One thing to remember though: an Employee Handbook has legal status. It's usually the primary vector that companies use to establish policies. For instance, the Zaarly handbook doesn't mention discrimination at all (except to tell employees to expect the men to use the women's restroom --- w.t.f.?!).
If you're going to do something like this --- and I'm not saying you shouldn't --- have a button-down version as well. It should make clear that employees are exempt from overtime, that you don't tolerate discrimination, that employment is at-will, when re-hired employees are considered formally a "re-hire" vs. "LOA" (so their benefits clock doesn't reset), and any expectations you have about client-facing conduct or not rm'ing the production servers, so that in a dispute, you can point to the document that spells stuff out.
The other thing to remember is that you'll occasionally be providing this to candidate employees during your hiring process, and again, there are formalities that you want to make clear.
I'm rewriting our handbook right now and targeting something in between this and the standard HR issue (actually, I'm targeting something more along the lines of Valve's guide, which I think is fantastic). It's tricky to get the tone right. One place I am taking advantage of a direct, common-sense tone is our anti-harassment and anti-discrimination policy stuff, where I can write forcefully and directly and not put off anyone I'd actually want to work with.
The original statement is generally correct. Employee handbooks don't have contractual status (i.e. they can be amended at the company's discretion) but do have legal status insofar as employee's will be expected and, in most cases be contractually bound, to abide by the terms of the handbook.
It can bind employers, too. In most states, the answer to "what happens with unclaimed vacation pay if I quit?" is "go see what it says in the employee handbook."
Most (if not all) explicitly say they are not to be mistaken (in any way) as legally binding contract. With at will employment, this seeming nuance is worth keeping in mind. It means the employee cannot rely on such a handbook, in court: the employer has explicitly prevented this use. As you correcty point out, an explicit contract may require one or both sides to live up to the handbook. But such employment contracts are not considered the general case, in the US at least.
One thing to remember though: an Employee Handbook has legal status. It's usually the primary vector that companies use to establish policies. For instance, the Zaarly handbook doesn't mention discrimination at all (except to tell employees to expect the men to use the women's restroom --- w.t.f.?!).
If you're going to do something like this --- and I'm not saying you shouldn't --- have a button-down version as well. It should make clear that employees are exempt from overtime, that you don't tolerate discrimination, that employment is at-will, when re-hired employees are considered formally a "re-hire" vs. "LOA" (so their benefits clock doesn't reset), and any expectations you have about client-facing conduct or not rm'ing the production servers, so that in a dispute, you can point to the document that spells stuff out.
The other thing to remember is that you'll occasionally be providing this to candidate employees during your hiring process, and again, there are formalities that you want to make clear.
I'm rewriting our handbook right now and targeting something in between this and the standard HR issue (actually, I'm targeting something more along the lines of Valve's guide, which I think is fantastic). It's tricky to get the tone right. One place I am taking advantage of a direct, common-sense tone is our anti-harassment and anti-discrimination policy stuff, where I can write forcefully and directly and not put off anyone I'd actually want to work with.