Slashdot Mirror
Most Companies Will Require You To Bring Your Own Mobile Device By 2017
Lucas123 writes "Half of all employers will require workers to supply their own mobile devices for work purposes by 2017, according to a new Gartner study. Enterprises that offer only corporately-owned smartphones or stipends to buy your own will soon become the exception to the rule in the next few years. As enterprise BYOD programs proliferate, 38% of companies expect to stop providing devices to workers by 2016 and let them use their own, according to a global survey of CIOs by Gartner. At the same time, security remains the top BYOD concern. 'What happens if you buy a device for an employee and they leave the job a month later? How are you going to settle up? Better to keep it simple. The employee owns the device, and the company helps to cover usage costs,' said David Willis, a distinguished analyst at Gartner."
As enterprise BYOD programs proliferate, 38% of companies expect to stop providing devices to workers by 2016 and let them use their own
Do they get to monitor communications or wipe my own device now if anything goes wrong?
...when it gets tied up in legal proceedings. This brings its own set of complications.
Can they remote wipe? Pull your GPS data? contacts? logs?
Good-bye
I've got my Commodore 64 right here and all I need is someway to connect to the Company network with my 1200 baud modem.
At my company there is a lot of internal chatter about BYOD, along with the security concerns (especially in terms of IP).
My stance: Just say no to BYOD. If my company deems it necessary for me to use a portable electronic device to perform my job, then either:
a) They supply it, and it remains company property, or
b) There is no option b
They had better give me a stipend to buy my own machine, then, because I'm only going to use it for working with their company. In fact, it will never leave the office. No way in HELL are they going to be able to lay a claim on my personal equipment just because they want to lower their parts and labor costs.
'What happens if you buy a device for an employee and they leave the job a month later? How are you going to settle up? Better to keep it simple.
ok so same situation, what happens when the same employee leaves in a month yet in this scenario, he has all your data on his personal phone, and you cant get it. Someone didnt fully think this through before opening their mouth.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
A company paying $75 or so for monthly smartphone service pays for itself many times over in keeping employees tethered to the business and available for around-the-clock email and messaging. I expect companies will continue paying for service even for BYOD shops. If forcing employees to purchase a phone discourages them from using a phone for work then it will be a huge loss for companies.
I support a large number of servers. I do not own a personal cellphone and so far the pricing schemes and poor service range for those with reasonable rates have not given me any reason to purchase one. So company if you decide not to provide one so I can support said equipment that is your choice, though not sure how you plan to get a hold of me after hours.
>> there's software out there to (monitor communications or wipe my own device)
My current employer has a BYOD policy and software for this. My solution: never use a personal device for work purposes, especially never company email. Instead, I use a company-resident mail forwarding application to read my company email and to send alerts to a personal email address if it finds something that looks interesting enough and I've been out of the office long enough (e.g., more than a day). If I do get such an alert, I might VPN in to read the full email, or usually I'll just text or call someone. (They can also text me.)
I don't want a smart phone. I choose not to use one - I only care to have a simple phone that does the bare minimum. If they want me to have a smart phone, they'd better provide it for me because I will not spend my own money for a device I choose not to have. Under Australian law (to which I am subject) I don't believe a company can force you to provide your own equipment.
Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
Is this the same Gartner who once said a web seminar that Apache and Linux would not have any significance in the web server market?
You'd be better off looking at tea leaves than trusting anything that comes from that money hole.
Not much of an issue for devops folks but a big issue in sales and marketing.
I wonder if companies allow a sales phone number be switch to a competitor when the sales person switches jobs. This is what happens when Jane changes jobs.
Customer of company A calls Jane who has just gone to company B:
Jane: "Hi Sam, I am glad you called. I now work for B and let me tell you how their product is much better for you..."
There are other jobs like customer support that have similar problems. In this case you want your customers when they call the cell phone to reach someone who works for the company.
The above problems also apply to IM handles.
I worked for a state office where the I.T. staff were all issued cell phones. They were issued because we had it set up to broadcast texts to us when something went wrong. A new administration comes in and the first thing they do is confiscate all cell phones.
I casually mention to our advance guy that all the notifications for server issues go out to said cell phones. We had them back the next day.
All of the mentioned restrictions only work if the phone is locked.
I refuse to sign a contract, or get a locked phone (at least that I pay for).
I have a N1 (never locked), and will probably upgrade before long to a new, never locked, phone. You don't need to unlock if it was never locked in the first place.
If my employer wants that control, they can pay for it.
I've saved the cost of my current phone with lower monthly bills. A single payment up front saves money in the end.
Freedom isn't free, but it doesn't have to cost a lot.
roaming costs? big plans can have good data rates your own not so much.
The mobile management software that's out there (and used by some companies that allow BYOD) works just fine on unlocked/rooted phones.
