

Nordstrom's 75-word employee handbook - j_baker
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordstrom#Employee_handbook

======
lmkg
This is how my college worked, and I think it's a fabulous idea that promotes
personal responsibility rather than CYA bullshit. During orientation, all the
incoming freshmen (~200) were herded into a lecture hall, and a panel of five
upperclassmen pontificated on the significance and nuances of the phrase
"don't be a jackass." And that was basically it. We could drink as much
alcohol as we wanted, we were just expected not to get into fights, break
other people's stuff, get sent to the hospital, or otherwise do things that we
or someone else would regret. We could burn quite a wide variety of things, in
bulk, so long as no one got hurt. We were given unrestricted 24-hour access to
computer labs, chemistry equipment, etc. Most of my exams were take-home, and
we were expected to adhere to the rules (time limit, closed-book) because that
was the cost of the privilege. We could pull all sorts of pranks against
others students and even faculty, so long as we left contact information and
any effects were reversible within 24 hours. We were expected to be
responsible adults, and were treated like responsible adults, so we acted like
responsible adults (well, we acted responsibly anyways). We actually had less
alcohol-related incidents (assaults, property damage, alcohol poisoning) than
any nearby college, despite (read: because of) their having significantly more
restrictive policies.

Like Nordstrom's, we did have to make a few concessions to the outside world,
though they were few and far between. For example, we were not allowed to have
bonfires that were taller than the dorms, because then women's college across
the street thinks the school is on fire. The administration is totally fine
with 50 mildly inebriated college students milling around an open flame in the
middle of a dorm courtyard with no "adult" supervision, but they still don't
like explaining it to the local fire department.

~~~
alsomike
_We actually had less alcohol-related incidents than any nearby college,
despite their having significantly more restrictive policies_

I'm not sure how that is a benefit and I think a lot of people are mistaking
the absence of rules with the absence of authority. The easiest way to get
compliant people is to threaten them with punishment but not tell them what
the rules are. They had 5 other students explain the nuances, rather than
someone with authority because that way, they could still punish you for what
those students told you was OK.

It's essentially an open door for exertion of arbitrary power, but dressed up
so the people welcome it as freedom. Imagine if traffic laws were "use your
own judgment" - no speeding signs, but the cops could still pull you over on a
whim and ticket you for speeding. And you couldn't go to court to contest it
because there are no rules, and we'd all be driving a whole lot slower. But at
least we're being treated like responsible adults, right?

~~~
pavel_lishin
> Imagine if traffic laws were "use your own judgment" - no speeding signs

Haven't repeated experiments shown that this does, in fact, create safer
roadways for cars, cyclists and pedestrians?

~~~
sprout
No, they haven't. There was one recently linked on HN, but it was a fairly
recent experiment, and it's far more likely to be attributable to the
strangeness of it; people used to signs go into hyper-defensive-driver mode
when they get to an area with no signs. You take away signs entirely the
novelty wears off and people go back to driving like assholes.

~~~
btilly
Looking at
[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/obituaries/article3...](http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/obituaries/article3167372.ece)
it looks like the increased safety effect was documented over a period of 25
years in over 100 different locations.

That's strong enough data for me to strongly doubt your theory.

~~~
sprout
I still don't see any evidence that it will scale - especially in the US. Most
areas still have signs, so the areas without signs remain exceptions that put
people on the defense.

------
petercooper
Though, as tptacek pointed out a while back, there can be more comfort with
well defined boundaries: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1640765>

Personally, I love the idea but, with disappointment, I can't pragmatically
recommend it for all but the most minor of situations.

There are so many workplace rules and laws that violate common sense that you
have to adhere to (e.g. many "harassment" laws) that spelling them out is
almost the only way to avoid frequent problems (e.g. My wife was formally
reprimanded for not inviting certain colleagues to an after work - and not
work related - function. This is called "bullying" nowadays and we spent
months dealing with the disciplinary case/suspension/etc. They now have a
policy where you have to officially disclose who you are friends with or not
and why. My wife no longer works.)

Update: I read too quickly. It seems they've realized the above and are
distributing a book of policies too. A shame.

