Apple Watch: Banned at Work? [MERGED]

[sean000]

Nothing against the OP and I agree it sucks when your employer makes rules for trivial reasons, but they are paying you for your time. If you don't like their rules, quit and find another job with a more relaxed work environment. I used to work in a very strict place where they treated professional employees like children and I hated it. I make less money now but I'm in a much more relaxed environment and I would never go back.

It's scary how much I've seen the "entitlement mentality" entering the workplace lately, from Glass and smartwatches to time off and schedules. Lots of people expect employers to cater to their wishes and then want higher wages too. A good employer will have consideration for their employees and treat them well, if they don't just move on and don't expect them to make exceptions for you. Unfortunately with the current state of the job market here in the US this is easier said than done which is why a lot of people have to stick with crappy jobs...

On the other hand many workers are required to receive notifications from work when they are at home, so why shouldn't they be entitled to receive notifications from home while they are at work? Employers in the U.S. are notorious for demanding more from employees than 35 or 40 hours a week. Unpaid overtime is rampant in the U.S. I have been in the IT industry since the mid 1990s and I have always been expected to take my work home with me. If an emergency comes up, I have to drop what I'm doing and deal with it. Fortunately most of my employers have been willing to say that it's okay for me to take some comp-time if I end up working a lot outside of normal hours, but that is a small consolation if I have to cancel an outing with the kids or leave in the middle of a movie. Still, I have been lucky because aside from emergencies and the occasional scheduled after-hours maintenance most of my employers haven't expected more than 40 hours a week out of me on a normal week. On the other hand they have gotten more than 40 hours a week out of me on many occasions because I felt like I needed to do it to keep up with the workload. I know people who work 50+ hours a week regularly and get no additional compensation. Yes you can say they are free to leave that employer, but the expectation of unpaid overtime is found throughout American business culture and at all levels except for hourly employees and union employees who must be paid for the time they work, and who are often paid time and a half for overtime (although I have known some hourly and union employees who work additional time and just don't report it). The original poster says she works 12 hour days. Even if you are being paid for all 12 hours, that's a lot to ask. Wanting to receive text notifications from your child or your spouse during a 12 hour shift is not entitlement at all. That is completely reasonable in my opinion. Many states require short paid breaks for most workers for every 4 or 5 hours worked, so it's not unreasonable to expect that one should be able to take a break every now and then to respond to a text or deal with a personal issue.

This personal device in the workplace thing is actually the other side of the coin when it comes to mobile devices. For years I and many other workers have carried mobile phones, Blackberries and smartphones paid for by our employer so we could stay in touch with the office outside of regular business hours. Given the amount our work-lives intrude into our personal lives (even on vacation for some), many feel like they need to do whatever they can to manage both the work front and the home front more efficiently.


Sean

 

[Gav2k]

Taking the strap off and putting it in your bra would be ok if you entered the pin once it's got skin contact. Or you can have a look in eBay. I saw a hospital nurse style clip in strap that would work for you but you'd have to turn the contact lock off

 

[rjlawrencejr]

I'm saying no such thing, it's a one sided story we (sorry "i" then as i cant speak for others) have no idea what the role is so who are we to pass judgement?

Perhaps I am placing too many words in your mouth and I do agree we are only hearing the OP's side. However, that doesn't mean we can't have an opinion based on what we do know. And what we have been told sounds fairly irrational.

 

[JayLenochiniMac]

Allowing one brand of smart wearable but not another is a pretty biased policy. (ala, a Timex watch is ok, but a Casio watch is not). If an individual employee is abusing their use of a wearable, that's where it should be addressed (or, banish all of them) - but splitting hairs like this is pretty irrational.

Yes, but this is not intentional on the employer's part. Once they find out the fitbits are capable of notifications or catch their employees checking them during work hours, they'll be quick to change "smartwatches" to "notification-capable wearables."

