rebounding like it should be. Gas still costs way too much. Maybe the livin’ isn’t easy at all – but it is still vacation season. Having just returned from my first extended vacation in years, I have a renewed perspective (and that vacation aura) that paid vacations are a wonderful thing.

Does your organization offer paid time off? Most do, according to the DOL. There are no requirements (that I am aware of) in any state or the federal regulations requiring paid vacation time. Similarly, paid vacation time is not required to be treated at “hours worked” for calculating overtime. Given all that, the DOL’s March, 2009 Benefits Survey says that 75% of civilian workers (86% of Full Time workers and 36% of Part Time workers) have access to paid vacation time. Slightly fewer small companies offer vacation – 69% for companies with less than 50 employees.  Elementary and Secondary schools showed the lowest percentage (24%) but that does not account for summers off for most teachers. Hospitals had the highest percentage at 91%.

The number of days off varies widely, but the averages (median) are very consistent – 10 days after 1 year, 15 days after 5 years, and 20 days after 20 years. I was surprised to see no significant variation between union and non-union organizations. Part Time workers tend to get around half (or slightly more) time off of what full time workers get.

So, everybody does it, but why? I can give you three good reasons.

1)  Paid vacations allow employees to decompress – to get away from work, spend time with families and friends, and avoid burn out. Vacations allow employee time for recreation – meaning to re-create. Time to heal one’s self and recharge your batteries.

2)  Paid vacations are (for the most part) a non-incremental cost. If you budget paying Sally $40,000 to do her job, you don’t pay her anymore to take vacation. And (especially for exempt employees) you don’t have to pay someone else to do her job while she’s out. Most likely she’ll work harder before and after the vacation to get ready and then to get caught up. For some jobs you may have to backfill the positions while they’re off, so this reason isn’t universal, but it is very common.

3)  Paid vacations allow you to audit the work of the vacationing employee. If someone is doing something they shouldn’t be doing it will often be exposed with someone else does their work for a few weeks. When I worked in banking years ago, people who handled money were required to take a 2 week vacation every year for that exact purpose.

So, I strongly encourage management to find a way to offer all employees some amount of paid time off. There are lots of strategies to allow employees to accrue or earn that time – different “rules” about how the time can be used – ways to make sure people don’t abuse the system.  Don’t make it too complicated and be prepared to pay employees for any earned but unused balance when they terminate (it’s required in most states).

Enjoy the coming summer – and make sure to take a few days off. I’m sure you deserve it.

Why Can’t We All Just Get Along?

Rodney King said it best, “People, I just want to say, you know, can we all get along? Can we get along?” Mr. King was attempting to calm the Los Angeles riots that followed the acquittal of the police officers accused of using excessive force on Mr. King. Whether you have full-blown riot or just some disagreement between coworkers, those words seem to apply.

Conflict among coworkers in inevitable and, as I recently posted, not always bad. Conflict can help us to challenge the status quo and improve our processes. But sometimes conflict just gets in the way – it just makes us mad. Have you ever heard someone say “Why can’t he just leave me alone and let me do my job?” Or maybe, “Why does she always have to be checking on us?” The answer to these questions is almost always due to a lack of trust.

Trust is a two-way street. As a manager, I have to trust that my employees will do their jobs, to the best of their ability and do what’s best for the organization. At times that is hard to do. Maybe I’m concerned that the employee isn’t fully trained – so some additional oversight might be required to help fill in the gaps. Maybe the employee has made mistakes in the past so I feel I need to take steps to avoid repeating those mistakes. My need to make sure they do things right, while possibly fully justified, means that I don’t really trust them.

As an employee I have to trust that my manager is on my side. Sure, we have to do what’s best for the company, but if I’m concerned that my manager doesn’t “have my back” I can’t trust him not to blame problems on me or ask more of me than he asks of my coworkers – or himself.