LegendMUD
Typically the remote management software will work with any connection, so if your wifi hits the internet (mild pedantry - airplane mode disables wifi too, but obviously you could just disable mobile data), and is consequently able to call 'home' to your employer, it'll still be able to perform a remote wipe.
That said, what you describe is functionally no different than simply backing up company documents from your work PC to an external drive, and then leaving with that information. Or, even lower tech, just taking physical documents with you when you leave.
LegendMUD
And who exactly pulled that out of their ass? No personal devices at my work, period. Same everywhere that has an IT dept worth half a shit.
Used to be you got a job, if you were good at it, the company would pay for your education to get even better.
Used to be, you got educated by your company, you could take a sabbatical.
The jobs you describe are still around. Hint: If there is a foosball table anywhere on company property you probably don't have one of these jobs. If you do it won't be for long.
I remember talking with a very successful businessman a long time ago. He asked me if I knew the diference between a job and a career? I said no. He said, it's simple, in a career you get screwed out of your overtime.
* Carthago Delenda Est *
Remote wipe? Try an airplane mode with wifi and Dropbox. If you own your device, you can image your device to your SD card.
What's your point? I didn't buy a phone to keep it in Airplane Mode.
In that case:
LegendMUD
You transfer the device to the employee's replacement?
Congratulations, you have shown the modicum of common sense that appears to consistently elude the staff at Gartner.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
roaming costs? big plans can have good data rates your own not so much.
My previous company owned the phones and gave them out to individuals. Project Managers, who tended to stay at the office, got 1200 minutes, while technical staff, who tended to have to go out to client sites for two weeks at a stretch, got 500 minutes. I ended up going over a time or two, and was called in to explain myself. On those occasions, I discovered that the corporate plan that the company subscribed to cost about double what an individuals plan would cost with the same minutes. I guess AT&Ts motto is "Buy in bulk and !save".
Anyway, at some point, the company decided to save money by having the employees BYOD and also PAY for said device. No raises were given in coincidence with this change in policy. The company did require that the employee had to have a phone and make the number available, especially when on the road, but did not pay for it in any way shape or form.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
FUCK OFF AND DIE!!! If I need a cell phone for work, my employer will provide it. No device of mine will ever be used for work purposes. EVER! I paid for it, its my PRIVATE property. I (and ONLY I ) will decide where and how it gets used. Employers wanting employees to use their own devices for work is just another way to increase profits at the expense of employees!
Troll printer salesman.
LegendMUD
That is what's done to hourly (especially to min wage workers) workers all the time. They deduct for background checks, uniforms, etc ....
Not generally lawful
Cellphones are one of the absolute most personal things ever created. Imagine if there's a legal dispute, and your company subpoena's your cellphone, or because you are using it for work, naturally asume they have the right to look at everything you've done. Oh, you're carefully protected friends list?, theirs. Your banking information?, theirs. Your pornography collection, (whether or not you've actually used it for such at work), theirs. Wife sends you a teasing pic during the day, which your forgot to delete, Manager looks at it, fired for sexual harassment.
In an ideal world, they wouldn't have access to anything on your phone, but the way things are going, anything used for work is considered fair game.
Also, yes, security, but that's nothing compared to the privacy implications.
1) Take a short and small trend.
2) Do a linear extrapolation that shows a ridiculous result.
3) ????
4) Profit
ObXKCD
*Networked* printers? Like, that use paper? For what, exactly?
LegendMUD
Who's using printers? Are your classes requiring you to turn in printed paper or something?
Actually, mostly vaporware, given how USB works independent of all high level software.
LegendMUD
Should I be buying my own desk? My own chair? Hell, my cubicle walls are clearly my responsibility too, right? If a company thinks an employee needs something for their job, then they should provide it.
I worked for a company that did not offer cell phones, even to IT folk. They said that they will call my personal cell phone if they needed me on the weekend. Their reasoning is that a cell phone is like clothes, everyone is going to wear them.
It was weird because the company did provide a lot of other tools, personal protective gear, and even had segways on the factory floor so we did not have to walk so much.
So I gave them my land line and cancelled my cell phone. Then one weekend I was out and about, and they could not get a hold of me. Monday I was told to go buy a phone.
Yeah I have clothes (land line) but if the tool you need me to have is a mobile phone much like I need steel toed boots rather than running shoes when working in the shop.
But I don't know if I can pull that today, I am so reliant on my phone. But I did notice when I look in OWA I can remotely delete any mobile device that I have checks email on OWA. We haven't fully implemented our MDM Mobileiron solution, but Exchange already can wipe phones. So I think I would just "give" my phone to my wife or kids, if any employer pulled this on my again and the can call my google voice number.
Why do you think they're vaporware!
Your employer made you print out your own files and hand them over to HR? Now you're just not making ANY sense.
LegendMUD
Um no.
I'm the employee, you are the employer.
I come in ready to work, you supply the tools for me to work.
The tools are yours, you can monitor, adjust, replace, revoke, and have Orwellian standards on them. That's because you employed me and provided them.
