Apparently, the market appreciates their world-class wireless and Web-based predictive maintenance combined with a proven ability to field a team that can fast-track the required repairs on all manner of industrial equipment at a most economical price. Acme has found a niche in the economy, filled it to the brim and paved it over with a client-focused approach that has them clamoring for more.
Recognizing the idiocy of a command and control management structure in a global economy, the three run the office operation as a pure meritocracy, richly rewarding exempt employees who consistently display skill and efficiency. The operative principle is that anyone who helps Acme to prosper also will prosper. For example, Acme’s white-collar medical benefits are equivalent to what your U.S. senator in Washington gets.
These ground rules are part of the corporate culture, as is Acme’s belief in the power of participative management that gives even lower-level supervisors a voice in corporate policies and strategies. Needless to say, the company remains privately-owned and is unabashedly proud of the fact that employees have turned it into a hotbed of labor rest.
Although Acme can mobilize a crew at a moment’s notice to respond to a client’s emergency, most customers detest the resulting disruption and prefer to plan maintenance shutdowns, many of which occur on weekends. This is why Acme regularly schedules mandatory weekend work for its unionized technicians, one of whom is Jay Kupslatter.
Acme’s commercial success depends on workers who are trained, reliable and savvy enough to interact with clients and equipment effectively on their own, without direct supervision. That’s why every new Acme technician goes through a probationary period lasting typically about a year. These employees work only during weekdays under the direct tutelage of a capable supervisor/mentor. Technicians have an incentive to prove their mettle because weekend work is paid at premium rates.
During his first year, Jay fit into the Acme mold nicely. His time on a short leash was about to end because Jacques Hammer, his supervisor, had already drafted the recommendation letter that would put Jay on a regular work schedule.
The only rub was that Jay’s religious beliefs prohibit him from working on his weekend Sabbath, which starts at sundown Saturday and extends through sundown Sunday. Jay asked Jacques not to schedule him for weekend work during the Sabbath. Jacques explained that it would probably be impossible to accommodate that request. Nevertheless, to bring closure to the matter, Jacques arranged a meeting with Jay, Abbie Sedarian, Acme’s human resources manager; and Les Nookham, the steward for the union representing Jay and the other technicians.
The group was unable to achieve agreement on whether Jay could avoid having to work during one-half of a weekend. Jay then went to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) with claims that both Acme and his union had failed to find a way to accommodate his religious beliefs.
As the complaint was working its way through the bureaucracy, Abbie developed a proposed way out of the matter. Acme would not apply the mandatory attendance policy to Jay from sundown Saturday to sundown Sunday. To make up the time, Acme would adjust Jay’s work hours during the other six days of the week to avoid infringing on his Sabbath.
Jay knew a good thing when he saw it. Even Les, the union steward, liking the precedent Acme would set, sat on the sidelines to watch how things would develop. Jay accepted the accommodation and Acme never scheduled Jay for mandatory work on his Sabbath.
This arrangement endured for almost nine months. Then, Jay again was involved in a schedule dispute. He now argued that the agreement applied to weekends that he worked voluntarily, while Abbie and Jacques said it applied only to mandatory weekend work.
This conflict simmered for nearly a full year before Jay filed another EEOC complaint. This time, he claimed that Acme violated his rights by refusing to let the agreement apply to voluntary weekend work.
How could this situation have been prevented? How can this request for accommodation be prevented from turning into a deluge of similar requests from other workers? Is there any way to foresee such difficulties when hiring? To what extent should Acme get hard-nosed about special requests?
A corporate consultant says:
In my opinion, Acme erred in accommodating Jay the first time. Requests for an exception to some policy are as certain as death and taxes. Granting such requests makes any organization highly vulnerable to accusations of favoritism, requests for additional exceptions and, ultimately, a disregard for policies that have been shown to be negotiable.
By modifying their policies to suit Jay, Acme paved the way for exactly what happened, and they opened the door to an endless number of requests for permutations of the initial accommodation and, essentially, invited requests for other types of accommodation. Perhaps the greatest vulnerability Acme faces as a result of granting Jay's initial request is complaints from other employees who feel penalized because the flexibility granted to Jay isn’t equally available to them.