Mobiles in the workplace.

greenspurs

wonski wrote: »

Or you can just write "Mobile Phone at work" policy, hand two copies to everyone, one to be signed.
Then verbal warning, written warning, final written warning and eventually dismissal if someone is really stubborn.

Not a chance for WRC to stay on the side of the employee after that.

I would agree.
But , management chose to go a draconian route

hots

greenspurs wrote: »

You must go to Subway for your rolls then ....

they're a shady bunch in there alright! In fairness though if you can't trust these lads to keep the phone away unless for emergencies I wouldn't be letting them near a fork and anything more dangerous than a pack of crayons.

Riesen_Meal

Sounds an awful place to work...

Most days I'm so busy I don't get a chance to even glance at my phone when I'm working, some days I'm not doing much on top of everything and I can be flat out on my phone, I don't take the pîss though, posting this from my phone in work hours... oops sorry lads!

I wouldn't be comfortable at all with this, what if there was a family emergency in work and I couldn't be contacted as some jobsbody had locked my phone in a locker?

Surely there has to be something in place if these phones went AWOL from these storage spots?

I would hope the phones are insured for putting in this locker?

Princess Calla

greenspurs wrote: »

Sorry , did i offend you by not agreeing with you...
Humble apologies .....

And i dont think i said a "far too much a complex issue"?
Can you find it for me ?

I think I'd be more offended if you agreed with me to be honest.

No you asked was I aware of how difficult it was to dismiss someone.

I took difficult as complex....which it obviously isn't. Clear rules, procedures followed everything signed and dated .....it would rely on your management team doing some work ,which appears to be an issue, so much easier to lock staff items away than deal with the root cause of the problem.

greenspurs

Fieldog wrote: »

I wouldn't be comfortable at all with this, what if there was a family emergency in work and I couldn't be contacted as some jobsbody had locked my phone in a locker?

Surely there has to be something in place if these phones went AWOL from these storage spots?

I would hope the phones are insured for putting in this locker?

Maybe have a read through all the details before you insinuate things .

greenspurs

Princess Calla wrote: »

Oh you agree with allinal, but when I suggested firing someone, dismissal was far too much a complex issue. !

Princess Calla wrote: »

No you asked was I aware of how difficult it was to dismiss someone.

I took difficult as complex....which it obviously isn't. Clear rules, procedures followed everything signed and dated .....it would rely on your management team doing some work ,which appears to be an issue, so much easier to lock staff items away than deal with the root cause of the problem.

So you misquoted me. Thats fine.

And as i have said, they are working on the procedures for weeks to have them in place , Princess.
There is groundwork to be done. You cant just copy and paste something off Facebook ...

Dav010

Dav010 wrote: »

Am a parent, married to a Surgeon, trained as a Dr myself, is there anything else you’d like to ask?

So if your child is in critical condition in hospital, he / she will be alone because someone is booked in to get stent removed this afternoon?

Serious smell of Bull**** or your just a horrible cold parent.

twowheelsonly

Princess Calla wrote: »

Verbal warning/verbal warning/written warning/written warning/ dismissal....it will only take one person to be fired to curb the culture.

99.999999% of the time people will claim that they were on the phone to the creche or to check on their dying granny. If the company still discipline them then they'll get slated because poor Mary really had to make or take that call or text. Lose/Lose for the company.

Saying that management should implement these procedures is easy - actually enforcing them is a whole different ball game when everyone claims that it was an emergency call.

No mobiles allowed is the simple answer. Everyone knows the ground rules. You're seen using one you're sacked. End of story.

Princess Calla

greenspurs wrote: »

So you misquoted me. Thats fine.

And as i have said, they are working on the procedures for weeks to have them in place , Princess.
There is groundwork to be done. You cant just copy and paste something off Facebook ...

Interchanging difficult with complex is not exactly the misquote of the year in all fairness.

You still haven't answered what your angle is in all this. You don't seem to be management or staff so owner??

wonski

twowheelsonly wrote: »

99.999999% of the time people will claim that they were on the phone to the creche or to check on their dying granny. If the company still discipline them then they'll get slated because poor Mary really had to make or take that call or text. Lose/Lose for the company.

Saying that management should implement these procedures is easy - actually enforcing them is a whole different ball game when everyone claims that it was an emergency call.