Past that? fuck off.
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
I hope this doesn't surprise anyone. After all, Corporations are pretty much running everything now. And since Corporations are about making as much profit as possible for the shareholders, cutting out stuff like buying supplies for your employees, charging for paper sacks shouldn't be coming as a surprise at all.
I remember working in nice restaurants that made you supply your own cook uniform, and it had to be clean every day. Now most restaurants supplied them for you, but I guess the corporation ran ones wouldn't bare the expense.
When will it stop? Will we balk at bringing our own plates & utensils to restaurants? Maybe it's when you have to supply your own computer for a job?
Be seeing you...
Gartner gives atrocious advice. I get it- it used to be good and then it was good because people did what it said.
But for the last five or six years, it just throws things out there and sees if they stick on the wall.
Former company I worked for followed Gartners advice. It was terrible. But, because it came from Gartner, no one could get fired for following it. Reminds me of IBM.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
I'm just stopping by to say:
Jackasses.
Self-aware printers require drivers?
What are we voting on, again?
LegendMUD
Idea nouns don't have payroll departments, so I never found them too lucrative.
Just because you don't know something doesn't mean you have to fish for explanations, you can use Wikipedia!
LegendMUD
I'm perfectly happy having corporate e-mail on a phone I pay for 100%, but I refuse to allow anyone to have control over my phone but me. My company encourages e-mail on our personal phones but require stock firmware, non-rooted, the ability to remote wipe, and the ability to change security settings on my phone. I'm fine if there is a requirement that I have remote wipe ability but I should be the only one in control of it. And telling me that I can't run alternitive firmware due to "security concerns" is ridiculous! Until I can get just get corporate e-mail on my device the way I want it I'll be happy with it and use it, until then they can pay for the phone if they want to control it.
I fully agree that your employer should be forced to buy phones for those employees that require it, but with off-shoring, out-sourcing or just plain "scarcity of financial resources" (read: "their ass is too cheap to pay when they can get the expense off of the books") you just know its going down that road despite the fact that you don't need an NBA to figure out that its a stupid idea.
Accountants only have high-school, after all how much learning do you need to figure out addition and subtraction.
PS: That's how our economy got in such a mess and why its not improving.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
You presume that most companies give a crap about the law. Instead lawyers are hired and loopholes are discovered. You just quoted "...authorized by the employee in writing...". I guarantee that this provision is included within the employee handbook and a signature from the employee to agree to such provisions is almost always a condition of employment.
I know first hand of people who have been required to procure their own uniform at their own cost. Sometimes the employers just don't give a flyin' flip about what the law says. There are still probably hundreds of employers who decide to put an hourly employee on salary and then convince the employee that now they have to work 80+ hours each week without overtime pay because now they are "salaried". Just because employers can be sued doesn't keep them from pulling all sorts of crap. When I was in college I applied for a job at a print shop and was told in an angry tone that he (the employer) only wanted female applicants - totally against the EOA, since there's no particular reason why gender is essential to do work at a print shop, unless he's taking picture of nude ladies (which certainly wasn't in the job description). I could have sued, but why would I? Unfortunately I just didn't have time for such hobbies as lawsuits, petitions or picketing. Neither do most other hourly workers struggling to make ends meet. Employers know this which is why my friends earning an hourly wage are often screwed over with uniform costs, bringing their own tools, etc., while at my job I can buy all sorts of gizmos, pay for the entire table of a business lunch, submit an expense report and even get paid for my extra mileage, even though I already earn more than enough to actually afford these things if reimbursement wasn't an option.
There are thousands of laws that are supposedly meant to help common citizens, but then there are loopholes, exceptions, and bully strategies that the wealthy and powerful use to control, manipulate, and exploit the masses who think they can simply choose to settle for a simple life and raise a family. Some examples include:
- contracts of adhesion, like statements on the back of ticket stubs that claim some waiver of liability, or EULAs and/or warranty documents that can only be read after a product has been purchase and the packaging removed.
- binding arbitration clauses in consumer contracts where the right to a trial in US courts is taken away and replaced with an informal hearing by a private citizen, often with little or no legal training, let alone any of the qualifications expected from an actual judge. In recent years some arbitration firms have come under fire for having subsidiary collection agencies that would attempt to collect from consumers after the arbitration proceedings were complete. Once an arbitrator makes his decision, a judgment is submitted to actual "real" US courts for the purpose of empowering the winners of such suits to use all legally available remedies to collect on the judgment, including bank levies, liens, foreclosure, debtor examinations, etc. Appeals are not allowed, and it has been upheld that arbitrators are NOT required to follow any rules of civil procedure, follow legal precedence, or even make decisions based on actual state or federal laws. An arbitrator could literally decide that a defendant loses his case because he was wearing a yellow tie even if the defendant was clearly following the law and the rules of applicable contracts. There is no legal remedy to reverse such an abusive decision.
