saco-indonesia.com, Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi (KPK) telah memutuskan pemberian ucapan terima kasih berupa uang atau barang dan biaya transport kepada penghulu nikah termasuk gratifikasi. Hal itu telah diputuskan oleh KPK setelah mengadakan rapat koordinasi dengan Kemenag, Kemenkokesra, Kemenkeu, Bappenas, yang telah membahas soal praktik pelaksanaan nikah oleh KUA di berbagai tempat.
"Dari rapat hari ini telah disepakati; praktik penerimaan honor, tanda terima kasih, pengganti uang transport dalam pencatatan nikah adalah gratifikasi sebagaimana yang tertera dalam pasal 12B UU Tipikor," ujar Direktur Gratifikasi Giri Suprapdiono di KPK, Rabu (18/12).
Giri juga mengatakan anggaran operasional di KUA akan dinaikkan guna untuk mencegah para penghulu menerima ucapan imbalan dari pasangan yang dinikahkan. Sebab, menurutnya, uang operasional sebesar Rp 2 juta per bulan dianggap tidak dapat mencukupi biaya transport.
"Anggaran operasional cuma Rp 2 juta perbulan, tahun depan Rp 3 juta perbulan itu pun juga digunakan untuk operasional kantor. Maka dipandang biaya tersebut tidak dapat memenuhi transport pengulu," ujar Giri.
Pihaknya telah memahami banyak penghulu yang tidak memiliki transport untuk bisa datang ke tempat pernikahan. Hal itu yang dapat menjadi celah untuk penerimaan gratifikasi.
"Hanya sedikit yang punya alat transport, pada dasarnya gak ada sarana dan prasarana penghulu untuk bisa mendatangani pengantin, inilah yang jadi celah untuk penerimaan gratifikasi," ujar Giri.
Giri juga menambahkan jika nanti ada penghulu yang menerima honor, tanda terimakasih, atau uang transport, dari pengantin, harus segera dilaporkan kepada KPK.
"Setiap penerimaan gratifikasi harus dilaporkan kepada KPK dan untuk bisa memudahkan akan diatur mekanisme kemudian," tambahnya.
Selain itu, biaya operasional pencatatan di luar jam kantor, akan dibebankan ke APBN. Untuk itu, pemerintah juga perlu mengubah PP Nomor 7 Tahun 2004.
"1. Biaya operasional pencatatan di luar kantor, luar jam kantor dibebankan ke APBN. 2. Perlu ubah PP No 7/2004 paling lambat 2014. 3. Menunggu peraturan yang baru, Kemenag akan keluarkan peraturan menteri," pungkasnya.
How Some Men Fake an 80-Hour Workweek, and Why It Matters
Imagine an elite professional services firm with a high-performing, workaholic culture. Everyone is expected to turn on a dime to serve a client, travel at a moment’s notice, and be available pretty much every evening and weekend. It can make for a grueling work life, but at the highest levels of accounting, law, investment banking and consulting firms, it is just the way things are.
Except for one dirty little secret: Some of the people ostensibly turning in those 80- or 90-hour workweeks, particularly men, may just be faking it.
Many of them were, at least, at one elite consulting firm studied by Erin Reid, a professor at Boston University’s Questrom School of Business. It’s impossible to know if what she learned at that unidentified consulting firm applies across the world of work more broadly. But her research, published in the academic journal Organization Science, offers a way to understand how the professional world differs between men and women, and some of the ways a hard-charging culture that emphasizes long hours above all can make some companies worse off.
Ms. Reid interviewed more than 100 people in the American offices of a global consulting firm and had access to performance reviews and internal human resources documents. At the firm there was a strong culture around long hours and responding to clients promptly.
“When the client needs me to be somewhere, I just have to be there,” said one of the consultants Ms. Reid interviewed. “And if you can’t be there, it’s probably because you’ve got another client meeting at the same time. You know it’s tough to say I can’t be there because my son had a Cub Scout meeting.”
Some people fully embraced this culture and put in the long hours, and they tended to be top performers. Others openly pushed back against it, insisting upon lighter and more flexible work hours, or less travel; they were punished in their performance reviews.
The third group is most interesting. Some 31 percent of the men and 11 percent of the women whose records Ms. Reid examined managed to achieve the benefits of a more moderate work schedule without explicitly asking for it.
They made an effort to line up clients who were local, reducing the need for travel. When they skipped work to spend time with their children or spouse, they didn’t call attention to it. One team on which several members had small children agreed among themselves to cover for one another so that everyone could have more flexible hours.
A male junior manager described working to have repeat consulting engagements with a company near enough to his home that he could take care of it with day trips. “I try to head out by 5, get home at 5:30, have dinner, play with my daughter,” he said, adding that he generally kept weekend work down to two hours of catching up on email.
Despite the limited hours, he said: “I know what clients are expecting. So I deliver above that.” He received a high performance review and a promotion.
What is fascinating about the firm Ms. Reid studied is that these people, who in her terminology were “passing” as workaholics, received performance reviews that were as strong as their hyper-ambitious colleagues. For people who were good at faking it, there was no real damage done by their lighter workloads.
It calls to mind the episode of “Seinfeld” in which George Costanza leaves his car in the parking lot at Yankee Stadium, where he works, and gets a promotion because his boss sees the car and thinks he is getting to work earlier and staying later than anyone else. (The strategy goes awry for him, and is not recommended for any aspiring partners in a consulting firm.)
A second finding is that women, particularly those with young children, were much more likely to request greater flexibility through more formal means, such as returning from maternity leave with an explicitly reduced schedule. Men who requested a paternity leave seemed to be punished come review time, and so may have felt more need to take time to spend with their families through those unofficial methods.
The result of this is easy to see: Those specifically requesting a lighter workload, who were disproportionately women, suffered in their performance reviews; those who took a lighter workload more discreetly didn’t suffer. The maxim of “ask forgiveness, not permission” seemed to apply.
It would be dangerous to extrapolate too much from a study at one firm, but Ms. Reid said in an interview that since publishing a summary of her research in Harvard Business Review she has heard from people in a variety of industries describing the same dynamic.
High-octane professional service firms are that way for a reason, and no one would doubt that insane hours and lots of travel can be necessary if you’re a lawyer on the verge of a big trial, an accountant right before tax day or an investment banker advising on a huge merger.
But the fact that the consultants who quietly lightened their workload did just as well in their performance reviews as those who were truly working 80 or more hours a week suggests that in normal times, heavy workloads may be more about signaling devotion to a firm than really being more productive. The person working 80 hours isn’t necessarily serving clients any better than the person working 50.
In other words, maybe the real problem isn’t men faking greater devotion to their jobs. Maybe it’s that too many companies reward the wrong things, favoring the illusion of extraordinary effort over actual productivity.