Mobiles in the workplace.

Antares35

shtpEdthePlum wrote: »

I dunno if it's been mentioned yet

https://www.indystar.com/story/news/local/2021/04/18/fedex-shooting-indianapolis-cell-phone-policy/7251674002/

It hopefully will never happen here but being without your phone for this is inhumane.

Some of the posters here will just tell you it didn't happen in their day so it's irrelevant.

Antares35

Dav010 wrote: »

Survivor bias, for surviving childhood?

This thread really is something.

You're the one who went skipping down memory lane about surviving your own one.

Zebrag

I work in retail myself and even though its told, common sense would say, don't have your phone on the floor or even, if you do have your phone on the floor, don't make it obvious.

In all the years I've worked in retail, I've heard of one person being repremended for it but he was a young kid, just finished school and following rules didn't apply to him. He tried to use the "what if emergency" excuse which was fair enough but the issue was, he was standing on the shop floor in full view of the store owner and management strolling through what I presume was Facebook. Had he left his phone in his pocket, waited until said people left or didn't make it obvious then he wouldn't have had the whole hulabaloo of going into the office and causing an argument. Union didn't even bother fighting for him because he couldn't get it into to his head that he was wrong.

Look I'm all for every one has the right to have their phones on them for emergencies. Sure kids get sick in school or family members have had an accident but the obvious case would be, have the phone on vibrate, leave it in your pocket and check when necessary not when there's a crowd of people around and can see you directly. You're asking for someone to spot you and make a show of you. If your phone starts ringing then excuse yourself or say you need the toilet, something, anything and then take the call.

I went into Lidl a few months ago and just as I was putting my stuff on the tills, the chap whips out his phone and starts texting. He seen me, knew I was ready and waiting to be served and didn't even so much to lift his head. I proceeded to say "whenever you're ready pal" and before I even finished my sentence, the phone was put away and his face went red. I don't care that he was texting but I do care that he literally had to do it in the second a customer arrived to the till. Texting isn't an emergency in my book especially when you're clearly having a smile over it. Yes it's nice to get a lovely text in work, it's the wrong time to respond.

My boyfriend works in a hospital and although has his phone on him as emergency updates if the little one is sick etc but I would be lucky to get a text or a call until his break. He can hardly take his phone out in the middle of moving a patient.

I think the point being of the thread is, don't use your phone if it's going to distract you from your work. You've only yourself to blame if you get repremended. If the policy says actions have to be taken then them the rules. There's no point in arguing.

Tails142

I don't think I'd stick working in a place like that being treated like a child, I guess some of the people there are basically overgrown children is they can't stay off their phone and it's come to this.

Dav010

Antares35 wrote: »

You're the one who went skipping down memory lane about surviving your own one.

I’m part of a childhood survivors group, we are encouraged to heal through talking.

Princess Calla

Dav010 wrote: »

Policies applied to all generally become necessary because of the actions of a few. Introducing those policies is the way employers manage them. I would suspect that most employment contracts now have policies relating to mobile phone use, if they are ignored and the circumstances warrant it, the management have to introduce new policy. In the op’s case, it’s hard to argue that forklift drivers/heavy machinery operators do not fit those circumstances.

Yeah I'd definitely agree and I queried why it's only being implemented now as mobile phones are around 25 yrs at this stage.

OP said it was due to facebook (2004) snap chat (2011) and tik tok (2016) none of these apps are new to the market. So again why only now to implement a new policy.

It would appear management turned a blind eye at the start and now the problem has grown , so management are now firefighting the problem instead of being proactive at the start, with the rules that were already in place.

Like if it's a group of 5 people standing around watching a tiktok video give all 5 an official verbal warning.

Start weeding out the problem rather than taking the nuclear option and annoying your entire workforce.

I've worked in places where my phone was in my locker, where I was searched and bag searched on the way out, I never had an issue with that.

I do however have issues with management bringing heavy handed policies in overnight to deal with a few problem staff. Once they get away with it once it can turn into a very slippery slope of unilateral changes and the workplace becomes extremely toxic.

OhHiMark

Dav010 wrote: »

I’m part of a childhood survivors group, we are encouraged to heal through talking.

Survivor's bias isn't literally about surviving. It's about people who have a favourable outcome of a situation assuming that that outcome will happen for everyone.

Dav010

OhHiMark wrote: »

Survivor's bias isn't literally about surviving. It's about people who have a favourable outcome of a situation assuming that that outcome will happen for everyone.

We are told it means different things to different people as it affects us all in different ways. No two experiences of surviving childhood are the same.

OhHiMark

Dav010 wrote: »

We are told it means different things to different people as it affects us all in different ways. No two experiences of surviving childhood are the same.

It's ok to not know what something means. You don't need to double down on your ignorance.