- waiver of jury trial as a clause in a contract
- waiver of participating in a class action lawsuit as a clause in a contract
- SLAPP lawsuits: A strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) is a lawsuit that is intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition.
- Unenforceable but intimidating contract clauses - very often a loan contract to purchase a car or hous
... they have to keep you either.
You don't want to buy a smart phone for work?
You don't want to work.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Every person in the money factory for the federal reserve gets to bring his own dollar printing device and takes it home in the evening. Splendid idea. What could possibly go wrong.
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
I work for a foosball table manufacturer, you insensitive clod!
Gartner is so incredibly wrong here. You can't control a plethora of devices connecting to your office network. In reality, you'll have to assume that all devices that connect to you are inherently evil and users using them will be snooped on and their logon credentials will get sniffed. This means you first have to "weaponize" every application you run on your IT infrastructure and make it available as a web service. You'll have to issue two-factor authentication that uses a dynamic element such as a challenge/response hardware key generator. Only when you have everything like that in place, you can "safely" start using BYOD in a corporate environment. By then, there is no more need for people to actually be in the office to do their work, apart from meetings. For meetings, you can always call in or video conference from home. Effectively, the only way to pay for this is to quit renting office space and go completely virtual. Because you no longer rent office space, renting a separate server room will cost you dearly and you'll need your admins to have office space close to that room, so you're still running a brick company. Going to "the cloud" will be more or less mandatory for such a company, from an economic view point. I don't see a significant amount of companies do all this within the next four years. I do see a lot trying to save a few bucks on the abysmal hardware budgets they already have and fail horribly at productivity and security and reverse their decisions, spending much more in the process and not gaining anything.
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
You've forgotten that Garnter's business model is largely based on telling corporations how they can downsize their workforce and achieve the same revenue, thus increasing profits. Under such an arrangement they would end up with excess devices to be depreciated and/or sold. Easier to outsource the cost to the employee.
Sara
Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World
Unionize.
There are printer management systems which are typically used by government agencies, which can track the contents of what you print and will generate a unique watermark into each print job so that if a document is leaked they can identify the sources if they can get their hands on either a hardcopy or scan of the leaked document.
Even photocopying can be picked up as these system typically require a user to log in to make a copy.
Disclaimer - I used to work for a large copy/printer manufacturer.
Sara
Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World
How do you reasonably maintain a 24x7 server environment without staffing three full shifts? Why would I call you back off hours if you aren't providing me with a phone? Phone, and compensating me for my off-hours work, has got to be cheaper than hiring 2 more people.
Awesome, so as an employee *I* have to pay for my $700 smartphone -AND- the expectation will exist that I will be monitoring emails nights and weekends?
What a bargain for your employer, by chipping in $50-100/mo to pay for a fraction of your service plan, they get up to 20 hours per week of additional work out of you, according to this study:
http://www.techvibes.com/blog/byod-trend-is-making-employees-work-an-extra-20-hours-per-week-report-suggests-2012-08-22
This, on top of inflation-adjusted real wages that have not increased since 1973:
http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2013/04/16/the-best-indicator-of-u-s-health-is-wage-growth-or-lack-thereof/
Slashdot headline next summer: "BYO Desk all the rage among newer workers"
THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
If you want to contact me regarding work business or if I am 'on call', you will provide me a device. Otherwise sit and spin motherfucker.
Why is it that most of the people that I encounter seem to have been shat from the Sphincter of Mediocrity?
> The employee owns the device, and the company helps to cover usage costs [...]
Let's hope companies find a reasonable way to do so. I worked for a company that would cover cellular expenses, but only if you submitted an expense report once a month. Procedure was to fill out an online application, print out the result, then fax the form with your physical receipt, then staple them together and walk them to a basket in a different part of the building. (So that both the company and the outsourced accounts payable had copies.) It was so annoying and time consuming that most people just ate the cost.
In another company, I was required to carry a company cell but was forbidden to make or receive personal calls, rigidly enforced, so had to carry and manage charging for two cells, one company, one personal. Then, they decided that pagers were more reliable, so I had to carry that plus the other two devices for the weeks I was on call. You know that alpha geek thing? Where you swagger around bristling with devices? It's not as cool as it sounds.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
This is hardly going to be the most pressing concern. Nobody will take a job for a month just for a free piece of tech. For the company, the cost of salary and overheads for that employee is going to be a bigger concern - few employees start of profitable; there's a ramp up time.
If it's a real problem then ask the employee to return the device.
Just sayin'
As far as possible, Do NOT work for companies that do this.
In fact try to *not* have a mobile at all... (Its possible). Try to keep your work to daytime, non-weekend hours only.
Here's my Nokia 3210. Of course it's good enough, I paid a lot for it back in 1999. What? You never said it HAS to be a smartphone...
So you can print out emails to fax them to other people of course.
I'm guessing that wasn't on their radar screen...
