About breakfast at work

[WishingILivedOnAnIsland]

Every day without fail one of our senior administrators comes in on time, gets herself settled, then spends 10 minutes in the kitchen constructing a complicated bowlful of breakfast. She takes the bowl to her desk and slowly eats in the open plan office until around 9:30am. She then signals the start of her work day by returning her bowl to the kitchen. Anyone who approaches her regarding work prior to The Bowl’s Return is met with a withering look and an ‘excuse me I am eating my breakfast’ as though they’ve walked into her own kitchen out of hours and demanded a favour.

I’m her manager and I’m starting to get complaints. Both about her commandeering an additional 30 odd minutes break, and also about the tart rebuke she gives anyone who dares interrupt her morning ritual.

Here’s the thing- I don’t really care that she does this as in every other way she is a sensational employee. She is a proud set-in-her-ways kind of person and wont respond well to negative feedback. It would be a disaster if she quit and we had to replace her with a mediocre employee whose only advantage is that they eat their breakfast at home.

So AIBU to let this breakfast nonsense play on? My colleagues seem to think so and are salty with me for my inaction thus far.

"What does that have to do with anything? I'm salaried but I have to work 36.5 hours per week or I'd have a disciplinary"

Do you clock in and out? If not, how does anyone know which exact hours you do? Even with clocking in, how does anyone know if you're actually working or just moving your mouse every now and then.
I work 37 hours a week, but if I work 35 one week and 39 the other, why would my boss care as long as the work is done?
At quiet times, I'll definitely come in a bit later and take a longer lunch. Why wouldn't I? What would be the point of just sitting there?

"be obstructive towards colleagues. "

Obstructive is a bit of an exaggeration isn't it? Unless it's an emergency, they can come back later, leave a note or send an email can't they?

"your giving her preferential treatment which is discriminatory and can be construed as nepotism"

Do you know what nepotism means?
Maybe you mean cronyism, but that only makes friends if they were friends before they worked together. Favouritism is probably what you mean.

Gwen

Yes cronyism, its friends and associates

Yes, giving colleagues withering looks and refusing to respond to them is obstructive.

I for one think it’s a good thing that employees have better rights than they did in yesteryear and don’t have to put up with some of the shit they did in the past.

This woman sounds like a total stuck in the mud cow. By all means eat breakfast but don’t assume you can ignore or be rude to your colleagues

"Gwen blush

Yes cronyism, its friends and associates"

All OP's colleagues and subordinates are associates. She's not particularly matey with this one person as far as I can see, just values her work. I don't think it's cronyism.

Why are people quoting hours and figures like this as if that’s the only indicator of someone’s worth to a company?

The OP has said she’s super efficient and finishes other people’s work for them.

It works both ways, if she’s super efficient then OP needs to take this with the rest of her team, if they are all employed to do the same role, then they should all be paid the same wage.

As a business you need to not have favouritism, be discriminatory, have clear guidelines and expectations, and have transparency.

If OP is allowing one person to do this, she then must allow others also, and I bet you OPs management would not be too happy about this.

I would mention it to her to make her aware that some people have an issue with it, then leave it be. In a 'I just wanted you to know', non-threatening, supportive way.

I don't think it's cronyism.

So she should allow all staff to get paid breakfast? If not she’s showing favouritism to one member of staff, hence cronyism.

“comes in on time, gets herself settled,”

I thinking depends on your definition of “on time”. I will probably be told that i am old fashioned here, but I was taught that being at work on time meant being at your work station/ desk, settled and ready to start work at your official starting time. Not simply being in the building

I don't believe that everyone in the team must now be entitled to 30mins breakfast at their desk - that's just silly. Everyone is different and needs different things from workplace environment to be happy. It's the manager's job to recognise that and make allowances where possible and reasonable.

She's taking the piss. You need to raise that with her.

As a senior manager, it is not unreasonable that an employee gets paid to eat breakfast for 126 hours a year!

Yes absolutely make reasonable adjustments, this would not come under reasonable adjustments criteria.

Reasonable not unreasonable

@WishingILivedOnAnIsland
Em...me! And I have everywhere I have worked. Same as my husband who gets same allowance at his place of work and same as all my friends!

What would she do if you had 9 am team meetings?

The eating of the breakfast seems to be a total red herring.

It's the being unavailable while she does it.

Surely she can knock herself out, and eat breakfast in the office as and when (assuming this isn't some antiquated work place from the 1970s, and people are treated like adults, which it seems it is).

She just needs to be receptive to colleagues and do actual work while having breakfast.

And this ^^ is surely a pretty easy conversation to have / issue to deal with.

OP - I think you sound like a good manager, and nowhere near as petty as many of the very irate people on here.

She just needs to be receptive to colleagues and do actual work while having breakfast.

Yeah I think this is correct.

" If not she’s showing favouritism to one member of staff, hence cronyism."

I did say maybe the person who used the word cronyism meant favouritism, though I personally believe in a live and let live attitude towards everyone. Cronyism is giving jobs and promotions to your personal friends though, which doesn't seem to be the case here.

"if they are all employed to do the same role, then they should all be paid the same wage."

Well, no. People get paid different amounts to do the same job all the time as it depends on skills and experiences.

If Breakfast Brenda is the supersonic work machine who can do the work of at least two people in half the time whilst eating a three course dinner and dancing a tango as the OP insists then why are the company employing those extra two people? Companies are not usually remiss at seeing an opportunity to save money by employing fewer staff and that is why I call bullshit at the OP's insistence that this Breakfast Brenda is such a sensational employee. OP is in equal measures overawed and afraid of Breakfast Brenda and that is what makes her a weak and ineffectual manager.

Because companies aren't usually in the habit of going around firing people (constructive dismissal?) because one particular person is especially efficient in their job - and when the other people have different roles and responsibilities, anyway...?

Breakfast Brenda is a senior administrator, OP states her productivity is the same as two regular workers in the same field, and takes on other people's work as well as her own, if that is true then why wouldn't the company look to shave the extra expense of one or even two employees off their bottom line? Why would they need those extra employees if Breakfast Brenda can do it all? They could easily do it through redundancy and amalgamation of roles.

It seems the story is now changing and we have Breakfast Brenda only doing her role and responsibilities well, the others have different roles and responsibilities and yet they are being compared and found wanting.

I'm still of the opinion that Breakfast Brenda hasn't enough work and her colleagues have too much.

I think RedDogsBeg's angle is useful because this is precisely what some of the colleagues will be thinking. The manager's job is to see the larger picture and do what's best for the company.

It seems the story is now changing and we have Breakfast Brenda only doing her role and responsibilities well, the others have different roles and responsibilities and yet they are being compared and found wanting.
Surely this is all speculation, unless I've missed the OP returning and commenting since Wednesday morning?