Ship of Fools: Am I a freaking dinosaur?

Thread: Am I a freaking dinosaur? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=027286

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

... My husband says so. Because I started a new job today, and top of the list was "turn off / leave home all cell phones. If your family needs to reach you in an emergency, have them call this series of numbers (insert coworkers lucky enough to have desk phones) till they hit a human being."

When I asked why, I was told that it was to prevent people surfing social media on their phones.

Went home in a carefully concealed Very Bad Mood™ at being treated like a baby, only to have my husband tell me that his work has the same rule, and in fct, so do most of the places he is acquainted with. Apparently adults can't be trusted to behave like adults.

Gentle readers, am I indeed a dinosaur? [Waterworks]

(Started off my day with a blast by parking in the--unmarked--president's parking space. Go me.)

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

First of all: hooray LC has a new job!!!

As for your question, even at local highschools kids have their phones, they just must have them on silent and have 1 chance each. If caught using in class, gone. So yes, in my view they are heavy handed about this.

Posted by comet (# 10353) on :

my current job has that rule for our summer student workers. not for me, but I leave it in my bag any way. I'll already too easily distracted.

and yes, we need those rules because Some People (stern look around the Ship) can't resist temptation. I'd bet money there's been studies done since the advent of social media/easy access internet/cat videos and those studies say our work productivity has gone down.

apparently I'm the dinosaur in my work place because I think we should have a dress code of some sort. Not fancy dress, but sweats? at a fancy victorian hotel? What is the matter with some people?

[ 19. June 2014, 04:33: Message edited by: comet ]

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
When I asked why, I was told that it was to prevent people surfing social media on their phones.

Went home in a carefully concealed Very Bad Mood™ at being treated like a baby, only to have my husband tell me that his work has the same rule, and in fct, so do most of the places he is acquainted with. Apparently adults can't be trusted to behave like adults.

No they can't - sadly some (a fairly high % IME) will always push things to the limits. You're paid to work, not surf. The temptation to join in with an interesting conversation is just too much.

It's little use saying "you can do it in the lunch break": lunch break soon gets extended into work time. In one major UK financial group, productivity went down by 15% once people were allowed to surf the net.

Some people seem to have this strange idea that work is an extension of their social life - they act and dress accordingly. Now that may be ok for some environments but for many it isn't.

Posted by Starbug (# 15917) on :

As I've just lost a member of staff because he was excessively emailing his girlfriend during work time (among other things), I would say that some adults can't be trusted to behave like adults. It's the misbehaving minority who spoil it for everyone else, as they are the reason why the rules keep being made more and more rigid.

In our workplace,excessive personal use of computers, mobile phones etc is regarded as 'time theft' - in my case, the member of staff was spending quantities of his day doing personal stuff and claiming flexidays! Not fair on his colleagues who were working hard.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

Yep.

No personal use of phones or tablets is allowed in our workplace. They must be switched off. Except at break times in the staff room.

Quite right too!

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

I don't think they should be required to be off. What happened in the days of yore when people used the company telegraph for personal use? When they gathered 'round the coal fire and chatted? When they dipped their quills in the company ink for a personal correspondence?
If one manages to complete one's tasks in the allotted time, what matter the rest?

[ 19. June 2014, 05:54: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by Gareth (# 2494) on :

Any employer has the right to stipulate in their contracts that use of personal phones/tablets during work time is not allowed - and in my opinion the respectful way to deliver that policy is by ensuring staff are aware of it and making it a disciplinary matter if they break the rules.

But I've also worked in places that insist you drop your phone off at reception on the way in.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

We have a reasonable personal use policy. Expectation being phones are off or on vibrate the majority of the time.

Posted by Macrina (# 8807) on :

I work a lot of night shifts and this often means that come 12:30am I have done all my work, checked all the photocopying, made up all the stuff I can make up and am facing a long long night until 7am. In these circumstances I am happy to bring my tablet to work or watch the ward TV but I do so on the explicit understanding between myself, my colleagues and my patients that if there is anything to do it gets put down and I go and do that. I am paid to work not watch TV yes but when there's no work I watch TV. And yes I have spoken to my boss and colleagues this is a recognised and not easily resolved problem.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

You all work in some draconian places. I suppose that I work in a consultancy, and so many of us are contactable mainly on mobiles (for work matters), but I have never worked anywhere that imposes such a policy.

Again, the fact that I have been working on mobile apps might also have had an impact on this. But even before, it was not an issue.

Employees should be trusted. If they break that trust, they should expect a kicking. But the starting point should be trust.

Posted by Siegfried (# 29) on :

If you treat your employees like naughty children, they'll respond in kind.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I don't think they should be required to be off. What happened in the days of yore when people used the company telegraph for personal use? When they gathered 'round the coal fire and chatted? When they dipped their quills in the company ink for a personal correspondence?
If one manages to complete one's tasks in the allotted time, what matter the rest?

Either go to your line manager and ask for more work or help someone who hasn't done it all.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Siegfried:
If you treat your employees like naughty children, they'll respond in kind.

True - that's why there's a no phone policy in a lot of workplaces. Some other adult was given the responsibility but abused it: sad to say it's hard to work out at interview who will/wont do the same.

In the absence of that information - and in the interests of company performance, then no phones or tablets.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Starbug:
As I've just lost a member of staff because he was excessively emailing his girlfriend during work time (among other things), I would say that some adults can't be trusted to behave like adults. It's the misbehaving minority who spoil it for everyone else, as they are the reason why the rules keep being made more and more rigid.

In our workplace,excessive personal use of computers, mobile phones etc is regarded as 'time theft' - in my case, the member of staff was spending quantities of his day doing personal stuff and claiming flexidays! Not fair on his colleagues who were working hard.

Don't give him the benefit of a euphemism: you haven't lost him - he's been sacked, fired, got rid of for gross misconduct. If you hadn't then everyone else would slack off too in sympathy.

One goes to work to - well, work. It's not a break from the social life.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
I work a lot of night shifts and this often means that come 12:30am I have done all my work, checked all the photocopying, made up all the stuff I can make up and am facing a long long night until 7am. In these circumstances I am happy to bring my tablet to work or watch the ward TV but I do so on the explicit understanding between myself, my colleagues and my patients that if there is anything to do it gets put down and I go and do that. I am paid to work not watch TV yes but when there's no work I watch TV. And yes I have spoken to my boss and colleagues this is a recognised and not easily resolved problem.

Your bosses might need a course in office organisation and job allocation, I suspect.

Posted by Siegfried (# 29) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by Siegfried:
If you treat your employees like naughty children, they'll respond in kind.
True - that's why there's a no phone policy in a lot of workplaces. Some other adult was given the responsibility but abused it: sad to say it's hard to work out at interview who will/wont do the same.

In the absence of that information - and in the interests of company performance, then no phones or tablets.

You just completely reversed what I was saying. Well done.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Starbug:
As I've just lost a member of staff because he was excessively emailing his girlfriend during work time (among other things), I would say that some adults can't be trusted to behave like adults. It's the misbehaving minority who spoil it for everyone else, as they are the reason why the rules keep being made more and more rigid.

