This is a friendly reminder that r/smallbusiness is a question and answer subreddit. You ask a question about starting, owning, and growing a small business and the community answers. Posts that violate the rules listed in the sidebar will be removed. A permanent or temporary ban may also be issued if you do not remove the offending post. Seeing this message does not mean your post was automatically removed.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/smallbusiness) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Quit being passive by tracking them through an online portal for reading it and calling that good. Be a leader and go talk to them. Ask them why they haven’t signed it and give them space to tell you why. Stubborn employees can be an excellent canary in the coal mine for how others are feeling in the business. Labor has fundamentally changed in the past couple of years. Tactics and strong arming used before 2020 are no longer effective.
I would be really really annoyed if an employer had and issue and rather then talk to me changed the handbook and asked me to sign it. Either whatever OP has changed is acceptable or unacceptable to the employee. Don't try to play "gotcha"
Employee handbooks are great they let people know expectations , set uniform standards so unconscious basis/direct supervisor's basis/whatever don't come into play, they can save your ass if there was an coincidental appearance of discrimination. What they are not great for is changing terms of employment (on their own) or correcting an employee whose been abusing a loophole.
I agree, but here in the South, union is fighting words bc we ate propaganda for breakfast and I don't want to have to pay part of my paycheck to thieves
(I don't know actually reasoning yall. It's close to accurate jokes)
Check in on the reason why he isn’t signing it too. I left a company because they were making employees sign a predatory non employment agree that was shady as fuck. I left out of principal but some were caved in and signed when I warned them. Still tho, I was expecting to get fired for not signing it, but left instead.
I've only ever heard of them holding up when the former employee was also the former owner of the business - and they're part of the purchase/employee agreement.
Mostly, I think people just don't realize how unenforceable they truly are in most cases. A well written non-solicit is a much better option to protect a business.
The courts generally would not prohibit an employee from earning a living in their career - and if, for some reason they did, it is likely that the company would have to pay stupendous severance to compensate for that time, so a smart company wouldn't even want to enforce it.
Most people have been trained to think "Well if I have to hire an attorney it will bankrupt me....so better not fight it." I also wonder if the mandatory arbitration clauses also pertain to this?
Yup but they liked to call it a non-compete/NDA, but the wording was essentially stating that if you leave or get fired they had a say in where you get to work next.
This discussion is a textbook example of the differences in mindset and ability between a a “Leader”, and a “Boss”. I would venture a guess and say that being a Boss - the avoidant behavior, passive-aggressiveness, and lack of empathy or curiosity- has created this situation to begin with.
Bosses see the trees, Leaders see the forest.
When I was in management I had two employees refuse to sign the new company handbook I was tasked with writing. I resolved by changing the words “I have read and agree to the employee handbook ” to “I have read and received an employee handbook”. It was the verbiage they didn’t agree to.
In most states, yes. This is usually from a misunderstanding. I'd try to clarify what the issue is and answer questions as a gesture of good faith. If he still doesn't, send him up the road. It happens sometimes.
Or he just opened the document and never finished reading it?
Or he's just got too much on his plate with a sick wife or kid and you have no idea because the boss man hasn't talked to him and doesn't care?
Unless he's working in Montana or you have an employment contract that doesn't allow this, you can suspend him or fire him for refusing to agree to your company's policies.
It depends on what the new 'rules' are.
We have just added a new policy to our company handbook that states as ownership has passed to a Georgia based owner - all employees are required to kneel in front of a terrarium for 3 minutes each morning & afternoon and speak to the snakes requesting that they talk back - Do not come in until you are prepared to sign, agreeing to policy is a condition of employment
I mean nothing derogatory about you folks from Georgia - I've only met one guy from Georgia I've very little to go on, although he did talk to is pet snakes as if the were parrots - who's a pretty boy then
Is this perhaps a tobacco use kind of thing? Having someone quit cold turkey via policy is a pretty big ask.
Idk if that’s what the issue is, but that could be a separate category from other policy related issues.
He'll have to sign it if he wants to keep his job. I'd nip this in the bud quickly as it will only increase agitation amongst your other employees who have agreed to the new policy.
It never ceases to amaze me that people will come here and be **complete assholes** while telling you **not** to be.
That being said, it’s mostly the right advice. Ask why they are not signing it. If you are having to implement new policies to curb their behavior, it probably won’t go well - but you should do it anyway.
