Home | Login | Recent Changes | Search | All Pages | Help

RequiringAnEmployeeSignature

Spun off from the CustomerSatisfaction thread.

What do you do when your employer askes you to sign a document that says you have read and commit to doing whatever that is listed in the document?

The situation I'm working requires the employee to agree they have read and will execute the items in an operating plan. There are two lines on the document one for you and another for your manager.

This situation is similar to the non-disclosure agreements that many employees sign when they take a job.

SteveSmith 2003.01.27

I think the "have read" makes sense. It helps management to answer the question, "Who doesn't know about this." Signing documentation that something has been done also makes sense, given that it has. The "will execute" does not, as no one has complete control over their environment. What to do? I'd add something to the effect, "given that I am provided the resources I need to accomplish the end." If that is unacceptable, then something deeper is of great concern. I hold my signature fairly precious.

MikeMelendez 2003.01.27

Hmmmm, that's interesting. Jobs often come with contracts of one form or another. Things like NDAs. But also in employment contracts, or job offers, there are often (at least in the US) two clauses:

• The "employment at will" clause, that states that employment is at will. You've got no "right" to an expectation of future employment.
• The "additional duties" clause, that states that the job includes such additional duties as the organization may require.
  • "Additional duties" may specifically refer to executing contracts, and similar instruments, as part of the job.

Now, I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV. But, employment contracts as written usually read like an attempt to let the company do whatever it wants, whenever it wants, with no obligations or consequences.

I'm not sure what an "operating plan" is about in this case. It sounds a bit like the organization is putting some performance management in place, when there hasn't been much in the past. It smells a bit like a broad-swipe attempt to position the company to be able to manage to performance. If the company doesn't make it's operating plan, a layoff could be positioned as "for cause" (even though under at will employment cause does not have to be shown.)

The other thing that comes to mind for me is that the organization is trying to get people engaged and enlisted in some goals it has. This is more like a morale or focus building thing.

Maybe you could ask a question about whether you are signing up to deliver something specific, or asserting that you agree in principle?

-- JimBullock, 2003.1.27

Jim, yes, the operating plan is something to focus people on the goals, objectives and intitiatves for the coming period. It's a given that if the company's performance is significantly lower than the operating plan, employees will be layed off.

SteveSmith 2003.01.28

Mike, your addendum is perfect.

When I have been on the contract issuing end, I have worked hard to make a balanced statement of commitment and work without a lot of legaleze.

Years ago when I had been looking for a job in the NE, I remember a company who demanded that applicants take a lie detector test. I couldn't imagine working at such a place. Especially since that technology isn't proven to be reliable.

Have any of you ever heard about or experienced odd hiring practices?

- BeckyWinant 2-27-03