~~~
makmanalp
It feels like too many laws make people judgement-lazy and eventually stupid.
We're all adults and should be able to figure out what's appropriate. If
something isn't, we should be able to talk about it. If you spell out
everything that's wrong you're implying that everything else is right, and
you're speaking in absolutes.

~~~
tptacek
That depends entirely on the cost of failure.

Nordstrom's became famous for having a "no return policy" return policy, which
is the major implication of that 75 word card: a clerk at Nordstrom's could
process a return with no receipt 7 months after the purchase if that seemed
like the right thing to do to satisfy a customer (especially if it was going
to get you to spend $500 more on that visit). But then, the cost of failure in
handling a return is maybe $40.

In other environments, the cost of failure is much higher. My team works in
one. We're paid to punch holes in other people's very important applications.
The cost of breaking rules of engagement could be "halt trading". We have more
rules.

Generally, it seems like you want to go the "75 word employee handbook" route
when the cost of failure is relatively minimal, and then only if you can use
it as a differentiator (you _also_ have to pay for and train people who can
demonstrate excellent customer service).

(And, obviously, in 2010, you can't be an employer with a 75 word handbook,
unless you want to get sued every time you fire someone.)

~~~
j_baker
"And, obviously, in 2010, you can't be an employer with a 75 word handbook,
unless you want to get sued every time you fire someone."

IANAL, but I've worked for plenty of companies that have a 0 word handbook. I
don't see why companies can't have a 75-word handbook.

~~~
tptacek
No law says you need to have an employee handbook, but there are a variety of
spurious claims terminated employees can make (from harassment to
discrimination and so on), and if you're called to the mat, any reason you had
for terminating that person should ideally be traceable back to an employee
handbook (including the company disciplinary process, so you can give an
employee a "warning" and have that mean something afterwards).

~~~
ams6110
Also depends on the degree to which your state has "at will" employment.

~~~
tptacek
The situation is probably much worse if you're in Montana, where there's a
statute that makes employers liable for wrongful discharge.

Meanwhile, in the majority of US states, at-will employment is subject to
"implied contracts", meaning that one very important purpose of an employee
handbook is to eliminate any "implied contract" that a terminated employee
could claim to exist.

------
jsankey
_However, new hire orientations now provide this card along with a full
handbook of other more specific rules and legal regulations, as the way
Nordstrom operates has changed._

Hopefully the 75-word card still sets the tone, and the full handbook is just
to satisfy the bureaucrats.

~~~
dholowiski
Probably the handbook is full of over-reactions to various things that
happened one time, and were blown way out of proportion- just like every other
company.

------
brock790
This is very cool in theory, but my girlfriend just quit her job at Nordstrom
after working there for 3+ years and her experience was very different. She is
a very hard and dedicated worker and some of the Nordstrom policies are very
unfavorable to employees.

Two quick examples: 1, During one of their biggest sales of the year my
girlfriend was working close to 80 hours per week, working long hours and in
many occasions working overnight to make sure inventory was on the shelves for
the next day. She was told by HR that she would be paid time and a half for
her overtime hours, which is pretty standard I would assume. After getting her
pay check, it looked extremely low and after verifying with HR they told her
that she mis-herd what they said and for overtime hours she is only paid half
of her normal hourly rate.

2: Nordstroms health insurance for employees working on the sales floor is
off/on each month depending on how much you are selling. One moth my
girlfriend had insurance and another month she did not. She was not notified
when she was/wasn't eligible and had to pay more than expected several times
on various medical bills because of this.

Even after this poor employee treatment, my girlfriend was not mad, the most
frustrating thing was that Nordstrom preaches how well it treats their
employees and how they are known for it. Clearly this is not the case.

~~~
j_baker
"She was told by HR that she would be paid time and a half for her overtime
hours, which is pretty standard I would assume. After getting her pay check,
it looked extremely low and after verifying with HR they told her that she
mis-herd what they said and for overtime hours she is only paid half of her
normal hourly rate."

Was this in the US? And was she salaried? I'm pretty sure this is illegal
otherwise.

