Mobiles in the workplace.

Necro

Sounds like a classic case of lazy management tbh.

Managers too lazy or afraid to actually manage their staff.

If Betsy and Johnny are on their phones too much then deal with them through the disciplinary procedures in place in the organisation already. If there aren't any, well then it might be an idea to create some.

Then everyone else who isn't causing a problem doesn't have to suffer because the management won't actually do their jobs properly.

greenspurs

ELM327 wrote: »

Are you taking employees from prison?

I'd never work for you/your company even if you doubled my salary! Awful.

Manage the problems, don't punish everyone for the perceived sins of a few.

Because you couldnt use a mobile phone to distract you , while supposed to be earning the salary.??
They wouldnt hire you.

Princess Calla

greenspurs wrote: »

Wow... the exaggeration to justify .. what ? i dont know .


As i said it would be 3-4 for the receptionist to contact the person, and for them to get their mobile..
So whats the difference ?

Mobiles are not an item of PPE in this job. They are not required. Simple.

No it's not an exaggeration.

Receptionist takes the call.
Rings my manager as suggested by mrs o bumble explains Calla needs to contact creche.
Manager contacts me to say I need to contact the creche. (Two people are involved that really didn't need to be) also assuming that the situation is fluid, that my manager is contactable at their desk which they rarely are.

I ring the creche ,find out what's happening.
I ring the dad.....at this point it's a question mark if it's as handy for them to turn back or for me to leave.

It made sense for him to deal with the situation as he was closer, but delays in the call he wouldn't have been closer.

No exaggeration just the way things happened and how travel works.

bucketybuck

greenspurs wrote: »

Even if theres a risk that the phone can slip into produce going to customers?

You still think thats ok?


If its on a desk in an office, theres no risk of it 'contaminating' a product, but if its someone on a production/packing line using their phone, the risk is considerably higher.
You think thats ok ?

If I contaminate produce or have my phone out and increase the risk of produce being contaminated then put on the big boy pants and discipline me for doing that.

JayRoc

witchgirl26 wrote: »

It'd be one thing if they were providing lockers for people to store their phone in, no issue with that at all. Even having a rule of no phones on the floor & disciplinary processes in place if you are caught with one. However I think the big issue here is management being in charge of locking those phones & the locks only releasing at certain times. That part seems a bit draconian. Also does that mean that management are happy to take responsibility if something is to happen to someone's phone while in those lockers? I know that they can can use the "stored at owners risk" in locker rooms where the individuals are in charge of locking the locker themselves but if management are in control of that & there is any kind of issue with the locking system & something gets damaged or stolen, it opens them up for claims.



I have a young child in creche. He's only 2 and started creche when he was 8 months old. Add in a break for Covid-19 shutdown & he hasn't been physically in the creche for more than about 9 months. The creche have rang me about 20 times in that period. They are obliged to let you know if your child has bumped their head. If they need to administer paracetamol, they have to get your permission on the phone first. I don't want my child waiting a couple of hours to get medicine that's needed because I have to wait till a tea-break to ring them back. There's also times, especially at the moment, that if they start displaying a Covid-19 symptom, you need to go collect them as soon as possible.
Mobiles have been around and in common use for over 20 years. And prior to that, creches weren't in as common usage as there was often a parent at home or grandparents doing the minding. Therefore there wasn't the same necessity to be contacted. Times move on & change.
I love being without my phone for times and ignoring it completely. However while my child is in creche, I don't leave it too far away from me as for his sake, I need to be contactable.

That's an interesting point.

So what do people like security officers, gym instructors, pharma workers, etc do? Do they not have kids in creche? Any supermarket staff I know would not be permitted to carry a mobile phone during shift; surely they have kids?

And if someone works at a desk job I presume they would have a landline on their desk that can be called in an emergency.


I'm not arguing with you here; I am curious. I can't envisage being able to do my job if I needed to be available for personal calls all the time.

greenspurs

bucketybuck wrote: »

Another person trying to make this something it is not.

Tell me this, if they said you had to leave your wallet in some box in reception would you have a problem with it?

Please note that according to the OP this is not a personal locker for each employee, it is a box that is locked and that they cannot access outside of strict times.

Making people leave their phones in their own locker would be fine because at least it is still under the employees control, but that would require management to discipline those who don't follow that instruction.

They are individual perspex boxes, for each individuals phone to place into.
In clear view of the whole workplace ...

greenspurs

greenspurs wrote: »

You use your phone at work , dont you ? :rolleyes:

As ive said ..The procedure is they ring the reception.
If its an 'emergency' the receptionist comes out - "you need to ring your wife/husband"...
They get their phone and ring...
3-4mins id say.....