Not my company, or any defense contractor for that matter.
It's such a wide open security hole I can't believe anyone would allow it.
You presume that most companies give a crap about the law. Instead lawyers are hired and loopholes are discovered. You just quoted "...authorized by the employee in writing...". I guarantee that this provision is included within the employee handbook and a signature from the employee to agree to such provisions is almost always a condition of employment.
Hobby Lobby requires you to sign a binding arbitration clause, for employment, before they will even accept your application.
I don't like smartphones and I like to erect a metaphorical concrete wall between my job and my life. So obviously I hope this idea doesn't get far, and in fact I cannot see how could any employee like it.
I'd go as far as not to let my employer know my phone number, so they can't call me: after all, if it's worktime, I'm at the office, so no phone call needed. Do you want to call me on a weekend because something happened to the server? I won't even try to charge a million, I just won't do it.
What happens if you buy a device for an employee and they leave the job a month later?
The device is property of the company. It can go to someone who can use it. If no such employee exists the device can go to the issuer (or the employee who handles that stuff), who shall issue it to the next employee who asks for a device of that type.
I have been in a couple of different companies, and it always worked that way. Only once I have gotten a new computer when I started. And that was because they were expanding and there was no old computer available. Every other time it I got old equipment: a PC that was used by my predecessor, a phone that was used by someone who went on his pension. And that's fine.
I wouldn't want BYOD unless there is a good solution for erasing the company secrets on the device without erasing my own stuff. I would demand extra pay for BYOD because it means I have to buy stuff for it, and replace it once it breaks.
Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
My telco explicitly states that my phone plan isn't to be used for commercial stuff. I'd hate to be in the company you described, sounds like they have an attitude of screw everyone, including employees.
That's USA for you - and in your country even *workers* are against unions. Nice going.
In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
Perhaps, but my employer requires that the phone be locked. And my employer supplies phones. If they want me to be reachable after regular work hours, that's how it has to be.
In Europe (Finland is what I know best since I live here) such contracts would be illegal - no way a contract could prevent you from lawsuit against the company.
In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
They tried that with me I told them to provide me with a phone if they wanted to contact me outside of work hours. I am not paying for any device or service needed to do my job. In the 5 years I have had a work cell phone I have been called twice on it outside regular work hours, both times when I was on call and being paid for being on call. I did have one boss who was upset that I would be unreachable when on vacation and wanted me to take a laptop and celluar card but couldn't grasp that where I was going there wan no cell signal and to get one required a 30 minute drive. He asked how he could find me and I pointed at a map and said get a team of trained blood hounds and some trackers and I will be somewhere in this area as I pointed to the arrow head region of Minnesota.
Time to offend someone
The only thing more consistent than their cheapness is corporations' anal retentive micro management. They will require you to supply your own devices (from an approved list of course) and then they will proceed to burden it with so much management, security, asset and tracking software as to render it useless. Which will then drive up the hardware requirements even more until they require you to own massively overpowered devices and enormous cost. Employees will balk - first in one's and two's then in waves and the whole thing blows up in everyone's face.
Our sysadmins use 4 core latest and greatest 8GB laptops. Minimum. And with that, they're barely serviceable.
Uniforms. If an employer requires that an employee wear a uniform, the employer must pay the cost of the uniform.
This is absolutely false. Essentially deducting the cost of uniforms can not cause the person to fall below minimum wage, that is the only requirement. They can choose to pay someone $10/hour and buy the uniforms for the employee or pay them 11$ and hour and require the employee to buy them themselves.
Uniforms and Their Maintenance Under the Fair Labor Standards Act
In response to many inquiries, the Wage and Hour Division has prepared the following statement which contains the answers to the most frequently asked questions about uniform procurement and maintenance under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
(1) (Q) When is an employer required to furnish an employee with a uniform? (A) The FLSA does not require that employees wear uniforms. However, if the wearing of a uniform is required by some other law, the nature of a business, or by an employer, the cost of the uniform is considered to be a business expense of the employer. If the employer requires the employee to bear the cost, it may not reduce the employee's wage below the minimum wage or cut into overtime compensation required by the Act. For example, if an employee who is subject to the statutory minimum wage of $3.35 an hour is paid $3.50 an hour and works 45 hours in the workweek, $6.00 is the maximum amount the employer can legally deduct from the employee's wages and still satisfy the minimum wage and overtime requirements of the Act ($3.50 - $3.35 = $.15; $.15 x 40 hours = $6.00). If the same employee works 30 hours in the workweek, $4.50 is the maximum amount the employer can legally deduct from the employee's wages ($.15 x 30 hours)...
Knowledge = Power
P= W/t
t=Money
Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
I see IT people from the early 2000s demanding to install as much controlling software on people's own devices as possible. People from before 2000 even more. But I see IT people from say after 2010 on just saying, "I don't want to install crap on their devices, they either work or they don't. If they don't do their work they get fired. I'm not their parent."
