A worker hotline that is well designed and used by employees not only helps managers detect harm; it can also allow managers to shift from a reactive to a proactive approach to workplace abuse. The authors’ research on Vermont dairy farms offers four simple recommendations to help increase utilization:
- Hotlines should be accessible, at times, in languages, and through mediums that workers prefer.
- Hotlines should develop serious safeguards against retaliation with immediate penalties for non-compliance.
- Workers should see a quick response to concerns, and quick resolutions when they make valid complaints.
- Informal grievance resolution can be more effective, faster, and better targeted to workers’ needs. However, retaining the option of a formal process is important to guarantee the integrity of the complaint process.
A popular strategy to preserve worker safety is to implement a hotline that workers use to register complaints. But generally, hotlines are not available, not because employees don’t have complaints, but because employees don’t trust them — a win-win for both employer and employee. Employees need mechanisms to keep themselves safe, and employers need a healthy and active workforce.
We study an effective hotline to see what can be different and replicable about it. The hotline is part of the enforcement arm of a private, supply chain monitoring effort, the Milk with Dignity Program (MD), a member of Work-Driven Social Responsibility Network. Unlike other hotlines, the MD program’s hotline is well used, fielding more than 460 calls in 30 months from a population of approximately 260 workers. This achievement is even more impressive because the MD program serves a workforce largely composed of economically at-risk, migrant workers, who don’t complain too much than other workers.
We analyzed detailed records of calls to the MD grievance line, assessed the type and number of concerns raised by workers, as well as the investigation and resolution processes. Interviews were also conducted with 14 stakeholders from the MD program. We found that the MD model counters common hotline challenges by making it easy for dairy workers to use and resolving complaints quickly, unlike many complaint mechanisms that can take months and even months to investigate. years. Specifically, this hotline differs from others in three key ways.
Access
Be hotlines challenge for employees to access: Either the workers do not understand their purpose, they are not staffed at convenient (non-working) hours, or the workers, like most of the public, prefer to text or message rather than use an 800 number.
The MD program addresses these problems with two low-cost initiatives.
First, workers are taught how to use the hotline each year in a worker education session. These paid sessions are led (in Spanish) by colleagues who currently work in the MD Program’s education and advocacy group, while staff from the monitoring arm of the MD are on hand to translate the sessions for English speakers. As a result, workers establish a direct connection with the auditors who staff the complaint line during these sessions.
Second, workers can call or text complaints via WhatsApp, which is popular among Vermont’s farmworker population with limited cell service but internet access. The hotline is staffed around the clock, seven days a week, by a bilingual staff member.
Restraint of Supervisor
Many labor hotlines sit silent because workers fear retaliation for speaking up. Vulnerable workers often worry that their hours may be docked, their pay reduced, or their position eliminated. This type of direct retaliation is concerning, but our research discovered another way that supervisors discourage (even unwittingly) workers from reporting incidents: Many employers do nothing to address the concerns raised, often because they fear that making changes will be too difficult or expensive to implement.
The implementation structure of the MD program shakes the farms out of this state of mind. Employers receive a premium in exchange for participating in the MD program; those who engage in or allow retaliation against complainants face suspension from the program, and loss of this premium. In addition, the MD program requires owners to participate and respond to all valid complaints – doing nothing is not an option. As a result, farms develop a proactive approach to resolving complaints, and become less resistant to change. The MD hotline also strictly protects complainant confidentiality. Combined, these steps build employee confidence, as workers see that raising concerns can yield tangible improvements.
Shifting the Burden
Labor hotlines naturally put some responsibility for monitoring behavior in the workplace of the employees themselves. Complaint processes can be long with little reward, and worker disaffection – a widespread feeling that speaking up won’t lead to meaningful change – is a problem with using the hotline.
The MD program addresses this challenge in two ways: First, MD staff take on the primary burden of investigation and resolution, involving complainants only when necessary. Second, and perhaps most importantly, the MD program significantly shortened complaint investigation timelines: Records show that the median investigation was one day, and the full resolution of a complaint took about five days. This compressed timeline is due in large part to how the MD program handles complaints.
While MD staff retain the option of using a more formal complaint investigation process, they also engage in conversations and collaborative problem solving between workers and employers whenever possible, taking the personal relationships with workers and supervisors developed during farm visits. By shortening and informalizing the resolution process whenever possible, the MD program helps employers avoid lengthy investigations and work disruptions, while also quickly addressing the concerns of workers and the primarily shifted the burden of the complaint.
The consequence for managers
The success of this hotline model offers four important, generalizable lessons for managers seeking to establish effective grievance mechanisms:
- Hotlines should be accessible, at times, in languages, and through mediums that workers prefer.
- Hotlines should develop serious safeguards against retaliation with immediate penalties for non-compliance.
- Workers should see a quick response to concerns, and quick resolutions when they make valid complaints.
- Informal grievance resolution can be more effective, faster, and better targeted to workers’ needs. However, retaining the option of a formal process is important to guarantee the integrity of the complaint process.
Dairy farms are a prime example of an industrial context where vulnerable workers may be hesitant to use a grievance mechanism, but the success of the MD hotline suggests that these barriers may be overcome. overcome. In fact, in our research the managers we spoke to emphasized that turnover, a key labor cost for the dairy industry, decreased after the MD hotline began to take effect and workers began to share concerns. . Building on this success, the hotline model — created by the MD Program and other members of the WSR Network — is now implemented in various workplaces, including Hollywood to address sexual harassment.
Finally, a worker hotline that is well designed and used by employees will not only help managers in finding damages; it can also allow managers to shift from a reactive to a proactive approach to workplace abuse.