No mobiles allowed is the simple answer. Everyone knows the ground rules. You're seen using one you're sacked. End of story.

They can claim whatever they want. Will never win.

We have phone number for employees to use for emergencies. They still have phones on them tbh, but as long as they are not taking a piss we turn a blind eye. But there is phone number for emergencies, especially that reception is bad in certain areas anyway and your mobile would be of no use.

Believe me as soon as people get a written warning after being invited to formal meeting at work, they don't need their phone all of a sudden.

There is no lose/lose situation for the company. If the rules are followed WRC can't do anything.

One eyed Jack

I’m only surprised that in the kind of work environment the OP is talking about, that the policy hasn’t been introduced long before now by their employers in order to reduce the risk of workplace accidents caused by employees who were distracted by their mobile phone. It’s a health and safety issue as opposed to any idea that employers are treating their employees like children.

The argument that employees need to be in constant contact with their families is not an issue for their employers, it’s an issue for the employee. Reasonable accommodations tend to be made where an employee can be contacted in the case of a family emergency through their supervisor/manager, etc.

Weighing the possibility of an accident in the workplace being caused by a person being distracted while on their phone, against the possibility of a person being inconvenienced by not having their phone on them at all times, from an employers perspective would certainly oblige them to introduce the policy if it didn’t exist already.

Dav010

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I hear what you are saying, but you get good employees by making your company an attractive place to work.

By locking phones away, you are setting the bar very very low.

Imagine being told this at the interview stage.

Andy you get good and bad no matter what way your company is, they all look the same at interview.

greenspurs

Princess Calla wrote: »

Interchanging difficult with complex is not exactly the misquote of the year in all fairness.

You still haven't answered what your angle is in all this. You don't seem to be management or staff so owner??

No one asked.

I have been accused of a lot (My idea/troll)

I am not top level.
My angle is that it is not the correct way to go about it.
I agree that the issue of phone use is way beyond a joke and something has to be done, but i would not agree with the perspex lockers on timelock.

greenspurs

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’m only surprised that in the kind of work environment the OP is talking about, that the policy hasn’t been introduced long before now by their employers in order to reduce the risk of workplace accidents caused by employees who were distracted by their mobile phone. It’s a health and safety issue as opposed to any idea that employers are treating their employees like children.

The argument that employees need to be in constant contact with their families is not an issue for their employers, it’s an issue for the employee. Reasonable accommodations tend to be made where an employee can be contacted in the case of a family emergency through their supervisor/manager, etc.

Weighing the possibility of an accident in the workplace being caused by a person being distracted while on their phone, against the possibility of a person being inconvenienced by not having their phone on them at all times, from an employers perspective would certainly oblige them to introduce the policy if it didn’t exist already.

I brought this to their attention about 10 years ago.
those chose to go with the "Shur tell them to stop using it" approach. That never works without a deterrent.
They never introduced a deterrent, so how could we just keep telling people to stop? it made us look like idiots.

They are very late to do something about it, and i think they are using a rock to open a peanut.

Thats why i was asking what is it like in other workplaces.

mloc123

Threads like this make me realise how easy/lucky I have it I guess... I can't imagine being an adult in a workplace that still feels like a secondary school.

Mrs OBumble

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

So if your child is in critical condition in hospital, he / she will be alone because someone is booked in to get stent removed this afternoon?

Serious smell of Bull**** or your just a horrible cold parent.

How would you react if your granny needed a stent inserted, but you were told "no can do until next week, cos the surgeon's kid broke their arm this morning"?

ibarelycare

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Fault of the person making the call: they should have stressed the criticality and followed up if no response within 10 minutes.

The vast majority of calls to parents are not like that though.




It's stunning how some posters here cannot imagine different kinds of workplaces. Ones with forklifts, or operating theatres or prisoners or whatever. Just cos something isn't needed in your place doesn't mean it's not needed in others.

What a horrible response to someone talking about the death of their 4-year-old nephew. Not a surprise though. You are completely devoid of empathy or compassion.

Mrs OBumble

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

How would you react if your granny needed a stent inserted, but you were told "no can do until next week, cos the surgeon's kid broke their arm this morning"?

I would think that's a horrible breach of the surgeons privacy.

Surgeries get cancelled all the time and surgeons have family emergencies just like we all do.