I have a friend who was recently hired in a consulting role. He was there to oversee bringing a company's IT system in to the 21st century. Needless to say he brought his own laptop. The first encounter was the head of IT sending in a drone in with a Novell CD that must be installed before he could connect to the Internet or anything. Needless to say not only did he not install Novell but Novell was gone within a week. The best part was that upper management had been repeatedly told that there was nothing that could do what Novell did. The reality was that there were things they had long wanted to do where Novell was getting in the way. Not to mention the huge amount of money freed up by not paying the per user costs for Novell. The setup that my friend implemented was basically IT as an ISP. His built in thinking was that people will screw up over and over so instead of trying to make it impossible he moved to a more ISP like model of helping people to do the best they could. He found it bizzare to treat senior management as idiots. They might not know much about computers but they aren't dumb. So he just gave them the tools to make sure the company data wasn't flying out the window. Things like encrypted HDs on any laptops that left the building. People suddenly felt comfortable asking IT for advise instead of going to war with them.
Another thing he shut down was IT monitoring people's web activity and then selectively creating reports.
The old IT guy even stated that the day after my friend left he would be re-installing Novell on every machine.
Old IT thinking, new IT thinking.
I realize this is a hard concept for most people who live in California to grasp, but not everyone lives in California.
It is not against the law for employers to require employees to buy their uniforms, no need to get worked up, unless deducting the cost of the uniforms causes the employee's wages to go below minimum wage it is perfectly legal to do so. It's basically just the employer saying I'll pay you $10/hour and supply you uniforms or $11 and hour and deduct $40 from your paycheck for the expenses.
Knowledge = Power
P= W/t
t=Money
Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
More about shirking responsibility. If the company provides the device and wants employees to have work data on it, they are responsible. They need to secure it and make sure that data is dealt with properly. If a breach happens, it is on them. Well that's complex and expensive. So, instead just have employees bring in their own devices. Then you aren't responsible. If something happens you say "Oh well that was an employee owned device and they weren't following our security policies (which are so impossibly complex and draconian nobody can follow them) we aren't to blame!"
the exciting revenue possibilities of distance learning? (And distance billing?)
As an academic, you do realize that your department can be restructured, your job can be re-evaluated, and the face-to-face Socratic teaching model you seem so fond of is going the way of the Tasmanian tiger.*
What you "feel" is not as important as what you "know."
Your teaching method of letting learning happen by "rubbing up against a problem" is extremely expensive in terms of time and resources.
In a country as vast and as spottily populated as Australia, where even the doctors sometimes have to fly to their next patient, telepresence is so much more efficient.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Which should be grounds for immediate dissolution of the company. The fact that they won't stand by their contracts in a court of law means that they don't really care about upholding their end of the bargain. Poison to a capitalist economy.
I wonder if all of these companies that are going to require BYOD or even those that provide a phone now have figured in, reported and paid for the overtime that is required under the FLSA for non-exempt employees. It seems to me that saying an employee must have a phone to check company email or answer calls outside normal work hours would be considered, well, work and therefore the employee, unless exempt, needs to be compensated for that time.
I think if I were a large company, I would strongly rethink who gets a company phone or is required to provide their own device. While you cannot stop an non-exempt employee from checking their mail (thus working) and you must pay them for it. You can take action if it isn't pre-approved overtime. However, if the employer is providing the phone or requiring the employee to purchase their own, by definition, they are acknowledging that working outside the normal 40 hour work week is required and have given tacit approval.
I wonder how much unpaid overtime is actually accruing and if BYOD becomes widespread, will that force the issue?
I seriously doubt any of the major businesses that develop anything are going to require you to bring your own device as then you could legitimately claim that any side work you are doing can not be their property. Or similarly, you could claim any work you're doing "extra" under the auspices of their business could also legally be used for your own endeavors. Gartner has this completely wrong.
Some might allow it but very few of the "big names" are going to require it. In any industry.
Hell, every employer I have had in the last 15 years has specifically said "you can't do our work on your personal devices" with the exception of phone conversations.
"Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
I've been using my own devices for work since 2005. When I worked in a motorcycle shop the mechanics brought in their own tools. So why now that I'm a programmer should it be odd that I bring in my own PC and tablet? What I would like to see companies do allocate a specified amount each year toward equipment.
As for security, Novell just released a Dropbox like application with enterprise security in mind. It's called Filr.
Gartner.
And I'm not a psychic. Who else could come with a study as ridiculous as this and conclusion so pointless? Why is this on a slashdot?
... is beautiful and ingenious.
We have that.
It sucks. I call it "Bring Your Own Dollars".
Among my colleagues, we estimate it costs us 75-200 USD each, per billing cycle. I can see why the company wanted to transfer that to us.
Why didn't they also transfer to us their collective negotiating and buying power? What a boon to the carrier!
