Do you have to provide a personal mobile phone number if/when asked?

DullGreyGuy

zagfles said:

DullGreyGuy said:

vacheron said:
The only question the OP asked in their first post was:

Just wondered if you can fairly say no to a personal number request?

To which I replied:: 

If the company requires you to use your company phone during working hours (or outside of hours for direct company business) then they should be providing the phone,

... which I don't beleive was an un unreasonable response.
I then cited a direct example of how our employees without company phones had been specifically instructed that they HAD to use their personal devices as part of the company IT security policy which had been suddenly implemented with no prior consultation .

Let's ignore time whilst at work as there is no evidence in this case that the OP is expected to use their personal phone when in the office. The fact they only talk about not wanting to be contactable in their personal time to me suggests this isnt a both in and out of work time issue. 

My former employer has 20,000 staff of which 16,000 are call centre agents and of them about 2/3 are on basic salaries with the remainder on better salaries. Without exception we held a mobile number for each and every one of them. The main purpose for which was in the event of a disaster recovery situation we could instruct them not to go into the office but either work from home or go to the recovery site. In principle in a more serious situation it was also a care check so not just saving the person from a potentially hazardous trip to a closed office but to ensure they "survived" the event.

On exceptionally rare occasion it may be used for other purposes in a work related emergency, and in most cases it's an emergency because you did something stupid. In my time in the same call centre we had 1 DR test message and 1 phone call, my g/friend of the time worked there longer than me and she had 1 DR test message and no phone calls. 

No, I dont think it's reasonable for a company to pay for 16,000 additional telephones and contracts if you are likely to only be getting 1 text a year. I think it is responsible of them to have a system to save people from hazards. Yes we had some staff who were reluctant to give their number in case they were bombarded with calls, maybe some gave us a fake number or didnt update it when they changed contract but in the DR test it would have gone fairly far when they failed to respond but short of someone turning up at their doorstep. It's also an area with high turnover of staff and due to GDPR we weren't allowed to recycle telephone lines.

Lets put it another way... are you happy to pay an extra £5 a year on each of your insurances just so you can know the call centre agents are having a phone that is likely never to be used but it saved them having to give their personal number out?

It doesn't have to be a mobile for stuff like emergency contact. I've got an ansaphone on my landline (VOIP) which will email me if I get a VM, if I'm at home I'm far more likely to hear my landline than mobile, my mobile is quite often on silent eg if I've been in a meeting etc and needed to mute it and forgot to unmute. Even if it isn't on silent it could be in another room and I won't hear it. My wife doesn't have an ansafone on her mobile, doesn't want it, if I know she's at home I'll always phone the landline because that's more likely to get a reply. 

As mentioned, the DR system is a text message... dont have people trying to call 20,000 employees. The response however can be text or call. 

vacheron said:

DullGreyGuy said:

vacheron said:
The only question the OP asked in their first post was:

Just wondered if you can fairly say no to a personal number request?

To which I replied:: 

If the company requires you to use your company phone during working hours (or outside of hours for direct company business) then they should be providing the phone,

... which I don't beleive was an un unreasonable response.
I then cited a direct example of how our employees without company phones had been specifically instructed that they HAD to use their personal devices as part of the company IT security policy which had been suddenly implemented with no prior consultation .

Let's ignore time whilst at work as there is no evidence in this case that the OP is expected to use their personal phone when in the office. The fact they only talk about not wanting to be contactable in their personal time to me suggests this isnt a both in and out of work time issue. 

My former employer has 20,000 staff of which 16,000 are call centre agents and of them about 2/3 are on basic salaries with the remainder on better salaries. Without exception we held a mobile number for each and every one of them. The main purpose for which was in the event of a disaster recovery situation we could instruct them not to go into the office but either work from home or go to the recovery site. In principle in a more serious situation it was also a care check so not just saving the person from a potentially hazardous trip to a closed office but to ensure they "survived" the event.

On exceptionally rare occasion it may be used for other purposes in a work related emergency, and in most cases it's an emergency because you did something stupid. In my time in the same call centre we had 1 DR test message and 1 phone call, my g/friend of the time worked there longer than me and she had 1 DR test message and no phone calls. 

No, I dont think it's reasonable for a company to pay for 16,000 additional telephones and contracts if you are likely to only be getting 1 text a year. I think it is responsible of them to have a system to save people from hazards. Yes we had some staff who were reluctant to give their number in case they were bombarded with calls, maybe some gave us a fake number or didnt update it when they changed contract but in the DR test it would have gone fairly far when they failed to respond but short of someone turning up at their doorstep. It's also an area with high turnover of staff and due to GDPR we weren't allowed to recycle telephone lines.

Lets put it another way... are you happy to pay an extra £5 a year on each of your insurances just so you can know the call centre agents are having a phone that is likely never to be used but it saved them having to give their personal number out?

I completely agree that you should be able to contact your employees in an emergency situation, which is why I emphasised each time that the employee should not be compelled to use their personal phone for the "day to day financial benefit of the company".

