Yes they do, plus some of us people over 18 have kiddie foot sizes. I’m a 3 1/2 in American terms.
I saw a couple of guys yesterday wearing some pretty amazing clothing choices: one had light-up shoes and the other one’s were HelloKitty…
I’m as far outside the sizes curve as you can be, but the only time an office chair caused me pain, I was able to solve it by using one of the visitor chairs which my coworkers with longer legs found horribly uncomfortable. EHS didn’t even need to get involved and I certainly did not, nor ever would have, bring my own furniture: if there hadn’t been alternative well-fitting-for-me chairs available, I would have called EHS and gotten the company to provide me (as they must, by law) with tools appropriate to the job. And, unlike Foxy40’s new hire, I was required to sit at my desk all day except for meetings.
He said they have lights. I have no idea if they were Nike or whatever. My comment above was snarky. I assume lights mean they are the kind that flash when you walk.
Here’s what I don’t get, Bosstone: WHY should I (or anyone else) have to prove that the chairs cause pain? There is no downside to letting someone have their own chair. Sunk cost or no (someone else can use the already-purchased chair, or replace a broken one with it), it’s either free or money-saving, and it makes the employees happier. It just seems petty to me:
Employee: I would like to bring my own chair from home.
Boss: No.
Employee: Why not? It’s comfortable and I like it.
Boss: Because other people might want to do it, too.
Employee: Why does that matter?
Boss: BECAUSE I SAID SO.
[/QUOTE]
PLUS
EQUALS
…
“Because I said so.” is such an easier answer to blurt out rather than a well thought out logical explanation, many employers don’t take the time to explain their “No” answers, but I believe most of them have thought it through and don’t want to feel bothered explaining themselves. They got better things to do than spending a good deal of time explaining their actions and decisions to their employees. In this case, where we might have an employee pushing for more details, I would take the time (and I have…MANY TIMES) to explain my thought process to arrive at my decision and most of the time, the employee usually sees my point of view as well (except the totally selfish employees). In this day and age, you have to treat employees equally as best you can, and you are forced to think in absolutes (All or Nothing) and how each case affects the business.
Oh, and furnish ergonomic chairs in your office in the first place.
I understand your point, Yeticus Rex. It just doesn’t mesh with my experience. When I had office-type businesses (as opposed to the bookstore I have now), we allowed employees to bring their own chairs and such.
Since we supplied them with decent chairs in the first place, only a few were interesting in ponying up the money to bring in one of their own. It’s not like every chair in the building was different.
Also, we found ourselves buying chairs on a regular basis. We were expanding, so we needed to buy chairs for new people, and chairs do break and/or wear out, so we were replacing those. Even after a few people brought in their own chairs, we didn’t find ourselves having to store them.
The policies carried forth to other furniture items as well. Few employees wore hats, so if you wanted a hat rack, you brought in your own. Several people brought in their own lamps instead of using our task lighting. I had a lovely old oak desk at home that I wasn’t using, so I put it in my office at work and saved the company a few hundred dollars. In 20+ years as a manager/entrepreneur, I don’t ever recall having problems because of people bringing in their own furniture from home, and it made my employees happier, more comfortable, and probably (I didn’t do any actual studies) more productive.
The difference – as I see it, of course – between my approach and that of the OP and Bosstone, is that they ask “why should I let the employees do this?” and I ask “why shouldn’t I let the employees do this?”
The difference – as I see it, of course – between my approach and that of the OP and Bosstone, is that they ask “why should I let them do this?” and I ask “why shouldn’t I let them do this?”
[/QUOTE]
I don’t know why you’re so insistent on acting like we’re oppressive powermongers who don’t know our asses from our brains.
“Why shouldn’t I let them do this?” leads to the exact same conclusions we’ve been arguing from throughout the thread. Reasons have been given throughout the thread why not. Depending on the circumstances of a workplace, those reasons have more or less weight.
As I have read through this thread these past days, I have to ask myself, have these people that think people can bring in their own fancy chairs at will actually WORKED in an office with many people? Chairs, desks, size of offices are all signs of prestige. The new guy with no seniority sitting in the huge leather chair while others sit in smaller cloth task chairs because they can’t afford to buy better out of pocket will irritate people. There is no doubt in my mind that this would be the case which is why I ultimately said no. I remember when I got a new computer for my office. There was a promotion and it came with a 17 inch flat screen monitor. I was fine with my monitor and decided to give it to my assistant. What a mistake that was. At the time most had those big desk top monitors and within days, I was getting complaints that they take up too much space and if Stacy got one, why can’t they have one.
Didn’t have to learn that lesson more than once. People want fairness with their office supplies and I don’t see that as an unreasonable request.
I spent over 20 years as a Silicon Valley entrepreneur, Foxy. I hired (and kept, and promoted) people for their skills and knowledge and didn’t put up with such crap. There were certainly arguments over who got offices with doors and who got windows and so on. We set up a policy on those, and then allowed everyone to decorate their area as they chose (within reason).
