Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
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.

for a company that small >50 employees, that is true to some extent. granted you don't want to be a slave driver, but at the same time, work is work. i never intended to create a hostile work environment, but at the end of the day, it is i that is taking ALL of the financial risk. if i had lost half of my employees, so be it, they obviously weren't getting the job done efficiently in the first place.

in my second example, the corporation i worked for employed 27,000 people. my division alone had 6k+. there may have been a survey sent out regarding some policy changes, but like i said, some of that stuff is decided in the board room where even i was not a part of the discussion. my point is that if a decision has been made, for whatever reason, whether perceive as invalid or necessary, it's a done deal. there's no sense complaining about it. accept and move on or get a new job if it's that serious.

my other point is that there seems to be a lot of support of the OP in this thread. surely, this can be a great social topic and we can agree to disagree, but i'm guessing that all the replies (mine included) have little or no bearing on her particular situation.
 
I indeed do have sympathy with the OP, however without fully knowing the circumstances, I cannot say I would make decisions that would be seen to a be different. I may however have discussed and explained the reasoning.

Unless you are a total autocrat, Communicating with your staff effectively is often the best way.

I would say however before anyone mentions it - Battleground/ or similar situations being different.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rjlawrencejr
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?

But the action taken is because of the law. That's the point. If the law didn't exist, your company wouldn't be taking ANY action. That's the point. They don't care about your health. They DO care about happy and productive employees, that's why a lot of companies have snack bars, vending machines, free soda's etc. They want you happy. They don't care if you go and eat fast food for breakfast, lunch and dinner. They don't care whether you exercise when you get home or eat a balanced diet. Give me a break...

On the other hand, the fact that YOU think they care, is proof your government won (in your case at least).
 
for a company that small >50 employees, that is true to some extent. granted you don't want to be a slave driver, but at the same time, work is work. i never intended to create a hostile work environment, but at the end of the day, it is i that is taking ALL of the financial risk. if i had lost half of my employees, so be it, they obviously weren't getting the job done efficiently in the first place...

my other point is that there seems to be a lot of support of the OP in this thread. surely, this can be a great social topic and we can agree to disagree, but i'm guessing that all the replies (mine included) have little or no bearing on her particular situation.

Yes, apparently in your case, you took on the entire financial risk and based on what you've said, you (along with your employees) successfully turned around the business. But what if your new policies had caused you to lose your best employees (and maybe even a loss in productivity)?

As to your final point, yes I am very sympathetic to the OP mainly because her boss doesn't seem like someone who uses sound reasoning. As you know well, different jobs within an organization call for different policies (just like different jobs call for different compensation).

Finally, you said you "never intended to create a hostile work environment" but is that how many perceived it? What were the top one or two changes you instituted that did cause some employees to reconsider whether or not they should continue working with you?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Trogladite
Well, I think we have been able to have a very good adult discussion. For all I know, the story could be completely fabricated, but I love the debate it has spurred.

I agree.... it has been a very interesting discussion. I don't think the OP has much of a motive for fabricating the story, but the one thing that is missing is more insight into what made her boss institute this policy (other than the OP's speculation that her boss may have a teenage son with a smartwatch and she has observed it being a distraction). Of course her boss doesn't have to provide an explanation unless she wants to. I would love to know more what the reasoning was from her perspective. Was it just a general fear of techno gadgets because they have the potential for distraction or disruption? Why single out smartwatches and allow Fitbits? That shows that she isn't familiar enough with these products to know that high-end Fitbits offer smartwatch features like notifications.

I'm curious as both an Apple Watch wearer and as a manager who occasionally needs to make unpopular policy decisions. This is an interesting topic because it says something about how smartwatches are perceived in our society. On the one hand some of us make the argument that the watch is a filter that allows us to keep our smartphone out of sight (and silenced) unless we really need it. Others see it as a sign that we are so addicted to our communication technology that we want it on our wrist so we don't have to wait a single second to read the latest text or tweet. Are we organized, in-control and more productive? Or are we distracted by the constant interruptions on our wrists? That's up to each individual smartwatch wearer. Having seen how much my teenage niece is on her smartphone, I could see her getting notifications all day on a smartwatch. For someone like that a smartwatch isn't even that useful because it's a better experience using a larger phone for extended interactions. A smartwatch is frustrating for extended interactions... it's simply too small to be much of a distraction at work (or anywhere), but of course you may not realize that if you haven't used one. Most of us fiddled with our Apple Watch constantly when we first got it, but I probably settled down by Week 2. Then I focused on figuring out how it can provide me with the information I need in the quickest glance possible. Quite often I even switch to Do Not Disturb and to a low-information screen so I get just get the time.