Look, either you think that's fair enough or you don't. I understand that people are well, people and that personal issues crop up. Sometimes that means that my stent had to stay in a bit longer.

wonski

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Fault of the person making the call: they should have stressed the criticality and followed up if no response within 10 minutes.

The vast majority of calls to parents are not like that though.




It's stunning how some posters here cannot imagine different kinds of workplaces. Ones with forklifts, or operating theatres or prisoners or whatever. Just cos something isn't needed in your place doesn't mean it's not needed in others.

It's the fault of the receptionist, not the person making the call. Do we now do follow up calls when there is an emergency?

Would you call an ambulance again just in case 10 minutes after just in case the operator got distracted?

Only once received a phone call I considered, emergency, but it was a good call that the wife is going to give birth. I was with the guy after 3 minutes wishing him all the best and granting 1 week off without even signing a form. That's how it is done in normal places by normal people.

I don't think anyone can be distracted by other phonecalls and go for lunch, unless is an idiot.

A dangerous type of idiot.

One eyed Jack

mloc123 wrote: »

Threads like this make me realise how easy/lucky I have it I guess... I can't imagine being an adult in a workplace that still feels like a secondary school.

Difficult to know what way to interpret this tbh. It either reads as likening an impression of adulthood to belligerent teenagers demanding their lifeline not be cut off, unable to let go of the apron strings... or enabling helicopter parents who can’t bear the thought of being out of contact with their children while they’re in work and their children are in school, supposed to be paying attention in class as opposed to being glued to their phone.

Dav010

mloc123 wrote: »

Threads like this make me realise how easy/lucky I have it I guess... I can't imagine being an adult in a workplace that still feels like a secondary school.

Spare a thought for employers who despair when adults behave like children and won’t leave their toys/phones down. Cuts both ways.

mloc123

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Difficult to know what way to interpret this tbh. It either reads as likening an impression of adulthood to belligerent teenagers demanding their lifeline not be cut off, unable to let go of the apron strings... or enabling helicopter parents who can’t bear the thought of being out of contact with their children while they’re in work and their children are in school, supposed to be paying attention in class as opposed to being glued to their phone.

I don't care about phone usage, not being in contact with people etc... But I cannot imagine working somewhere with this level of supervision... where going to the toilet for 10 minutes and watching/reading a news story on your phone is an issue etc.. it sounds to me like being back in school.

Maybe the people working in these situations ARE like kids, and cannot be trusted to get a job done.

Princess Calla

greenspurs wrote: »

No one asked.

I have been accused of a lot (My idea/troll)

I am not top level.
My angle is that it is not the correct way to go about it.
I agree that the issue of phone use is way beyond a joke and something has to be done, but i would not agree with the perspex lockers on timelock.

Well I asked at 15:19.

UID0

It's a poor response to poor mismanagement.
If there is a reason from a product contamination point of view that phones are not allowed, then there should just a rule that they are not allowed in whatever areas are relevant, and this should be enforced (i.e. if you are caught with a phone in the designated area you will get disciplined - up to and including dismissal).
If the reason is because of moving machinery, then signage in the area saying that phones may not be used in that area, and again enforce the rule.
There are reasons why people may need to have a phone with them, and 85% of the workforce seem not to need to have their phones taken away from them. The policy should allow it in an emergency situation, but the policies should make it obvious that someone is using their phone (they may have to step away from their normal work area and move to a 'safe' area where there will be no moving traffic/equipment). If there is some sort of monitoring of people using their phones, and possibly refer consistent users to some sort of wellbeing meeting. "We've noticed that you are using your phone a lot. Is there something going on that we might be able to help with?" This gives the additional benefit that the company appears to be taking employee wellbeing seriously.
Also, I hope that your account is not in any way identifiable with your company. You have several times referred to people being addicted to their phones. Addiction is a serious mental illness, and should be taken seriously by any company. I have worked for companies where alcoholics have been fired for showing up drunk to work, but it was always after making efforts to help the employee control their alcoholism (addiction counselling or other therapy). If the company does believe that it is an addiction, then they could be seen to have a duty to help those people.

Jequ0n

ibarelycare wrote: »

What a horrible response to someone talking about the death of their 4-year-old nephew. Not a surprise though. You are completely devoid of empathy or compassion.