To be frank, I see that as a failure of management. Being unable to deal with the misbehaving minority on an individual basis is not a terribly good reason to punish everyone. "If anyone misbehaves, you'll all miss out" is a tactic used with schoolchildren. It should not be used with adults who you are hoping will be highly motivated to help deliver your organisational goals.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
... My husband says so. Because I started a new job today, and top of the list was "turn off / leave home all cell phones. If your family needs to reach you in an emergency, have them call this series of numbers (insert coworkers lucky enough to have desk phones) till they hit a human being."

When I asked why, I was told that it was to prevent people surfing social media on their phones.

I assume, then, that the arrangement works both ways - if you can't use their time for personal business, they can't use your time by contacting you at home?

Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :

I am not sympathetic. I think it should be legal and commonplace to use static-generating devices to block use of such devices: in classrooms, churches, theatres, performances of opera and ballet, etc. No, you do not have to take this call.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
I am not sympathetic. I think it should be legal and commonplace to use static-generating devices to block use of such devices: in classrooms, churches, theatres, performances of opera and ballet, etc. No, you do not have to take this call.

I couldn't agree more.

If there is an emergency then someone will deal with it until you are available. If you are that worried about your child/pet/spouse/whatever that a call to check in wouldn't wait 'till break time, then maybe your care arrangements need rethinking?

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

I couldn't agree less actually. The mark of a mature and civilized human being is self control and ability to make good decisions, and we should demand proper behaviour from people. Which is why I support the local high school which allows cell phones at school, but as I noted above, that they be silent and not used in classrooms. The controls should be internal to people, and when they are not, quick individually targetted sanction only. If teenagers at school can manage proper cell phone behaviour, so can adults.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

No, I'm the freaking dinosaur, for not having a mobile phone in the first place. I don't want to be contacted when I'm out of the house. That's my free time.

In the school where I worked, staff like pupils, had to keep their phones in their lockers, for lunchtime use only. It wouldn't have been fair to impose the regulation on the children if the staff didn't do the same.

Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on :

I don't have a cellphone. The rule seems incredibly paternalistic.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Either go to your line manager and ask for more work or help someone who hasn't done it all.

This only works for specific types of employment.
And smacks of poor management, regardless.
IME, no mobile rules are often indicative of poor management.

Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on :

Working in a school, mobile phones are required to be off except in the staff room for breaks - not just for staff, but for visitors too. This is not because of potential web surfing, but because most mobile phones have cameras on them and the school doesn't want to risk people taking photos of the children. It seems a fair rule, for child protection - sure, it's frustrating if you know you aren't going to use it that way, but then the same rule has to be for everyone. And before mobile phones were a thing, it was the norm that if anyone needed to call you in an emergency, they would phone your place of work.

Posted by Meerkat (# 16117) on :

Mobile phones are both good and bad, for many reasons:
* you can be in touch at most times, especially in an emergency
* if you have a friend or relative who is ill or in Hospital, you may need to know QUICKLY when a 'certain moment' comes. That can not reasonably happen if you can only be contacted by someone else's phone... they may not be there to answer it
* Work phone? What if you don't work? I don't work, nor does the good lady. We have retired.
* They are a pain when they become intrusive. We turn ours off or put them to silent in such circumstances such as Church.
* using a mobile can be taken to extremes. I have seen two teenaged girls - standing 45 foot apart - talking on their phones!

In balance, IMHO, mobile phones are essentially a good thing if used responsibly!

Posted by ecumaniac (# 376) on :

If my workplace tried to forbid every minute of non-work related stuff during the work day, then I would happily trade that for not having to do any work related stuff at home.

Posted by Kyzyl (# 374) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
I am not sympathetic. I think it should be legal and commonplace to use static-generating devices to block use of such devices: in classrooms, churches, theatres, performances of opera and ballet, etc. No, you do not have to take this call.

Cell phones are more than phones. My students use them for data collection, calculations, and web research. They are mini-computers. So yes, they have a real use in a classroom.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
I am not sympathetic. I think it should be legal and commonplace to use static-generating devices to block use of such devices: in classrooms, churches, theatres, performances of opera and ballet, etc. No, you do not have to take this call.

And if someone has a heart attack in your classroom, church, theatre, opera or ballet? No, you do not have to call the ambulance. Or the fire brigade. Or the police.

Perhaps more importantly, you are also saying that you are fine with sending out a signal that doesn't just affect mobile phones, but other devices for which radio spectrum is important. Like pacemakers.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

Is no one mature and sensible enough to turn the phone to silent for church, a movie, concert, business meeting, school? Must you have mummy, the police, management, the school administration, the librarian, people carrying rubber gloves and lubricant telling you to do so? The latter can help you put it away, out of sight. [Big Grin]

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Okay, let's correct some assumptions. First of all, I don't take calls on company time. Every freaking minute I spend on the phone comes directly out of my break or lunch time. I have NO work phone, nor is there a main number I can be paged at.

Second, my cell phone is a cheapo and incapable of surfing the internet or doing basically anything besides being an emergency contact.

And finally, no care arrangements are adequate for calls like "So-and-so is dying, you need to come right away." Or alternately, "Your kid got hit by a car, would you please get down here?"

Yes, the person will still manage to die without me. And no, my kid will most likely make it through until I get off eight hours later and can find out that he needed me. But what line of work is so important that I should, as a matter of routine, resign myself to missing that call, that need? If I were a surgeon elbow deep in someone's belly, okay. But I'm a freaking writer.

It's a very open office floor plan. Nobody's going to get away with abuse for long. IMHO telling people to set the thing on vibrate and step out to take only really, really important calls (and to charge that time to break) ought to be sufficient.

Either that, or install a main line with someone to answer it and page employees as needed.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

LC, I would suggest working there for some little time, then raising a suggestion for a modification of the policy, based on such incidents as have occurred in that period where more facilitated communication for employees would have a good thing. With the support of colleagues, preferably.

The trouble with our hyper connected world is that it makes us hyper anxious; because we could know quickly if something bad was happening, if we don't, then something bad is happening. Not necessarily.

Posted by Huia (# 3473) on :

Fineline it's interesting that your school has that rule because none of the schools where I have volunteered have - or at least no one has told me. That said, the only photos I've taken at school were of the school cat up a tree. I would never take photos of children at school nor of any children without their parent's permission.

I was glad that I had my phone at school when my sis-in-law rang to say my dad was dying. She didn't have the school number so I wouldn't have known in time to go home and say goodbye.

Huia

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
LC, I would suggest working there for some little time, then raising a suggestion for a modification of the policy, based on such incidents as have occurred in that period where more facilitated communication for employees would have a good thing. With the support of colleagues, preferably.

The trouble with our hyper connected world is that it makes us hyper anxious; because we could know quickly if something bad was happening, if we don't, then something bad is happening. Not necessarily.

This is very likely. Thanks for the insight!

I'll probably not raise the issue for years, though, having an ingrained major anxiety response to mad company policies after the problems at my last job. bleah.

