Employer Banning Out Of Hours Socialising!

KiKi

WoodruffsDad wrote: »

Over the past 5 years my wife (and I by default) has been actively encouraged by her employer to take part in events and to help organise them. This inevitably leads to residents becoming friends, and, indeed some residents were friends before my wife took up her present position.

Now she is being instructed to keep our friends at arms length.

Would you like it if your elderly relatives were living in sheltered accommodation which was more like a prison camp than a friendly meeting place of older people?

I would want a friendly place, not a prison camp. But there's a difference between professional and friendly, and staff who are 'friends' with *vulnerable* people, and socialising with them outside of work.

I've no doubt that your wife and the staff are lovely, caring people. Most people I've met who work in sheltered housing are.

But all it takes is one slip, one fall, and for your wife to be there whilst *not* on duty, and then the problems start. Should she be responsible? What happens when the family complain? What happens when an elderly resident with early on-set Alzheimers says that your wife hit her at a garden fete, when she didn't? Or (as dmg said) that the last person she saw was your wife, outside of work, before her money went missing? What happens when a resident leaves a 'friend' member of staff a piece of jewellery in their will because they visited every week outside of work, and the family are grieving and outraged? What happens if you're on a day out and someone wanders off - where does the responsibility stop? You might see it as black and white, but I guarantee you that a resident's family and their solicitor won't.

I absolutely agree that the residents' well-being has to be taken into consideration, and if all the staff feel that the residents are going to lose out, then they should approach the council with their concerns. But just as equally, your wife has to be protected from complaints, grievances and families who see the relationship as unprofessional.

When you work with vulnerable people, you have to be so, so careful, and it's not just for the residents' sake! You and the resident can be great friends, and both enjoying the friendship, but it only takes one family member to see it otherwise and put in a complaint. It's unfortunate that it's been encouraged in the past, but they've given you a reason for it, and I would go with it.

If your wife really can't get past that (that's not a criticism) then she might be better to find a job somewhere else so that she can continue her friendships without judgement from the council.

KiKi

alisonmeyers

Caroline73 wrote: »

I would thought its about maintaining professional boundaries and avoiding conflict of interest.

That's my first thought too. It seems like they're trying to create boundaries where they deem professionalism is lacking. This makes complete sense if you're dealing with vulnerable customers of the council - I'm surprised, based on friends and family in jobs like this, that these restrictions (or very clear guidelines/best practice) hasn't been highlighted before.

Anyway, it's in the council's best interests to leave this as informal as possible so there may have been incidents which are forcing them to formalise these things - it's not like they'd come up with work out of the blue. Unless you can pinpoint that you wife is being actively pushed out, your post makes sense - rather, I'm wondering why it's never been advised on before...

WoodruffsDad wrote: »

This really is politically correct rubbish!

The quote above doesn't really tally with the following statement though....

WoodruffsDad wrote: »

My wife's job is to look after elderly, often vulnerable residents.

DCFC79

Can you understand the reasoning behind the ban OP

tbourner

WDad, I'd suggest you're already upset state is being aggrevated by this thread and its responses. They are all worth reading again once you've slept on it and had time to calm down. I don't meant that to sound condescending so apologies if it does.
Most of the replies on here are sound and reasonable, but you're looking at them personally and from the viewpoint of your wife, you need to focus on the lowest common denominator, there may be people out there taking similar jobs and abusing powers of friendliness with residents, so they need to put rules in place to stop it, the same as teachers not being able to hit pupils - most would use it as a tool to promote respect but there will always be some who will use it to bully and abuse, therefore a blanket ban is put in place.

alisonmeyers

Whilst this isn't the same situation as the OP, it DOES illustrate some issues which may crop up if professional/personal boundaries are smudged. And that example doesn't involve vulnerable members of society, and it is a fairly trivial set of problems (relative to what an employer could face, potentially).

Hammyman

Gleeful wrote: »

There is nothing to stop you visiting the site on your own, with your own transport, on the same day, is there?

Being cynical, one could say that they would have to bear the full cost of their own transport instead of getting it free...

ERICS_MUM

KiKi wrote: »

This actually protects your wife and other employees.

A very good friend of mine used to work in a sheltered housing organisation for an LA, and out-of-hours socialising on more than one occasion led to accusations against staff, grievances, and problems in court from families who accused the staff of supplying alcohol or worse to those using the housing. The council have a duty of care to employees and customers. I doubt they're doing this because they just really want to pee off your wife.

It might not be in the contract, but it's been made clear that the socialising isn't acceptable. You seem very upset, but it's not like she's been banned from socialising with colleagues (which wouldn't be reasonable).

She's been told not to spend time outside of work with customers of the council who are potentially vulnerable. It protects them and her. If you have a really 'deep' interest in this heritage site then go on your own. (Or perhaps you were hoping for a lift?! )

Legality isn't relevant here. Company rules don't adhere only to the law, but internal policies and procedures. It's not illegal to drive a car, but it might be against company policy to drive a company car for personal use. It's not illegal to drink, but it might be against company policy to drink less than eight hours before coming to work. It's not illegal to socialise with customers, but if you're a counsellor then socialising with your customers outside of work would be very inappropriate.

Similarly, in this case the employer has said that staff must not socialise with potentially vulnerable customers outside of work time. I don't think that's unfair. And yes, they can apply rules about behaviour outside of work. I had a whole raft of rules from my previous employer (public sector) about what I could and could not do or say outside of work! I appreciate you might not like it, but it's not illegal.

KiKi

I used to be a trustee/director of a mental health charity and we stopped social events between staff incl. volunteers) and the "service users" for the very same reasons that KiKi sets out. I believe that a professional distance should be maintained between staff and customer/patient.

WoodruffsDad

Caroline73 wrote: »

From what you have said, there is no reason why your wife and her colleagues cannot organise these outings and activities as part of their job.

The partners of employees have not been subjected to references, pova or crb checks. This leaves the council, and more importantly the vulnerable clients open to potential abuse.

Stop taking this action personally. If it were your confused parents spending a lot of time with the husband of an employee of their care home/accommodation, how could you be sure their intentions were altruistic?

As my wife's partner I HAVE been CRB checked.

Caroline73_2

WoodruffsDad wrote: »

As my wife's partner I HAVE been CRB checked.

You have been checked because your wife works there? or is it because you volunteer there in some capacity?

You don't get checked because your partner has a post that requires a check.

heretolearn_2

How does this turn the scheme into a 'prison'? The residents committee can still arrange whatever they like, they aren't going to stop just because you and your wife aren't allowed to attend their events.

Actually I do have a fair bit of experience with these schemes.

For one, this is only sheltered housing, not supported housing, and service users are expected to be able and willing to live independently, just with the re-asurrance of someone on hand if there's an emergency and they want that help. If it were supported housing then yes, the staff would be much more involved in their day to day lives, and be more involved in keeping social lives going, as the service users wouldn't be capable of this themselves.

Secondly, it is important to keep a professional distance. You are 'friendly' but not 'friends' with the service users.

Your wife needs to separate her private and professional life. This is not like socialising with colleagues or, say, customers of your shop who you might get to know.