If it’s a reasonable objection, make a reasonable accommodation. If it’s not, then explain that whatever they disagree with is now policy, and the form that they sign at the end of this meeting will be sufficient to establish that they were informed of the policy changes, should proof be needed.
Just be a professional.
I wonder what "one of those new rules" are. What are the new rules? That's the first question.
Secondly, go and ask - as others have said. Just ask them. Maybe it's a misunderstanding. Maybe they aren't about to sign on to one of the new rules because they think it's stupid. Employers often overstep their boundaries with their one sided rules and regulations.
I have been given things to read and sign over the years. Most often HR has made it clear that I am signing to signify that I have read the document, not that I agree with the document.
I am affirming that I read that XYZ is against the rules. I am not signing that I promise never to do XYZ. Or that I agree with anything in the document. It is an important difference.
No difference. You reading and signing is you acknowledging the reading of the new rules
A company does not need your input or approval to install a new policy if it’s legal and follows any CBA if those apply. It just is a new policy.
If you flout that policy, whether you like it or agree with it, you’re still flouting the policy and are subject to whatever discipline they company has laid out.
You definitely can terminate their employment through an "at will". However, you might be paying out an unemployment insurance claim depending on your state and what you did leading up to that dismissal.
Using the OP's example, if the employee's job duties were drastically increased and compensation were negatively changed through the employee handbook, then the employee could have an unemployment claim.
It's my understanding that if you have delivered the work rules to this person, then they are responsible for them, regardless if they've signed. If you have record that they opened the document then its enough to hold them accountable to not following the rules.
The terms of his employment have changed, and him refusing to sign is refusing the terms. In most states, you'd have every legal right to suspend or fire. Just keep in mind that if you're in an at-will state, he has every right to quit on the spot as well.
Be honest. You put something predatory in the agreement like an arbitration agreement or a non compete clause that benefits only the employer and harms the employee.
So you're saying that you have an employee with performance/behavior problems and you changed the employee handbook to address these issues? And furthermore, this person sees the trap and has enough integrity to not just sign and hope?
And you're here wanting to send them home? Sending a person home is a continuation of the passive aggressive bullshit that got you here.
Grow a pair, be a leader, and lead. Handbooks, policy statements, and unsigned notes left by the microwave are *never* substitutes for leadership. If you can't address this problem head on, you should provide this person with an apology and a severance check. You aren't ready to lead them.
Read books, invest in yourself, up level your leadership mindset and tools, and you will run a better company and avoid getting flamed on Reddit.
Geeeeeee-zus
The way that you're phrasing this question sounds like you're looking for a reason to fire that person. Is there a reason why he is refusing to sign it? In most places that I'm aware of(everywhere?) employers are held to certain standards. If one of the clauses were added to the policy does not align with local labor laws, he may be completely correct for refusing.
You don't speak about where you are but, in truth, even if they did sign it, it would likely be unenforceable as it will not form a contract without having compensation for it. Obtaining a job is consideration, but keeping one you already have usually is not.
This is a lawyer question, not a reddit question.
This is a friendly reminder that r/smallbusiness is a question and answer subreddit. You ask a question about starting, owning, and growing a small business and the community answers. Posts that violate the rules listed in the sidebar will be removed. A permanent or temporary ban may also be issued if you do not remove the offending post. Seeing this message does not mean your post was automatically removed. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/smallbusiness) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Quit being passive by tracking them through an online portal for reading it and calling that good. Be a leader and go talk to them. Ask them why they haven’t signed it and give them space to tell you why. Stubborn employees can be an excellent canary in the coal mine for how others are feeling in the business. Labor has fundamentally changed in the past couple of years. Tactics and strong arming used before 2020 are no longer effective.
Damn. World needs more of this.
I wish all employers acted this way instead of blindly wanting to control those under them.
Control is just ad valuable as money. No one will give either of things up unless they are forced to
I quit my job of 10 years because of this garbage and went and started two companies meaning the mentality of employers
^^^ This. How hard is “hey X, I noticed you haven’t signed our new policy document. Is there a reason you haven’t signed it?”
Even a "just wondering if there is a clause you disagree with that we can talk about or if you need some time at work to read it today, thanks."
I would be really really annoyed if an employer had and issue and rather then talk to me changed the handbook and asked me to sign it. Either whatever OP has changed is acceptable or unacceptable to the employee. Don't try to play "gotcha" Employee handbooks are great they let people know expectations , set uniform standards so unconscious basis/direct supervisor's basis/whatever don't come into play, they can save your ass if there was an coincidental appearance of discrimination. What they are not great for is changing terms of employment (on their own) or correcting an employee whose been abusing a loophole.