Posted by busyknitter (# 2501) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Huia:
Fineline it's interesting that your school has that rule because none of the schools where I have volunteered have - or at least no one has told me. That said, the only photos I've taken at school were of the school cat up a tree. I would never take photos of children at school nor of any children without their parent's permission.

I was glad that I had my phone at school when my sis-in-law rang to say my dad was dying. She didn't have the school number so I wouldn't have known in time to go home and say goodbye.

Huia

My son's school has that rule and for the same reason as Fineline's school. In fact, all staff and vistors are required to check in their devices at reception. It's a special school and most of the children have severe communication difficulties (some are completely non verbal) so as a governor I was very happy to agree to this extra layer of safeguarding.

But I've never come across such a draconian restriction in any normal office environment. This is the 21st century and any office I have worked in recently (I do a lot of interim contract work, so get around) allows staff to surf the web on office computers during breaks and keep their phones at their desks.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Is no one mature and sensible enough to turn the phone to silent for church, a movie, concert, business meeting, school? Must you have mummy, the police, management, the school administration, the librarian, people carrying rubber gloves and lubricant telling you to do so? The latter can help you put it away, out of sight.

Judging by what often happens in those places - no. At least some of us are sensible but others aren't - who then happily ruin it for the rest of us.

Posted by Late Paul (# 37) on :

In many work places it's not only expected that people will bring in their own phones*, but want to connect to the corporate network and use them to see work email etc. It's called "BYOD" - Bring Your Own Device - and it's a big thing in IT these days.

(*and tablets and laptops)

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kyzyl:
Cell phones are more than phones. My students use them for data collection, calculations, and web research. They are mini-computers. So yes, they have a real use in a classroom.

They are indeed very useful to students, but such a distraction that at the college I teach at they are banned in virtually all classrooms, including mine. When I taught in Africa there was a little bench outside the classroom where all the students (pastors in their 30s and 40s) would leave their cell phones before coming inside.

Posted by Tom Day (# 3630) on :

We use the, in lessons and I use both my android phone and iPad to help me teach in the lesson. Students are allowed phones but only out if teacher says it is ok.

Our school does not have a specific staff policy but teachers have been disciplined for misuse of Facebook etc. my view is that we need to teach children and teenagers how to be responsible users of technology, if we just ban it then we don't do that. We make it a problem. By teaching students how best to use them and, more importantly, when to use them we help everyone.

Posted by Starbug (# 15917) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by Starbug:
As I've just lost a member of staff because he was excessively emailing his girlfriend during work time (among other things), I would say that some adults can't be trusted to behave like adults. It's the misbehaving minority who spoil it for everyone else, as they are the reason why the rules keep being made more and more rigid.

In our workplace,excessive personal use of computers, mobile phones etc is regarded as 'time theft' - in my case, the member of staff was spending quantities of his day doing personal stuff and claiming flexidays! Not fair on his colleagues who were working hard.
Don't give him the benefit of a euphemism: you haven't lost him - he's been sacked, fired, got rid of for gross misconduct. If you hadn't then everyone else would slack off too in sympathy.

One goes to work to - well, work. It's not a break from the social life.

Actually, he resigned before he could be dismissed, but yes, I take your point.

We are allowed some private use of email, internet etc during work time, as long as it's reasonable, you have permission from your line manager and you make up any excessive time afterwards. The problem with my staff member was that it wasn't reasonable (i.e. sending unnecessary emails during periods when the team were busy), he didn't have my permission and he wasn't making up the time. If only his usage had been reasonable and at appropriate times, there wouldn't have been a problem.

Posted by Twangist (# 16208) on :

they can be useful in my line of work, kids have the songs they are learning on them can use them as guitar tuners and metronomes, record audio or video of a demonstration or backing to practice to and so on....BUT if they are using their phones as phones, nightmare!
Interestingly in the secondary school I spend a lot of time in there is no signal ...
Slight tangent I'm thinking of going back to using a paper Bible more than the kindle one on my phone.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

In my corner of high tech, one is usually allowed phone use and access to the web. In fact, it's usually part of the job, given how software documentation is so crappy that one needs to google for a bug fix. At my last job, they offered to pay the monthly bill for a smart phone. I was just talking with a friend whose employer was trying to save money by no longer paying for the cell phone bill. His response was "Great, then I won't have to deal with customer emergencies in my spare time." They backed off quickly on that particular cost savings.

However I can recall this being a problem with regular phones around 1976. A vice president didn't want people making personal phone calls. The pushback came from one of the most respected older programmers who wanted to be able to talk to his wife and or children briefly during the day.

There is a problem in places that have confidential information that a modern smart phone is a great way to grab a lot of data from the system and take it out the door. I don't know if that's a problem in your line of work. There were various tantrums in the last job between the lawyers who were trying to keep client information under lock and key and yet still want developers to debug it on the fly in a crisis.

Posted by ecumaniac (# 376) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Late Paul:
In many work places it's not only expected that people will bring in their own phones*, but want to connect to the corporate network and use them to see work email etc. It's called "BYOD" - Bring Your Own Device - and it's a big thing in IT these days.

(*and tablets and laptops)

We have that simply because the equipment that our students own is far, far superior to that which we can provide them with. It usually only takes one lesson on the school laptops before they are convinced that it's worth the hassle of carting in their own.

Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
... I started a new job today, and top of the list was "turn off / leave home all cell phones.

I'm not that important and my mobile phone isn't very bright: when I am at school, my little Kyocera flip-phone is switched off, in the centre console of my Focus out in the car park. Classrooms always have land-lines and they almost always work! Most have computers which I only use for accessing Radio 3 to calm the pupils down or running the Smart Board app so I can teach.

On stage, it is in my pocket but still switched off. Stage work is far too dangerous to be yakking or distracted on the job. People could get hurt!

I virtually never talk and drive. It is dangerous and I need both hands and both feet to drive my Focus and my Vectra! (I special-ordered manual gearboxes on both cars.)

Friday afternoon, I was going to the bank and the bloke in the next lane was making faces and yelling at me. I finally rolled my window down and apologized profusely for whatever infraction I may have committed. This feckless idiot was talking on the cell phone the whole time during his tirade!

Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
You're paid to work, not surf.

I wish I was paid to surf! Sadly, my surfing skills have eroded over the last forty years and the Pacific Ocean is no longer within walking distance of my home. I used to be rather good: while at UC San Diego as a teenager, I once shared a wave with professional surfer Skip Frye.

In case you lot haven't guessed by now, surfing is done with a medium-long fibreglass board which has fins at the rear for steering and an elastic leash for safety and retention. It cannot be done with an electronic device such as a cell-phone, computer or television. No ocean, no surfing!

[brick wall]

Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
"If anyone misbehaves, you'll all miss out" is a tactic used with schoolchildren. It should not be used with adults who you are hoping will be highly motivated to help deliver your organisational goals.

I find that it works quite well with the under-twelves in the classroom where I always give the pupils a grade for class behaviour!