Why would the poster have to care about some other poster’s family situation.
It was an insightful post that was relevant to the discussion but there is no need to add meaningless condolences

greenspurs

UID0 wrote: »

It's a poor response to poor mismanagement.
If there is a reason from a product contamination point of view that phones are not allowed, then there should just a rule that they are not allowed in whatever areas are relevant, and this should be enforced (i.e. if you are caught with a phone in the designated area you will get disciplined - up to and including dismissal).
If the reason is because of moving machinery, then signage in the area saying that phones may not be used in that area, and again enforce the rule.
There are reasons why people may need to have a phone with them, and 85% of the workforce seem not to need to have their phones taken away from them. The policy should allow it in an emergency situation, but the policies should make it obvious that someone is using their phone (they may have to step away from their normal work area and move to a 'safe' area where there will be no moving traffic/equipment). If there is some sort of monitoring of people using their phones, and possibly refer consistent users to some sort of wellbeing meeting. "We've noticed that you are using your phone a lot. Is there something going on that we might be able to help with?" This gives the additional benefit that the company appears to be taking employee wellbeing seriously.
Also, I hope that your account is not in any way identifiable with your company. You have several times referred to people being addicted to their phones. Addiction is a serious mental illness, and should be taken seriously by any company. I have worked for companies where alcoholics have been fired for showing up drunk to work, but it was always after making efforts to help the employee control their alcoholism (addiction counselling or other therapy). If the company does believe that it is an addiction, then they could be seen to have a duty to help those people.

I think everyone knows what i meant, and not taking it ultra strict , like you are..

Jeez, its tough work ..............it really is. :rolleyes:

One eyed Jack

mloc123 wrote: »

I don't care about phone usage, not being in contact with people etc... But I cannot imagine working somewhere with this level of supervision... where going to the toilet for 10 minutes and watching/reading a news story on your phone is an issue etc.. it sounds to me like being back in school.

Maybe the people working in these situations ARE like kids, and cannot be trusted to get a job done.

Ahh I get you now, but yeah from my experiences of working in manufacturing environments, there really is a certain element of the part in bold. It’s a long time ago now but this was at a time when people could pick up a ready-to-go phone relatively cheaply and so there were some people who behaved like children, that in spite of numerous requests to put away the phone, disciplinary procedures, going as far as to confiscate the phone and hand it back to them at the end of their shift - nothing seemed to work, and a few persistent offenders when one phone was taken from them, they’d have another one in their hands ten minutes later!

In warehousing or assembly operations that kind of behaviour is generally frowned upon as it presents not only a health and safety risk, but also has an impact on production. It’d be like if you were part of a team and one person wasn’t pulling their weight. In assembly operations taking time out in terms of minutes doesn’t seem like a lot, minor hindrance, but then if one person is doing it, everyone else gets the impression that they’re going to do it too as it’s seen as acceptable behaviour. Eventually what happens is like you said - either the job doesn’t get done, or productivity suffers, or the worst case scenario someone is the victim of an accident in the workplace which could have been easily avoided.

It basically ends up with a minority of people taking the proverbial while they expect their work colleagues to pick up their slack. Employers don’t generally want to be unreasonable in those circumstances, but when their employees are being unreasonable, then employers are confronted with the choice of treating people who behave like children, as children, or terminating their employment (equivalent to being suspended or expelled from school for the benefit of the school and other students).

CoBo55

Princess Calla wrote: »

What happens if receptionist doesn't pass on the message? Goes on lunch/tea break etc.

What happens if the battery died in your precious phone, what happens if the network goes down, what happens if there isn't enough money to pay your phone bill, what happens if the cat has kittens... For God sake give me a break, what is wrong with people snowflaking everything!! My first child was born in 1989 and the last was born in 1999, they all went and puked in school at various different times, never had a problem being contacted in work, no mobile involved.

ByTheSea2019

CoBo55 wrote: »

What happens if the battery died in your precious phone, what happens if the network goes down, what happens if there isn't enough money to pay your phone bill, what happens if the cat has kittens... For God sake give me a break, what is wrong with people snowflaking everything!! My first child was born in 1989 and the last was born in 1999, they all went and puked in school at various different times, never had a problem being contacted in work, no mobile involved.

If any of this happens, the employer isn't responsible, because they haven't taken over handling your personal emergency. They could be responsible for any incompetent receptionists they might have and distress and trauma flowing from mishandling in an emergency.

lalababa

How about driving a lorry whilst scrolling down facebook?