This blow would have been lessened, had the company ALSO rolled out a universally accessible, SIP-based VOIP service. Alas, two years have gone, and no softphone.
Still, it could be worse. Having VOIP is not worth working in a pit like CIsco.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Back a few jobs ago, I was given a 'company owned device' (a pager) to take home when I was on call. But I was compensated for that duty. Otherwise, when I left the company premises, I was effectively incommunicado. Later on, I worked for another outfit that thought employees were supposed to be reachable 24/7, at the bosses whim. We had company pagers to carry when we were in the factory, but we left them in our desks after working hours. They wanted our phone numbers, so I gave them the land line number. Chat with my answering machine all you want.
I see the requirement to purchase your own mobile device as a back door way to ensuring that you will be reachable 24/7. Without compensation.
Have gnu, will travel.
If a company requires an employee to get a device at their own cost, how long before we see someone sue their company for the cost of contract termination fees when they lose their job before their cellphone contract is up?
Simple solution here. Buy a second phone for work, and only use it for that. You real phone has all your personal stuff.
I was starting to think this 'smart phone fad' was taking traction! If this is the work place of the future then I have a right idea to keep the ol' flip phone functioning. Bwahahaha..
*Yank hat on*
That would be communism!!!
*Yank hat off*
In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
When the employees leave, just what will the employer do? If the phone belongs to the employee, and the employer has never paid anything for it, it and all the contents belong to the employee. I cannot imagine the employer saying anything but asking them to delete corporate info, and having someone sitting with them (just as they do when you go through your desk) as they do it.
Wipe the device? With all *YOUR* private info? I think not, and I think any court would think not.
Then you've got to worry about what the employee has on their phone - if it gets pwned, who's responsible for corporate info, identifying what happened, or cleaning it?
Then there are those of us whose idea of a "mobile device" is a netbook or laptop, and maybe a cellphone - y;'know this thing you make phone calls on and do this thing called "talking to another human being"? I certainly wouldn't buy a "mobile device" for the benefit of my employer. For that matter, if they're requiring *that*, I want at least a 10% increase in salary for being what's known as "on call". And, while I'm at it, I'd like to be paid, in quarter-hour increments, for each work-related call.
Still want me buying it....? Then let's go to what *kind* of "mobile device" - not liking monopolies, I wouldn't buy from Apple, and I'd stay as far away as I could from a M$-based phone. So now, who at work's going to deal with all of this....?
mark
A bit extremist view of situation?
Of, but this was about USA... What a great country you have - I mean, instead of workers rights you have employers rights: AWESOME!
In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
That let me know that about half the articles here are plants by various device retailers pushing their latest... whatever.
Security on BYOD is basically non-existent.
So if security doesn't matter at all then by all means go with that option. If it does... Then you have to do something else.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
"'What happens if you buy a device for an employee and they leave the job a month later? How are you going to settle up? "
This is ridiculous. If the company buys a device for the employee, the employee is obligated to return it at the end of their employment. Period. Any other answer is simply a manager/administrator that doesn't want to pay for the hardware OR for the resources necessary to manage the hardware. I work in the Medical IT field, and BYOD is a very hot topic these days. My answer is always this: employee-owned devices should have NO access to the internal corporate network.
Just as employee-owned computers/laptops/etc shouldn't be allowed on the network, neither should employee-owned mobile devices. They're just too big a vector for incoming threats.
Such an approach could be advantageous to ambitious workers who may work on two or three projects simultaneously, presuming, of course, no conflict of interest.
Unless the company in question is a consultancy itself, there should not be a conflict of interest. Nor is there any justification for restrictive covenants. To my mind, that is nothing more than a power play, and as a contractor I am in an equal bargaining position.
You seemingly don't understand the purpose of employees vs contractors. You get to spread a number of costs out among your employees. Contract negotiation is a pain in the butt, among other things. Also, when I am setting my rates, I pass on any expenses due to down time, or employee training, or materials, directly on to the customer, with markup. There's no free lunch.
Finally, while it is theoretically possible to schedule your time to be able to take on multiple contracts at once, there is a lot of overhead in task-switching. You're not an employee any more, you're a business entity, so that means that you also need to be HR, an accountant, a lawyer, and a salesman, or employ people to do these things for you. It is possible to wear all of those hats and juggle three or more contracts, but it is far from easy.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
They tried that with me I told them to provide me with a phone if they wanted to contact me outside of work hours. I am not paying for any device or service needed to do my job. In the 5 years I have had a work cell phone I have been called twice on it outside regular work hours, both times when I was on call and being paid for being on call. I did have one boss who was upset that I would be unreachable when on vacation and wanted me to take a laptop and celluar card but couldn't grasp that where I was going there wan no cell signal and to get one required a 30 minute drive. He asked how he could find me and I pointed at a map and said get a team of trained blood hounds and some trackers and I will be somewhere in this area as I pointed to the arrow head region of Minnesota.
and what you went out side of the usa that will be nice to tell the boss I can use a data card a the price of $15-$20 a MEG.