Posted by Macrina (# 8807) on :

So the other thing I was thinking.

Haven't studies shown that humans aren't built for sustained concentration for long periods of time, particularly when those tasks are not ones we'd pick to spend time on?

I know I always do better work when I am able to organise my own time and given responsibility and autonomy to do so. In all my jobs people have assumed I will do my work and left me to do it. From the feedback I get I do this to a high standard but I am a chronic distracted person, I like to stop and get a coffee, shift about a bit or chat for a few minutes every 15-20 mins.

I don't think 'work' as we've understood it over the last 150 years is a natural human pursuit.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

At least for the way I'm made, I totally agree with you. If I'm going to be proofreading phone books (yes, my new job), I HAVE to take short physical/mental/eye breaks every so often, or I'll start missing stuff. Not to mention turning into a grouch.

Unfortunately, I have worked for several companies who seem to think their knowledge workers are like people on a production line--take 30 seconds a way, and you miss something. And they apply the same requirements to us.

It's one reason why this is almost certainly going to be a short-term job. Nice people, nice place, nice money--I'm not built for nonstop high focus work. I can fake it for a while, but the strain will tell.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

The only restrictions I ran into during my years of joyful service to Our Glorious Sovereign were either in high-security settings, where devices were deposited at checkpoints (even personal laptops), or at certain senior staff meetings, where we were required to put our devices on a side table.

I thought this latter provision odd until I had to chair some meetings with outside academics and noticed that about a fifth of the table was texting or reading e-mail during sessions--- I soon implemented the rule, telling these university staff that it was government protocol. One querolously queried it and, reaching out to my SoF identity, I informed her that this was first implemented by Augustine-- luckily cultural studies specialists are ignorant of patristics....

At the coalface, staff were expected to do their work on an inexorable (legislative timeline) schedule-- how they managed five minutes here or there was their business and managers showed their leadership skills by motivating their teams, rather than by behaving like particularly anal drill sergeants. When the latter happened, teams dissolved quickly and the manager had to crawl in ignominy to have senior levels re-staff the unit, as they themselves were either demoted, shuffled off, or coached-to-competence.

We all knew that our internet use was monitored and the two firings (dismissals-for-cause) I knew of in my last job were for abuse of same (stocktrading in one case, and in the other, running a private business while on salary, with a whiff of NSFW viewing). The knowledge that usage was monitored was enough to tamp down most abuse and we were generally astonished that these two culprits were so clueless that they thought they could get away with it.

[ 21. June 2014, 14:30: Message edited by: Augustine the Aleut ]

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sir Kevin:
[QUOTE]

You bang your head in the ocean?

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by Sir Kevin:
[QUOTE]

You bang your head in the ocean?

All those thumping great planks of fibreglass sloshing about, I expect you do.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
I soon implemented the rule, telling these university staff that it was government protocol. One querolously queried it and, reaching out to my SoF identity, I informed her that this was first implemented by Augustine-- luckily cultural studies specialists are ignorant of patristics....

You are evil.

I like you.
[Snigger]

Posted by bib (# 13074) on :

Slightly to left of centre, but I had a very funny experience last night when out to dinner in a local restaurant. Six people arrived at a nearby table, each took out electronic devices and each spent the entire evening texting etc with no conversation occurring between them at all. They all had serious, miserable expressions which, I'm afraid, made my table members grin with hilarity. It was all so ridiculous! I think electronic devices shouldn't come to the dining table, especially in a top class restaurant.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by Sir Kevin:
[QUOTE]

You bang your head in the ocean?
All those thumping great planks of fibreglass sloshing about, I expect you do.

It does rather spoil a good swim, I agree - and they seem to think they own the ocean and the waves therein

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by Sir Kevin:
[QUOTE]

You bang your head in the ocean?
All those thumping great planks of fibreglass sloshing about, I expect you do.
It does rather spoil a good swim, I agree - and they seem to think they own the ocean and the waves therein

And all the words and vocabulary that pertain thereunto.

Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
It does rather spoil a good swim, I agree - and they seem to think they own the ocean and the waves therein

We surfers do,rather a lot of the time, I'm afraid. However, pedestrians (swimmers) have their beaches like Carpenteria State Beach in Santa Barbara County, which bills itself as the safest beach in the country. I stay there overnight, but in the morning I leave my campsite and drive down the coast to Malibu County Line which is exclusively for surfers and looks it - v. rocky, one unisex porta-loo for everybody, no camping.

Sennen Cove in Cornwall has lots of facilities and a surfing school but at the end of the day it is basically for surfing. I really enjoyed surfing in the Atlantic there seven years ago and had a nice chat with a local surfer who shared some waves with me. The hired surfboard worked just fine and was the right size, but next time I think that I shall take my own wetsuit! All that chlorine that it floats in between surfers gets to me.

In southern California, most beaches are open to families who swim as well as surfers in the summertime, not to say that there are not families of surfers also. The lifeguards segregate the surfers from the swimmers with flags and vigilance.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

Enough already with the surfing tangent.

This is a thread about phone use in the workplace, remember?

Firenze
Heaven Host

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Lamb Chopped:

quote:
Or alternately, "Your kid got hit by a car, would you please get down here?"

I took this call once for a co-worker who was away from her office phone temporarily. I dropped what I was doing and went to find her and break the news gently. It seemed like the right thing to do in the circumstances, and fortunately Management agreed with me.

Mind you, I don't think it would have saved much of the company's time if she'd had a mobile phone on her; she'd still have had to find me to ask me to take over what she was doing before she left the building. I might have had another five minutes to work on the job I was doing before the crisis happened, though.

Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on :

I don't take calls during the business day, but may call home on a break. I often just leave my switched-off cell phone in the car when I am at work. We have no small children nor do we have any dying relatives. If I switch on my phone after work and there is a message, I retrieve it. Only blood relatives, my wife and my union business agent know my cell number. I retrieve other calls from my land-line when I get back to the house or get them on my lunch-hour if I am working.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

There is a young guy in the office next door to me that spends about two hours of his eight outside on his mobile and smoking.

He intrigues me - but if I was employing I'd doc him 1/4 of his wages.

Posted by GCabot (# 18074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by bib:
Slightly to left of centre, but I had a very funny experience last night when out to dinner in a local restaurant. Six people arrived at a nearby table, each took out electronic devices and each spent the entire evening texting etc with no conversation occurring between them at all. They all had serious, miserable expressions which, I'm afraid, made my table members grin with hilarity. It was all so ridiculous! I think electronic devices shouldn't come to the dining table, especially in a top class restaurant.

That is appalling behavior. I am unsure why people believe that what was once poor manners in the pre-cell phone era is suddenly acceptable if done via cell phone today.

Posted by ecumaniac (# 376) on :

If they weren't disturbed by it, then what business is it of yours?

Maybe they were talking quietly while you weren't looking (because it's pretty rude to stare at strangers for the entirety of a meal), maybe they were having some sort of discussion/meeting and were using their phones for note taking or whatever. Who knows?