 

[3568358]

I have had my Apple Watch for months and found out today that my employer updated the policy manual stating that no smart watches are allowed while at work. I am of course extremely bummed because I work 10-11 hour days full time and use the Apple Watch mainly for activity tracking. I'm wondering if I will be allowed to wear it in my pocket or figure out a way to strap it to my bra and if I do that if it would still count my activity?? Of course this is if my employer doesn't also state that we cannot have it on us period. If I am not able to have it on me whatsoever is it worth keeping vs selling () and getting a Fitbit since I work so much and would basically only wear it from 5pm until bed time on weekdays and then on weekends. Man I am so upset about this. I love my Apple Watch! Any tips or advice would be greatly appreciated. I am a receptionist and do not work somewhere where security is an issue so I do not even understand why they are banning them.

Apple has never once called the Apple Watch a smartwatch, so check the policy and see exactly how they word it. The Apple Watch has never been advertised as a smartwatch by its seller, Apple, so if it only states that smart watches aren't allowed and doesn't state the Apple Watch specifically, then you,re technically allowed to wear your Apple Watch.

 

[JayLenochiniMac]

Apple has never once called the Apple Watch a smartwatch, so check the policy and see exactly how they word it. The Apple Watch has never been advertised as a smartwatch by its seller, Apple, so if it only states that smart watches aren't allowed and doesn't state the Apple Watch specifically, then you,re technically allowed to wear your Apple Watch.

Yeah, like that'll fly. Good luck with that

 

[rjlawrencejr]

Yes, but this is not intentional on the employer's part. Once they find out the fitbits are capable of notifications or catch their employees checking them during work hours, they'll be quick to change "smartwatches" to "notification-capable wearables."

You might be right. I only wear an AW so of course I do get notifications. But even if these fitness trackers could only track fitness and nothing more, if there is a screen I would suspect people would look to see their progress, no? Heck, people who wear run-of-the-mill watches check them, don't they?

 

[Number-Six]

Thinking about changing jobs over an inability to wear a novelty item? Talk about first world problems ...

 

[JayLenochiniMac]

You might be right. I only wear an AW so of course I do get notifications. But even if these fitness trackers could only track fitness and nothing more, if there is a screen I would suspect people would look to see their progress, no? Heck, people who wear run-of-the-mill watches check them, don't they?

Sure, but checking those activities hardly take up much time (not really any different from checking the time). In contrast, the OP's employer already has rule in place prohibiting use of phone while on the job, and that means notifications that require more of their attention like texts, email, etc.

 

[rjlawrencejr]

Thinking about changing jobs over an inability to wear a novelty item? Talk about first world problems ...

You can ridicule the thought crossing one's mind all you want, but I would urge you to read the OP's dilemma. The OP had been wearing the watch for months and only revealed it to her boss in casual conversation. Her boss' ban on "smartwatches" is not based on observation of her employees abusing their use while at work but quite possibly based on her child's behavior with one.

The OP has already stated she will comply due to financial need. However, I don't see this as trivial at all.

 

[Number-Six]

However, I don't see this as trivial at all.

The fact that you (and other posters in this thread) don't see the issue as trivial makes it even worst, in my opinion.

 

[zhenya]

Thinking about changing jobs over an inability to wear a novelty item? Talk about first world problems ...

The problem I'd have is that any such ban would speak to a company-wide culture that almost certainly manifests itself in all sorts of other more seriously negative ways.

 

[rjlawrencejr]

Sure, but checking those activities hardly take up much time (not really any different from checking the time). In contrast, the OP's employer already has rule in place prohibiting use of phone while on the job, and that means notifications that require more of their attention like texts, email, etc.

My only retort would be there's a huge difference (at least to me) checking my watch than looking through my phone. An earlier post pointed out that looking at your phone will very likely lead to deeper immersion. While I am sure the watch comes with its own set of distractions - I have yet to see anyone so deeply buried in their watch any where near the level they might their phone. (Here in LA I see at least one a day). The irony? The OP mentioned how not only are her fellow co-workers wearing fitness trackers, many also sneak a peak at their phones during work hours (against policy) - an activity she didn't have to do because she had an AW!
[doublepost=1456946071][/doublepost]

The fact that you (and other posters in this thread) don't see the issue as trivial makes it even worst, in my opinion.

