Hi all,
One incident happened in our office where an employee with poor financial conditions was facing a critical situation. His father was admitted to the hospital ICU, and he urgently required financial help for further treatment. One of the employees sent an email to the entire group to inform them of the need for funds for the needy employee. The needy employee genuinely required funds, as it was verified. Unfortunately, no initiative was taken by HR in this regard.
However, for the sake of humanity, two employees took the initiative and collected funds in the form of donations from the office staff by going desk to desk. Based on the salary scales of the employees, a minimum donation amount was set: Rs 200 for associate level employees, Rs 500 for team leads, and Rs 1000 for managers. We collected a total of 30K funds and sent them to the needy employee.
In response, HR disagreed, stating that the step taken was not correct according to HR norms as it might set an expectation level among the other employees if they or their family members fall ill in the future. HR mentioned they stayed silent on the issue for this reason.
As an HR professional, please answer the following questions:
1. Did we act wrongly?
2. What should our HR have done after reading the donation requirement email?
3. Is it right that employees might develop expectations in the future, and is it correct that we should not have helped the needy employee?
4. Should we have stayed quiet and simply made donations of our choosing, even if the amount was only 1 to 2 thousand?
Please provide your feedback. I am not from an HR background and, despite doing a good deed, I feel disheartened by the criticism. I am willing to accept if it was indeed wrong.
From India, undefined
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
One incident happened in our office where an employee with poor financial conditions was facing a critical situation. His father was admitted to the hospital ICU, and he urgently required financial help for further treatment. One of the employees sent an email to the entire group to inform them of the need for funds for the needy employee. The needy employee genuinely required funds, as it was verified. Unfortunately, no initiative was taken by HR in this regard.
However, for the sake of humanity, two employees took the initiative and collected funds in the form of donations from the office staff by going desk to desk. Based on the salary scales of the employees, a minimum donation amount was set: Rs 200 for associate level employees, Rs 500 for team leads, and Rs 1000 for managers. We collected a total of 30K funds and sent them to the needy employee.
In response, HR disagreed, stating that the step taken was not correct according to HR norms as it might set an expectation level among the other employees if they or their family members fall ill in the future. HR mentioned they stayed silent on the issue for this reason.
As an HR professional, please answer the following questions:
1. Did we act wrongly?
2. What should our HR have done after reading the donation requirement email?
3. Is it right that employees might develop expectations in the future, and is it correct that we should not have helped the needy employee?
4. Should we have stayed quiet and simply made donations of our choosing, even if the amount was only 1 to 2 thousand?
Please provide your feedback. I am not from an HR background and, despite doing a good deed, I feel disheartened by the criticism. I am willing to accept if it was indeed wrong.
From India, undefined
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Please tell us that being a HR - is a typo.... It means being an HR please let us know asked questions.....I was one of those 2 employees who took initiative, I am not HR
From India, undefined
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, undefined
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Non-HR friend,
When an employee is under financial distress, he or she might approach his or her employer asking for monetary help. This could be in the form of either a financial loan or ex gratia. While the former has the obligation of repayment, the latter does not.
In your company's case, the needy employee should have approached for ex gratia. Did he submit a formal application? Possibly not.
You mentioned that one of the employees circulated an email to help the needy employee. The official means of communication was used to circulate the email, and the collection of money also took place on the office premises. However, for the employees who made contributions, it was in their personal capacity. Some informal dealings may occur in the office premises, and the employer cannot have 100% control over them.
From your post, it can be deduced that the employer was upset because the activity of money collection was done on the office premises. Whether the employer contributed anything is unknown, but most likely, there was no contribution. Now, the employer is concerned that the administration of the company might be perceived as impervious or inclement. He must have expressed his fear to HR, hence HR's view that the collection of contributions was wrong.
Anyway, whatever happened cannot be undone. All of you have done what you felt was noble. Debating whether HR was right or wrong is meaningless. Forget the incident and move on!
Thanks, Dinesh Divekar
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
8036When an employee is under financial distress, he or she might approach his or her employer asking for monetary help. This could be in the form of either a financial loan or ex gratia. While the former has the obligation of repayment, the latter does not.
In your company's case, the needy employee should have approached for ex gratia. Did he submit a formal application? Possibly not.
You mentioned that one of the employees circulated an email to help the needy employee. The official means of communication was used to circulate the email, and the collection of money also took place on the office premises. However, for the employees who made contributions, it was in their personal capacity. Some informal dealings may occur in the office premises, and the employer cannot have 100% control over them.
From your post, it can be deduced that the employer was upset because the activity of money collection was done on the office premises. Whether the employer contributed anything is unknown, but most likely, there was no contribution. Now, the employer is concerned that the administration of the company might be perceived as impervious or inclement. He must have expressed his fear to HR, hence HR's view that the collection of contributions was wrong.
