In reply to David Perry:

David
Its been popular in certain organisations for a number of years (certainly more than 5) so absolutely a niche but not just an overnight sensation here today and gone tomorrow for some organisations at least.

I attended a webinair a few weeks ago hosted by bright HR and they have nerf guns in their offices, and apparently they're received very positively...

In reply to Kim:

...by the look of their website promo they also have space hoppers and juggling balls - some people have all the fun ;) https://www.brighthr.com/

I think I would only consider a policy on nerf guns at work if they were banned for everyone except HR, and HR staff only used them in the event of people misbehaving, ignoring sensible policies and generally being troublesome.

In reply to Kirsten:

I like your style, Kirsten :)

I'm sorry, but I cannot believe this is a serious question!

Why bother with the nerf gun? Why not just let staff flick elastic bands at each other, or throw sponges? That should satisfy the need to knock coffee into keyboards, keep the first aiders busy with the odd eye injury and allow the corporate bullies to gang up on today's favoured hate-targed with irritating, distracting and painful victimisation.

As for the "boys and toys" discussion: If I offered the same argument for an irritating expression of need in the workplace, but with "girls and gossip," or "ladies and lipstick" as the subject, would I be called a sexist pig? I HOPE SO!

I have not been a "boy" for over fifty years and while I have been ecorded as haveing an open mind and a sense of fun on occasion I find myself believing that the place for silly plaground toys and games IS the playground, not the workplace, and that the target for "fun" should be a willing participant, not a victim.

P

In reply to Peter:

Nor could I Peter.!

And the award for best thread of 2016 so far goes to...

reading this has been a joy for both all the right and wrong reasons.

Following on from Peter's comments, I do wonder what would happen in one of these companies if someone decided to use, for example, an elastic band firing a bit of cardboard. But twangs someone in the eye. Are they disciplined? But not the person who uses one of these Nerf Guns and hits someone in the eye?

In reply to David Perry:

Ultimately, if the majority of staff want their work environment to be "playtime and fun" then why not? Especially if it aligns with the values and ethos of the organisation.

However, the nature and limits of the "fun" needs to be suitably scoped in order to ensure that the employer's H&S obligations are fully met, and that those who don't want to participate are not adversely affected.

Let's not forget that injuries arising from horseplay/fun are still injuries that an employer is expected to take all reasonable steps to prevent - informing people of the risks and not inervening to avoid accidents is still an offense (for example, providing safety glasses, but not taking appropriate action when people do not use them).

Personally I would not want to work in this type of environment, but if it "works" for like minded souls, then so be it.

In reply to Ray:

"....If it works for like minded souls...."?

What if someone desperately wants to join the company where such "horseplay" is permitted but is given the choice of submitting to it or not furthering their career? (Since many of the instigation "fun" workplaces focus in IT, for instance and their other choices may be limited).

Would we feel the same way if we demanded a woman permit the telling of sexist jokes "for fun"? ...Or a minority colleague submit to the prejudices and occasional abuse of the majority "fo lighten the atmosphere"?

As someone who has participated in (and organised) "Awaydays", treasure-hunts, "jungle-training" (climbing rope ladders up "trees", walking along suspended ropes and stuff) and has enjoyed every (o.k., ....most...) minutes of them, I nevertheless balk at the deliberate flouting of basic H&S principles here. Has no-one ever heard of the Principle of Prevention? If not then can I suggest a quick glance at:

 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1999/3242/regulation/4/made and http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1999/3242/schedule/1/made

This is not H&S "overkill" this is basic duty of care. We know nerf guns can cause injuries, just as throwing sponges or flicking elastic bands can. We also know that bullies who wish to pick on and intimidate those who they would make their victims will use these "games" as an excuse to maliciously irritate and oppress. We additionally know  that under almost every workplace desk lies an overloaded multi-plug board and a grandma's knitting of IT and other cabling, so when a "target" laughingly jerks out of the way, knocks over their tea/coffee/water/larger (this is a "fun" workplace after all; why not add a drink or two to the mix?) and it floods off their desk into the varied electrical circuitry, trips the officer circuit-breaker crashing every programme and piece of unsaved work and maybe shorts out the server-feeds for good measure, who is going to be responsible for that "fun"?