I suppose thats too long of a delay also ? :rolleyes:

Wow...
Phone addicts cant bear to be away from them ....

Princess Calla wrote: »

No it's not an exaggeration.

Receptionist takes the call.
Rings my manager as suggested by mrs o bumble explains Calla needs to contact creche.
Manager contacts me to say I need to contact the creche. (Two people are involved that really didn't need to be) also assuming that the situation is fluid, that my manager is contactable at their desk which they rarely are.

I ring the creche ,find out what's happening.
I ring the dad.....at this point it's a question mark if it's as handy for them to turn back or for me to leave.

It made sense for him to deal with the situation as he was closer, but delays in the call he wouldn't have been closer.

No exaggeration just the way things happened and how travel works.

What i said is above your post....

Its not a game of Chinese Whispers by phone ...... :rolleyes:

witchgirl26

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

So what would happen if you were a theatre nurse or a prison guard etc?

If I was in a critical role like one of those, I'd probably make sure that my other half was the main point of contact. Easiest way. Generally unlikely that both parents would be in those types of roles.

However those professions aren't what the OP initially was talking about.

I know someone who is a prison guard & what they've done is get a smart watch (not a mad expensive one) which shows up when they're getting a call & who is calling them. If it's the creche, they go straight to their senior, explain the situation & go to office phone & ring them back. It's a lot quicker than the creche having to ring through to main reception in a prison & try to get to a particular prison guard when prisons are very large & with a large number of people on shift at any one time.

If it was a pilot like you previously mentioned, well that's a totally different thing as you'd be probably ending up in a different country at even the mid-point of your shift so I would hope that you would have arranged a proxy for the creche to contact in those circumstances.

Look I'm not saying that everyone should have their phone attached to them at all points, however workplaces do need to consider people's circumstances and the most straightforward way to help deal with this in a productive & reasonable manner. Locking people's phones away seems a little mad. When I was in secondary school back when the 3310 was big, they didn't even lock away our phones. There were rules in place about not using them in class & there were disciplinary measures in place if you did. Surely management could treat their employees like adults with introducing measures like this and also keep their role of actually enforcing the disciplinary measures.

Some companies spend a fortune creating a positive working environment.

Others buy a metal safe to lock away employees phones.

Madness

ELM327

greenspurs wrote: »

Because you couldnt use a mobile phone to distract you , while supposed to be earning the salary.??
They wouldnt hire you.

I earn my salary by demonstrating outputs of what I do. If I spend 3 hours a day on the internet , and spread out 7 hours a day in 2 hour sprints doing work and attending calls, but the numbers for the company beat targets then I'm good.


I dont work by the hour or by the contact etc.

I suspect a job where mobile phones are locked away and employees agree to this would be a very low paid job with high attrition and low morale anyway.

JayRoc

bucketybuck wrote: »

Making people leave their phones in their own locker would be fine because at least it is still under the employees control, but that would require management to discipline those who don't follow that instruction.

Agree. I can't see an issue with staff being asked to use their own locker to store their phone during work. It has already been implied that management here may be somewhat confrontation-averse; but most people in the thread seem to be het up simply at the idea of not being permitted to have their mobile on them at all times.

AnRothar

greenspurs wrote: »

They are individual perspex boxes, for each individuals phone to place into.
In clear view of the whole workplace ...

In a vain attempt to deal with this issue local management installed similar boxes.
These are nifty.
Each individual box has multiple charging cables and is pin protected.

So to use one all an individual has to do is select a box.
Enter a pin.
Put the phone in the box with free charging as a bonus.
Lock the door.

Simple you would think.

Still people have their "precious" in their bag/ pocket.

Lost of people are from the Charlton Heston school of personal property.

Simple method would have been to enforce the rules but that would be characterised by the poor misfortunes who think the rules apply to everyone else as "heavy handed".

AnRothar

ELM327 wrote: »

I suspect a job where mobile phones are locked away and employees agree to this would be a very low paid job with high attrition and low morale anyway.

I beg to differ.:D:D

greenspurs

greenspurs wrote: »

They are individual perspex boxes, for each individuals phone to place into.
In clear view of the whole workplace ...

Deleted User wrote: »

Some companies spend a fortune creating a positive working environment.

Others buy a metal safe to lock away employees phones.

Madness

Not as dramatic as you are trying to imply....

Looking for likes ?

Princess Calla

JayRoc wrote: »

That's an interesting point.

So what do people like security officers, gym instructors, pharma workers, etc do? Do they not have kids in creche? Any supermarket staff I know would not be permitted to carry a mobile phone during shift; surely they have kids?

