Employee Phone Numbers

NicoleLee

Recently we had an emergency situation at one of our facilities and had to move our employees to another faciliy. The problem was that a few of our employees were unreachable (no phone or cell phone only), and therefore reported to their normal worksite instaed of the temporary site. We sent a manager over before each shift to inform all employees of the change.

I am now in a disagreement with our clinical director. She seems to think we need to make it a pre-requisite to have a telephone where one can always be reached, even if that means the person goes out and gets a cell phone. I do not agree with making this a pre-requisite for hire, even though I would live if I could reach all employees all the time. Many of our employees have cell phones only that they share with spouses, or simply have voicemail only (pagers & voice-mail only phone plans that cannot receive calls but use pre-paid phone cards to make calls out.)

My question, to make a long story short, is can we require a phone number as terms of employment? Can we force current employees to be avaialable when we need them by phone? These are not on call employees and not ER situations normally.

rad

Are you asking whether they have to have their own phone number or a number where they can be reached? I think you'll be looking at some form of discrimination if you require that employees have their own phone, that is a luxury for some folks. If the job is not 24/7 I can't see forcing employees to be reachable by phone 24/7. If they miss a message or do not have voice mail, its an inconvienence but not failure to perform their job.

I think that in light if the recent issue you had its not unreasonable to suggest that these employees provide you with a number where they can be reached. But considering that there was a way to inform these folks by sending a manager over to the work site, I would not say it is critical.

NicoleLee

The discrimination was what I was worried about. I worried that this could have a negative effect on the protected classes in our area. The clinical director wants a personal number, be it home or cell, that they can always be reached at. I disagree, and believe that our current system is fine. We ask for a number where we can contact them or leave a message, which I feel is sufficient.Thanks for answering so quickly. I would love to hear what others think or know also!

Betty I_O

We operate 24/7 and have 1,200 employees. We ask for a number where employees can be reached or where a message can be left. For those employees who share in designated on-call duty, their phone number is verified by their Manager at the time the assignment is made. Employees are responsible for notifying their Manager of any change in a phone number, etc., so there is always an updated department listing; Managers then notify HR, and the number is updated in our HRIS system. While our system may not be entirely fool-proof, it has worked for us for many years, and we've encountered few problems with it.

Brad Forrister

Just an opinion, but it seems to me that requiring employees to list a phone number where they can be reached is not discriminatory. Requiring them to have a cell phone might be, just because that's a significant additional expense. I suspect your bigger problem won't be candidates/employees without a phone but candidates/employees who refuse to give it to you because they're extremely serious about maintaining their unlisted number's privacy. That's probably an even bigger problem for cell phone numbers -- employees won't want to give it out because they'd be afraid they'd get a lot of calls on it.

Brad Forrister
Director of Publishing
M. Lee Smith Publishers

Crout

Discrimination? Where is the discrimination? Were you planning on singling out one specific demographic group for the phone obligation? THAT would be discrimination. If you apply the standard to ALL employees, or all new employees for example, there is no discrimination. However, that doesn't detract from the fact that you are correct; it would be highly unreasonable to mandate ownership of a phone as opposed to simply supplying a number where one can be reached. Unreasonable yes, but not illegal.

rad

If having a home phone (cell or land line) is not essential to the job function, then the discrimination could come in to play against those who can not afford one. Its just like saying that an employee must own a car as opposed to saying they must have reliable access to a car. Mandating that they provide a number where they can be reached is reasonable but may also not be legal, we discovered that we can not force employees to provide emergency information, it must be voluntary. We try to explain the benefit of providing an emergency number and strongly suggest that employees keep this information current.

NicoleLee

I do not think that asking for the phone # is discrimination. I am worried about discriminating against those who may not be able to afford the cost of a phone. Many of our employees live paycheck to paycheck and are on assistance from the state. My concern with the discrimination is ending up discriminating agaist any protected group (i.e. race, gender...) who may not be able to afford the luxory of a phone or cell phone.

Don D

I don't reckon it's been mentioned yet, but there are a great many employees out there who will not answer the phone if the company name appears on the caller ID. They simply do not want to hear from the company on their own time. No one is calling them to say Ed McMahon is looking for them.

Crout

As a matter of fact, we do insist that employees in certain positions own an automobile, so they can get to clients as necessary. They must present proof of ownership at Orientation. If they can't afford a car they don't get the job. I guess that's "discrimination" with a small "d." Discrimination with a large "D" would occur if we didn't hire someone based on race, color, national origin, ancestry, religion, religious creed.....and so on. Discrimination with a large "D" is definitely illegal. The small "d" kind is often perfectly legal. However, I would pay attention to Brad's point about privacy. That did not occur to me, but I think that would valid.

rad

In MA we can't even ask the question in an interview. We can only ask if they have reliable access to an automobile to do the job, and we can make sure the employee/applicant understands that if said automobile becomes unavailable, they lose the job. I'm sure many employers in MA do ask the question and insist upon proof of ownership before the job offer and to be honest I agree that ownership should be required, but what can you do?

Don D

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 09-10-03 AT 02:25PM (CST)[/font][p]The small 'd' would turn into a large 'D' if the EEOC were to determine that the effect of your policy, once analyzed, revealed the 'disparate treatment' rejection of 339 minority applicants over a three year period and only three whites. What about the applicants who do not OWN a car but have immediate access to one? I've always understood the EEOC publications and training to suggest that it is not allowable to ask about car ownership on an application, during an interview or at orientation. But then one might ask, 'Well, they gotta get here don't they?' The EEOC would respond, 'Yes, but there is no evidence that one cannot get to work unless he or she owns an automobile'. Getting to work is a requirement of a job. Owning the mode of transportation need not be.

Crout

As I said, it only applies to certain jobs where the employee must be able to get to clients at a moment's notice. What we ask for is proof of insurance. Normally we don't care how employees get to work...or get home for that matter. I agree that given the right circumstances this could amount to disparate treatment. In practice however, our work force is highly diverse. Still a small "d"