Any individual ?

^^ That works. Or turn it around slightly to read "Rudeness to a customer, volunteer, vendor, supplier, employee or any visitor.........."

Hi jim,

... "or other person" ...

... "or other related person" ...

... "or other relevant person"/("creature", should you choose to add a measure of levity) ...

... come off the top of this person/(creature)'s head.

As for " running out of ...", jim, is that more equipment or supplies related, or somewhat more to a higher issue, something like the resources above one's shoulders?

ole joyfuelled

Any person or individual that you should come in contact with while performing your duties or on the premises of this organization.

I like Elizabeth's phrasing - Rudeness to any persons or individuals associated with X organization...

Or course, then you get into what qualifies as rude behavior so you might want to take a look at that too. What one sees as rude another may not.

It's impossible to determine what other's may be offended by any more. A simple good morning can be taken the wrong way.

An easy start to clarify this would be no obscene language, gestures or words on clothing. I was surprised to see a young man at the gym today wearing a shirt with an obscenity a foot high on the front of his shirt... never acceptable.

"Unprofessional communication and/or inappropriate conduct toward a colleague or customer...."

eta: assuming vendors and suppliers would be "colleagues" but perhaps not. So perhaps remove entirely to state:

"Unprofessional communication and/or conduct will not be tolerated."

I like Feather11's idea. I always think such things need to be written in 3rd grade level language. So maybe something like "Pleasant and welcoming words and actions, towards everyone, is expected of you"

"I was surprised to see a young man at the gym today wearing a shirt with an obscenity a foot high on the front of his shirt... never acceptable."

Ah, but then you run into First Amendment issues.

First Amendment: Just because you can say it doesn't mean you should.

I would eliminate the negative tone and go with the suggestion by raee.

"Pleasant and welcoming words and actions, towards everyone, is expected of you"

I like Michael's idea of emphasizing a positive atmosphere to the instructions, perhaps with an addition related to the negative issues that you mention.

ole joyful

I also like Michael's positive tone. The word "respectful" (or "disrespectful" if you have to keep the original) would be more of an umbrella term rather than listing several qualifiers.

ETA: Sorry, just realized I didn't address the original question. Here is my take on it. "Respectful behaviour is expected/required towards all individuals, including, but not limited to employees, visitors, customers, vendors and suppliers."

" I was surprised to see a young man at the gym today wearing a shirt with an obscenity a foot high on the front of his shirt... never acceptable."

Whose standards should apply to what he wears - his or yours?

I say - His.

If I disagree with something you say or do, if lawful, I have no right to force you to stop. I may have an opinion and the right to express it but no say otherwise. You don't either.

. . . employee or similar.

, , , employee etcetera.

If you've ever written a policy manual (I have for multiple companies), you must be clear and specific and have quantifiable standards. Emotion based statements such as "have a pleasant attitude" are too susceptible to misinterpretations. That will open the business up to lawsuits from those claiming that it would be impossible to apply that standard equitably to all employees.

I would recommend that you get guidance from your HR department, they will have experience with dodging those legal issues.

Rudeness is not tolerated.

Hounds, are you including an objective standard for rudeness? For example, I may consider it quite rude for a person with empty hands to not open a door for another with full hands. You may not consider that rude at all. Do you see why there needs to be a measurable standard?

An objective standard for a subjective reaction to a behavior? Good luck.

Here are some example of common behaviors that would be controlled via an employment contract and a policy manual - no obscenities, no smoking, no use of alcohol. Failing to say "good morning", opening a door or thanking someone come under the heading of politeness vs rudeness but don't belong in a policy manual.

Taking Raye's examples a step further, the sentence could be modified to say something like "all individuals associated with X Organization are expected to follow the code of conduct as described in the policy manual of X Organization."

Things like shirts with obscenities on the front can be addressed via a dress code.

Yes to the positive. State your expectations of behavior not what not to do.

" no obscenities, no smoking, no use of alcohol. Failing to say "good morning", opening a door or thanking someone "

Appropriate only if located in Stepford, CT. Otherwise, the first batch doesn't reflect how the general public lives. No volunteers wanted from that group?