Anyway, whatever happened cannot be undone. All of you have done what you felt was noble. Debating whether HR was right or wrong is meaningless. Forget the incident and move on!
Thanks, Dinesh Divekar
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
HR should not be totally rule-bound and mechanical in the application of rules. Rules are for guidance as well as implementation. But between the lines, if help can be rendered, why not? Collection of money from employees personally is a thing that can be overlooked, and HR can remain unaware officially (in this case, as the event has already taken place).
After a few days, HR can suggest to higher management a scheme of ex gratia or a loan to employees facing dire emergencies. HR can also subtly indicate to employees not to use the company email ID for such purposes and not to engage in fundraising on company premises.
Health emergencies are likely at any time. This opportunity can be used to educate employees on planning for health insurance, setting aside some amount for rainy days, and future needs.
Returning specifically to this incident, HR may be right in their own way as such collection of money may give rise to further demands in emergencies, and employees may be reluctant, resulting in poor interpersonal relations. Being helpful is always good but within the parameters of administration.
The best thing HR can do now is to frame a scheme based on the financial health of the company for the approval of higher-up officials and on a genuine education scheme to advise employees to set aside money for emergencies and as financial savings in the right instruments.
These schemes and education are for purely voluntary learning and action by employees at their discretion without further advice or encouragement from the company.
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
After a few days, HR can suggest to higher management a scheme of ex gratia or a loan to employees facing dire emergencies. HR can also subtly indicate to employees not to use the company email ID for such purposes and not to engage in fundraising on company premises.
Health emergencies are likely at any time. This opportunity can be used to educate employees on planning for health insurance, setting aside some amount for rainy days, and future needs.
Returning specifically to this incident, HR may be right in their own way as such collection of money may give rise to further demands in emergencies, and employees may be reluctant, resulting in poor interpersonal relations. Being helpful is always good but within the parameters of administration.
The best thing HR can do now is to frame a scheme based on the financial health of the company for the approval of higher-up officials and on a genuine education scheme to advise employees to set aside money for emergencies and as financial savings in the right instruments.
These schemes and education are for purely voluntary learning and action by employees at their discretion without further advice or encouragement from the company.
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
In an establishment, there exist three types of mechanisms to provide help and assistance to an employee who is experiencing financial distress:
1. Company grants loan
2. Loan from a credit co-operative society run by the employee
3. Financial assistance collected by the employee
The first kind of assistance is processed upon application made by the employee seeking financial help due to distress. Unfortunately, it is often the case that extending financial help to employees is hardly available in time, takes a longer time to process, or does not happen at all.
In many establishments, employees have their credit co-operative society, from which an employee can obtain a loan as per the norms to meet unexpected expenses. Alternatively, employees collectively decide to assist a colleague in distress by pooling funds from co-employees when formal mechanisms are lacking.
Typically, employees pursue this idea with the assistance of the HR department. However, in cases of urgent need, the HR department should view the situation as taking action for a critical situation akin to aiding a dying person. Delving deeper into the issue by the HR department may lead to industrial unrest. A proactive HR approach should consider this as an opportunity to establish or enhance existing welfare facilities for employees within the establishment.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
1. Company grants loan
2. Loan from a credit co-operative society run by the employee
3. Financial assistance collected by the employee
The first kind of assistance is processed upon application made by the employee seeking financial help due to distress. Unfortunately, it is often the case that extending financial help to employees is hardly available in time, takes a longer time to process, or does not happen at all.
In many establishments, employees have their credit co-operative society, from which an employee can obtain a loan as per the norms to meet unexpected expenses. Alternatively, employees collectively decide to assist a colleague in distress by pooling funds from co-employees when formal mechanisms are lacking.
Typically, employees pursue this idea with the assistance of the HR department. However, in cases of urgent need, the HR department should view the situation as taking action for a critical situation akin to aiding a dying person. Delving deeper into the issue by the HR department may lead to industrial unrest. A proactive HR approach should consider this as an opportunity to establish or enhance existing welfare facilities for employees within the establishment.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Friend,
In this particular case, HR should have acted smartly. Upon knowing the process, HR should have discussed with the management, secured some amount to be sanctioned and paid to the employee, along with the amount collected by the employees directly at a gathering organized. In that specific forum, HR can appreciate the good work done by the employees for the noble cause and communicate that such a process goes against the discipline of any organization. HR should inform them that in case of such exigencies, the matter should be brought to the notice of HR so that they can address it with the management.
By following this approach, both purposes are served: appreciating the good work done by some employees and preventing the repetition of such acts by explaining the organizational interest and the importance of discipline.
