Advocates believe that pet-friendly policies benefit both
cess. After 18 months, they’d had no
employers and employees. People working long days can
issues with their 35 dogs. Among their
bring an element of their home life into the workplace,
procedures: an application process,
while those who work regular hours needn’t get antsy
probation period, and requirements
about dashing home to walk the dog.
that each cubicle be fitted with a baby
gate, as well as a green, yellow or red
sign, to indicate the degree of a dog’s
creative if they’re unhappy at work.
ad hoc, or not consistently enforced,
socialization among strangers.
For the most part, large, pet-
if it happens to be inconvenient to the
“Dogs went from being in the yard
friendly companies such as Google,
top dog of an organization, observes
to in our beds. It’s too much cognitive
Amazon, and Ben & Jerry’s aren’t the
Jennifer Fearing, chief economist at the
dissonance to leave these creatures
norm. The SHRM survey found that
Humane Society of the United States
all alone all day,” says Fearing, whose
small companies were more likely to
(HSUS).
book was sparked by an uptick in
offer the benefit (11 percent), than me-
That was the impetus behind
inquiries from human resource de-
dium companies (6 percent), or large
Fearing’s 2008 book, Creating Dog
partments. “Companies ought to do
companies (4 percent). Implementing
Friendly Workplaces, which she
this right, and that’s what we want to
procedures may simply be too daunt-
co-wrote with renowned dog trainer
empower them to do.”
ing for big businesses, and there’s al-
Liz Palika. Fearing used the HSUS’s
ways concern that one of the animals
200-employee offices in Washington
Source: Adapted from The Christian
will lash out at an employee, visitor or
as a testing ground for a model pro-
Science Monitor
client.
It’s possible that an employer
could be held liable for an attack, just
as a landlord can be held responsible
if he knew a dog was dangerous and
didn’t do anything about it, says Juris
Doctor Mary Randolph, author of Ev-
ery Dog’s Legal Guide. But Randolph
says she’s unaware of any trials over
an attack in the workplace.
Still, that doesn’t quell the fears
of Kelly Hoffman, an employee at a
dog-ridden Web retail firm in Reading,
Pennsylvania, who notes, “One per-
son’s perk is another person’s night-
mare.” Hoffman says the three or four
dogs in the small office also make her
“feel lousy,” because of her allergies.
Beyond that, she claims, they’re
a nuisance and reduce productivity,
because colleagues constantly take the
dogs outside for potty breaks. “You’re
on the phone trying to take a phone
order, and all of a sudden there’s a loud
bark in your ear and you can’t hear the
customer trying to place the order,” she
says. Her office has no formal guide-
lines, other than to keep the animal
under control and ensure that it’s
house-trained.
Policies vary among companies.
Many are thorough and clearly delin-
eated. (Sermo’s etiquette memo, for in-
stance, stipulates that contract workers
can’t bring their dogs to work, because
they’ll disrupt the harmony of the
established pack.) Others are vague,
Pr i n t e d o n re c y c l e d Pa P e r t o Pr o t e c t t h e en v i r o n m e n t
September 2008 31
Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44