Some bosses need to take a kindness pill!

Dunroamin

shellsuit wrote: »

Who, from the office, was going to know that he was texting from the loo?

Nobody, so why make a big deal about it?

I'm not making a big deal out of it, I just think that it's stupid to send a private text immediately after being warned about using a mobile phone in office hours..

That seems like common sense to me.

NikNox

Dunroamin wrote: »

I'm not making a big deal out of it, I just think that it's stupid to send a private text immediately after being warned about using a mobile phone in office hours..

That seems like common sense to me.

It's common sense not to send a text openly, ie in the office in front of other people, but from the toilet where no-one can see or hear you, it's entirely sensible and certainly not stupid! If a person is otherwise engaged in bodily functions of a natural kind in the privacy of a toilet cubicle, then if they choose to spend a few seconds sending a text whilst otherwise engaged and unable to work, then that's their choice. It does not interfere with work because they are not working and aren't able to.

Sambucus_Nigra

sniggings wrote: »

So by your argument, airports might as well allow bombs in hand luggage, if they are going to bring a bomb, then they will just do it, bomb ban or not!

Well, yes - that's generally what people do. If they want to blow up a plant/steal data - a ban isn't exactly going to stop them if that's what they want to do.

They just work ways round the ban.

shellsuit

Dunroamin wrote: »

I'm not making a big deal out of it, I just think that it's stupid to send a private text immediately after being warned about using a mobile phone in office hours..

That seems like common sense to me.

But why is it stupid, when nobody else would know about it?

If he openly stood and text the OP in front of others after being bollocked, Yes, that would be stupid, but him texting whilst in the loo is of no consequence at all.

sniggings

Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »

Well, yes - that's generally what people do. If they want to blow up a plant/steal data - a ban isn't exactly going to stop them if that's what they want to do.

They just work ways round the ban.

Think of all the laws we could get rid o,f if the rest of us thought as you do :rotfl:

I think the idea is to help prevent the bomb going off or the data being downloaded.

If someone is seen carrying a bomb then they can be arrested before the bomb goes off.

If someone is carrying a data stick they can be given a warning etc before the data is removed

Why make it easier for them.


btw this is not directed at the OP as her partner has been treated badly and his boss needs sacking.

Sambucus_Nigra

sniggings wrote: »

Think of all the laws we could get rid o,f if the rest of us thought as you do :rotfl:

I think the idea is to help prevent the bomb going off or the data being downloaded.

If someone is seen carrying a bomb then they can be arrested before the bomb goes off.

If someone is carrying a data stick they can be given a warning etc before the data is removed

Why make it easier for them.


btw this is not directed at the OP as her partner has been treated badly and his boss needs sacking.

You don't really 'get it' do you?

If someone wanted to take data from an office, there are many ways and means of doing it without a data stick in the first place. And are you aware of the 'shoe bomber' who tried to find a way round the 'no bombs on board' rule?

I'm not quite sure what point you are making, or what point you think you are making - but I'm sure in your head it all makes perfect sense.

sniggings

Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »

You don't really 'get it' do you?

If someone wanted to take data from an office, there are many ways and means of doing it without a data stick in the first place. And are you aware of the 'shoe bomber' who tried to find a way round the 'no bombs on board' rule?

I'm not quite sure what point you are making, or what point you think you are making - but I'm sure in your head it all makes perfect sense.

you lost me again, what are we talking about?

Dunroamin

NikNox wrote: »

It's common sense not to send a text openly, ie in the office in front of other people, but from the toilet where no-one can see or hear you, it's entirely sensible and certainly not stupid!

I'm so glad that we have people with your high ethical standards working for the NHS.;)

Sambucus_Nigra

K_P83 wrote: »

Also, this working to rule thing is all well & good, but please note : it'll work against hubby when he requires a favour. Not only that, but we had a chap who decided to work to rule. To cut the story short, he didn't last long after that.

He's already been working longer than he needed to and the boss' response to the favour was to tell him to get stuffed [hence this thread] so that doesn't exactly work in practice does it?

Sambucus_Nigra

sniggings wrote: »

you lost me again, what are we talking about?

You tell me - you seem to have lost the thread a bit.