Lack of trust between coworkers can even be more difficult – especially when those coworkers are both managers and where the performance of another department directly affects the performance of my department. Imagine this scenario – I manage a customer contact area, the customer is not pleased with the product, they blame my employees but the problem was caused by the other department. So maybe I need to try to “help” them avoid that error by making suggestions about how they could do things differently next time. Maybe I should give some friendly direction to the employees in the other department so they can perform better. Sounds like a recipe for disaster.

Now the other manger’s nose is bent out of shape because he thinks I should keep my nose out of his business. Our conflict, from his perspective, is all because I’m usurping his authority, questioning his integrity and undermining him to his employees. I think he’s way off base because I was just trying to help with a real complaint from “our” customer. This dance can go on and on – and won’t go away by itself.

One solution is to develop better job descriptions, standard operating procedures and more performance measures. Maybe I’ll also keep a log of every time he makes a mistake. Then, when this happens again I can point specifically to the other manager and say “see it was your fault!” Plus, if I should start poking around in his department he can pull out our job descriptions and prove to me that I’m trying to do his job and I should just stick to doing mine. That sounds like it would work, doesn’t it?

 No, it doesn’t work. All this accomplishes is to find new ways for us to snip at each other, further eroding trust and creating more conflict. What we probably need instead are some heart-to-heart conversations. First, some direct communication that the customer was not happy with the product. Then, an acknowledgment of the “mistake”, an apology and a pledge to try to avoid that situation in the future. Repeat this process as needed

It’s not easy to build and then maintain trust. It takes lots of communication, honesty and a willingness to work together. It takes empathy and sharing common goals. But in the end, without trust your organization will fail. If you have individuals that cannot trust, or cannot be trusted, they probably need to be encouraged to explore other opportunities.

If you have conflict, rather than try to document, track and log your way out of it, seek first to extend an olive branch and build trust. You can trust me on this.

Now That’s a BFOQ!

I have to admit it, I watched some of the Royal Wedding this morning. Not a lot – just while I was on the treadmill – but enough. It was lovely and I wish William and Kate all the best. From a British perspective I understand all the hoopla, but I’m not sure why American’s have been as obsessed with the whole deal – but it’s over now. I did, however, have an ulterior motive. While I was watching I was looking for something that I could use in this blog, and I found it!

You all know that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (as amended) says that you can’t discriminate in employment due to any person’s membership in a protected class (age, sex, race, religion, etc.). But that’s not completely true. There are instances where discrimination is permitted. One of these exceptions is the Bona Fide Occupational Qualification (BFOQ). A BFOQ is a specific situation where to be effective, the employee must be of a specific gender, race, etc. and applicants who don’t meet that qualification may be automatically excluded, regardless of their other qualifications. Because of a BFOQ, a less qualified applicant who meets the BFOQ standard could be hired over a more qualified candidate who does not meet the standard.

For example, assume you run a high-end health club and you want to have attendants working in the locker rooms – passing out towels, cleaning up and assisting the members in some way. Clearly, you’d only want to have a female attendant working in the women’s locker room and similarly a male in the men’s locker room. In that situation, the gender of the applicant is a Bona Fide Occupational Qualification to be hired for that position.

So, while I was  wedding watching, the commentator was talking about the Footmen who attended to the coaches that William, Kate and others rode from Westminster Abby to Buckingham Palace. She said we should notice how they all looked about the same size and went on to explain that the Footman wear (I think she said) several-hundred year old uniforms that cost thousands of dollars each. Therefore, they don’t tailor the uniform to fit the Footman; instead, they only hire Footmen who can fit the uniform. These guys (yes all guys) are about 5’ 9” tall and have the same chest size.

Now that’s a BFOQ if I ever heard one.  I’m not sure it would fly in the United States – or even in Britain outside of the Royal family, but for this situation, it makes sense.  BFOQ’s are not common and I don’t encourage you to go looking for ways you could use that exclusion to do some discriminating, but the option is there.

All hail the future King and his bride – and thanks for help with a blog topic.