~~~
brock790
Yeah, the store on Michigan Ave. in Chicago. Her income from Nordstrom was
based on a salary + commission from sales. I said the same thing to her in
terms of it not being legal, but they gave her some long winded explanation
that I'm sure in one way or another is technically legal.

Maybe she wasn't "required" to work or because she is also paid on commission
it somehow doesn't apply to her? I'm really not sure...

The thing that is appalling is that a company that says they are so great to
their employees will try to justify these actions and put blame on the ones
who are working their butts off and are dedicated to their responsibilities.

The only response she got was from someone in the company who was trying to
sympathize with her saying "yeah, well thats why you just don't work more than
40 hours per week"

------
spitfire
I like the inscription on Henry Royce's fireplace mantle

"QUIDVIS RECTE FACTUM QUAMVIS HUMILE PRAECLARUM" Whatever is rightly done,
however humble, is noble.

I think that would make a nice employee handbook in itself.

------
fortes
_However, new hire orientations now provide this card along with a full
handbook of other more specific rules and legal regulations, as the way
Nordstrom operates has changed._

Too good to be true in the modern day perhaps. Seems like they broke their own
Rule #1

------
ScottBurson
Along the same lines, check out the Netflix "Reference Guide on our Freedom &
Responsibility Culture": <http://www.netflix.com/Jobs>

I found it quite an interesting read. Seems like a thoroughly enlightened way
to run a company.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Wow! Sounds exciting, full of opportunity and risk. have to be a special
person to take advantage of that policy. And that's what they say they are
looking for - special people.

------
mattmaroon
"However, new hire orientations now provide this card along with a full
handbook of other more specific rules and legal regulations, as the way
Nordstrom operates has changed."

That's what I call progress.

------
mkramlich
I like that rulebook almost as much as Fight Club's rulebook.

------
kevin_morrill
Great advice. Too bad Nordstrom does NOT follow it.

Talk to their employees and you'll hear an entirely different story. Sales
people are repeatedly told they need to accept fraudulent returns from
thieves, which subtracts from commission you never earned since the returned
item was stolen. When you shop there, you're subsidizing their insistence on
sanctioning thieves.

------
nutjob123
Wouldn't this cause them trouble if they have a suit for wrongful termination?

~~~
uxp
A company I work with employs many of their sales force from Nordstroms, since
they're on about the same playing field market-wise. Its been a few years, but
I did once have a conversation with one sales guy about a story I once heard
of a person returning a used tire to a Nordstroms which stood on the grounds
of a tire store that was demolished to build the Nordstroms. He explained how
he viewed the philosophy behind things like this rule.

If I remember correctly, where needed, they also have a large set of rules
which do state things that cannot be done, but they are also very broad.
Examples that come to mind involve observing shoplifting by employees, sexual
harassment and absenteeism. It basically says that if one breaks the law or
does things that negatively effect other workers or customers, the offending
employee was subject for review and generally if someone is reviewed for these
actions, the employee is most likely fired.

The sames person I spoke with gave me the impression that the 75 word
"handbook" was a facade to make the company look very good from the outside,
but they also had enough internal rules to cover their rear end for these
types of scenarios.

~~~
Hovertruck
My girlfriend works at a Home Depot, and I recall her telling me a story about
one of the stores in her area accepted "returned" tires, despite the store not
actually selling tires. They are hanging on the wall in the store as a
decoration now.

------
mikecane
That's when the schools worked, people had consideration for others, and
people wanted to work and get ahead. Businesses worked better back then.

~~~
j_baker
...and kids walked uphill in the snow both ways to get to school?

~~~
mikecane
Were you alive in the pre-Beatles, pre-drug, pre-Me 1960s?

~~~
j_baker
Nope, but if they were "pre-Me", I doubt I would have liked it. I just so
happen to like Me.