If a bunch of people at dinner are ok with each other using phones at the table, then I think the rude behaviour is from the people staring at them, making judgmental comments and then snarking about them on the internet afterwards.

Maybe they were all posting on Twitter "These weird grinning people at the next table over have been staring at us all evening. Appalling behaviour!"

Posted by GCabot (# 18074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ecumaniac:
If they weren't disturbed by it, then what business is it of yours?

Maybe they were talking quietly while you weren't looking (because it's pretty rude to stare at strangers for the entirety of a meal), maybe they were having some sort of discussion/meeting and were using their phones for note taking or whatever. Who knows?

If a bunch of people at dinner are ok with each other using phones at the table, then I think the rude behaviour is from the people staring at them, making judgmental comments and then snarking about them on the internet afterwards.

Maybe they were all posting on Twitter "These weird grinning people at the next table over have been staring at us all evening. Appalling behaviour!"

I suppose you would also have approved if all six people decided to strip naked and have an impromptu orgy on top of the table? I mean, if the participants weren't disturbed by it, it is not any of our business, right?

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:

quote:
Originally posted by ecumaniac:
If they weren't disturbed by it, then what business is it of yours? <<snip>>
I suppose you would also have approved if all six people decided to strip naked and have an impromptu orgy on top of the table?

Maybe in both cases they were part of the entertainment. [Smile]

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
I suppose you would also have approved if all six people decided to strip naked and have an impromptu orgy on top of the table? I mean, if the participants weren't disturbed by it, it is not any of our business, right?

There's useful police phrase 'conduct liable to cause a breach of the peace' whereby you can sort things people do into offensive/inoffensive.

You are making a false analogy - two things outrage (your particular) sense of social decorum, therefore they are the same. Really?

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ecumaniac:
If they weren't disturbed by it, then what business is it of yours?

It isn't, but it's a sad reflection that it's now considered acceptable in modern society to go out for an evening together for what should be a social occasion, and to pretty much completely ignore the people you're with for virtually the whole evening. What's the point of going out with them if you don't want their company?

Posted by comet (# 10353) on :

quote:
Originally posted by bib:
Slightly to left of centre, but I had a very funny experience last night when out to dinner in a local restaurant. Six people arrived at a nearby table, each took out electronic devices and each spent the entire evening texting etc with no conversation occurring between them at all. They all had serious, miserable expressions which, I'm afraid, made my table members grin with hilarity. It was all so ridiculous! I think electronic devices shouldn't come to the dining table, especially in a top class restaurant.

I had a night like this, once. a friend had just been killed in a car accident. we gathered at "neutral ground" to support each other as we called and emailed friends and family. it probably looked a lot like this.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

My family love to discuss things round the dining table. When I was little the encyclopedia and atlas inevitably were brought to the table to find obscure stuff. Now the cry is always 'google it' and someone get's out their phone to find out the 'essential' info to further the discussion.

[Smile]

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ecumaniac:
If they weren't disturbed by it, then what business is it of yours?

Maybe they were talking quietly while you weren't looking (because it's pretty rude to stare at strangers for the entirety of a meal), maybe they were having some sort of discussion/meeting and were using their phones for note taking or whatever. Who knows?

If a bunch of people at dinner are ok with each other using phones at the table, then I think the rude behaviour is from the people staring at them, making judgmental comments and then snarking about them on the internet afterwards.

Maybe they were all posting on Twitter "These weird grinning people at the next table over have been staring at us all evening. Appalling behaviour!"

I agree. This is nothing more than "these people aren't like me and aren't doing what I'd do in this situation! How terrible!"

It's a free country. None of your business. Keep your snout out.

Some of us can enjoy other people's company just be being with them, even if we're not talking. Sometimes we haven't got anything to talk about. It really, really doesn't matter, and it's not a sad indication of anything, except the degree to which some people think they are in a position to judge how other people interact with each other.

[ 24. June 2014, 09:55: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]

Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on :

It probably looks a bit like that in the pub/coffee shop we wander into from a ship if we've been at sea for a few weeks - we'll have been in each others' uninterrupted company working and socially for the whole voyage, and we'll probably have shambled ashore with the main purpose of finding wifi and checking email, catching up on facebook, looking at BBC News to see what's happening in the world (or just to remind us that there is a world outside the ship!). We probably look like antisocial slumped wannabe teenagers too - with not a lot of conversation other than "oo, look at this" or "Did you see so & so's post on fb about..." or whatever.
That said, we usually have phones mostly away for dinner while we're eating.
We often say that we must look like a bunch of rude antisocial bastards.

Posted by GCabot (# 18074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:

quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
I suppose you would also have approved if all six people decided to strip naked and have an impromptu orgy on top of the table? I mean, if the participants weren't disturbed by it, it is not any of our business, right?
There's useful police phrase 'conduct liable to cause a breach of the peace' whereby you can sort things people do into offensive/inoffensive.

You are making a false analogy - two things outrage (your particular) sense of social decorum, therefore they are the same. Really?

I am sorry, but what is an action that is liable to cause a breach of peace but a transgression of accepted social decorum? What is offensive or inoffensive is based only on our common sense of what is acceptable behavior in a given situation. Thus, people have every right to lament the diminution of such standards.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:

quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:

quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
I suppose you would also have approved if all six people decided to strip naked and have an impromptu orgy on top of the table? I mean, if the participants weren't disturbed by it, it is not any of our business, right?
There's useful police phrase 'conduct liable to cause a breach of the peace' whereby you can sort things people do into offensive/inoffensive.

You are making a false analogy - two things outrage (your particular) sense of social decorum, therefore they are the same. Really?
I am sorry, but what is an action that is liable to cause a breach of peace but a transgression of accepted social decorum? What is offensive or inoffensive is based only on our common sense of what is acceptable behavior in a given situation. Thus, people have every right to lament the diminution of such standards.

Your accepted decorum. Not theirs, obviously, or they'd have been offending each other, which they weren't.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
I am sorry, but what is an action that is liable to cause a breach of peace but a transgression of accepted social decorum?

You seem to be moving from saying that texting during a meal is as bad as public copulation to saying that public copulation is no worse than texting while dining. I will accept this when police turn up and start bundling hastily-blanketed texters into vans.

quote:

What is offensive or inoffensive is based only on our common sense of what is acceptable behavior in a given situation.

And if my sense (or that of those in the dining party) differs from yours, who gets to call?

quote:

Thus, people have every right to lament the diminution of such standards.

Of course they do. But preferably while maintaining a degree of tolerance and perspective.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
I am sorry, but what is an action that is liable to cause a breach of peace but a transgression of accepted social decorum? What is offensive or inoffensive is based only on our common sense of what is acceptable behavior in a given situation. Thus, people have every right to lament the diminution of such standards.

People have every right to be grumpy about all sorts of things in a 'things aren't what they used to be' way. That doesn't make texting in public offensive, it's just different.

When my Mum first got a mobile phone (aged 75) she phoned me one day. I said 'where are you' she said 'in a bush on the canal bank'! She was so embarrassed about being on the phone in public that she got herself in a bush to call me. Bless her! How times change! It's now no more rude to phone and text in public than to chat to your friends.