The only time we had trouble from letting people decorate their own workspaces was when one of the guys brought in a bikini girl calendar. The next day, one of the women brought in a shirtless cowboy calendar. Before it had a chance to escalate further, I told them both to knock it off. We didn’t need to spell out rules stating what’s offensive and what’s not. They were grownups. When told to stop it, they stopped it.
Another reason, IMO, for not allowing the big leather chair - I don’t know how large the office in question is, but those big leather chairs take up more room than a task chair. In addition to the loss of space if everyone has one, they are much more of a pain in the ass to shove out of the way to get where you are going. If you have several employees - who have to get up to leave the room in the course of their duties - you are going to have time wasted pushing a big chair out of the way versus walking around a task chair. A few minutes may not seem like much, but to the patient waiting on the employee it may seem long added to the time they’ve already been waiting.
Additionally, again IMO, an office with mismatched chairs doesn’t look professional. I don’t know why.
Yes, I have, as I’ve said before. You can manage to minimize opportunities for the petty people to get petty, or you can manage to minimize the pettiness. I’m a big fan of the latter approach; it really sounds to me like you think the pettiness is inevitable, but in my experience, it’s not. If it’s the pettiness, rather than the quirkiness, that’s squashed, then it gets squashed.
The thermostat here is set at 65 degrees. My current boss sincerly believes people are more productive when it’s chilly and that if he turned the heat up, people would fall asleep at their desks. For those of us near the big windows, it’s blankets on our laps and fingerless gloves.
That’s not really a safe assumption. I’ve worked at places where everyone seemed contented and got along well because it truly was a good place to be. I’ve also worked at plenty of places over the years where people seem contented because they’re biding their time till they find another job and get along well because they’re united by their burning hatred of that place and the people who run it. The kind of place where you look at the employment records and the only person who was there 5 years ago who is still there is the manager. (Hell, at my last vet clinic, the only ones who have been there three years are the vet and his wife/office manager. Seriously. They’ve been in business almost 30 years and their very most senior employee was hired during the Obama administration.)
Let me make clear that I don’t disagree with you. In terms of justice, moral rectitude, etc. etc. I don’t think the petty whiners should be catered to either.
However, the time and energy spent in dealing with interpersonal problems is far greater, especially if you want to do it well, than simply not introducing the problem into the workplace in the first place. It’s not the best solution by far, but it is the most expedient, particularly if one judges that one’s particular workplace will not be that much less happy and productive with company-furnished chairs than if they can bring in their own.
It may be morally right to stand up for the deserving party in squashing the petty whiners, but that won’t get the work done.
When we sold our software company, I was quite proud of how long most of our employees had been there. Turnover was very low. Part of it was the environment, as we’ve been discussing. Part was a strong drive to promote from within (e.g., our first receptionist ended up as the national sales manager ten years later, and one of our tech support guys ended up as a senior software analyst in five years).
I know part of it is just management style, and I’m not saying bosstone (for example) is “wrong.” I apologize if that’s how I came across. My father worked at IBM for 37 years. Aside from a picture of the wife & kids on the desk, every office was the same. There are employees who like a strict environment where everybody’s desk looks the same; where it feels like you’re at work and not an extension of your home. There are also employees who like a comfortable environment where nobody sweats the petty stuff, and if you want to hang your third-grader’s picture on your cubicle wall or bring in a pretty lamp for your desk, you won’t be chastised for it.
Not letting an employee bring in a chair makes the relationship and environment crystal clear: I’m your boss, not your friend. When you’re here, you will act and look (I notice offices with strict decoration rules also often have strict dress codes) like everybody else. Do the job, don’t make waves, go home at five. If that’s what you’re going for, that’s fine. Just realize a lot of people (like me) would accept a job at a place like that when the economy sucks and jobs are scarce, but they’ll be out the door as soon as things get better.
That’s really all I was after. I realize it wouldn’t work for you or the companies you typically work at, but that doesn’t mean it’s always inappropriate, without exception, to place limits on what’s allowed in the workplace. It’s not necessarily going to be suffocating or soul-crushing or powertripping, though I readily admit it can be if wielded arbitrarily or improperly.
I spent over 20 years as a Silicon Valley entrepreneur, Foxy. I hired (and kept, and promoted) people for their skills and knowledge and didn’t put up with such crap. There were certainly arguments over who got offices with doors and who got windows and so on. We set up a policy on those, and then allowed everyone to decorate their area as they chose (within reason).
[/QUOTE]
Doors, windows, larger offices, all comparable to an executive leather chair. Everyone wants bigger and better than the next guy. As I said before, I let them paint, decorate, bring in plants, listen to music, put stuffed animals all over, have posted note art but none of those change the perception of who has more power like a big leather chair or a larger desk or a private bathroom.