PROCEDURES
___________________

    Procedures should be laid down for the following:
1.    to aid/circumvent possible consequences of actions which may not be suitable for a particular workplace.
2.    to placate those who devise them as a means of 'covering their backs'.

    They are laid down by:
1.    persons who have had personal experiences of the actions which afflict others and can therefore offer advice.
2.    persons who feel they know best (but usually don't have any knowledge and/or experience i.e. controllers)
3.    by persons who are 'employed' to create procedures (e.g. politicians, who have no knowledge other than departed         upon them by 1, or 2, above).

Procedures are rules. Rules are for the commonplace.
Laws are different. They are the bully tactics to preserve a Right of Might.
    Procedures should be made by those who actually have personal knowledge and experience of a number of actions and behaviours common to human beings.
    Procedures, as laid down as rules, and are meant to be followed, if any sort of 'justice' to the parties involved is to have any meaning at all in the survival of the Human Race, as it is defined.
    Procedures should be designed to aid human development and survival. That is, they should be a positive means to achieve an outcome that is satisfactory to the individuals concerned, whether they be corporate or otherwise.
    Therefore, if procedures are not followed, there may be injustice to and for all.
    Justice, of course, is a notion to provide a common approval for behaviours for the survival of mankind (good or bad as defined by philosophers). It should know, no bounds.
    If a procedure is to be included in a defined set of circumstances, then it must be followed, if any sense of justice prevails.
    So, intrinsically, failing to observe procedures should negate the original incident.
    Therein lies a problem.
    Are potential instigators of an incident involving a specific incident sufficiently knowledgeable to be able to follow such a system of procedures? If the procedure is not clearly defined in terms of Plain English, and if there is no communication of this, does their failure to follow such procedures preclude them from not making them in the first place?
    In other words, people should be made aware of the procedures of their certain actions before they embark on their own method of communication to an assumed 'authority'. However, given that their communication is in ignorance of any procedures, should they then be castigated for not having followed them? Or indeed can their claims be nullified for not having followed any procedures?
    Given that a procedure is instigated by a body but is not publicised in such a manner that an 'ordinary' person  can be acquainted with that procedure, where does it leave the instigator of a complaint? Given that also, what is the position of the person about which the complaint is made?
    Complaint procedures from all parties included in any form of contract of/to work should be made explicit in the induction of a work-person to the/a work-place. This may seem like tedious work for the/an employer but it is essential in the resolution of a (possible) work-place dispute.
    In other words, if you own a business and employ others to work with or for you, you must make it quite plain from the outset, what the requirements of that work placement are. These details should be made in Plain English. This is a total situation, not a temporary one.
    So that you can conduct your business as you would wish, your employees must be given the:
    chance to work
    a salary agreed upon by both (with upgrades if necessary)
    terms and conditions of that work (times, clothing, etc.)
    a grievence procedure that works
    a complaints procedure that is equitable to all
    a communication channel to air views without come-back

Failure of any one of these may result in a situation that is

1.     not viable as a work situation
2.    the subject of a litigation
3.    bad feelings and guilt for both parties
4.    more expense than you want to deal with



Return to CONTENTS page