Times change [Smile]

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
It's now no more rude to phone and text in public than to chat to your friends.

Not in the Quiet Zone of your train it isn't [Paranoid]

Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on :

I find people having phone calls on buses and in other public spaces to be the height of rudeness. The line between public and private spaces has been shred by these nefarious devices.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Really? As long as they keep it down and avoid embarrassing the hell out of those around them, I don't see it as a problem. If I am in a public space with people I don't know, I owe them the courtesy of not getting in their faces, literally or metaphorically; but I do not owe them the courtesy of paying attention to them, making conversation, etc. which I would certainly owe to a person I was "with" by intention. Indeed, quite a few strangers would be offended if I did anything other than politely ignore them.

To flip it around, I expect my friends (under normal, not-just-ashore circumstances!) to do me the courtesy of prioritizing our interaction over phone and texting, which rules out all but the briefest or most urgent calls. But I would be relieved if strangers near me were texting or talking very quietly; it would indicate that they didn't plan to attack me with conversation, and I could relax. After all, it's very hard to escape from a boorish or merely boring stranger while on a bus or train!

Not that I hate all conversations with random strangers; but there are a lot of people who seem to think that the circumstance of being on transport together entitles them to talk to you (and at you) regardless of your own wishes and plans.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

The problem with phone calls in enclosed public places like buses is that to be heard on a cell phone you frequently have to raise your voice enough to bother everyone around you.

Posted by GCabot (# 18074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:

quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
I am sorry, but what is an action that is liable to cause a breach of peace but a transgression of accepted social decorum?
You seem to be moving from saying that texting during a meal is as bad as public copulation to saying that public copulation is no worse than texting while dining. I will accept this when police turn up and start bundling hastily-blanketed texters into vans.

I said no such thing. I was merely taking your stated position to its logical extreme. If one believes that the standard for public behavior is solely the mutual consent of the involved parties, then either behavior should be acceptable. There is no substantive difference in terms of negative effects on non-participants between the two. If one is acceptable and one is not, then you are drawing an artificial line based on some sense of social decorum.

quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:

quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
What is offensive or inoffensive is based only on our common sense of what is acceptable behavior in a given situation.
And if my sense (or that of those in the dining party) differs from yours, who gets to call?

Society gets the call, whether through social pressure (i.e., etiquette), or force of law. Therefore, the degradation of such standards involves and impacts everyone, not just the participants of any such act, which makes it incorrect to claim it is no one's business but their own.

quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:

quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
Thus, people have every right to lament the diminution of such standards.
Of course they do. But preferably while maintaining a degree of tolerance and perspective.

I am unsure where you believe I crossed acceptable bounds of tolerance and perspective. I did not say they should be publicly berated, refused service, subject to legal penalty, etc. I merely upheld the right of individuals to believe that simple courtesy remains something to be valued in society, rather than discarded without second thought.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
The problem with phone calls in enclosed public places like buses is that to be heard on a cell phone you frequently have to raise your voice enough to bother everyone around you.

It isn't, IME, just about volume. A loud conversation does not seem to draw as much ire as a moderate volume mobile use.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

Not only do people on buses on phones often need to talk loudly, but I've had several ask other people to cease their conversation so their phone call can be made without disturbance.

One of the pleasant things about the film festival I just went to is they enforce a no texting or talking during the film policy. At one film, one of the VIPs in the reserved seats from a chamber of commerce whipped out a phone to check messages in the middle of the film. An audience member promptly told him to put the phone away and he did.

At another film, I was being disturbed by someone who kept pulling out his phone to check messages. I politely asked to put the phone away and he told me that it was a medical emergency. I got the venue manager who told him if he pulled it out again he would have to leave. He managed to constrain his emergency till the end of the film.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Y'see, you might call it degradation, GCabot, but I find it liberating that there are fewer arbitrary expectations on folk these days.

Society, which you say is the arbiter, has moved on. It's normal not to wear a tie in the office these days, thank God. To raise an older spectre, it's acceptable, nay normal in many places, to dress casually for Church. Again, thank God say I, as someone who feels like a fish out of water wearing formal stuff. The existence of smartphones and tablets has changed the environment in which human interaction exists. On the downside you might get an in-depth understanding of a random stranger's dithering over whether to have sausages or pie for dinner, and were I emperor of the universe I'd like to suggest they could have texted that, but on the plus side you don't have people climbing the walls with worry when someone's late home because they can tell them the train's broken down somewhere outside Langwith Junction.

So things are finding a new "standard". It's not automatically a "degradation" because it's changing.

In the meantime, I'd suggest some light relief by finding John Finnemore's sketch (it must be on t'internet somewhere) about how the smartphone has killed pointless extended pub arguments about things like the largest town in Mauritius or the most goals scored by goalkeepers in Premier league matches, and so on and so forth. The folk in the restaurant might have avoided a blazing row about whether the axe murderer on the back seat of the car was an urban myth or really happened to a friend of a friend of someone's boss's wives' Bridge partners..

Just relax, I suppose I'm saying. Especially if it leads you into bizarre comparisons between orgies at the next table and someone with their nose in their tablet. I mean, really...

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
I was merely taking your stated position to its logical extreme. If one believes that the standard for public behavior is solely the mutual consent of the involved parties, then either behavior should be acceptable.

Not what I said. I was pointing out - a tad obliquely, obviously - that the two behaviours were not equivalent, and therefore your argument - that if you don't mind X then you won't object to Y - was a false analogy.

As to the broader question of imposing social norms on public behaviour - that is a continually shifting ground. This thread started because the OPer had one expectation of the workplace (that she be allowed the means to take urgent personal calls) which is not shared by her employers. Posters have cited various situations - workplaces, schools, theatres, public transport, restaurants - and what they have observed happen therein.

The core debate - and it is very like the one about 'proper' language - is between the descriptivists and the prescriptivists. Personally, I am completely intolerant; slight my company for that of your iPhone and you'll be looking up at an empty chair and a slammed door. But philosophically my position is that, as with language, what exists is what is normative. There is no one, monolithic, unchanging Right Way to Behave, but an area - out with that governed by actual laws - which is in a constant state of renegotiation.

[ 25. June 2014, 07:07: Message edited by: Firenze ]

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
There is no one, monolithic, unchanging Right Way to Behave, but an area - out with that governed by actual laws - which is in a constant state of renegotiation.

That's what I said.

Times change.

You'd be a lot happier, GCabot, if you stop worrying about what other people do and enjoy your own meal/friends/whatever.

Posted by GCabot (# 18074) on :

Karl – You appear to imply that I am some sort of Luddite. I have nothing against the increased connectivity we now have to the rest of the world. I realize the innumerable benefits we have gained therefrom. I do not believe, however, that this kind of technological progress necessitates more “lax” attitudes towards social convention. I call what is happening now degradation, because the functionally equivalent behavior prior to the wireless revolution was never considered acceptable. And while there were, of course, plenty of arbitrary rules without any sort of rational basis, there were plenty more that have evolved in order to promote general civility. When we implicitly condone the ignoring of our companions, we promote a general attitude of inconsideration to others throughout society that is detrimental to us all.

