Hi Aimee

Think there's little to be gained by trying to have policies for absolutely everything. Some matters, this included, need to be determined by our overall health safety and welfare statutory duty as well as statutory duty not unlawfully to discriminate against female employees regarding female-only bodily events. Thus, recall when planning moving into new build branch office premises trying to determine what was the most appropriate sanitary equipment to provide in the female toilet areas. In the end. a helpful female member of staff there had a word with all her colleagues and advised me what exactly they'd all prefer. Any 'menstrual policy' would have been likely to uselessly re-state the obvious - that we were committed to providing at-least adequate facilities - so IMHO so specific a policy is in most if not every instance very unnecessary indeed

[Writing as someone who *doesn't* menstruate...]

Beware of a tendency to create a policy in order to be seen to be doing something!

The starting place must be "what is wrong with our current policies on the management of sickness and absence that isn't accommodating the needs of menstruating members of staff?"

If you can answer that question, then the first place to address it is in the existing policies. The next step is then to ask whether a policy is actually the solution to anything that hasn't, now, been addressed.

And I'd apply exactly the same points to menopause policies.

Remember: a policy is more-of-less immutable statement of intent by the directors of an organization. Whilst policy statements are often supported by procedural explanations, the procedure is not the policy and the policy is not the procedure. Procedures are easy to change as long as they abide by the terms of the policy. Polices much less so.

If a member of staff were struggling with some aspect of how menstruation was affecting their work or health, where would they turn to first? I doubt the answer is "the policy manual".

Writing as someone who does, I’m inclined to agree with Robey! What is the intention behind a separate menstruation policy?

As someone who does menstrate, I can't see how a policy could be of any use. We have around 200 female employees but only around 7 require leave or need to go home early due to having their period. Periods aren't a one size fits all issue and a specific policy would be a lot of work to maybe accommodate a small number of employees. There is also the risk that a menstruation policy (assuming it gives the person menstruating time off, reduced hours, lighter duties etc) could possibly be abused by other menstrating employees who previously had no issues whilst working

In reply to Michelle:

As one who used to menstruate and is now in the joys of the menopause, I am also sceptical about having Menstruation and Menopause policies. As David says, there is a danger of having a policy for every conceivable condition (not intended as a pun, sorry!). I'm all for supporting all employees, whatever their illness, condition or stage of life being given appropriate support and advice, practical where needed (sanitary wear, access to cool spaces, flexible approach to working on particularly bad days) but that should apply to everyone and only differ in the actual practical support.

I think we all need to consider those who struggle with menstruation, including dysmenorrhea which can also be endometriosis or uterine fibroids. A menstruation policy would help employees to speak out about their situation, and not feel guilty taking a sick days due to reoccurring pain every month, and in fact provide useful information and support on how best to go about this in the workplace.

In reply to Savannah:

A very good point. I guess my thinking would be that work to increase awareness in the workplace is they key to making people feel more able to talk about period-related concerns. Putting it down on paper in a policy might be part of that overall plan, but a policy alone doesn’t achieve an huge amount by itself.

In reply to Maya:

I agree that there needs to be wider awareness of all sorts of conditions and reduce any stigma or embarrassment, especially about regular occurrences (we all know reactions to, say, absence for a day every month from managers and peers!) People with IBS, Chrohn's etc will experience similar symptoms on a regularly occurring basis but we wouldn't necessarily have separate policies for them. Awareness of how we help people feel safe to talk about any condition or phase of life (since neither menstruation nor menopause is an illness or condition in itself though they may produce some uncomfortable or downright excruciating effects on a frequent basis) and know how to look after themselves and seek support feels more appropriate than a myriad of policies. And I have experienced the downright excruciating elements of both phases of life so I'm not trying to scoff or downplay the genuinely awfulness that some/many experience.

In reply to Savannah:

The counterpoint is that headlining policies about women's health has been shown to have a detrimental effect on the hiring decisions of male and female managers who - consciously or unconsciously - perceive greater risk and a greater bureaucratic burden in making job offers to women.

The same impact can been in promotion decisions - that where consciousness of women's health is headlined, women are overlooked more readily for promotion.

In reply to Robey:

How much of that detrimental effect would you say is due to the relative lack of women in leadership positions?

And/or is it that women in leadership role who are making hiring and promotion decisions are kicking the ladder away from beneath them...?

In reply to Maya:

My impressions are purely anecdotal on this question, but it's been my experience that male business leaders seem more keen to implement policies of this nature than their female counterparts. I don't think there's particularly anything sinister behind it, so much as it is men looking for a "safe" guide on how to manage things they don't understand and don't want to have to look at too closely.