Editorial | HR support for Parliament

By now, good sense, we hope, has prevailed and Colleen Lowe, the clerk to the Houses of Parliament, has withdrawn her threat of disciplinary action against staff who come to work with hickeys.

They would be sent home, Ms Lowe said in an internal memo, which was reported on by this newspaper, and have the day deducted from their leave entitlement.

It is not clear what would happen if the mark remained longer than a day, say, a week or 10 days. Would the staff member be suspended for that entire period? And to be clear, suspension is what the clerk’s intended sanction is, or would be.

The proposed rule, which should have been implemented by April 28, appears on its face impractical, a ludicrous overreach, an attempt at encroachment of personal rights, and patently unenforceable.

Some cynics might see in it an attempt to impose prudish standards at the workplace, with the unintended consequence of industrial voyeurism.

Hickeys are usually small, inflamed marks or bruises on the people’s skin, mostly visible on the neck. They are often associated with biting or sucking of the skin during love making, hence their being called “love marks”.

IMAGINATIONS IN OVERDRIVE

But as much as these marks may put people’s imaginations into overdrive, they are not – as a slew of serious commentators have pointed out (and Ms Lowe ought to now know) – only caused in the throes of passion. They might result, for instance, from insect bites.

Some people have birthmarks that resemble hickeys. Or they might be the result of some form of dermatitis, such as eczema.

So, this is the potential backdrop against which Ms Lowe intended to enforce her directive in furtherance of the Public Staff Orders that requires employees to be professional in dress and appearance.

Ms Lowe said she wasn’t intruding in people’s private lives, but that staff had to reflect the dignity of the institution.

It is not clear what, or if, any specific incident triggered Ms Lowe’s action. However, this newspaper agrees with veteran trade unionist Helene Davis Whyte, not only that the threat was ridiculous, but that it is a blunt-tooled intrusion into people’s private lives – the very thing Ms Lowe said she didn’t intend to do.

As Ms Davis Whyte advised, the better approach if, and when, these incidents are reported, would be to have a quiet chat with the employee about her concerns. The staff is likely to already be embarrassed by having a visible mark, however caused, on their body.

FLUMMOXED

Further, we, like the lawyer, Gavin Goffe, are flummoxed as to how having a hickey could be interpreted as breaching the dress code of public servants. Is it the mark of itself, or the process by which the mark was derived?

In the event of the latter, perhaps Parliament should have a doctor on hand to test whether a visible mark on an employee’s body, especially on the neck, was the result of a pimple, eczema, psoriasis, maybe, or even shingles.

The point is, public policy and workplace rules shouldn’t be irrational, illogical or the subject of whim. They ought not to be easily laughed at or spoofed.

Parliament, unfortunately, is in danger of developing such a reputation in human resource/employee relations management.

A year ago, the former clerk, the highly respected Valrie Curtis, was unwarrantedly reprimanded by Speaker Juliet Holness for supposedly failing to return, as per Ms Holness’ instruction, a report by the auditor general, which the Speaker had deemed ought not to be tabled.

The letter of reprimand was circulated to parliamentarians while Ms Curtis was on leave, and was in the public domain even before she had seen it. It turned out that Ms Curtis had done her job correctly. It required a public outcry before the letter of reprimand was grudgingly removed from Ms Curtis’ file, as she went into retirement.

The managers at Parliament appear in need of a refresher course in HR management. The personnel department of the Public Services Commission should oblige.