Home > Business Group > Discussion Board

In your response, please be very detailed and specific.

You will have to assess for yourself the validity of the positions generated by such a discussion.  I think there are some reasons that are compelling on both sides.  The analysis behind them, you might have to add, as well as some research, but I can start the process that you should conclude.

Case for Cell Phones

1)  Creates easier communication- Employees, especially ones who have to travel, can communicate with other employees easier with cell phones.  They increase response time and that can increase productivity.

2)  Helps minimize land line traffic- If everyone in an office had to work off of land lines only, there might be a clog in traffic and eventual shut down.  Having cell phones with a variety of carriers will allow for wider traffic because of less ability to clog in one domain.

3)  Extension of personal self- Some people are very devoted to their cell phones.  By allowing them in the workplace, employers are allowing their employees to inject their own sense of self and voice in the workplace.  This can be extremely important to office climate and workplace morale, thereby increasing productivity in creating a happier employee.

Reasons against

1)  Too much personal interaction on company time- In allowing cell phones, it is hard for employers to constantly monitor whether or not their use is for business or personal use. This creates another level of management headache that can be avoided in banning cell phones entirely.

2)  Protection of business secrets- Given the fact that so many cell phones can store and send information, take pictures, and record data, there might be some businesses that wish to protect their own intellectual property and  intellectual capital in banning cell phones.  Privileged communications can be copied and stored in cell phones and sent to other competitors, sacrificing the company's method of business interaction.

3)  Office distraction- People talking on cell phones, annoying and loud ringtones, and other variables on cell phones have a tendency to be annoying in a crowded office where space is a premium.  Banning them allows for less intrusion in the office.

One thing is to ban a thing, another is to ban or moderate its use.

As per the events of September 11, 2001- there is definitely a need for instant communication in case of an emergency. Also, the viability of communication when one is far away from a phone is another reason to consider NOT banning cell phones.

When one bans, people rebel and controversy rises, sides are taken, and the workplace becomes a debate center.

It is the right of the people to carry a cell phone, and their responsibility to use it apropriately. Organizational leaders may not find it legal nor easy to monitor people having phones at the workplaces. Yet, they can do a great job at specifically pointing out how, when and where these are to be used. This way, any grievances can be counterargued with a firm set of regulations.

Just to play the "devil's advocate" here and question the question:

As an ethical and moral question, the banning of cell phones, along with other recent laws and codes of behavior raises the dilemma posed by attempts to regulate--and sometimes legislate--behavior for all based on the misbehavior of some.  This method is analogous to punishing the entire group/class for some things that one or a few have done. It is a violation of personal rights of those who do not abuse privileges.  Because so many people nowadays are unethical, must everyone in a company be punished?

Where does this regulation of behavior, as it has now begun with insurance companies' dictations of what one can and cannot do while driving, businesses' dictations of behavior, etc. end?

In the early nineteenth century, Henry David Thoreau wrote in "resistance to Civil Government,"

That government governs best which governs least

Thoreau knew that a truly free country must have a populace that takes responsibility for their own actions.  A government, or a business, that dictates behavior operates on the premise that the employee is unethical and takes no responsibilities.  For those who are ethical and responsible, such a premise is insulting to their integrity.  Sooner or later, they will look elsewhere for employment where they are treated with dignity. (Was not the failure of the 18th Amendment a testimony to repercussions of attempts to legislate behavior?)Rather than dictating rules, a company may wish to speak to its employees and give ethical training to those in need, in lieu of having their Big Brother dictate behavior.

The physical presence of cell phones should not be prohibited in the work place.  This type of prohibition has several negative consequences:

1.  Employees may need to use the phone for emergencies.

2. Taking away this type of basic right would certainly lower employee moral.

3.  It is almost impossible to enforce.  In fact enforcing may require an envasion of privacy, which is unethical.

Of course there are instances when the actual use of cell phones should be prohibited.

Example:  About a year ago, school bus drivers in my city were caught talking on cell phones while driving school aged children.  This is an outrage!

Clearly, we must distinguish between cell phone use and the actual presence of a cell phone. 

A blanket an on cell phones in the work places is not justified. To begin with many people require cell phones for carrying out their official duties. Even otherwise, it is not fair to insist that people should just not be reachable by outside world, while they are in their work places.

Banning of cell phones makes sense only in situations where incoming calls may create disturbances for the person receiving the call or for others. for example, it makes sense to switch of cell phones during meetings and in class rooms so that others  are not disturbed by incoming calls. Similarly, use of cellphone while doing work such as operating a machine on shop-floor or driving a car can be dangerous and must be avoided.