Apologies for the hairdressing puns, but today’s HR problem relates to a Hairdressing Salon I work with.
Cindy is around 40, and a junior member of the hairdressing hierarchy, but a valuable one, nonetheless.
Cindy is contracted to work 4 evenings a week, Monday to Thursday because they don’t open late on Friday. Her hours are between 4.30 and 9pm. Because Linsi was seconded to a sister-salon, Cindy was asked if she would mind doing two evenings and two mornings for a while, until Linsi came back. Cindy was happy to, so the Salon Manager got in a temporary person called Jan to cover the other two evenings.
Sadly the sister-salon closed, and Linsi had to come back after about 9 months, putting Jan out of a job, and Cindy back to her 4 evenings a week. Jan was sad, but knew this was on the cards at some point, and went to find another job. Linsi went back to her job during the day, and Cindy was therefore required to revert to her old work pattern.
Except, in the 9 months, Cindy’s husband had changed jobs, leaving Cindy with a child-care problem on a Thursday evening. So what did Cindy do?
Did she find a babysitter? No
Did she start looking for another job? No
She came to her manager and demanded her work pattern remain at 2 evenings and 2 mornings a week.
Well, her manager told her she could not accomodate her in this work pattern any longer – as all the day work was covered, and Cindy’s contract was for 4 evenings a week, so that’s what she’d have to do.
So Cindy sulked and cried and stamped her feet because she said the hairdressing salon should be accomodating her personal needs because she’s got children………………………………………………….
So what do you make of that, aspiring HR managers???
What do you think my advice was?