And if someone works at a desk job I presume they would have a landline on their desk that can be called in an emergency.


I'm not arguing with you here; I am curious. I can't envisage being able to do my job if I needed to be available for personal calls all the time.

There are plenty of roles that you are not allowed mobile phones "on the shop floor" (as an aside I've seen security, gym instructors and supermarket staff all with phones) I do know in pharma it's written into your contract and if you are caught with a phone it's instant dismissal.

However you know that going in, you make arrangements to suit whatever stage in life you're at. You nominate other people to act as emergency contact for you etc.

That's not the case here though. On "Friday" they were allowed their phones on "Monday" they were not. Why? Because management are not managing a situation properly , so of course there's going to be kick back from employees.

greenspurs

JayRoc wrote: »

Agree. I can't see an issue with staff being asked to use their own locker to store their phone during work. It has already been implied that management here may be somewhat confrontation-averse; but most people in the thread seem to be het up simply at the idea of not being permitted to have their mobile on them at all times.

The company did purchase lockers (similar to what you would have in a gym) , for workers to leave their lunch/coats/belonging into.
Buy your own padlock, and its in their control.

But no, workers decided they wouldnt use them.

Theres a workforce of about 100(ish) and theres a hardcore of 10-15 that would be consistent offenders .
As i said, they were spoken to repeatedly about their phone use, but continue. Theres no real law/regulation about phone use, so the management created one, which will include :
If you bring your phone into work, it must be placed in the secure perspex box.
If you dont like this arrangement , leave your phone at home, or in your car.

If you bring your phone into work, and dont put it in the box, and you are seen/caught using it on work time, you will get verbal then Written warning, which will end up in further disiplinary action if caught again.

If you need to make a call in an emergency you go into reception.
If you are needed in an emergency , reception will come to you.

Fairly straight forward isnt it ?
Wheres the problem?

greenspurs

greenspurs wrote: »

Not as dramatic as you are trying to imply....

Looking for likes ?

greenspurs wrote: »

Boxes on a wall,
locked at 8.02

Please show me where I have misunderstood?

And it’s you who have posted this crazy policy looking for support

Princess Calla

greenspurs wrote: »

The company did purchase lockers (similar to what you would have in a gym) , for workers to leave their lunch/coats/belonging into.
Buy your own padlock, and its in their control.

But no, workers decided they wouldnt use them.

Theres a workforce of about 100(ish) and theres a hardcore of 10-15 that would be consistent offenders .
As i said, they were spoken to repeatedly about their phone use, but continue. Theres no real law/regulation about phone use, so the management created one, which will include :
If you bring your phone into work, it must be placed in the secure perspex box.
If you dont like this arrangement , leave your phone at home, or in your car.

If you bring your phone into work, and dont put it in the box, and you are seen/caught using it on work time, you will get verbal then Written warning, which will end up in further disiplinary action if caught again.

If you need to make a call in an emergency you go into reception.
If you are needed in an emergency , reception will come to you.

Fairly straight forward isnt it ?
Wheres the problem?

85% are being punished for the 15% !

Mrs OBumble

Princess Calla wrote: »

85% are being punished for the 15% !

It's not punishment. The work environment has forklifts, ffs.

No phones is basic safety stuff.



Replying to your earlier post - upgrade your childcare. If a kid is having an allergic reaction, the first phone call should be to an ambulance not a parent.

Dav010

Only in Ireland would people have a problem with operators of forklifts and heavy machinery not being to use their phones whilst at work.

bucketybuck

greenspurs wrote: »

If you bring your phone into work, and dont put it in the box, and you are seen/caught using it on work time, you will get verbal then Written warning, which will end up in further disiplinary action if caught again.

This was the only part that was actually needed.

Everything else relating to this policy was extraneous fluff that did more harm than good.

Dav010

bucketybuck wrote: »

This was the only part that was actually needed.

Everything else relating to this policy was extraneous fluff that did more harm than good.

And the times the forklift driver is on his/her mobile without being seen? Or do you just want to wait until someone is seriously injured before accepting it is dangerous and a policy to protect people at work should have been introduced?

AndrewJRenko

greenspurs wrote: »

The company did purchase lockers (similar to what you would have in a gym) , for workers to leave their lunch/coats/belonging into.
Buy your own padlock, and its in their control.

But no, workers decided they wouldnt use them.

Theres a workforce of about 100(ish) and theres a hardcore of 10-15 that would be consistent offenders .
As i said, they were spoken to repeatedly about their phone use, but continue. Theres no real law/regulation about phone use, so the management created one, which will include :
If you bring your phone into work, it must be placed in the secure perspex box.
If you dont like this arrangement , leave your phone at home, or in your car.