Makes is worse in what way? Again the employer was totally unaware the employee was even wearing one for quite some time - so it was not an issue of it interfering with job her performance.

 

[sean000]

Yes, but this is not intentional on the employer's part. Once they find out the fitbits are capable of notifications or catch their employees checking them during work hours, they'll be quick to change "smartwatches" to "notification-capable wearables."

Pretty soon there won't be many fitness trackers on the market that don't offer notifications. If this employer eventually comes to realize this, hopefully she will also realize that employee morale will tank if you suddenly tell your staff that their $200 fitness trackers are now not allowed to track 12 hours of their day. This might become an untapped market for manufacturers of smart-apparel that has fitness tracking sensors integrated into the clothing (unless employers start patting you down). Pretty soon you will be able to get notifications on your socks! Employers who are concerned about the seconds it takes to glance at a text notification on a postage-stamp screen adding up to minutes of wasted productivity every day will need to invest in some shielding to prevent their workplaces from receiving external cellular or WiFi signals!

 

[JayLenochiniMac]

Pretty soon there won't be many fitness trackers on the market that don't offer notifications. If this employer eventually comes to realize this, hopefully she will also realize that employee morale will tank if you suddenly tell your staff that their $200 fitness trackers are now not allowed to track 12 hours of their day. This might become an untapped market for manufacturers of smart-apparel that has fitness tracking sensors integrated into the clothing (unless employers start patting you down). Pretty soon you will be able to get notifications on your socks! Employers who are concerned about the seconds it takes to glance at a text notification on a postage-stamp screen adding up to minutes of wasted productivity every day will need to invest in some shielding to prevent their workplaces from receiving external cellular or WiFi signals!

Again, nobody put a gun to their head and forced them to accept a job where no notifications are allowed. This is America and they're free to change jobs if they're unhappy.

No cellular/wifi shielding needed if it comes to that. They'd just ban notification-capable clothes. I'm sure the OP has to wear a very specific outfit as a receptionist in an animal clinic.

 

[kevroc]

You're what's called every employer's darling. smh
[doublepost=1456916505][/doublepost]
I work in a company (around 2100 workers) with its own health management staff department. We also have a specialist for integration into employment e.g. if someone was ill for a longer time or is chronically ill (problems with back, heart, depressions) etc. He can help you with the kind of work you do, where you are located in the office/building etc. etc.

So, my employer cares a lot about the health of his employees with a long life hopefully being part of it.

But then again, I work in the old world, the oh so liberal Europe and not in a hire and fire society like the US.

You are confusing action with intention. You have laws that force your employers to provide health management, don't take that to mean they actually care.

The fact that people think they care is absurd. If they did care, they wouldn't need laws to force them...

 

[sean000]

Again, nobody put a gun to their head and forced them to accept a job where no notifications are allowed. This is America and they're free to change jobs if they're unhappy.

No cellular/wifi shielding needed if it comes to that. They'd just ban notification-capable clothes. I'm sure the OP has to wear a very specific outfit as a receptionist in an animal clinic.

My reply was mostly in jest (which I thought was obvious by the emoji). Fitness trackers are becoming very common, and most people who wear them consider them to be personal devices no different than wearing a watch or jewelry. Most people would not be surprised by a company policy that says smartphones must be put away and silenced during work, but they probably would not think to ask a potential employer if it's okay to wear a smartwatch or fitness band unless it's an environment that doesn't allow any jewelry for safety or sanitary reasons. Notifications will soon be available on even the least expensive fitness bands, so it will be difficult to buy a fitness band that has features you want but doesn't have notifications. Yes an employer can just make a blanketed policy against any electronic device that receives notifications (or a policy that says notifications must be disabled during working hours) but that will be difficult to police and enforce. Most of the time you won't notice it if one or more employees has a device like this on.

Every job is going to have its pros and cons, and those cons occasionally include ridiculous rules. Most people aren't going to quit an otherwise good job because of an inconvenient and frivolous rule, but that doesn't mean that a policy shouldn't occasionally be questioned and respectfully debated.

Sean

 

[rjlawrencejr]

Again, nobody put a gun to their head and forced them to accept a job where no notifications are allowed. This is America and they're free to change jobs if they're unhappy.