Yes, workplaces can be fun and should be fun; but this is not fun, it is irresponsibility: Short sighted and predictably dangerous.

P

In reply to Peter:

I suspect we'll disagree Peter - many people will deselect themselves as candidates for jobs because they do not identify with a company's values. These values and behaviours are part and parcel of what working in that company means - provided the activities in questions are suitably under control then that's OK for me.

The fundamental issue is how you keep it "under control" and I think you and I both agree on the importance of this apect.

In reply to Ray:

No, we don't actually disagree Ray. My position is that such workplaces should not exist, since they are (by definition) unlawful! A company's values must remain moderated by law (hence my examples of other "cultures" that applicants could be asked to tolerate). The fact that nerf-guns (etc.) may seen fun does not alter the real (and I'm afraid undeniable) fact that the employer is allowing their employees to assult each other. The fact they agree to be assaulted makes everyone happy.........Up to the point where someone gets hurt (or some serious damage is done) at which point the employer is in the dock and both the employee and criminal law are chucking rocks at them.

....and they have no-where to hide.

The point being that a candidate for employment may share the corporate values up to the point where they (the candidate) recognise that they are being put "at risk" (as they are) by unlawful behavious, and conditions of employment. At that point they should simply not have to make a chocice!

I come to this as an avowed Nerf enthusiast. I only have a small collection, but I enjoy disassembling the weapons, modifying them (yes, making them more powerful and far more dangerous) and then painting them to resemble props from sci-fi movies. They are realistic enough that I can't take them out in public and am barred from selling my surplus on eBay.

Having said that I'm an enthusiast, if I were approached and asked about the use of them at work, my answer would be "hell, no".

It's not a case of their danger. Unmodified, they are considerably less dangerous that paper planes or elastic bands. They are also a *lot* of fun. I love having Nerf battles with my children (unmodified weapons only) and occasionally have like-minded friends around with their kids for a running battle.

Nor do I actively oppose their presence in the workplace.

There's a popular game called "Assassin" in which participants receive the name of another participant and a tiny (but surprisingly powerful) Nerf pistol called a Jolt. The idea is to shoot your target before whoever has your name shoots you. If you are "assassinated" you hand your target's name to your assassin. There are usually rules about where you can and can't assassinate a target (not at their desk, not in the toilet, not in the canteen and not in a meeting). Within a consenting group it can be a welcome stress-release.

The problem is partly, as others have mentioned, "enforced fun". But the main danger I would highlight from an HR perspective is that "Nerf battles" are a fundamentally exclusive activity. People who find such conflict alienating are either forced against their will to join in or are consciously or unconsciously excluded from the participating group. It's an activity that favours male participation groups (although there is a rather nifty range designed for girls) and offers an bullies and bigots a legitimized outlet to pick on their favoured targets.

Finally, I think even in environments where it appears to be both welcome and successful, it's a concealing activity. People may appear to be positive and engaged at work because they enjoy the non-work events and activities, but are, in fact, disengaged from the reason you're paying them to be there. It's a cheap gimmick of the sort that tech start-ups favour but which fails to actually achieve useful or measurable business goals.

If your business thinks it needs something like this, then I suggest that instead of asking HR if it's OK, they ask HR if they can provide some constructive ideas of how to get staff engaged positively in a low-cost fashion. I'm sure you could come up with better ideas than Nerf battles.

For heaven's sake, though, don't ban it on H&S grounds unless you want HR to be forever tarred as the corporate party-pooper.

As a final note, my rule for games of Assassin is "you don't talk about games of Assassin". If I find out, game's over. That's part of the game: play it, by all means, but unobtrusively. If someone complains, it stops. If I see it happening, it stops.

Which is a shame, because I would *rock*.

In reply to Robey:

There was a particularly hard-fought game of Assassin on our third floor recently - all our advisers got involved as well as our press and policy teams! They loved it and used to post daily updates on our intranet. You've got to make your own fun at work sometimes!