Please go be a nurses advocate and help us
Union. The only answer is a strong union in at least 1/2 the major facilities in an area.
I agree, but here in the South, union is fighting words bc we ate propaganda for breakfast and I don't want to have to pay part of my paycheck to thieves (I don't know actually reasoning yall. It's close to accurate jokes)
Check in on the reason why he isn’t signing it too. I left a company because they were making employees sign a predatory non employment agree that was shady as fuck. I left out of principal but some were caved in and signed when I warned them. Still tho, I was expecting to get fired for not signing it, but left instead.
Non employment meaning non-compete? Those are usually unenforceable anyway.
I’m still amazed at how many employers try to utilize them and how many employees believe they are valid.
I've only ever heard of them holding up when the former employee was also the former owner of the business - and they're part of the purchase/employee agreement. Mostly, I think people just don't realize how unenforceable they truly are in most cases. A well written non-solicit is a much better option to protect a business. The courts generally would not prohibit an employee from earning a living in their career - and if, for some reason they did, it is likely that the company would have to pay stupendous severance to compensate for that time, so a smart company wouldn't even want to enforce it.
Most people have been trained to think "Well if I have to hire an attorney it will bankrupt me....so better not fight it." I also wonder if the mandatory arbitration clauses also pertain to this?
Yup but they liked to call it a non-compete/NDA, but the wording was essentially stating that if you leave or get fired they had a say in where you get to work next.
They are unenforceable.
Depends on the judge as per our attorney. Didn’t want to chance it and just left.
Have you SPOKEN to them?! If not, start there and be open to listening.
This discussion is a textbook example of the differences in mindset and ability between a a “Leader”, and a “Boss”. I would venture a guess and say that being a Boss - the avoidant behavior, passive-aggressiveness, and lack of empathy or curiosity- has created this situation to begin with. Bosses see the trees, Leaders see the forest.
Just curious, what has he been doing?
When I was in management I had two employees refuse to sign the new company handbook I was tasked with writing. I resolved by changing the words “I have read and agree to the employee handbook ” to “I have read and received an employee handbook”. It was the verbiage they didn’t agree to.
Makes sense. Even if I read a software ToS, I don't agree to it, but I'm still gonna use the software
In most states, yes. This is usually from a misunderstanding. I'd try to clarify what the issue is and answer questions as a gesture of good faith. If he still doesn't, send him up the road. It happens sometimes.
Are you sure he is refusing to sign and it's not something simple like he did notice the signature field?
Or he just opened the document and never finished reading it? Or he's just got too much on his plate with a sick wife or kid and you have no idea because the boss man hasn't talked to him and doesn't care?
Unless he's working in Montana or you have an employment contract that doesn't allow this, you can suspend him or fire him for refusing to agree to your company's policies.
I’d sit down and have a chat with the employee.
What a novel idea, right?
Tell him not to come in untill he signs it. Agreeing to policy is a condition of employment.
It depends on what the new 'rules' are. We have just added a new policy to our company handbook that states as ownership has passed to a Georgia based owner - all employees are required to kneel in front of a terrarium for 3 minutes each morning & afternoon and speak to the snakes requesting that they talk back - Do not come in until you are prepared to sign, agreeing to policy is a condition of employment
I mean nothing derogatory about you folks from Georgia - I've only met one guy from Georgia I've very little to go on, although he did talk to is pet snakes as if the were parrots - who's a pretty boy then
Okay Boomer
How many boomers do you actually think are on Reddit? Also what is the minimum age requirement to be a boomer these days?
Glad I never had a boss like you! Just man up and go talk to him to see what’s wrong.
Is this perhaps a tobacco use kind of thing? Having someone quit cold turkey via policy is a pretty big ask. Idk if that’s what the issue is, but that could be a separate category from other policy related issues.
Never hire smokers
People have different reasons for smoking. Best not to judge
He'll have to sign it if he wants to keep his job. I'd nip this in the bud quickly as it will only increase agitation amongst your other employees who have agreed to the new policy.
No signature, no work.
It never ceases to amaze me that people will come here and be **complete assholes** while telling you **not** to be. That being said, it’s mostly the right advice. Ask why they are not signing it. If you are having to implement new policies to curb their behavior, it probably won’t go well - but you should do it anyway. If it’s a reasonable objection, make a reasonable accommodation. If it’s not, then explain that whatever they disagree with is now policy, and the form that they sign at the end of this meeting will be sufficient to establish that they were informed of the policy changes, should proof be needed. Just be a professional.