This is also a fantastic opportunity for people to restore their worklife balance. Why should you connect your personal device for corporate benefit of permanently tethering you to work? This whole BYOD thing was made up by and industry trying to sell their solutions to an imaginary problem. CxOs have been suckered into thinking this is a huge money saver. It is not. When you consider the total sum of the risks or losses in productivity it does not make sense as a holistic consideration. For industries like professional services organizations, the cost of the device is negligible compared with the risk you're signing up for. And if your concern is what happens when you buy an employee a phone and they leave a month later...this is a pretty expensive solution. In all circumstances I have been in, when an employer purchases a device that is the property of the company. What's Gartner smoking?
Does anyone call Gartner on their predictions and whether they are wrong? Revisit their VDI prediction: http://blog.simonbramfitt.com/2009/04/gartner-predicts-657-billion-in-vdi-revenue-and-49-million-users-in-2013/ Does anyone see 40% running off VDI in 2013? Nope.
This is an old lesson, learned long ago. Check out jwz's story of the "bad attitude" mailing list, though I'm sure there are older instances with more serious consequences.
TO BUY A NEW CAR WOULD MAKE YOU SEXUALLY ATTRACTIVE.
So does the US military not count as an employer or something? Even in boot camp, the uniform and shoes were deducted from our first paychecks. I guess when you make the laws you don't have to follow them!?!
-- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
I have one big problem with this and that is that a company's infrastructure wont always support the device I bring. Right now where I work you get to use an iPhone, Blackberry or Android, if your use an Android, in my case the S3, then you can't connect to the main Wifi system in the workplace. This is an issue because it forces me to use mobile data or the open Wifi, which leaves me open to security issues. So well I support bring your own device, I only support it if the workplace can make sure everything works with all the major bands.
Why should you have to buy that second phone for work? They should be providing it to you, not the other way around. That's what this whole discussion is about.
Hobby Lobby requires you to sign a binding arbitration clause, for employment, before they will even accept your application.
Employment laws are not subject to binding arbitration, regardless of any "clause" to the contrary.
You can have binding arbitration on privileges that can be restricted by contract, such as arbitration over violations by an employer over an agreement, that does not have the employer violating the law, you can't have binding arbitration on enforcement of the law -- once there is a breach of the law, the employee has a right to break the contract, and ignore the arbitration requirement.
It's basically just the employer saying I'll pay you $10/hour and supply you uniforms or $11 and hour and deduct $40 from your paycheck for the expenses.
It is perfectly OK for them to pay $10/hour instead of $11 and supply the uniforms.
Although on the surface it might seem to be financially equivalent, and even to the employee's advantage, for tax purposes, and unemployment insurance purposes, to have the higher quoted wage. It is not legal for the employer to agree to pay you $11/hour, and offset $40 against your paycheck as a subtraction for uniforms -- they have to show $10/hour wage on that check.
If the uniform is equipment to be used for your job; the employer is required to show the employer paying the expense, or reimbursing the employee for the expense: if the employee was required to pay out of pocket.
In some states, they might be allowed to do it, with written consent of the employee.
Uniforms and Their Maintenance Under the Fair Labor Standards Act
This is irrelevent. Normally the state law will be stricter, as it is in California. Although the federal law would allow the employer requiring employees to pay for their own uniforms in some cases, the state law would prohibit it, and the more restrictive one wins.
So does the US military not count as an employer or something? Even in boot camp, the uniform and shoes were deducted from our first paychecks. I guess when you make the laws you don't have to follow them!?!
The US military is exempt from most state employment laws.
Actually... the US government is exempt from most state and federal employment laws, except the laws that specifically regulate them; if the approved government policy is to do a certain thing, they are probably allowed to do it.
Might have been badly mistaken but I thought it was about company paid cell phones that you get to legally keep - otherwise most... no, not most, but much the discussion here has been for nothing.
In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
You presume that most companies give a crap about the law. Instead lawyers are hired and loopholes are discovered. You just quoted "...authorized by the employee in writing...". I guarantee that this provision is included within the employee handbook and a signature from the employee to agree to such provisions is almost always a condition of employment.
The written consent option, as you would see if you read more, is restricted to specific situations. Written consent cannot lawfully have an employee covering an expense of the business. It can cover expenses of the employee, that are not required by the business for employment.
Companies do give a 'crap' about the law. Good companies obey the law; ones that are not so good might break some laws, and eventually get caught, and have repurcussions against them.
I know first hand of people who have been required to procure their own uniform at their own cost.
Then you may know a few people with a potential to sue their employer; after they are hired by someone else, and no longer rely on their former employer as a reference, to escape fears of potential retalliation and intimidation.
Depending on the applicable laws, of course...
In some states, the practice of making the employee pay for an expense of the business, may be perfectly legal.
Although, this may also affect business' tax liability, by increasing it.