Ethics Q & A
August 29, 2005
By Jane Garthson, Mills
Garthson & Associates
The question:
All the staff at my agency work on contracts, and renewals depend on confirming our core and project funding. The funding approvals usually come in at the last minute, sometimes even after we have worked a couple of weeks in hope of renewal. Every year I start looking at other job opportunities, since my loyalty to our organization and cause has to be balanced by loyalty to my family, who want to eat and have a place to live. Is there not a better way?
Jane says...
You put the question very well. Loyalty is a problematic ethical value as loyalties are often in conflict. In the workplace, most people who face such a conflict do put themselves and their families ahead of their employer or cause. The question often comes up in terms of workplaces that are harming the health of a staff person; if their health fails, they end up of little use to their employer anyway.
Back to your question. Any funders out there listening? You give the money to get results, and you will get better results from people who are not distracted by job-hunting and worrying about the mortgage. Also, human services in particular are much more effective when clients have continuity in who serves them. You can increase your return on investment through a more appropriate decision cycle, and even more by a change to multi-year funding whenever possible.
However, agency management is not off the hook. Without knowing the details of your organization, I cannot blithely tell them to have the courage to make all the jobs permanent. However, I can say that their risk management decisions should be reviewed.
I have seen organizations where the staff are kept on six-month or annual contracts in the mistaken assumption that this reduces employer liability for termination pay. If the contracts are routinely renewed with no gap in employment, it likely makes no difference. The government may just see continuous employment and not care in the least about the contract system. Your management should get advice on local labour laws, starting with free advice from the same government office that terminated staff would complain to.
If the board approves a change in status, the major funder should be advised. If funding is cancelled or too slow to enable payroll, local media coverage is much more negative about jobs lost than contracts not renewed. Besides, it demonstrates the organization's confidence that it can replace at least some of the funding, perhaps to serve different priorities than the funder wanted. The decision to make a commitment to staff security might spur the board and development staff to greater fundraising efforts, once they realize the importance of keeping good people.
In any case, being at the whim of a single major funder is not usually a good thing. Your organization's priorities can get skewed, and programs critical to your clients and community can end suddenly because of external political or policy changes. Unless the government contract forbids other funding sources (yes, some do!), the organization should be seeking to diversify its sources of revenue.
Even if all that is done, there is no such thing as job security. Every employee should maintain their network of contacts and their skills in case they need new employment. Internal policy decisions can also cancel programs or change the staff skill needs, and organizations do fail. Bosses change; your working environment might be positive and then become poisoned. You might decide to seek new challenges even if you still love your job. Sometimes the best you can hope for is a long transition time so you can find the right new employment and depart on good terms.
One final note: if the agency allows you to work beyond the date when it has funds, it is taking the risk, not the employees. They are legally owed for work performed and condoned, along with vacation pay, and the agency must also pay government-related payroll costs. It should have a reserve of at least three months operating costs, preferably six, as bridge monies when grants are delayed (even after being committed) and for wind-down costs if it comes to that.
Good luck in getting your situation reviewed and improved.
***********
Because nonprofit organizations are formed to do good does not mean
they always are good in their own practices. Send us your ethical questions
dealing with volunteers, staff, clients, donors, funders, sponsors, and
more. Please identify yourself and your organization so we know the questions
come from within the sector. No identifying information will appear in
this column.
To submit a dilemma for a future column, or to comment on a previous one,
please contact help@charityvillage.com. For paid professional advice about an urgent or complex situation, contact Jane directly.
