Need Suggestions....

Happy employees are productive employees. I say let them have the flex time. Personally, I used to work flex time (I took Fridays off and worked Sundays) and loved it - with no interruptions and the network almost to myself, I was able to do almost twice as much on Sunday as I did on a normal weekday.

I know this is different (this was a Silicon Valley startup where 10 hour days where considered normal), but the idea is the same. Plus, if someone is there a half hour before you, there will always be fresh coffee ready when you come in!

 

I don't have any experience with a small business, but I have been a manager, and an employee. So here's just a little food for thought. In my experience, employees are very grateful when their employer can accommodate their hours, but they are also very understanding when they cannot. If you have a good reason for insisting on a specific schedule, that is fine (just explain the reason to them), but if you don't, they may resent you for not working with them. Also, I find that I am much more productive when I work hours off the norm, because that means that I am not being interrupted. If you make this kind of concession for your employees, not only will they be grateful and possibly more productive, but likely more loyal, and happier all around.

 

Assuming the phones are covered during business hours, flex time seems like the way to go.

 

I have no business experience, but I'd say, let them work the odd hours providing there is useful work they can be doing during the time the office is closed but they want to be working. In a law office I presume there is plenty of such work. If there is nothing useful they can be doing when the office is closed (for example a receptionist whose only job is to greet clients or visitors and answer the phones) then offer to let them work the slightly shorter hours at proportionally reduced pay.

In other words, let them have the flex hours if that does not interfere with the smooth running and productivity of the office. They'll be happier and will do better work.

Caveat: I did volunteer work as a translator in a legal aid office. For a time there was only one lawyer in the office (plus a full-time paralegal, several seasonal paralegals, and myself, part time as a volunteer.) The lawyer worked extreme flex time, coming in very late and working very late. While he was usually available by phone, there were times when his absence from the office was a problem. Beware of granting such extreme flex time to an employee whose presence is critical. But with the half-hour offsets you are talking about, it does not sound like a problem to me.

 

1. You don't OWE anyone a flex schedule.

2. Do the two folks wanting a non-standard schedule require even occasional direrxt supervision? Is there a 50-50 chance you'll be giving away a half-hour at both ends of the day by accomodating them?

3. If you trust them because of your knowledge of their work habits, and there's no problem with disruption of their necessary interactions with colleagues, go for it.

4. But I'd still hedge by calling it a "trial basis" for, say, two months.

 

I manage three departments at work, and the shipping department has to have very rigid hours because of external factors like truck schedules, etc. but the other two ... customer service and technical service ... can enjoy flexible hours. We actually have three start times, 6am, 7am and 8am. One employee couldn't make it by 7am, so we "flexed" her hours to 7:15 to 4:15.

The overall goal is to provide outstanding customer service, meaning the phones have to be covered all the time, the employees have to focus on how anything we do will be perceived by the customer, etc. The flexibility in scheduling allows us attract the more creative types who do not flourish in a "command and control" environment. This has led to an increase in productivity as these folks think "outside the box" and come up with very creative ways to meet both the company's goals and the customer's needs. I love these guys.

It sounds to me like you have good employees who would appreciate the flexibility in scheduling. The main problem you will run into is not with those employees ... it will be the co-workers who think they are getting something "special" (its no secret that one of the first phrases we utter in life is "that's not fair!")

So I would talk to the employees about it, individually, before you implement it. Present it as a win-win (if it is), telling them how the firm can benefit from the person being there a bit longer than the regular shift. This can be managed to be the biggest morale builder you will ever have.

 

Big corporations are a bit different than small businesses - i've been in both. In the big corporation, flex time is fine, because there's always a "critical mass" of people present during the normal working hours. For small businesses, this may not be the case.

Given the size of the company, i would caution against just having an open flex time policy - you might end up with everyone working weird hours. Instead, i would say you're open to the idea on an individual basis. That gives you the ability to tell someone know if you don't think they can work unsupervised, and the ability to say yes for someone who needs it for medical reasons and is otherwise a good, responsible employee.

FWIW, half an hour either way probably won't be a huge deal in your day to day situation. The one thing you'll want to emphasize should you allow them to go to flex time, is that there may be days you ask them to be there during the normal business hours, for whatever reason (meetings with clients, etc). They're getting special allowance because they've been good employees, but the business does come first.

 

i would allow it for a compelling reason, as in the case of the medical situation. that's justifiable.

i'd have a harder time, however, allowing someone to come in at a different time simply because it's more convenient for them. i mean, going to work is not about convenience. i suppose it's different in a small business, but when i managed retail you had to have a damn good reason to up and change your scheduled shifts. however, if for some reason this person is more productive from 8-8:30 than from 5-5:30, why not :lol:

 

i dont know what kind of time restraints you have, but seems to me someone who is capable, coming in early to jumpstart a project that might be needed first thing in the morning is something that happens on a regular basis anyway right?? i think its much better to have someone scheduled than to ask someone to come in early.

dont know if this kind of delegation of work is advised or available, but rarely is life convenient enough to fit perfectly in the 9-5 time frame

ultimately, to me, it boils down to can this person be trusted to work alone and get things done? for a new employee, no way. you have security issues when ANYONE is left alone and i question a "medical" reason for being late. sounds more like a logistics issue which i dont have a problem with either, but giving a false excuse isnt going to add argument to the cause

 

'course I have to throw in my $0.02 on this:

My last job, I was the only one in the entire firm to have atypical hours due to my unusually sucky commute. Well, in my circumstance it worked out well because, 1. I was a happier employee, 2. there were times where it was downright useful being around an hour later, while others were in "last minute rush" situations I wouldn't be, and probably most importantly, 3. whenever THEY would ask a favor of me, I'd happily grant it.

 

it sounds like giving some flexibility in the office is going to benefit everyone in the long run. chemistry in the workplace is a valuable thing and if i could work the schedule and still meet the business needs, even if it means some compromises, i would definitely give it the extra effort.

let us know how it works out.

 

While I see a lot of valid points for allowing the flex time, here's a real life situation.
I work in a small department in a small office (8 in dept/18 total employees). There was one person who wanted "flex time" simple because she wanted it, i.e. not a medical reason. She was allowed the flextime.

When other employees in the department saw this, they asked for flex time (I was one) and we were told it was not acceptable. Our office hours were 8:30-5 and that is when everyone was required to be there. So, it did not sit well for everyone else that only one person was able to take advantage of the flex time.

My point, if you are going to allow flex time, be prepared for other employees wanting it. Where do you draw the line?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Somechic @ Dec 5 2006, 12:04 PM) [snapback]357981[/snapback]</div>

That is a real stupid office manager. You either give it to everybody or don't give it to anybody. Giving it to the teacher's pet is worse than not giving it to anybody!

 

i cant believe that exceptions to anything can not be made. i work in a business where manning is crucial. we have over 120 different shifts with start times that run every 15 minutes from 5:45 am to 2:30 pm.

even with that amount of options, we still have exceptions. sure it helps if you have 450 to juggle, but making exceptions is the difference between a good company and a great company to work for.

 

I agree it was showing a major bias.
I definitely agree if it's available for one, it should be considered for others.
I lost a lot of respect for the manager when this happened.