This would exclude emergency situations like those you describe where the call is primarily for the wellbeing and benefit of the employee and/or the safety of others.

There are plenty of cynical people that will say it is for the business financial benefit as people know in advance and you'll get near to your full workforce ready to work at 8am when the lines open -v- allowing them to try and travel in or swamp the lines calling in saying they can't get in and so not actually being logged in and ready at 8am... the message was never "office is closed, take a free day off"

Note I also lived in the south east so hence only ever getting the test message, for colleagues in the north real messages were more common place. 

vacheron

DullGreyGuy said:

zagfles said:

DullGreyGuy said:

vacheron said:
The only question the OP asked in their first post was:

Just wondered if you can fairly say no to a personal number request?

To which I replied:: 

If the company requires you to use your company phone during working hours (or outside of hours for direct company business) then they should be providing the phone,

... which I don't beleive was an un unreasonable response.
I then cited a direct example of how our employees without company phones had been specifically instructed that they HAD to use their personal devices as part of the company IT security policy which had been suddenly implemented with no prior consultation .

Let's ignore time whilst at work as there is no evidence in this case that the OP is expected to use their personal phone when in the office. The fact they only talk about not wanting to be contactable in their personal time to me suggests this isnt a both in and out of work time issue. 

My former employer has 20,000 staff of which 16,000 are call centre agents and of them about 2/3 are on basic salaries with the remainder on better salaries. Without exception we held a mobile number for each and every one of them. The main purpose for which was in the event of a disaster recovery situation we could instruct them not to go into the office but either work from home or go to the recovery site. In principle in a more serious situation it was also a care check so not just saving the person from a potentially hazardous trip to a closed office but to ensure they "survived" the event.

On exceptionally rare occasion it may be used for other purposes in a work related emergency, and in most cases it's an emergency because you did something stupid. In my time in the same call centre we had 1 DR test message and 1 phone call, my g/friend of the time worked there longer than me and she had 1 DR test message and no phone calls. 

No, I dont think it's reasonable for a company to pay for 16,000 additional telephones and contracts if you are likely to only be getting 1 text a year. I think it is responsible of them to have a system to save people from hazards. Yes we had some staff who were reluctant to give their number in case they were bombarded with calls, maybe some gave us a fake number or didnt update it when they changed contract but in the DR test it would have gone fairly far when they failed to respond but short of someone turning up at their doorstep. It's also an area with high turnover of staff and due to GDPR we weren't allowed to recycle telephone lines.

Lets put it another way... are you happy to pay an extra £5 a year on each of your insurances just so you can know the call centre agents are having a phone that is likely never to be used but it saved them having to give their personal number out?

It doesn't have to be a mobile for stuff like emergency contact. I've got an ansaphone on my landline (VOIP) which will email me if I get a VM, if I'm at home I'm far more likely to hear my landline than mobile, my mobile is quite often on silent eg if I've been in a meeting etc and needed to mute it and forgot to unmute. Even if it isn't on silent it could be in another room and I won't hear it. My wife doesn't have an ansafone on her mobile, doesn't want it, if I know she's at home I'll always phone the landline because that's more likely to get a reply. 

As mentioned, the DR system is a text message... dont have people trying to call 20,000 employees. The response however can be text or call. 

vacheron said:

DullGreyGuy said:

vacheron said:
The only question the OP asked in their first post was:

Just wondered if you can fairly say no to a personal number request?

To which I replied:: 

If the company requires you to use your company phone during working hours (or outside of hours for direct company business) then they should be providing the phone,

... which I don't beleive was an un unreasonable response.
I then cited a direct example of how our employees without company phones had been specifically instructed that they HAD to use their personal devices as part of the company IT security policy which had been suddenly implemented with no prior consultation .

Let's ignore time whilst at work as there is no evidence in this case that the OP is expected to use their personal phone when in the office. The fact they only talk about not wanting to be contactable in their personal time to me suggests this isnt a both in and out of work time issue. 

My former employer has 20,000 staff of which 16,000 are call centre agents and of them about 2/3 are on basic salaries with the remainder on better salaries. Without exception we held a mobile number for each and every one of them. The main purpose for which was in the event of a disaster recovery situation we could instruct them not to go into the office but either work from home or go to the recovery site. In principle in a more serious situation it was also a care check so not just saving the person from a potentially hazardous trip to a closed office but to ensure they "survived" the event.

On exceptionally rare occasion it may be used for other purposes in a work related emergency, and in most cases it's an emergency because you did something stupid. In my time in the same call centre we had 1 DR test message and 1 phone call, my g/friend of the time worked there longer than me and she had 1 DR test message and no phone calls. 

No, I dont think it's reasonable for a company to pay for 16,000 additional telephones and contracts if you are likely to only be getting 1 text a year. I think it is responsible of them to have a system to save people from hazards. Yes we had some staff who were reluctant to give their number in case they were bombarded with calls, maybe some gave us a fake number or didnt update it when they changed contract but in the DR test it would have gone fairly far when they failed to respond but short of someone turning up at their doorstep. It's also an area with high turnover of staff and due to GDPR we weren't allowed to recycle telephone lines.

