The Potty Policy, Promoting Productivity or Purely Puerile?" How much time is sufficient for bathroom breaks during an 8-hour shift? (Answer this question before reading on.) "You must be kidding me!" fumed Steve Ritter as he put down the phone. "48 minutes! That's 10% of their 8-hour shift for bathroom breaks; and that's not enough?" General Manager of the Bloomington, MN, manufacturing plant of United Industries, Ritter had just gotten off the phone with an OSHA investigator. A disgruntled worker had called OSHA complaining that management at the Bloomington plant was denying employees access to toilet facilities. "The workers brought this upon themselves," Ritter thought to himself. Quality and productivity at the Bloomington plant had been slipping and when he called his shift supervisors into his office for an explanation, he was surprised to hear stories of workers spending more than the 48 minutes allotted by their union contract to use the facilities during each shift. Some supervisors offered anecdotal information that some workers were using these breaks to indulge their smoking habit and a few had even been seen heading to the parking lot...for what purpose the supervisors weren't certain. The firestorm was ignited when, after consulting with Dana Merritt, the plant HR Manager, Ritter issued a memo indicating that workers who took more than 48 minutes of restroom breaks during their shift would be charged with an "infraction." Workers accumulating six (6) infractions in a twelve (12) month period could be terminated. The memo said, in explanation, "In today's competitive environment, it is important that United immediately address this concern to avoid the risks associated with safety, quality, delivery, cost and morale". There was a problem. And in the business world when there is a problem, it has to be fixed. The memo was really only putting some teeth into terms previously agreed to by the union, so they shouldn't be upset. But the union was incensed and was pouring gasoline on the fire, claiming some of the employees have been incontinent in fear of being punished for leaving the line, and that others, calling themselves "The Depends Drones", had begun wearing protective undergarments, similar to diapers, to avoid leaving the line at all. Ritter dialed his HR Manager. "Dana, how has this become an OSHA issue?" he asked. "Well, Mr. Ritter, OSHA does require employers to provide restroom facilities and implicit in that requirement is an assumption that management will provide reasonable access to those facilities during the workday. But an April 6, 1998, interpretation of this regulation specifically states an employer is not prohibited from having reasonable restrictions on access to toilet facilities." Merrit answered. "And restroom breaks are paid, right?" Ritter inquired further. "Of course," Ms. Merritt replied. "The Fair Labor Standards Act requires brief breaks to be paid. Now the meal break is not paid; workers clock out for that." "So we're paying workers for an 8-hour shift and, according to the terms of their union contract, they really only need to work 7 hours and 12 minutes. And, on top of that, they have another hour-long meal break during which they can use the toilet?" Ritter asked incredulously. "Do I have my facts straight?" "Yes, Mr. Ritter," Ms. Merritt replied, "you do." "One more thing, Dana;" Ritter moved to a new subject, "You did get a medical opinion before we issued the memo about the toilet breaks, didn't you?" "Oh, yes, Mr. Ritter! I consulted a urologist who assured me that, barring a medical condition for which employees would be entitled to request accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act, a reasonably healthy person shouldn't need anywhere near 48 minutes to relieve themselves over an 8-hour period. Also, there is no good reason people should be urinating themselves or wearing diapers. The workers and the union are simply complaining over something they need not complain about." "Thank you very much," said Ritter and hung up. "This is a reasonable policy that allows for a number of violations. Grade school teachers (Ritter's wife was a grade school teacher) get even less of an opportunity to use the restroom at work, yet teachers wetting themselves doesn't seem to be a problem," Ritter thought to himself as he mulled over his options, none of which seemed especially desirable in his current frame of mind.

Please read the case The Potty Policy. Answer the following questions about this case:

1.Think through the content of The Potty Policy. In what ways does The Policy add structure to the environment?

2.What various types of structure exist in this case?

3.Who is most impacted by the potty policy and why?

4.In what ways does The Policy promote productive behaviors? In what ways does it promote counter-productive behaviors?

5.How does the HR frame relate to this case? How does this policy impact employee motivation?

6.Have you ever worked in a place that tried to institute a similarly rigid policy? Did it work in the ways intended? Why or why not?