Should cell phones be left at home when coming to work? Why or why not?

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 12 Aug 2015 13:53:23 -0400

Should cell phones be unauthorized to bring in to work? Why or why not?
Should everyone be required to stay in barracks during the work week? Why or why not?

Response by SCPO David Lockwood made Aug 12 at 2015 1:54 PM

SCPO David Lockwood — Wed, 12 Aug 2015 13:54:44 -0400

Left in lockers while at work.

Response by TSgt Joshua Copeland made Aug 12 at 2015 2:01 PM

TSgt Joshua Copeland — Wed, 12 Aug 2015 14:01:38 -0400

Should cell phones be unauthorized to bring in to work? Why or why not? Depends on the work location. SCIF or CPA? Don't care where you keep it, just not at work. Otherwise, as long as it doesn't interfere with official duties, I don't have a problem with it.

Should everyone be required to stay in barracks during the work week? Why or why not? Are they on restriction for Art15, standby or recall? Otherwise no.

Response by SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 12 at 2015 2:03 PM

SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 12 Aug 2015 14:03:39 -0400

SGT Private RallyPoint Member with Verizon you can send/receive text messages on their website. I leave my phone in my car and check if I have any missed call at lunch or at COB.

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 12 at 2015 2:08 PM

Sgt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 12 Aug 2015 14:08:29 -0400

if you work in an office there should be a cubby type box with locks to put your electronics in. that's whats outside just about every secret facility, and should be at every office. you should be allowed to go check your phone every once in a while, but having phones in the cubby will allow leaders to see who is just playing candy crush and who is working.

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 12 at 2015 2:09 PM

Cpl Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 12 Aug 2015 14:09:31 -0400

Honestly, it's up to the unit or company you work for. My personally belief is no, I've never seen a place of business or unit that didn't have a phone that could be utilized for emergencies by family. Why do some people feel the need to be connected 24/7? Several decades ago, we went home and checked the answering machine. And if it was that important they called us at work on a land line.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 12 at 2015 2:44 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 12 Aug 2015 14:44:34 -0400

cell phone breaks = next cigarette break. The use of cell phone during duty hours should be determined at the lowest NCO level for the particular group under that NCO's influence. (within guidance and intent of the officers and appropriate regs, of course). I know I was not allowed to have my phone out during class at NCOER, even to verify a fact related to instruction material

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 12 at 2015 2:45 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 12 Aug 2015 14:45:59 -0400

I remember that we were strongly suggested to get cellphones when I was at Minot AFB due to inclement weather. That way we had a way of communications if other means went down.

Response by SPC Robert Patrick made Aug 12 at 2015 2:50 PM

SPC Robert Patrick — Wed, 12 Aug 2015 14:50:14 -0400

Now as a fellow 25 series Cell Phones should just not be allowed in secured facilities. You can have them in a lock box when you are in a secured facility but other than that it would be good to keep it on you. Also because not everyone lives in the barracks and the barracks are not always in the vicinity of work. Also taking your phone with you allows if an emergency happens and you have left for lunch or something for your supervisors to be able to reach you.

For staying in the barracks during the work week. I am sorry but my answer to that would be no as well. Unless the unit is on lock down for and event that happened or the Soldier is pending action under UCMJ they should not be required to stay in the barracks when not at work. Personally I have worked a 12 hour shift and then went bowling at a bowling alley after as a way to blow off steam and as therapy. You confine Soldiers to their barracks you are going to create a lot of unrest. There will be more issues that occur because the Soldiers will not be able to go anywhere or do anything. There is a reason in units where they have missions that could go from standard 9-5 or 12 hour shift to full blown everybody is coming back they have a maximum distance And guidance for the timeline to get back to work.

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 12 at 2015 3:17 PM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 12 Aug 2015 15:17:23 -0400

Hmm, this is an interesting topic.

I can see valid reasons for both sides of both of your questions:

1. Should cell phones be unauthorized to bring to work?
Yes: Not having a cell phone at work prevents massive amounts of distraction and would most likely increase the attentiveness of workers, management, and senior leadership in meetings, briefs, and in actually conducting work.
No: Studies have shown that allowing workers to use facebook, gmail, etc at work actually improves their productivity during the time they are working. The caveat to that is that the amount of increase does not directly correlate to the amount of time spent off the job checking these things. That means a small amount of time on social media or on "fun sites" is good, but anything more is a drag. Additionally at least in my job my cell phone is used at work primarily as a means for people at work to contact me. I rarely sit in my office, so without it, I am unreachable. And finally, it would be horrible to try to enforce. People would flat out hate you for it. Ideally we would just have secure work spaces that we couldn't have phones in for security reasons. "Sorry I'd let you play candy crush but you know, security, gotta leave the phone outside."
Bottom Line: I think it's unrealistic to prevent them, but in important meetings and actually on the job (physically working) they need to be un-utilized unless something comes up.

2. Should everyone be required to stay in the barracks during the work week?
Yes: This way we could easily recall people if needed after hours. We could also count on them to be on time for work, not have long drives (contributing to lack of sleep), and have less of a chance of having an accident while off duty.
No: Realistically everything I put in the yes category as a positive already doesn't happen with those who do live in the barracks. So what do we expect to gain? We would also lose just about every married service member if they were only ever allowed to see their spouses and children on the weekends. Sure the all understand there will be time away, but when at home (not deployed) and during the normal work week? Not doable.
Bottom Line: Just about no realistic benefit to this and a HUGE negative.

There is obviously more to it, but these are my thoughts on the matter.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Aug 12 at 2015 6:47 PM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Wed, 12 Aug 2015 18:47:53 -0400

Simply put. You were old enough to sign up for War. You were old enough to Swear on to Defend the Constitution.

You are old enough to put away your communication device and only use it when appropriate. You are old enough to use "free time" in a responsible manner. You are old enough not to be babysat, whether or not you are an E1 or an O10.

That's what this is really about. The two questions as posed imply that Service Members are (potentially) irresponsible, and cannot be trusted without constant "adult supervision." This is the real reason we have retention problems. It's not that we don't pay our folks enough. It's that we treat them like #%^&&%^ children.

Yes, I get that we have restricted, and secured facilities, and in those facilities communications devices are not allowed. That isn't because we don't trust our people. It's because we don't trust the technology, and it is a liability.

Additionally, there are times where we restrict people to barracks, or set up a "standby" or "recall ready" status. That is an operational issue. Not one of trust.

But the question as posed does nothing but imply lack of trust. It implies the People defending our Nation cannot be trusted. #$^&*& that. That idea just pisses me off. I'm sorry, but that's just wrong. If a person cannot be trusted with two exceedingly simple concepts like that, why would we hand them a weapon with 200+ rounds of ammo? Why would we given them millions of dollars of equipment or TS/SCI access?