As technology marches on there will be more of these debates about what technology is appropriate and when or where. When new tech starts to get popular, some people always get a bit nervous...especially when it invades the workplace or the dinner table. Limits are important, and some people are brought up learning more self control and social awareness than others. Rigid policies are usually created because of those others, but in the case of the OP's story it sounds like it was a preemptive policy that isn't thought out very well. I try to avoid rigid policies when it comes to my staff, but sometimes you just have to have them. I have found that it helps to remind my staff that stricter policies can always be created, so don't be the person who ruins a good thing for everybody else.

Sean
 
I agree.... it has been a very interesting discussion. I don't think the OP has much of a motive for fabricating the story, but the one thing that is missing is more insight into what made her boss institute this policy (other than the OP's speculation that her boss may have a teenage son with a smartwatch and she has observed it being a distraction). Of course her boss doesn't have to provide an explanation unless she wants to. I would love to know more what the reasoning was from her perspective. Was it just a general fear of techno gadgets because they have the potential for distraction or disruption? Why single out smartwatches and allow Fitbits? That shows that she isn't familiar enough with these products to know that high-end Fitbits offer smartwatch features like notifications.

Again, it's not intentional on the employer's part that they're singling out smartwatches but not high-end fitbits. They may simply not know any better. However, you seem to be reading too much into this. Just smartwatches being capable of receiving notifications is reason enough, as they already have a ban on phone use during work hours. It doesn't take much to connect the two.
 
But the action taken is because of the law. That's the point. If the law didn't exist, your company wouldn't be taking ANY action. That's the point. They don't care about your health. They DO care about happy and productive employees, that's why a lot of companies have snack bars, vending machines, free soda's etc. They want you happy. They don't care if you go and eat fast food for breakfast, lunch and dinner. They don't care whether you exercise when you get home or eat a balanced diet. Give me a break...

On the other hand, the fact that YOU think they care, is proof your government won (in your case at least).
Good sir, don't post your opinion as if it's fact because it isn't. Do you browse conspiracy theory websites on a regular basis?

Of course it is absolutely imaginable and probably mostly true that not every freaking company in the world gives a sh*t about their employees' health.

However, you don't know my country, you don't know every company, you don't know my company. So please, please stop imposing your personal (limited) experiences and opinions upon everyone. Handle different opinions and don't tell me how or what I think. It is really annoying. Thank you.
 
Last edited:
I can understand that but there are less than 15 employees and none other than me have a smart watch. My boss didn't even know I had one until I replied to her email about the change telling her that I wear it for activity tracking and wanted clarification. It has been under a long sleeve shirt at work everyday since I have had it.

Makes me thankful for my job. My employer encourages the healthy perks of activity tracking and we even get direct deposited up to $450 for being active and healthy, which paid for much of the Apple Watch after the fact. They'll also pay up to $80 for Fitbits so I got my wife one. I weigh 15lbs less than I did before getting an Apple Watch in June and the weight should drop some more once things continue to warm up and I can be more active outside.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rjlawrencejr
a good employee is a productive employee. while many people are able to focus on their work without being too distracted by a smart device, there are those who aren't. and from an employer's perspective, the rules have to apply to everyone. banning the apple watch is not far fetched to me.

There are also those of us who use our devices to enhance productivity using timers, task lists, calendar alarms (so we don't need to watch the clock), and techniques such as Pomodoro. A smart device isn't necessarily a distraction.
 
There are also those of us who use our devices to enhance productivity using timers, task lists, calendar alarms (so we don't need to watch the clock), and techniques such as Pomodoro. A smart device isn't necessarily a distraction.

If I want a distraction the iPhone or iPad offers a much better experience. Productivity is the primary reason I bought an Apple Watch. It helps me be productive without the distractions of the iPhone.

Of course there are jobs where you might have a difficult time making the productivity argument. I work in Information Technology, so gadgets for productivity are common in the workplace culture. We are practically encouraged to use our smartphones because we also provide support to others who want to use theirs.