Dav010

OhHiMark wrote: »

It's ok to not know what something means. You don't need to double down on your ignorance.

Mark, the earlier post was about a posters childhood experience, he/she is then accused of survivor bias, I know what it means, I was taking the piss because of the breathtaking absurdity of the statement. Did you actually think I was being serious, time to tune the antennae.

Mrs OBumble

shtpEdthePlum wrote: »

It hopefully will never happen here but being without your phone for this is inhumane.

Shuting down unauthorised communication is part of managing incidents like that: it stops rumours. Unfortunately cellphones have made it next to impossible to do.

OhHiMark

Dav010 wrote: »

Mark, the earlier post was about a posters childhood experience, he/she is then accused of survivor bias, I know what it means, I was taking the piss because of the breathtaking absurdity of the statement. Did you actually think I was being serious, time to tune the antennae.

And the earlier comment wasn't about a child dying, it was about any number of things. My ex has a child with epilepsy. She would always need to be contactable. Not having a phone could be the difference between her getting her child to the doctor he needs or not. Yes, in the past people didn't have mobile phones and weren't contactable, but now mobile phones are a thing. It's like saying "how did children survive before the polio vaccine?"

JimmyVik

OhHiMark wrote: »

And the earlier comment wasn't about a child dying, it was about any number of things. My ex has a child with epilepsy. She would always need to be contactable. Not having a phone could be the difference between her getting her child to the doctor he needs or not. Yes, in the past people didn't have mobile phones and weren't contactable, but now mobile phones are a thing. It's like saying "how did children survive before the polio vaccine?"

Back in those days there was usually at least one parent not in work all the time too.
Personally i love leaving my phone at home, but i get that some people need to be contactable, especially if both parents are at work.

shtpEdthePlum

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Shuting down unauthorised communication is part of managing incidents like that: it stops rumours. Unfortunately cellphones have made it next to impossible to do.

Yeah if I had my phone, I would definitely have sent a WhatsApp saying
"I don't want want to start any rumours but there are three people dead with me here in FedEx".

They couldn't contact their families for hours after the attack and let them know they were alright.

twowheelsonly

shtpEdthePlum wrote: »

I dunno if it's been mentioned yet

https://www.indystar.com/story/news/local/2021/04/18/fedex-shooting-indianapolis-cell-phone-policy/7251674002/

It hopefully will never happen here but being without your phone for this is inhumane.

Inhumane ?? No it's not.

Inhumane is an employee posting on Social Media 5 minutes after the incident.
"I'm ok but EdthePlum is dead"
I'm sure Eds family will be delighted to hear of his death on Facebook.

Mrs OBumble

OhHiMark wrote: »

And the earlier comment wasn't about a child dying, it was about any number of things. My ex has a child with epilepsy. She would always need to be contactable. Not having a phone could be the difference between her getting her child to the doctor he needs or not. "

In that case, the kid always needs to be with someone who can take it to the doctor at a moments notice. Probably not a good fit for institutional childcare.

shtpEdthePlum

twowheelsonly wrote: »

Inhumane ?? No it's not.

Inhumane is an employee posting on Social Media 5 minutes after the incident.
"I'm ok but EdthePlum is dead"
I'm sure Eds family will be delighted to hear of his death on Facebook.

Good idea so, take everyone's phone in case this happens. Never mind being able to call the police or give details to dispatch about the ongoing incident.
Which has actually helped police to promptly during these kinds of attack before.

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

In that case, the kid always needs to be with someone who can take it to the doctor at a moments notice. Probably not a good fit for institutional childcare.

Ridiculous comment. Children with Epilepsy are always with somebody who is trained to administer emergency medication and if that doesn't work, they will indeed be heading to hospital.

Imagine finding out at 6pm that your child had been rushed to hospital five hours previous.

AnRothar

Occasionally I have been watching the satellite channels when I have been at a loose end.

There are some interesting programmes but most call under sort of train wreck television.

Following this thread the one that springs to mind involves hoarding.
It's interesting to see the exaggerated value some of them put to small trinkets.
And the feeling that they get when asked to part with it.

Very similar to a lot of posters here and their mobiles.

Princess Calla

AnRothar wrote: »

It's interesting to see the exaggerated value some of them put to small trinkets.
And the feeling that they get when asked to part with it.

Very similar to a lot of posters here and their mobiles.

Well no I'd have a similar reaction if management time locked any of my belongings, keys, handbag coat etc.

If you're not allowed them on the floor grand, provide me with a locker where I have a key and can access it as needed.

Dav010

Princess Calla wrote: »

Well no I'd have a similar reaction if management time locked any of my belongings, keys, handbag coat etc.

If you're not allowed them on the floor grand, provide me with a locker where I have a key and can access it as needed.

Op actually posted that employer bought individual lockers for each employee, they wouldn’t use them.