That's not exactly true. Read the OP's statements. She's been working at the facility a long time and due to some unfortunate circumstances she is now the sole breadwinner and health insurance provider for her family. The policy is a relatively new one that was implemented well after she had purchased her AW.

It may not be a gun to her head, but it's awfully damn close.

 

[Mr Kram]

debate is starting to get comical now. gun to her head? LOLOLOL good job, fairly compensated, good benefits (all assumptions) vs. inability to wear the AW?

the only discussion is among ourselves. it's a company policy and not out of the realm (legally) of what is reasonable.

there are maybe a few here that have owned their own business, glad that some of you have been able to make it work with little or no exceptions. i personally have owned my own business. i bought and took over a failing business. i had to make many unpopular changes. some people accepted them and moved on and some people left. in any case, the business became profitable, and to me and as the sole principal of the business, that is what mattered the most. i'm pretty sure that those who stayed were content with accepting a stricter work environment in return for job security and monetary bonuses.

for those managers out there, i'm sure you know that you have limited power. again, i was a senior executive for a fortune 300 company for many years, reporting directly to the CEO. some **** gets handed down to you and it all trickles downhill. no matter how trivial or if you disagree, you gotta tow the line...

 

[mellofello]

This seems like a asinine rule. I have been reading about many companies going the other way and requiring employees to have fitness trackers to get discounted insurance.

 

[Rok73]

You are confusing action with intention. You have laws that force your employers to provide health management, don't take that to mean they actually care.

The fact that people think they care is absurd. If they did care, they wouldn't need laws to force them...

I am not confusing anything here, good man. I have personal experience and know the people involved in my company. One side of the medal is the law the other side is the practical action taken. Are you a psych?

 

[The Game 161]

I wouldn't sell it as surely you use it a lot outside of work? Seems very strange to ban a watch...sounds idiotic.

 

[JayLenochiniMac]

That's not exactly true. Read the OP's statements. She's been working at the facility a long time and due to some unfortunate circumstances she is now the sole breadwinner and health insurance provider for her family. The policy is a relatively new one that was implemented well after she had purchased her AW.

It may not be a gun to her head, but it's awfully damn close.

It's still a first world problem. She'll live.

 

[Trogladite]

I worked in several companies as safety and HR manager, nowadays I am no longer employed, but am an independent consultant to those same and other companies. Writing/developing policies has always been part of my role for around twenty years.

Most of the time it's balancing act between what the company want, what the regulations allow, or require, and being fair to employees. The first being why they keep me employed. The second is the reason they keep me paying me. The third to ensure in a relatively mobile market place, the employees of the company stay reasonably happy.

Can using and carrying a phone be controlled? For people travelling or working off site definitely no. Can the same be said for carrying and using a watch? That depends on the work, but unless there is a safety issue there is no problem.

For inhouse working the phone becomes a less necessary tool, but demerits are usually quoted as overuse for calls unrelated to work in work time. The same applies to smart watches. Once again the work situation will be the single thing that sets the scene. Security and safety being the two that most likely depend on regulation and security, being obvious since cameras are in almost all phones but few are integral to smart watches.

Almost anything else is open for sensible discussion. But reasonable discourse relies on all parties keeping an open mind. Unfortunately open minds are rare.

 

[rjlawrencejr]

i bought and took over a failing business. i had to make many unpopular changes. some people accepted them and moved on and some people left. in any case, the business became profitable, and to me and as the sole principal of the business, that is what mattered the most. i'm pretty sure that those who stayed were content with accepting a stricter work environment in return for job security and monetary bonuses.

I can accept you may have had to make some unpopular changes, but I would assume those decisions were sound and were implemented to increase productivity and not capriciously created simply to exert authority. On the same token, were you open minded and flexible enough to reconsider some decisions if they increased employee morale while having no negative effect on employee output?

While it might be your business, the employees are your partners, as you know, decent pay and benefits are only part of the equation. It's the little things - perks that seem trivial or the feeling that I, as an employee, have some input in the decision-making process - that garners good will between employee and employer.