On 14/09/2011 12:36, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:15:47 on Wed, 14 Sep
2011, d remarked:

In today's complex world, being out of touch does make things fall apart
in many people's employment. How often have we moaned about delays on
the railways getting out of hand (after an incident) because managers
can't be contacted to give authority to sort things out?

If a manager on duty can't be contacted from any significant period of
time
via a land line during an incident then he should be sacked for
incompetance
and dereliction of duty. End of.

Except we have moved to a world where mobile phones are just as (if not
more) prevalent than landlines.

Thirty years ago, as a manager, it was expected that I had a secretary
whose almost sole function was to make my appointments and know were I
was all the time - so an incoming call could be routed to a nearby
landline. Today, not only has that post been abolished, I'm supposed to
answer my own mobile phone when it rings!

Agreed!
My current employer has recently introduced "agile working", whereby
there are fewer desks than people (on the basis that on any particular
day some people are out on business calls or on leave).
All managers have had to give up their offices and now sit (if they can)
in the general office, and "hot-desk" with everyone else.
Everyone has a networked/wi-fi laptop and a mobile phone and is expected
to keep their personal calendar up to date, so others can see if they
are on duty and also their whereabouts.
All very well in theory but on days when everyone turns up to their
office, this can lead to chaos, with people fighting for a desk (not
literally, so far) and/or finding space in another office (not
necessarily on-site) or working from home.
Mobile phones have therefore become essential.

George

In message , at 12:02:05 on Wed, 14 Sep
2011, Huge remarked:

So your solution is to break it even more by banning mobile phones?

Where did I say I wanted to ban mobile phones?

Fair enough. So you approve of mobile phone use on trains, because it
mends breaks in the chain of command. (So do I).
--
Roland Perry

On Wed, 14 Sep 2011 12:36:32 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
If a manager on duty can't be contacted from any significant period of time
via a land line during an incident then he should be sacked for incompetance
and dereliction of duty. End of.

Except we have moved to a world where mobile phones are just as (if not
more) prevalent than landlines.

Not the point. Mobiles can be lost, broken or the battery can die. There
should always be a fallback landline option.

One bank I worked at wanted my mobile number, presumably so they could hassle
me when I wasn't at work. I refused to give it which didn't please my
director but there was nothing in the job contract about it so there was
nothing they could do. Obviously it wasn't that important or they'd have
supplied me with a company phone. They didn't.

That's a different class of people, I was talking about those who are
travelling to meetings. It's one of the few reasons people travel,
surprisingly enough.

Eh? There are dozens of reasons people travel. Commuting, theatre, shopping,
hospital, holiday etc etc

B2003

In message , at 12:51:49 on Wed, 14 Sep
2011, d remarked:
If a manager on duty can't be contacted from any significant period of time
via a land line during an incident then he should be sacked for incompetance
and dereliction of duty. End of.

Except we have moved to a world where mobile phones are just as (if not
more) prevalent than landlines.

Not the point. Mobiles can be lost, broken or the battery can die. There
should always be a fallback landline option.

That doesn't help if the manager is many miles away from where the
landline rings.

That's a different class of people, I was talking about those who are
travelling to meetings. It's one of the few reasons people travel,
surprisingly enough.

Eh? There are dozens of reasons people travel. Commuting, theatre, shopping,
hospital, holiday etc etc

Commuters are often travelling to meetings too, at their office. The
other reasons you list for travel are tiny compared to this.
--
Roland Perry

On Wed, 14 Sep 2011 15:07:33 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
Not the point. Mobiles can be lost, broken or the battery can die. There
should always be a fallback landline option.

That doesn't help if the manager is many miles away from where the
landline rings.

Why would he be? Unless he's an on a site. In which case there should
be provision made to contact him.

Eh? There are dozens of reasons people travel. Commuting, theatre, shopping,
hospital, holiday etc etc

Commuters are often travelling to meetings too, at their office. The

I think you'll find most commuters are just travelling to their desks.

other reasons you list for travel are tiny compared to this.

Rubbish. I suspect the majority of people on the tube outside rush hour
are tourists and I doubt many of the rest are on their way to meetings.

