When the tragedy strikes, organisations respond in very different ways, none of which could be faulted on any moral grounds, but it surely generates heated debates within the organisation itself.
Read this excerpt from The Week [Oct 3, 2010], Tatas have taken the most benevolent option. But there are other options available too.
[Quote] When terror struck the landmark Taj Mahal Palace, far away, her beautiful world shattered.
On the fateful day, Mohammad left home at 7 p.m., his usual time. He did not return the next day, but the news of his death in a blast inside the taxi he drove did. November 26 claimed the lives of many others, who left behind grieving wives, daughters and sons, parents and friends. The 26/11 terror attack not only shook Mumbai but the entire country and changed the course of history.
Momima is illiterate. Mohammad, who was the sole breadwinner in the family, had no savings. Without income, Momima struggled to put food on the table and pay the monthly rent of Rs. 1,600 for her kholi (home). Fate had thrust another responsibility on her. Momima’s fourth son, Harhaan, was born a few months after Mohammad’s death. She knew the Rs.5 lakh compensation given by the government would run out soon.
The Taj Public Service Welfare Trust, set up days after the 26/11 attacks, came to her rescue. The trust has been giving her Rs.10,000 a month for the last seven months. “I have no idea what the future has in store for me. But for this support from the trust, I would have killed myself,” Momima tells THE WEEK.
In addition to providing the money, the trust has also taken up the responsibility of funding her children’s education, for which she is grateful. “The fee is directly deposited in the school,” she says. “I was offered a job by the trust but I could not go as there was nobody to look after my children.” [Unquote]
The decision of Tatas to help the affected persons is exceptional for two reasons: Firstly, They have surpassed expectations of a common man [not an easy task] from an industrial house. Secondly, They have done it without any publicity or without any intention to gain mileage out of it; they have allowed a common man to ‘discover’ it.
In the case of Mohammad, he was not an employee of Taj. But what if he were?
What happens when a person dies in harness? Tatas are known to offer job to a deceased employee’s wife in such a situation. No doubt it is a magnanimous offer. It helps the deceased employee’s family. But there is a flip side. Very often the lady is not ready for the job, so she has to undergo some training. She is often considered a ‘dead wood’ by many managers because of her inability to perform at a level equal or higher than others. This is not true in all cases, but it happens in many such instances. The lady often finds the organisational life humiliating.
There are many HR Managers who do not subscribe to this solution. They say that one must recruit exclusively on merit. So they recommend that enough fund should be invested so that the family [at least] earns as much as the last drawn salary of the deceased employee. This way one offers financial security and avoids employing the unemployable. This approach too has its negatives.
What would be your solution in a case when an employee dies in harness?
Vivek
Related
No doubt merit should be the sole reason for employment in a normal senario. But in cases of harness I feel that that should not be the case. After all, the family of the deceased person will have to be given enough benefits to support themselves.
I feel that designing a strong training program for such persons ( to the alternate employed persons) and ensuring they acquire sufficient skills to do the job is very important. What can be done is that, passing the post-training tests will only lead enjoying the whole benefit.
In this way, the problem of poor skills etc can be eliminated and the family will also benefit from the re-employment. Also,, the re-employed person will be forced to work his/her level best to deliver decent performance in the organization
Every aspect in life cannot be measured in money and employability. The ASK model propagated by the HR community should be practiced in such cases. The HR manager who do not subscribe to such supportive action should be classified as "Harassment & Retrenchment" managers and dismissed from employment.
The humanitarian approach by big Industrial Houses like Tatas is a much needed helping hand to victims and their kin. The work done by the Tatas is truly commendable. Employability on merit basis definitely should be the sole criteria, and as madhu says 'in normal circumstances', however in cases of harness, the approach shifts to providing another breadwinner for the afflicted family at least in earning terms. Hats off to organizations who can look beyond the deciding employability criteria and broaden the humane aspect to put in practice what many only preach.
When an employee dies in harness/normal circumstances… Employment shall be provided to the employee's family depending on their qualification/skillset/competency. The focus shall be to provide the same financial resources through one of the family member as it were earlier.
Considering the case above, the employer can certainly go for providing training program to increase the employability of the deceased's family member. However, the catch is.. if the family member is unfit (becoz of qualification etc) for the employer's organisation, then where else he/she'll go.
The monetary compensation (lumpsum) part shall be separate for the two instances. It shall be more in harness than in normal circumstances. However the monthly part will depend on the efforts made by the employer..
A difficult question to answer Sir! The loss can't be made up completely but an organization can try to reduce the financial burden on the family and provide the wife/another family member with a productive occupation – staying occupied with something after a loss helps you in overcoming the loss. Hence i think the question a HR Manager should ask is "What do i need to do to make him/her employable?" rather than "Is he/she employable?"
I agree with what Sourav has said.
The loss of a person in a family can never be made up. However, slowly and steadily, the family needs to start facing the fact and become self-sufficient, both emotionally and financially.
We as HR professionals should try and help them in this endeavour. A job could be offered as per the skill level, and compensated as per regular standards. However, in the beginning, an additional allowance for the loss of a member could be given to reach the previous income.
Slowly, with training and skill enhancement, and hence, better job prospects, the compensation could increase and allowance could decrease. The allowance, of course, comes from the trust/CSR funds. The compensation could come from the regular budget.
This way, the company helps the family to stand back – and not remain crushed forever, and the pain for the family gets cushioned, at least financially.
This is just a thought that I had, the practicality of this suggestion needs to be checked.
Rutvi