Firenze – First, I was referring to your original supposition that prompted my comparison.

Second, our difference is that you appear to believe that what is normative should be acceptable. While I do not believe that there is a “monolithic, unchanging Right Way to Behave,” I do believe that there are certain principles underlying our historical standards of acceptable behavior that should be considered absolute, such as basic consideration for others.

Why is the notion that we should promote certain behavior for the mutual benefit of everyone rather than silently condoning all behavior, whether good or ill, so egregious?

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
Karl – You appear to imply that I am some sort of Luddite. I have nothing against the increased connectivity we now have to the rest of the world. I realize the innumerable benefits we have gained therefrom. I do not believe, however, that this kind of technological progress necessitates more “lax” attitudes towards social convention. I call what is happening now degradation, because the functionally equivalent behavior prior to the wireless revolution was never considered acceptable. And while there were, of course, plenty of arbitrary rules without any sort of rational basis, there were plenty more that have evolved in order to promote general civility. When we implicitly condone the ignoring of our companions, we promote a general attitude of inconsideration to others throughout society that is detrimental to us all.

Aye, well here's the rub. They might be ignoring each other; they might even be interacting through their devices, odd as that may seem when they're sat next to each other. They may also be enjoying each others' company in a "being with" rather than "talking to" manner. If they are all more comfortable in this manner, in what way are any of them being inconsiderate? Wouldn't it be more inconsiderate to insist on small talk that no-one particularly wants to make?

I'm at a loss to know what the "functionally equivalent behaviour" before mobile phones was.

[ 25. June 2014, 07:56: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]

Posted by GCabot (# 18074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
Karl – You appear to imply that I am some sort of Luddite. I have nothing against the increased connectivity we now have to the rest of the world. I realize the innumerable benefits we have gained therefrom. I do not believe, however, that this kind of technological progress necessitates more “lax” attitudes towards social convention. I call what is happening now degradation, because the functionally equivalent behavior prior to the wireless revolution was never considered acceptable. And while there were, of course, plenty of arbitrary rules without any sort of rational basis, there were plenty more that have evolved in order to promote general civility. When we implicitly condone the ignoring of our companions, we promote a general attitude of inconsideration to others throughout society that is detrimental to us all.
Aye, well here's the rub. They might be ignoring each other; they might even be interacting through their devices, odd as that may seem when they're sat next to each other. They may also be enjoying each others' company in a "being with" rather than "talking to" manner. If they are all more comfortable in this manner, in what way are any of them being inconsiderate? Wouldn't it be more inconsiderate to insist on small talk that no-one particularly wants to make?

I'm at a loss to know what the "functionally equivalent behaviour" before mobile phones was.

The functional equivalent would be physically removing oneself from the table to communicate with others, get information, etc.

As for the scenario you presented, I would say that there is ample reason to promote face-to-face human interaction. There has been significant evidence to show that our increasing slide towards purely electronic interaction is detrimental to ourselves and society as a whole. Again, I am not asking for a prohibition on technology at the dinner table. I merely say that one should at least try to refrain from it barring an emergency or a use relevant to the discussion at hand, rather than uses completely removed from what is occurring proximately.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
Karl – You appear to imply that I am some sort of Luddite. I have nothing against the increased connectivity we now have to the rest of the world. I realize the innumerable benefits we have gained therefrom. I do not believe, however, that this kind of technological progress necessitates more “lax” attitudes towards social convention. I call what is happening now degradation, because the functionally equivalent behavior prior to the wireless revolution was never considered acceptable. And while there were, of course, plenty of arbitrary rules without any sort of rational basis, there were plenty more that have evolved in order to promote general civility. When we implicitly condone the ignoring of our companions, we promote a general attitude of inconsideration to others throughout society that is detrimental to us all.
Aye, well here's the rub. They might be ignoring each other; they might even be interacting through their devices, odd as that may seem when they're sat next to each other. They may also be enjoying each others' company in a "being with" rather than "talking to" manner. If they are all more comfortable in this manner, in what way are any of them being inconsiderate? Wouldn't it be more inconsiderate to insist on small talk that no-one particularly wants to make?

I'm at a loss to know what the "functionally equivalent behaviour" before mobile phones was.
The functional equivalent would be physically removing oneself from the table to communicate with others, get information, etc.

As for the scenario you presented, I would say that there is ample reason to promote face-to-face human interaction. There has been significant evidence to show that our increasing slide towards purely electronic interaction is detrimental to ourselves and society as a whole.

Is there? I'm not so sure it isn't rather a mixed blessing. I'm all for face-to-face interaction, and I doubt it's really "not happening", but I've also been at a lot of meals where conversation has been forced and uncomfortable. We've no idea why the people in this particular anecdote were acting the way they were, and I think it's presumptuous to make judgments based on no information.

quote:
Again, I am not asking for a prohibition on technology at the dinner table. I merely say that one should at least try to refrain from it barring an emergency or a use relevant to the discussion at hand, rather than uses completely removed from what is occurring proximately.

Ideally, but the thing is, if everyone present wants to use their phones for whatever reason, I just don't see any point in acting all affronted, as if it's going to change anything. I hardly think a group of people who all want to engage in behaviour X are instead going to engage in behaviour Y because they have heard that GCabot over on SoF doesn't approve [Biased]

Posted by GCabot (# 18074) on :

I do not take such a pessimistic view. As you said, there are a number of reasons why the people involved may have acted that way. The most likely answer, in my opinion, is that they do not know any better. Plenty of people constantly check their electronic devices without a second thought, and thus may need a reminder that one should be thoughtful as to one's use. Many people need to be reminded to try and avoid such behavior in countless situations: office meetings, classrooms, church, movie theaters, etc. Why would this be any different?

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Say rather they might not have known that some people wouldn't approve. I doubt if they (or I) would consider it "knowing better".

But you're free to go for meals were everyone knows that they shouldn't be mucking around with their phones; others are free to have less formal unspoken rules. Why not just live and let live? I mean, a meal's meant to be an enjoyable occasion; why not let people enjoy it their way?

[ 25. June 2014, 08:48: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:

Second, our difference is that you appear to believe that what is normative should be acceptable.

Not quite. If it is normative, then by definition, it is accepted. What we have to work with is the boundaries of imposing our view of what is appropriate. I think it's fairly clear that in some cases we no choice: if the Boss or the Manager or the Person in Uniform tells us (or we are the boss, manager or PIU) then it's clear cut. But in the restaurant instance it's not. There, I would say the underlying principle of consideration for others dictates that we respect their interiority. Other posters have given instances where that apparent behaviour had a valid rationale. And if they are self-absorbed iSerfs missing out on one of the principle joys of existence (good food and wine with friends), so what?

Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
The problem with phone calls in enclosed public places like buses is that to be heard on a cell phone you frequently have to raise your voice enough to bother everyone around you.
It isn't, IME, just about volume. A loud conversation does not seem to draw as much ire as a moderate volume mobile use.