B2003

On Sep 11, 11:10*am, Roland Perry wrote:
It's a disincentive to use the tube, and will become increasingly so as
people's lives revolve around their Smartphones and apps. Obviously the
"I'm on the train" brigade are a pain, but it's such a noisy environment
(except between trains at a station) people should really not attempt
it.


(a) there's often no real alternative in London BUT to use the tube,
especially considering dense traffic above ground and high parking
costs, so the impact will be minimal

(b) people will get used to it very quickly and soon forget that it is
a pain

(c) for every person who sees it as a disincentive, there will be
people like myself who see it as an INcentive. Being stuck in a tunnel
without being able to tell my boss, or the friend I'm waiting to meet
in the pub, that I'm running late is the only reason (as I have a
yearly season ticket) that I sometimes don't get the tube and choose
instead either a bus or a Boris bike... just so that I can stay
connected if there are any delays.

On Sep 12, 9:54*am, Roland Perry wrote:
In message
, at
16:08:34 on Sun, 11 Sep 2011, Mizter T remarked:

There isn't a technical problem with getting coverage into the tunnels,
the issue is that there are so many tunnels that the cost of providing a
public service (in addition to any existing private system) would be
prohibitive.


There are two options to this that I can think of.

(a) charge people to use it when in the underground, which is after
all what airlines do.
(b) use a combination of these charges, with funding from taxes,
sponsorship from a major company - think Barclays and the Boris Bikes,
or British Airways and the London Eye - perhaps some revenue from
paying a monthly membership fee to the scheme, and perhaps the
networks themselves would be willing to help pay something towards the
cost (after all, they will be gaining by people making calls on their
networks, ultimately).
(c) finally, you could also perhaps charge people for advertisements
callers would hear just before the call is connected. As anyone who
uses "access numbers" (eg for cheap calls abroad) will know, often
they only get these amazing rates if they are happy to listen to a
short recorded message first.

(c) is just off the top of my head. But the Boris Bikes has proven
that (b) would work, for sure.

In message , at 14:21:52 on Wed, 14 Sep
2011, d remarked:
Not the point. Mobiles can be lost, broken or the battery can die. There
should always be a fallback landline option.

That doesn't help if the manager is many miles away from where the
landline rings.

Why would he be?

Because he's out of the office?

Unless he's an on a site. In which case there should
be provision made to contact him.

Mobile phone being the obvious first choice.

Eh? There are dozens of reasons people travel. Commuting, theatre, shopping,
hospital, holiday etc etc

Commuters are often travelling to meetings too, at their office. The

I think you'll find most commuters are just travelling to their desks.

From where they conduct meetings with colleagues.

other reasons you list for travel are tiny compared to this.

Rubbish. I suspect the majority of people on the tube outside rush hour
are tourists and I doubt many of the rest are on their way to meetings.

We'll have to agree to differ. But why pick just off-peak for your
mobile phone rant?
--
Roland Perry

d wrote:

I suspect the majority of people on the tube outside rush hour
are tourists and I doubt many of the rest are on their way to meetings.


What about shoppers, people going to/from places of entertainment,
people visiting relatives? Do tourists really outnumber the total of
these plus those on their way to/from meetings?

On Wed, 14 Sep 2011 16:05:02 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
Why would he be?

Because he's out of the office?

And why would he be out of the office during working hours? If he's an
on site manager then he'll be with whoever he needs to manage anyway.

Unless he's an on a site. In which case there should
be provision made to contact him.

Mobile phone being the obvious first choice.

Depends where it is.

I think you'll find most commuters are just travelling to their desks.

From where they conduct meetings with colleagues.

I don't know what you do but I haven't had a meeting in 4 months. I actually
get on with doing work rather than spending my day sitting around a table
waffling. Any important correspondance is sent via email unless the person
is within walking distance. I suspect many other people are in a similar
situation.

Rubbish. I suspect the majority of people on the tube outside rush hour
are tourists and I doubt many of the rest are on their way to meetings.

We'll have to agree to differ. But why pick just off-peak for your
mobile phone rant?

So you think the majority of people on in the rush hour have a meeting the
minute they get to work?

B2003