Train supervisors to properlyhandle employee abuses

EDITORIAL: Municipal workers abusing their positions need supervision as well as ordinance changes

   The Township Committee is to vote next week on proposed changes to municipal employees’ working hours, in response to what apparently is abuse by some employees.
   We say "apparently" because, although ample anecdotal evidence is offered, there haven’t been any specific examples cited why the matter has been designated ordinance no. 1 by the new committee.
   The problem appears to be one of abuse, however, rather than an unworkable policy and we’re wondering if the ordinance will address the problem or the symptoms of a problem.
   The changes set the working hours for most municipal workers at 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., and eliminates a provision in the municipal code that offers employees a 30-minute variance on starting their day with approval from their department heads.
   Currently, municipal law doesn’t specify the hours for employees, specifying instead a regular "work week" as opposed to a regular "work day."
   Which strikes us as odd — how many employers are there without clearly defined working days, hours and even job descriptions? We doubt very many enterprises still exist in such a pliable environment (at least, outside of a few software and computer firms that are known for their lack of scheduling).
   But a municipal government should certainly have reasonable regulation over its workers, and specifying the bounds of a normal work day is hardly objectionable.
   However, we would prefer to see the committee retain the flextime provisions in its policy. Dropping the provision will have an unfair impact on any single parents working for the township, and we can’t imagine any department has been unduly affected by an employee’s need for an extra half-hour.
   That’s assuming the employees’ supervisors and department heads — who have to approve changes in hours according to the current policy — are not giving permission indiscriminately and without thought to staffing needs.
   And that’s where the ordinance falls short: stating the hours for employees is fine, but isn’t this really a problem of supervision?
   Whether the policy states employees must be at work at 8 a.m. or not seems moot if no one is watching the employees.
   And if a few employees are taking two-hour lunches — which is not precluded in either the current or updated versions of the ordinance — then isn’t that the fault of the employees’ supervisors?
   Perhaps what’s needed more than a change in handbooks and ordinances is some training for the township employees who supervise others, training that will help them know how to deal with the worker who’s chronically late or a leisurely lunchtime diner.
   After passing the ordinance, the committee should look to getting all township supervisors on board so that abuses can be handled properly.