Thanks and regards,
Kamesh
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
In this particular case, HR should have acted smartly. Upon knowing the process, HR should have discussed with the management, secured some amount to be sanctioned and paid to the employee, along with the amount collected by the employees directly at a gathering organized. In that specific forum, HR can appreciate the good work done by the employees for the noble cause and communicate that such a process goes against the discipline of any organization. HR should inform them that in case of such exigencies, the matter should be brought to the notice of HR so that they can address it with the management.
By following this approach, both purposes are served: appreciating the good work done by some employees and preventing the repetition of such acts by explaining the organizational interest and the importance of discipline.
Thanks and regards,
Kamesh
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
As HR professionals, we should not turn a blind eye to the needs or circumstances surrounding our fellow employees. As humans, sometimes issues (difficulties in particular) surrounding us can hinder our thinking capacity and performance at work. The scenario under discussion deserves a 'thumbs up' as it clearly shows that in that work environment, the workers care for and have concern for one another, which should not be discouraged.
The action one of the employees took is equivalent to staff motivating and uplifting fellow staff.
In my workplace, we have given the go-ahead to such noble causes, especially in cases where the employer is not obligated to offer financial assistance. Situations calling for such actions are analyzed by a committee of ordinary staff members who are not part of management. Once it is agreed that there should be a collection, whatever is collected along with a list of names and amounts is handed over to HR for onward forwarding to the concerned staff and for record-keeping.
Therefore, if this was the first instance in the workplace under discussion, HR should assess what transpired and set guidelines rather than reprimanding, despising, or discouraging the initiator. I only hope that HR disagreed because he/she was not the initiator and did not see the need for assistance. Sometimes, for change to take place, something has to happen.
From Zambia
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The action one of the employees took is equivalent to staff motivating and uplifting fellow staff.
In my workplace, we have given the go-ahead to such noble causes, especially in cases where the employer is not obligated to offer financial assistance. Situations calling for such actions are analyzed by a committee of ordinary staff members who are not part of management. Once it is agreed that there should be a collection, whatever is collected along with a list of names and amounts is handed over to HR for onward forwarding to the concerned staff and for record-keeping.
Therefore, if this was the first instance in the workplace under discussion, HR should assess what transpired and set guidelines rather than reprimanding, despising, or discouraging the initiator. I only hope that HR disagreed because he/she was not the initiator and did not see the need for assistance. Sometimes, for change to take place, something has to happen.
From Zambia
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
HR was officially informed about the financial need of the employee. HR was also included on the email thread sent by one of the employees (as I discussed above).
If you are in HR and receive such a request, what would be your next move?
From India, undefined
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
If you are in HR and receive such a request, what would be your next move?
From India, undefined
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Couple of employees also went to HR kinda complaining about we collecting the funds and setting a minimum limit (although it was not forced) though we did insist.
From India, undefined
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, undefined
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Colleague,
I do not see why HR should frown upon the spontaneous action by well-meaning colleagues to help their coworker in distress in collecting contributions at the workplace. In fact, as good management, they should have some insurance scheme in place to take care of such health emergencies. In this case, HR should have shown sensitivity in taking the initiative and pushing decision-makers for financial assistance to the needy, at least equal to the voluntarily collected sum of contributions by the colleagues. For the future, HR should develop a suitable policy to take care of such vital health emergencies.
Regards, Vinayak Nagarkar HR Consultant
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I do not see why HR should frown upon the spontaneous action by well-meaning colleagues to help their coworker in distress in collecting contributions at the workplace. In fact, as good management, they should have some insurance scheme in place to take care of such health emergencies. In this case, HR should have shown sensitivity in taking the initiative and pushing decision-makers for financial assistance to the needy, at least equal to the voluntarily collected sum of contributions by the colleagues. For the future, HR should develop a suitable policy to take care of such vital health emergencies.
Regards, Vinayak Nagarkar HR Consultant
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
In the absence of a clear policy in this regard, HR professionals may have played innocent initially, as they could neither be seen in the forefront nor could they come out against it. It is better that in such instances, non-HR colleagues take the lead, and HR remains in the background.
In larger groups, such instances often occur where co-employees generously contribute to help a colleague in dire straits. To give it a different color other than genuine humanitarian aid should not be attempted. Instances like this happen quite often, but there should not be any compulsion to contribute. Setting minimum contribution levels helps, although it should not be insisted upon.
After the event is over, HR now asking questions to those who took the initiative cannot be seen as appreciable, and indeed, HR has a larger role to play by developing a formal/informal policy to address such contingencies.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
In larger groups, such instances often occur where co-employees generously contribute to help a colleague in dire straits. To give it a different color other than genuine humanitarian aid should not be attempted. Instances like this happen quite often, but there should not be any compulsion to contribute. Setting minimum contribution levels helps, although it should not be insisted upon.