Fionn1952

Dav010 wrote: »

Op actually posted that employer bought individual lockers for each employee, they wouldn’t use them.

A small number of employees wouldn't use them. A significant majority were compliant with the rules but management are so devoid of ideas that the best solution they could come up with was to treat everyone like a child...

Dav010

Fionn1952 wrote: »

A small number of employees wouldn't use them. A significant majority were compliant with the rules but management are so devoid of ideas that the best solution they could come up with was to treat everyone like a child...

Considering the employees seem to have been warned repeatedly, and again we are talking about drivers and operators of machinery, what other solutions would you recommend, suspension/termination?

Princess Calla

Dav010 wrote: »

Considering the employees seem to have been warned repeatedly, and again we are talking about drivers and operators of machinery, what other solutions would you recommend, suspension/termination?

Well yeah, it will take one suspension/termination.

They provided lockers.... employees didn't use them.

They are now providing time locked cabinets that I guarantee employees will bring a second phone for.

Management have shown they have no power, they bring in rules but don't actually follow through with enforcing them.

Strumms

greenspurs wrote: »

It did.
People leaving phones in crates going to customers, watching videos in toilets and staying in there for 10-15 mins.

People ruined it for themselves by being stupid about it.

You can only tell people to "Put it away" so many times before action has to be taken.

Take the action of initiating an investigation and subsequent disciplinary...you know, managers, managing.

‘Some’ people ruin it, the majority just wish and expect to keep their personal property under their control... what next , car keys in a box ?

You can’t ‘take’ properties that belong to other people...or dictate what to do with them...

No phones ? What next ? No wallets ? No cash ?

No problem of course with smoking...you have management types who have about 5-6 smoke breaks daily outside of scheduled breaks, have no issues that line employees join them because if they have to pull them up for taking excess breaks they’d have to pull themselves up.. :pac: incompetence...

Leave people with their phones, get about those who are never off them.

Dav010

Strumms wrote: »

You can’t ‘take’ properties that belong to other people...or dictate what to do with them...
.

What? Are you saying people can bring whatever they want into the workplace and use it while they are working? (Think uniforms)

Do people’s wallet and cash distract them at work?

Strumms

Dav010 wrote: »

What? Are you saying people can bring whatever they want into the workplace and use it while they are working? (Think uniforms)

Do people’s wallet and cash distract them at work?

I never said people can bring in whatever they want.. so...why are you asking if I did ?

I don’t know, my phone never distracted me at work either...I have enough awareness and professionalism to know when it is appropriate to check a mobile and when to leave it in your pocket.

Again, people using phones when they shouldn’t, let the management deal with them on a one to one, incident by incident basis.

Fionn1952

Dav010 wrote: »

Considering the employees seem to have been warned repeatedly, and again we are talking about drivers and operators of machinery, what other solutions would you recommend, suspension/termination?

No, a small number of the employees seem to have been warned repeatedly. The rest have been fully compliant by the sounds of it.

I'd recommend that managers apply a modicum of, you know, people management. The ridiculous, 'solution' put forward by management is like driving a nail with a sledgehammer.

Now granted my own management experience has never been in a factory/production setting, but as for how I'd actually manage it? First thing would be explaining why the policy was in place, then creating (or reminding staff of) a the disciplinary procedure and then subjecting the small number of non-compliant staff to that procedure, up to and including dismissal if necessary.

If it is such a grave safety issue as implied, it would be entirely reasonable to fire someone for non-compliance, particularly if they've gone through a process of verbal and written warnings first. I've no idea how a defined disciplinary procedure is being portrayed as less sensible than blanket treatment of an entire workforce like children, including those who actually do follow the set rules.

Jequ0n

JayRoc wrote: »

What is it that I hold dear? (This is
not me arguing with you, genuine question)

Since you seemed to take offence at someone not expressing sympathies it must either be value on family and offspring or value on the upholding or social expectations even if they mean nothing.

greenspurs

C3PO wrote: »

I can’t imagine working in a company where I would hand in my phone at the start of the day! I’m genuinely wondering whether the OP is making it up?

Why would i do that ??

greenspurs

Princess Calla wrote: »

Well no I'd have a similar reaction if management time locked any of my belongings, keys, handbag coat etc.

If you're not allowed them on the floor grand, provide me with a locker where I have a key and can access it as needed.

Dav010 wrote: »

Op actually posted that employer bought individual lockers for each employee, they wouldn’t use them.

Provided for each employee

Fionn1952 wrote: »

A small number of employees wouldn't use them. A significant majority were compliant with the rules but management are so devoid of ideas that the best solution they could come up with was to treat everyone like a child...

I did not say that.

Dav010 wrote: »

Considering the employees seem to have been warned repeatedly, and again we are talking about drivers and operators of machinery, what other solutions would you recommend, suspension/termination?