Handbook Heaven

As reported in the Los Angeles Times, the Tribune Co. (which owns, among other things, the Times and Chicago Tribune) has a new employee handbook.  It contains 3,663 words as compared to the former version’s 11,519 words, and it has a “direct, almost jocular tone.”

Rule #1: Use your best judgment.  Rule #2:  See Rule 1.  Words like “pursuant to,” “required minimums,” and “appropriate documentation” have been replaced with plain, maybe funny, language.

The new handbook has the usual prohibition against discrimination based on race, gender, etc., but it goes further and says that there can be no discrimination based on the “inability to tell a joke, the occasional poor wardrobe choice or bad hair day.”  The handbook also says that unlawful harassment won’t be tolerated, then says that “making the building too hot, banging on trash can lids or loud bagpipe music are annoyances you can complain about,” but they’re not unlawful harassment.

The handbook includes nine “core values,” one of which is:  “Question authority and push back if you do not like the answer.  You will earn respect, and not get into trouble for asking tough questions.”

The Times wonders if the handbook is too loose from a legal standpoint and seeks the opinion of San Francisco lawyer Mark Schickman (who is a good friend and good lawyer).  While congratulating the company on eliminating legalese, Schickman thinks that in trying “to be brief and funny,” a lot of mistakes have been made.  For example, he questions the core value quoted above as an obstacle to the termination of an employee who’s guilty of insubordination.  He’s also critical of another of the core values: “Take intelligent risk.”  This could conflict with Rule #1 (Use good judgment) and give an employee who’s terminated for not using good judgement the basis for suing the company by saying he was merely taking an intelligent risk.

With all due respect to Mark, I disagree.  It’s impossible to have a handbook that doesn’t arguably have conflicting provisions, I don’t care how hard you try not to or how many lawyers weigh in.  It’s impossible to have a handbook that doesn’t have a provision ripe for use against the employer by a creative lawyer.  Of course, if I practiced employment law in California where Mark does, I’d be overly cautious, too.  A lot of crazy things have been known to happen in the courts of that state, things that sometimes, regrettably, begin making their way east.  To employers in most other states, I’d say you should take a look at the Tribune Co.’s new handbook.  Brevity and humor have to be better than  the dense, mind-numbing, lengthy paragraphs contained in a lot of handbooks that we give to employees with no expectation they will ever read them.

From a legal standpoint, the main thing to keep in mind about an employee handbook is that it should contain a statement that it’s only a set of guidelines, not intended to be a contract, subject to change by you, and doesn’t impair your right to discipline and discharge employees when such action is in the best interest of the company. 

If you get comfortable with the Tribune Co.’s handbook, maybe you’ll also change your company motto to:  “Don’t worry.  Be happy.”  I’ve seen mottoes that are a lot worse and much longer.

1. 

   Mark Schickman says:

   January 23, 2008 at 12:41 pm

   John, don’t know if you had a chance to read the handbook, but the above were among the least of the issues. “Harassment” is defined only as quid-pro-quo, with no mention of hostile environment; the ADA provision was truncated to eliminate “undue hardship” consideration, to name two others. So it goes.
2. 

   John Phillips says:

   January 23, 2008 at 1:24 pm

   Mark, you caught me. I haven’t read the entire handbook, although I did skim it in addition to reading the LA Times article and a couple of other summaries of it. I know you’re supposed to read something before you comment on it, but I’ve found that in the blogging business, if you wait to read something, it’s too late. I was a little late weighing in anyway.

   I’m going to read the entire handbook because this is of real interest to me. I honestly don’t believe that it’s possible to prepare a perfect handbook, and I also honestly believe that most of the handbooks I’ve had hand in writing have been too long and legaleseish.

   Perhaps we need to think about the purpose of a handbook. Is it to give employees information to help them work for the company? Or is it to provide protection to employers in case they get sued? If it’s the former, then a Tribune-like handbook is worth considering–maybe not in its entirety–but something of that ilk. If it’s the latter, then we load the handbook with as many things as we can think of (and we can’t think of everything) to help the employer be in the best position possible to defend itself.

   Thanks for weighing in. And so it does go.
3. 

   Steven says:

   February 6, 2008 at 3:51 pm

   Don’t give credit to the Tribune for this, all the credit goes to Randy, who used 99% the same words at his old firm:

   http://www.localtvllc.com/aboutus/Local_TV_Policy_Manual.pdf

   Yep, Sam’s new handbook is all but identical to the handbook of Randy Michaels old company.

   Since Randy was CEO of LocalTV before joining Tribune, it’s not like he can be accused of plagarization, just creative re-use.
4. 

   John Phillips says:

   February 18, 2008 at 8:42 am

   Borrowing from someone else’s handbook is a long, if not noble, HR tradition.