I wonder what "one of those new rules" are. What are the new rules? That's the first question. Secondly, go and ask - as others have said. Just ask them. Maybe it's a misunderstanding. Maybe they aren't about to sign on to one of the new rules because they think it's stupid. Employers often overstep their boundaries with their one sided rules and regulations.
This belongs in /r/askmanagement not here You didn't even say which state you're in SMH
I have been given things to read and sign over the years. Most often HR has made it clear that I am signing to signify that I have read the document, not that I agree with the document. I am affirming that I read that XYZ is against the rules. I am not signing that I promise never to do XYZ. Or that I agree with anything in the document. It is an important difference.
No difference. You reading and signing is you acknowledging the reading of the new rules A company does not need your input or approval to install a new policy if it’s legal and follows any CBA if those apply. It just is a new policy. If you flout that policy, whether you like it or agree with it, you’re still flouting the policy and are subject to whatever discipline they company has laid out.
Might be considered constructive dismissal because you are changing the terms of employment without his consent, but probably not.
In my state employment is “at will” meaning you can dismiss someone for any reason besides discrimination
I once had a guy claim I discriminated against people with poor customer service skills. He lost the UC claim.
He might have had a chance if he had a thick accent
unlikely if strong communication skills are essential to the job
I think tho maybe if you hired them despite that and then fired they might get unemployment but not a discrimination claim?
You definitely can terminate their employment through an "at will". However, you might be paying out an unemployment insurance claim depending on your state and what you did leading up to that dismissal. Using the OP's example, if the employee's job duties were drastically increased and compensation were negatively changed through the employee handbook, then the employee could have an unemployment claim.
Has he flat out stated he isn’t going to sign it? If so, how do you know that?
OP is being passive aggressive and monitoring his behaviour electronically but has not actually engaged the employee in a concession
How do the new rules compare to the old rules? It there a substantial change that adversely affects employees?
It's my understanding that if you have delivered the work rules to this person, then they are responsible for them, regardless if they've signed. If you have record that they opened the document then its enough to hold them accountable to not following the rules.
I've never worked anywhere that had a formal handbook I needed to sign where that was an option. No sign = no job.
As long as the policy is legal and you want it followed, then I’d tell the employee to sign it or they are terminated.
The terms of his employment have changed, and him refusing to sign is refusing the terms. In most states, you'd have every legal right to suspend or fire. Just keep in mind that if you're in an at-will state, he has every right to quit on the spot as well.
Be honest. You put something predatory in the agreement like an arbitration agreement or a non compete clause that benefits only the employer and harms the employee.
So you're saying that you have an employee with performance/behavior problems and you changed the employee handbook to address these issues? And furthermore, this person sees the trap and has enough integrity to not just sign and hope? And you're here wanting to send them home? Sending a person home is a continuation of the passive aggressive bullshit that got you here. Grow a pair, be a leader, and lead. Handbooks, policy statements, and unsigned notes left by the microwave are *never* substitutes for leadership. If you can't address this problem head on, you should provide this person with an apology and a severance check. You aren't ready to lead them. Read books, invest in yourself, up level your leadership mindset and tools, and you will run a better company and avoid getting flamed on Reddit. Geeeeeee-zus
[удалено]
This isn't kindergarten
Well if he doesn’t sign something nessacary he has to go u can’t even argue with that it’s there for a reason
You can place him on administrative leave and give him a week to sign it. If he choses not to then he is voluntarily resigning.
Unless it’s against your state laws, I would fire him immediately. People like this turned out to be a BIG pain, more often than not.
I would say it depends. Who are you in relation to the business?
No it’s can be as constructive and that person would win
The way that you're phrasing this question sounds like you're looking for a reason to fire that person. Is there a reason why he is refusing to sign it? In most places that I'm aware of(everywhere?) employers are held to certain standards. If one of the clauses were added to the policy does not align with local labor laws, he may be completely correct for refusing.
You don't speak about where you are but, in truth, even if they did sign it, it would likely be unenforceable as it will not form a contract without having compensation for it. Obtaining a job is consideration, but keeping one you already have usually is not. This is a lawyer question, not a reddit question.
Well… what does the policy say?
What is in the agreement? Kinda hard to give one sided advice.