After the event is over, HR now asking questions to those who took the initiative cannot be seen as appreciable, and indeed, HR has a larger role to play by developing a formal/informal policy to address such contingencies.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Friends,
Over 35 years of my career in HR, I interpreted HR as follows:
HR means Human Response.
HR means Responsibility of all Humans in the company.
HR means Respecting all Humans in the company.
HR means being reasonable.
HR means being Reliable.
HR means relating to all humans in the company.
But now, the 'H' factor from HR is missing, and either people have become robotic resources or capital; they are no longer Human now. This is not the situation everywhere, but this situation is taking over the 'H' factor. This is my personal experience with the people and the type of personal queries I receive, I am compelled to think along those lines. Some people may have a different opinion on the subject, and they have all the right to do so. People have done the correct thing; at least they responded naturally like normal human beings.
Warm Regards,
Bharat Gera
HR Consultant
9322404765
From India, Thane
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Over 35 years of my career in HR, I interpreted HR as follows:
HR means Human Response.
HR means Responsibility of all Humans in the company.
HR means Respecting all Humans in the company.
HR means being reasonable.
HR means being Reliable.
HR means relating to all humans in the company.
But now, the 'H' factor from HR is missing, and either people have become robotic resources or capital; they are no longer Human now. This is not the situation everywhere, but this situation is taking over the 'H' factor. This is my personal experience with the people and the type of personal queries I receive, I am compelled to think along those lines. Some people may have a different opinion on the subject, and they have all the right to do so. People have done the correct thing; at least they responded naturally like normal human beings.
Warm Regards,
Bharat Gera
HR Consultant
9322404765
From India, Thane
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hi, Anonymous!
The one situation that you mentioned does happen. At a macro level, there is nothing wrong in helping a person through family, friends, acquaintances, colleagues; it is very humane. However, we are governed by systems, processes, declared or undeclared rules, regulations, and a code of conduct in every family, group, organization, including the very NGOs that are out there to help. There are processes and hierarchies.
If we closely observe, we apply this in our sphere of influence, reaching a commanding level, all to ensure that things are done with clarity, approvals, transparency, and accountability post vetting of pros and cons while helping or doing anything that is not defined as a "norm."
Furthermore, there is something called "etiquette" in every sphere of life. Firstly, let's assume there was some misunderstanding or dispute in collection and disbursal or accidental wrong crediting. Whom are you going to take up the matter with, the police or the HR of the company? Ideally HR. Then why not approach HR in the first place and make the move?
Secondly, the decision to help here is a purely personal decision. How can all the colleagues or staff be approached using the official email ID? Can the argument stand in the company's internal addressing system or the law? What kind of precedence are we setting, and where is the discipline of hierarchy?
If the act was done by transmitting or forwarding the help request through a personal mobile or personal email ID, then nobody stops and questions anyways as the system and processes are not broken. Your personal decision cannot be imposed on any organization, leave alone the company you work in.
I hope this helps. Any value-add is welcome and appreciated. I just shared my best. If it can be improved, it's welcome.
From India, Bengaluru
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The one situation that you mentioned does happen. At a macro level, there is nothing wrong in helping a person through family, friends, acquaintances, colleagues; it is very humane. However, we are governed by systems, processes, declared or undeclared rules, regulations, and a code of conduct in every family, group, organization, including the very NGOs that are out there to help. There are processes and hierarchies.
If we closely observe, we apply this in our sphere of influence, reaching a commanding level, all to ensure that things are done with clarity, approvals, transparency, and accountability post vetting of pros and cons while helping or doing anything that is not defined as a "norm."
Furthermore, there is something called "etiquette" in every sphere of life. Firstly, let's assume there was some misunderstanding or dispute in collection and disbursal or accidental wrong crediting. Whom are you going to take up the matter with, the police or the HR of the company? Ideally HR. Then why not approach HR in the first place and make the move?
Secondly, the decision to help here is a purely personal decision. How can all the colleagues or staff be approached using the official email ID? Can the argument stand in the company's internal addressing system or the law? What kind of precedence are we setting, and where is the discipline of hierarchy?
If the act was done by transmitting or forwarding the help request through a personal mobile or personal email ID, then nobody stops and questions anyways as the system and processes are not broken. Your personal decision cannot be imposed on any organization, leave alone the company you work in.
I hope this helps. Any value-add is welcome and appreciated. I just shared my best. If it can be improved, it's welcome.
From India, Bengaluru
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)Join Our Community and get connected with the right people who can help. Our AI-powered platform provides real-time fact-checking, peer-reviewed insights, and a vast historical knowledge base to support your search.
HR Manual (Employee Hand Book).doc
Improving Employee Performance Through Workplace Coaching.pdf