Monks, nuns, priests, even those in cloisters and monasteries, aren't usually subject to rules like that. If these prohibitions are suggested because of religious beliefs, they would only be appropriate for a charity operated by a religious organization for its members, not for one manned by and serving the general public.

Ah, but then you run into First Amendment issues.

A private gym/business certainly can prohibit the wearing of obscenities on clothing while on their premises.

Yes Lucille, every gym I've joined included a prohibition of wearing obscenities.

Elmer - Most business prohibit drinking alcohol at work and many are now banning smoking also. Many won't hire smokers either, smokers health issues are too expensive for many employers to provide insurance. As far as the good morning, opening doors, thanking someone those are polite actions that an employer might desire but these behaviors aren't something to control through a policy manual.

raye, i don't believe you can ask a job applicant if they smoke. I'm not certain but I know there's a category of personal, non-job relevant questions that are verboten. Anyway, I think Jim is working on volunteers, not employees.

Unless undesired conduct is a persistent problem, a policy needn't do more than outline expectations and not rules. If a volunteer has inappropriate behavior, however subjectively determined, they can easily be asked to not come back. Employement law/individual rights in the law don't apply.

I sensed some personal moralizing in your comments and if I misunderstood, I'm sorry.

Last time I applied for a job (I've been retired for > 5 years) and last volunteer position I interviewed for both asked about smoking and both clearly stated that they don't hire smokers. And yes, I was hired/brought on for both of those positions and they weren't in the same state.

The best place to get help writing a policy manual without risking lawsuit is still to go to an HR department. Unfortunately there are people that will sue a volunteer organization and try to damage the charities reputation or harm them financially.

I was with a large company with ops coast to coast and abroad. It was clearly communicated that personal and lifestyle questions that were not relevant to the job's requirements COULD NOT be asked. Do smaller employers or those with less concern about compliance with the law ignore rules? Yes, of course.

And, I looked it up - 29 states and the District of C prohibit discrimination/asking about legal activities conducted outside of working hours. So, 60 percent. My company followed the same rule everywhere because there are also federal employment discrimination rules too, in the absence of/in addition to state ones.

Private organizations, like religious ones, can discriminate (and they do!) and with volunteers anyway, if there's no public slander or injury, I don't think they have standing to bring suit.

I said nothing about activities outside of work. It is legal to have a no smoking policy and both ask and state on an application that any applicant that cannot abide by their policy will not be considered for employment. Smokers don't wait until their "not at work" to smoke so this is relevant to inclusion in a policy manual.

The Cleveland Clinic banned hiring smokers way back in 2007. They also random test for nicotine.

Scotts Miracle-Gro company also bans hiring smokers.

That's two of many corporations that followed The Clinic and banned new hires that smoke.

raye, you can say it over and over again and it doesn't change facts. It is not legal in much of the US to ask job applicants if they smoke, nor to have a policy to not hire smokers in many states, nor to have a policy against or to ask about legal activities outside of work. Here's a list that's a few years old.

In many places, no smoking is a matter of law inside or just outside public buildings. What people decide to do as they walk down the street is not a matter their employers can regulate or ask about. Including going to a bar for lunch or having a beer with lunch.

Hiring smokers

Elmer, please read Michael's post, there are others that know more about this topic than you do.

OK CRETINS.

Let's stay on topic. I get sick and tired of you west-coast folks hijacking threads.

No, it was Tuesday.

Jim I did a search and one company decided that they could not impose civility; what they did was gather the employees in a work shop and let them develop their own rules for the behaviors that are important to them. I'm sure you have excellent ideas and skills, but I wonder if input from those the rules apply to might increase effectiveness?

Sure! Was just looking for brevity, and mostly being a smart a$$!

OK CRETINS.

Respectful behaviour is required towards all individuals including, but not limited to, west-coast folks, east coast folks, central plains dwellers and southern neighbours.

Are there different rules governing corporate bodies employing people and agencies that recruit volunteers?

ole joyful ... hopefully, only skating on the outskirts of CRETINhood