Sean
 
So, we got the ban today too. I actually found a reprieve though. During training, I asked if it still counted as a smart watch if it wasn't connected to my phone. My boss was like, hmmm. I said that I used the earth in the classroom as a timer and as an actual watch. She said as long as I'm not connected, then it was fine. So going forward, I need to show some integrity, leadership needs to show some trust and hopefully, it'll be all good.
I also thought about what I'd do if the answer were no. I wouldn't quit. Rules are rules and my watch isn't worth wrecking a good thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BarracksSi
So, we got the ban today too. I actually found a reprieve though. During training, I asked if it still counted as a smart watch if it wasn't connected to my phone. My boss was like, hmmm. I said that I used the earth in the classroom as a timer and as an actual watch. She said as long as I'm not connected, then it was fine. So going forward, I need to show some integrity, leadership needs to show some trust and hopefully, it'll be all good.
I also thought about what I'd do if the answer were no. I wouldn't quit. Rules are rules and my watch isn't worth wrecking a good thing.

Did they ban because it's become a problem or because they think it could be a problem? I say that because I still see very few people actually wearing them (relative to mobile phone carrying population).
 
Did they ban because it's become a problem or because they think it could be a problem? I say that because I still see very few people actually wearing them (relative to mobile phone carrying population).
I think it's becoming a problem. In the entire early childhood ministry, there are about six of us who have apple watches. Two supervisors have them, a third who doesn't have one is the person who was pretty adamant about banning them. She's an evening supervisor and I think she saw some shenanigans going on the classroom. I'm just glad I was able to stand up for myself with this issue a little bit. I'm an adult. I think I can handle not being connected to my phone for a few hours.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BarracksSi
I think it's becoming a problem. In the entire early childhood ministry, there are about six of us who have apple watches. Two supervisors have them, a third who doesn't have one is the person who was pretty adamant about banning them. She's an evening supervisor and I think she saw some shenanigans going on the classroom. I'm just glad I was able to stand up for myself with this issue a little bit. I'm an adult. I think I can handle not being connected to my phone for a few hours.

I guess I'm a bit lost. Shenanigans? By the staff? What were they possibly doing?
 
I guess I'm a bit lost. Shenanigans? By the staff? What were they possibly doing?
I'm a preschool teacher so they welcome any kind of technology into the classroom that we can use with the kids, help plan lessons and just have fun with. Can't do much with an AW with the kids but reminders and little things help and I don't see technology ever being banned.
 
I guess I'm a bit lost. Shenanigans? By the staff? What were they possibly doing?
Texting back and forth, answering notifications. Stuff like that. This one teacher would get a Facebook notification on her watch and grab her phone and post.
[doublepost=1457234584][/doublepost]
I'm a preschool teacher so they welcome any kind of technology into the classroom that we can use with the kids, help plan lessons and just have fun with. Can't do much with an AW with the kids but reminders and little things help and I don't see technology ever being banned.
I'm actually a preschool teacher at two churches. The one church I work at welcomes the watch and the phone. I'm able to use the watch as a remote to play music on my ihome. I use alarms and timers and calendars.
My other job is the one that's banning it.
 
Texting back and forth, answering notifications. Stuff like that. This one teacher would get a Facebook notification on her watch and grab her phone and post.
[doublepost=1457234584][/doublepost]
I'm actually a preschool teacher at two churches. The one church I work at welcomes the watch and the phone. I'm able to use the watch as a remote to play music on my ihome. I use alarms and timers and calendars.
My other job is the one that's banning it.
That's weird as they are trying to get as much technology into classrooms nowadays it seems. As long as it's being used the right way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AmazingGraceTx
In this modern age there are still companies that do not allow smart phones and by extension, smart watches. Douchebags or not, usually it's about security. In the OP's case, it sounds like it's just a stupid rule.
Safety as well, our local transit system forbids their employees from having phones while on the clock. This came about when they had a string of trolley accidents because people were using their phones when they shouldn't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Newtons Apple
աҽӏӏ ʍվ ʂƈɧơơɩ ąɩɩơῳʂ ℘℘ɩ ɬơ ῳɛąཞ ą℘℘ɩɛ ῳąɬƈɧɛʂ ɬơ ʂƈɧơơɩ
℘.ʂ. ɠơıŋɠ ɬơ ɠɛɬ ąŋ ą℘℘ɩɛ ῳąɬƈɧ ʄơཞ ɱყ ცıཞɬɧɖąყ
 
Good sir, don't post your opinion as if it's fact because it isn't. Do you browse conspiracy theory websites on a regular basis?

Of course it is absolutely imaginable and probably mostly true that not every freaking company in the world gives a sh*t about their employees' health.

However, you don't know my country, you don't know every company, you don't know my company. So please, please stop imposing your personal (limited) experiences and opinions upon everyone. Handle different opinions and don't tell me how or what I think. It is really annoying. Thank you.

Wow. Someones just a little tightly strung.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.