If you bring your phone into work, and dont put it in the box, and you are seen/caught using it on work time, you will get verbal then Written warning, which will end up in further disiplinary action if caught again.

If you need to make a call in an emergency you go into reception.
If you are needed in an emergency , reception will come to you.

Fairly straight forward isnt it ?
Wheres the problem?

Do management and office staff lock their mobile phones away for the duration of the shift?

bucketybuck

Dav010 wrote: »

And the times the forklift driver is on his/her mobile without being seen? Or do you just want to wait until someone is seriously injured before accepting it is dangerous and a policy to protect people at work should have been introduced?

I want to wait for you to actually read the thread.

Princess Calla

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

It's not punishment. The work environment has forklifts, ffs.

No phones is basic safety stuff.



Replying to your earlier post - upgrade your childcare. If a kid is having an allergic reaction, the first phone call should be to an ambulance not a parent.

If it's basic safety stuff it should have been implemented 20 odd years ago when phones started to become common, written into contract etc etc .

It wasn't anaphylactic shock, it started as a rash, first thoughts on a rash is not ambulance. They took him to the Dr. While waiting for his dad to arrive, Dr said hospital.

He's had full allergy testing done and is clear, just a mad reaction to something that day, hasn't happened since.

Fionn1952

Sounds like utterly atrocious management. Genuinely the sort of treatment I'd think was a bit heavy handed for children. Timed locks because a handful won't follow policy, instead of just having an escalating series of consequences for those who don't follow the agreed policy?



.....and yes, I use my mobile in the workplace all the time, to the extent that they pay for it. I've previously worked in an environment where a mobile phone would've had the potential to breach NDAs and I wouldn't have even considered having it on me. They didn't require a timed lockbox to manage that though, nor would I have tolerated such patronising treatment because some other ar*ehole wouldn't comply, I'd be asking why that person wasn't out on their hole before they try treating me like a child.

JayRoc

AnRothar wrote: »

Lost of people are from the Charlton Heston school of personal property.

That took me a second!!

greenspurs

greenspurs wrote: »

They've been a long time problem here.
Finally top level have taken steps to stamp it out.

Boxes on a wall,
locked at 8.02
Open at 9.58 - locked at 10.22

Open at 12.58 - locked at 2.02

Open at 4.58.

Workers were blatantly standing with their phones scrolling, there was only so many times you can keep saying "put away the phone" .

Now theres a system of measures in place if a worker is found with their phone on them during work hours.
A lot of resistance (mumbling&grumbling so far) about this, but i dont think there was any other option. The few taking the pi$$ ruined it on everyone else.

Surely this kind of rule is commonplace in workplaces?

Deleted User wrote: »

Please show me where I have misunderstood?

And it’s you who have posted this crazy policy looking for support

Where did i look for support ?

i asked a question ......

One eyed Jack

greenspurs wrote: »

Surely this kind of rule is commonplace in workplaces?

It’s commonplace in workplaces like you’ve described where the nature of the work involves manufacturing and operating machinery, for safety reasons as well as the impact it has on productivity. I’m surprised it wasn’t introduced before now tbh as it was standard 20 years ago when I worked in manufacturing, in some places with hundreds of employees, in some places with thousands of employees. Employees were able to be contacted through their line manager or supervisor in case of an emergency.

Obviously a small number of people are going to make a bigger deal of this than it needs to be, and it should be suggested to those people that if they aren’t willing to comply with the new policy, they’re welcome to seek alternative employment.

Strumms

Bambi wrote: »

Its fascinating to see parents who think prior to the invention of mobile phones all children wound up dead or grieviously injured due to the lack of constant parental supervision

You see concerts using these phone lock up methods and people freaking out that their kids will be dead in a ditch unless they as parents have access to their mobiles for the duration of the concert.

It's a form of mental illness at this stage

I simply wouldn’t buy a ticket for a concert at venues where a venue, promoter or artist wanted to take my phone... that’s simply Naziesque. It’s not about kids but about anybody and everyone having paid to see a gig, being able to keep their personal property...

Imagine you lost your ticket, took out your wallet to buy drinks and you dropped it, you might be in a rush to get the last bus, but you need to wait till the venue cleared out and see what’s left and negotiate the return of what’s yours that you should never have had to give up in the first place.

If a band, artist or venue want to restrict filming, fair enough but it’s a ballache trying to enforce it.... most gigs I’ve been to they will only try stop people filming if you are being a prick and using a flash / light... and distracting your fellow concert goer and taking their enjoyment away from an event they paid money to see, that’s fair, taking phones ? No.