The difference is that two people sitting next to each other on the bus talking loudly is generally a constant noise, which can be blocked out. The problem with only hearing one side of a phone conversation is the gaps. It is harder to ignore a sporadic noise than an unbroken one.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

That sounds reasonable, I think it is not the gaps but the missing information. In a conversation with all participants present, your brain needs fill in fewer gaps.
Think of talking to a passenger in your car vs. talking on your mobile whilst driving. Even with a Bluetooth device, it requires more attention than if the person were present.
Even if one does not give a fig, it still causes extra mental effort and I think that is what annoys.

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

I think there's a generation coming up that is a little bit stunted when it comes to making their way in the world alone. The fifteen year-old is no longer really going to the store by herself, she has her friend in her ear the whole way. She won't strike up a conversation with the girl next to her on the bus, for the same reason. I think it isolates people in their own little world with their special BFFs to a sad degree.

I don't have a cell phone and all my friends say I should have one "in case of an emergency," but when I think of all my real, past emergencies,they've been very few and far between and a phone wouldn't have helped.

When I was at work and my child had an accident, my husband called the business and the boss came and got me. When I got sick at school, I was sent to the nurse and the nurse called my parents. When I fell down the stairs and broke my leg, my purse was too far away to reach even if it had held a phone. When I had a car accident a few weeks ago, the truck driver and I worked it all out without phones.

The police have phones, teachers and business managers should have phones, EMS drivers have phones, hospitals have phones. Surely we don't all need to carry one from age five.

In the case of teens -- I think their phones cause more emergencies than they help.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:

In the case of teens -- I think their phones cause more emergencies than they help.

See, there is a real problem here. It is not just teens. In some cases, adults are worse. Look around you as you motor along and you will see a massive number of adults texting, holding their mobile, etc. This is an extension of applying makeup, shaving, reading (READING!) that the myth of multitasking propagates. And adults are the biggest members of that cult.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

Phones may well help in difficult situations. But in most situations people also managed when the majority didn't have phones. It's a helpful item, but not a necessary one.

Posted by ecumaniac (# 376) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

Just relax, I suppose I'm saying. Especially if it leads you into bizarre comparisons between orgies at the next table and someone with their nose in their tablet. I mean, really...

However, in general it really is frowned upon to have your smartphone out at an orgy though. Best to check with the orgy host before pulling out the iPhone to avoid giving offence.

*I've never actually been to one, but I know some people who have, and they let me read the email that had the rules.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

I don't think that it can truly count as an orgy if it has rules ...

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:

In the case of teens -- I think their phones cause more emergencies than they help.

I will also note that many people seem to be chronically unable to make firm arrangements, but instead rely on "I'll phone you when I get there and we'll meet".

That's all very well, but I suggested that we go to X together. This is not the same as "I go and wander round X for a while, and at some point you show up and we do it all again."

Your phone is great - if you have a car accident on the way, or your child vomits on you and you take him home, then please phone me and let me know. Otherwise, let's both show up at 10, OK?

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I'm at a loss to know what the "functionally equivalent behaviour" before mobile phones was.

Reading a book at the dining table seems a traditional functional equivalent. Not that anyone here would have been exposed to such uncouth behavior. [Smile]

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

We don't eat over our keyboards either. (scoff, snarf scarff)

[ 25. June 2014, 22:47: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
When I had a car accident a few weeks ago, the truck driver and I worked it all out without phones.

I lost all power in my car on a very busy freeway about a week and a half ago. I managed to get to the right without incident, but I was very glad I didn't have to get out of my car and hoof it to the call box to call the Auto Club, as the shoulder was here.

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

Oh jeeze Ruth. Now I'm going to have nightmares.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

DAAAMN. Jeez, Ruth! [Eek!]

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

Yeah, it was a bit more excitement than I needed. The three right lanes that split off to the 101 were full of slow and go traffic, and I was half-way down the hill in the leftmost of those three lanes when I lost power and brakes. I moved one lane to the left to avoid crashing into the car ahead of me, coasted the rest of the way down, and hand-braked to a stop just to the left of the black crash barriers in the photo.

From that spot you can't get to a real shoulder without crossing at least one lane of freeway traffic, because behind you there are those three lanes of traffic headed to the 101, and in front of you, once the 101 split is done, there is a lane of traffic entering the freeway on the right that you'd have to get across.

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Phones may well help in difficult situations. But in most situations people also managed when the majority didn't have phones. It's a helpful item, but not a necessary one.

In the 30 minutes I spent waiting for the tow truck, I saw no highway patrol cars, and whoever was in the sheriff's SUV blew right by me along with everyone else at 75 mph. I'd argue that since most people have phones, they are necessary, because people just figure you have one. If this had happened to me 10 years ago, someone probably would have stopped to help or pulled off at the next exit and called for help, because I obviously needed help -- no one stops in the middle of seven lanes of freeway traffic if they don't have to. But now I'm sure everyone who drove right by me that day just figured I had a phone and had called for help myself.

[ 26. June 2014, 06:59: Message edited by: RuthW ]

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I'm at a loss to know what the "functionally equivalent behaviour" before mobile phones was.
Reading a book at the dining table seems a traditional functional equivalent. Not that anyone here would have been exposed to such uncouth behavior.

When I'm emperor of the universe that will be deemed acceptable, nay, praisworthy, behaviour.

Posted by Huia (# 3473) on :

Here's a vote for King Karl [Overused]

Huia

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

Farley Mowat once dissected a gopher at the dinner table....

Posted by The5thMary (# 12953) on :

Supposedly, Starbucks has a policy of no cellphone use when an employee is "out on the floor" but I saw violations of that every single day I worked there. It drove me completely around the bend and I was halfway around it, already. A major part of the problem is that twenty-somethings and younger are just glued to their cellphones 24/7 and they are greatly affronted when they find out that in the "real world" some businesses/employers don't want their employees to be yammering away or texting to their pals when they should be working. I would be working the cash register or the espresso bar and have to practically scream at my co-workers to put down the damn cellphone and make a drink. You would think it would be self-explanatory but I guess some people just can't grasp the concept that they're at work to provide a service to an employer, not the other way around. IMO, employers are getting so fed-up with constant cellphone use by employees , that they throw out the baby with the bathwater. There has to be a balance, somewhere, but I'm not sure how that would be implemented or enforced.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Farley Mowat once dissected a gopher at the dinner table....

Was this in the course of eating it, or just for fun?

Posted by comet (# 10353) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Farley Mowat once dissected a gopher at the dinner table....
Was this in the course of eating it, or just for fun?

have you read Never Cry Wolf? could be either.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

That is a good example, too, but those were mice, right? The story I am thinking of had him at school age, deep in an examination of a dead gopher-- may have even been pregnant-- so engrossed that when his mom called him to th table, he absently picked up the specimen tray and carried it to the table with him. Think it was "the boat that would't float"

[ 27. June 2014, 01:56: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0