Em­ploy­ees’ pro­duc­tiv­ity

Kuwait Times - - LOCAL - Al-An­baa By Saqer Al-Ghailani

There is no doubt that the at­ten­dance and ab­sence of em­ploy­ees is im­por­tant in all es­tab­lish­ments. Some es­tab­lish­ments have in­di­ca­tors to cal­cu­late the cost of em­ploy­ees’ ab­sence, their lack of at­ten­dance leads to de­lay in do­ing the job and re­ceiv­ing un­de­served salaries, as the num­ber of work­ing hours is set in the work­ing con­tract. Also, this mat­ter causes trou­ble to some of­fi­cials es­pe­cially when they come in the morn­ing to start work with an in­com­plete team while peo­ple wait in halls to process their trans­ac­tions.

The idea of us­ing bio­met­ric de­vices to reg­is­ter staff at­ten­dance came about when a group of em­ploy­ees did not com­ply with at­ten­dance and exit, as many of them ei­ther do not come to of­fice, or used sil­i­con prints for their fin­ger­prints that oth­ers can use on the de­vices for them. In ad­di­tion, there is a group of em­ploy­ees who would fin­ger­print in the morn­ing, then go home to sleep, or spend the day in malls, be­fore com­ing back to fin­ger­print again at time for check­out. But be­fore the in­tro­duc­tion of the bio­met­ric sys­tem for at­ten­dance, why wasn’t a sur­vey done to find out the true rea­son for lack of at­ten­dance of em­ploy­ees? Or is it that the sys­tem was im­ple­mented di­rectly with­out suf­fi­cient re­search?

What if there are other rea­sons than lax­ity? Maybe the no­tion that there are too many em­ploy­ees car­ry­ing out the same job at the same de­part­ment makes the em­ployee frus­trated and makes him feel that his pres­ence or ab­sence is the same. Maybe there is lack of a good work­ing en­vi­ron­ment. I re­mem­ber a col­league who did not re­port to work in a min­istry for two years be­cause there was no of­fice for her. This and other mat­ters must be cor­rected be­fore di­rect im­ple­men­ta­tion is made as a re­ac­tion to a spe­cific mat­ter.

There was talk about ex­empt­ing em­ploy­ees who have been in ser­vice for 25 years from the fin­ger­print, and there is no real­is­tic rea­son for that, be­cause like the rest of em­ploy­ees, they have rights and du­ties. Ex­emp­tion should be done for some jobs that re­quire field work, which makes it dif­fi­cult for the em­ployee to come to of­fice, or for the es­tab­lish­ment to be based on set­ting goals and projects for each em­ployee, so what is im­por­tant is to ful­fill the goals on time, and of course, our es­tab­lish­ments are built on this sys­tem.

The fin­ger­print sys­tem will not guar­an­tee the em­ployee’s pro­duc­tiv­ity and will not solve the true prob­lem which is over-em­ploy­ment, so con­cen­tra­tion should be on em­ploy­ing man­power in a true man­ner so that the state can ben­e­fit from them. There should be a suit­able work­ing en­vi­ron­ment with eval­u­a­tion sys­tems that show the em­ploy­ees pro­duc­tiv­ity, and not to con­tinue with the pol­icy of dis­tribut­ing wealth in­di­rectly. If it was proven that an em­ployee was neg­li­gent in at­tend­ing, then sim­ply en­force the law on him un­til he gets ter­mi­nated and be­comes an ex­am­ple for oth­ers. But to have a fin­ger­print sys­tem while the em­ployee knows he is pro­tected against ter­mi­na­tion, then noth­ing re­ally has changed.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Kuwait

© PressReader. All rights reserved.