Lets put it another way... are you happy to pay an extra £5 a year on each of your insurances just so you can know the call centre agents are having a phone that is likely never to be used but it saved them having to give their personal number out?

I completely agree that you should be able to contact your employees in an emergency situation, which is why I emphasised each time that the employee should not be compelled to use their personal phone for the "day to day financial benefit of the company".

This would exclude emergency situations like those you describe where the call is primarily for the wellbeing and benefit of the employee and/or the safety of others.

There are plenty of cynical people that will say it is for the business financial benefit as people know in advance and you'll get near to your full workforce ready to work at 8am when the lines open -v- allowing them to try and travel in or swamp the lines calling in saying they can't get in and so not actually being logged in and ready at 8am... the message was never "office is closed, take a free day off"

True, but I would still consider it an "emergency" situation in that the company did not actively choose to contact the employee for their own benefit, and would have experienced far less disruption and been far more efficient had the event that forced the change not occurred. 

zagfles

DullGreyGuy said:

zagfles said:

DullGreyGuy said:

vacheron said:
The only question the OP asked in their first post was:

Just wondered if you can fairly say no to a personal number request?

To which I replied:: 

If the company requires you to use your company phone during working hours (or outside of hours for direct company business) then they should be providing the phone,

... which I don't beleive was an un unreasonable response.
I then cited a direct example of how our employees without company phones had been specifically instructed that they HAD to use their personal devices as part of the company IT security policy which had been suddenly implemented with no prior consultation .

Let's ignore time whilst at work as there is no evidence in this case that the OP is expected to use their personal phone when in the office. The fact they only talk about not wanting to be contactable in their personal time to me suggests this isnt a both in and out of work time issue. 

My former employer has 20,000 staff of which 16,000 are call centre agents and of them about 2/3 are on basic salaries with the remainder on better salaries. Without exception we held a mobile number for each and every one of them. The main purpose for which was in the event of a disaster recovery situation we could instruct them not to go into the office but either work from home or go to the recovery site. In principle in a more serious situation it was also a care check so not just saving the person from a potentially hazardous trip to a closed office but to ensure they "survived" the event.

On exceptionally rare occasion it may be used for other purposes in a work related emergency, and in most cases it's an emergency because you did something stupid. In my time in the same call centre we had 1 DR test message and 1 phone call, my g/friend of the time worked there longer than me and she had 1 DR test message and no phone calls. 

No, I dont think it's reasonable for a company to pay for 16,000 additional telephones and contracts if you are likely to only be getting 1 text a year. I think it is responsible of them to have a system to save people from hazards. Yes we had some staff who were reluctant to give their number in case they were bombarded with calls, maybe some gave us a fake number or didnt update it when they changed contract but in the DR test it would have gone fairly far when they failed to respond but short of someone turning up at their doorstep. It's also an area with high turnover of staff and due to GDPR we weren't allowed to recycle telephone lines.

Lets put it another way... are you happy to pay an extra £5 a year on each of your insurances just so you can know the call centre agents are having a phone that is likely never to be used but it saved them having to give their personal number out?

It doesn't have to be a mobile for stuff like emergency contact. I've got an ansaphone on my landline (VOIP) which will email me if I get a VM, if I'm at home I'm far more likely to hear my landline than mobile, my mobile is quite often on silent eg if I've been in a meeting etc and needed to mute it and forgot to unmute. Even if it isn't on silent it could be in another room and I won't hear it. My wife doesn't have an ansafone on her mobile, doesn't want it, if I know she's at home I'll always phone the landline because that's more likely to get a reply. 

As mentioned, the DR system is a text message... dont have people trying to call 20,000 employees. The response however can be text or call. 

Text messages can be sent to landlines, I've received them. They come as an ansaphone message. Kids used to have fun texting our landline and trying to get the ansaphone message to say weird things   

Archerychick

I haven’t read through all the comments but to add my views -

1. why are work taking away your company phone? If they are requiring you to be contactable for work purposes and not providing a phone, are they contributing to the cost of your personal phone? What is their expectation of you out of normal working hours, is this changing without consulting with you?

2. we offer a choice. We offer people a company phone, or the option to use their own devices - and we contribute an amount to the operation of that device. Depending on the role, it might be a technical role that requires them to monitor scripts outside of normal working hours, or in a sales role where they are regular out of the office.

I understand what you mean, I think there is a difference between them having a mobile phone number for you, and you being contacted for urgent things (if this is indeed part of your role), vs using your personal device for normal operation do your role.

If it’s the former, it’s not unreasonable to request that a text message is sent to you first to respect your personal time. 

I support the separation of work and personal life, and know the stress it can cause by seeing emails, messages, teams chats coming through when not at work, it’s not healthy for some people so your concern is a fair one. It comes down to what the best way is to handle, it feels like there are some important questions to be asked.

Hope you find a solution