• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Ordered "to get a phone" / Contact Information [Merged]

stellarpanther said:
Nothing that I can find says a mbr needs to provide a cellphone number. 

You may find this discussion of interest,

Ordered to "get a phone". 
https://army.ca/forums/threads/117338.0.html
OP: "Turns out one of the other guys in the room was recently threatened a charge after the MWO was unable to reach him on his cell"
4 pages.
 
Ludoc said:
So you're asking for the reference that says pers have to obey lawful commands?

I would question the lawfulness of a command that directs a member to provide their cellphone number, when a suitable landline number with voicemail is available.
 
Occam said:
I would question the lawfulness of a command that directs a member to provide their cellphone number, when a suitable landline number with voicemail is available.
CoC: Give me your cell number.

Bloggins: Here is my home number.

CoC: Is that what I asked for?

Bloggins: No, but it is good enough.

CoC: With your land line can I send a quick text during the work day/at lunch to you if I need you to do something or need to pass some information on when we aren't co-located?

Bloggins: No...

CoC: If there is a recall and we need you to return to the unit ASAP is it quicker to call your cell or wait for you to get home and check your messages?

Bloggins: Well, I will probably have my cell on me so...

CoC: If there is an disaster and landlines are affected but cell phones (whose towers contain generators and battery back up) are still working how should I try to contact you?

Bloggins: You should call my cell...

CoC: If we are meeting off base for PT and I get called away/stuck in traffic should I leave a message on your home phone, which you will not be able to check until after work or should I call your cell?

Bloggins: I guess you should call my cell...

CoC: Right, give me your cell number.

Why do I have to update ORLs when a vehicle's condition is tracked by DRIMIS? Why do I need to keep the parade state current when all the same information can be found in Monitor Mass? Why do we sweep and squeegee the vehicle bay every week, even if we have not used it during that time? Because the CoC said to.

We live in a connected world and your CoC expects to have your cell number. Does that mean they will be calling you all the time? No. Do you need to have your cell on/with you all the time? No. But you do need to provide your cell number when told by your CoC to do so.

To be quite frank, it doesn't matter if providing your home number instead is suitable. When ordered to do something you do it. Just because you think something is stupid to do does not mean you don't have to do it. Stupid orders are still lawful commands.
 
CoC:  Give me your cell number.

Bloggins:  Here is my home number.

CoC:  Is that what I asked for?

Bloggins:  No, but it is good enough.

COC:  With your land line can I send a quick text during the work day/at lunch to you if I need you to do something or need to pass some information on when we aren't co-located?

Bloggins:  No, but if you need to get that work-related information to me, then you can staff a request for me to have a DND-provided BlackBerry or cellphone.

CoC: If there is a recall and we need you to return to the unit ASAP is it quicker to call your cell or wait for you to get home and check your messages?

Bloggins:  If there's a recall, I would have advance notice that we're subject to recall and I would check my voicemail, remotely if necessary.

CoC: If there is an disaster and landlines are affected but cell phones (whose towers contain generators and battery back up) are still working how should I try to contact you?

Bloggins:  If there's a disaster of such a nature that it takes out landlines, the media will be reporting that all military personnel from CFB XXXXX are to immediately report for duty.  Or, you can provide me with a DND BlackBerry.

CoC: If we are meeting off base for PT and I get called away/stuck in traffic should I leave a message on your home phone, which you will not be able to check until after work or should I call your cell?

Bloggins:  If you decide to change the plans for the day after you've already issued instructions in the morning, and you know I'm not checking in with the office after that, then it's your problem how to communicate them to me.  Provide me with a DND-issued BlackBerry.

CoC:  But I want your cell phone number.

Bloggins:  It's my PERSONAL cell phone.  DND is not going to reimburse my airtime, text, or data charges for the amount used for government business.  If you have a CF-related requirement for you to be able to reach me on short notice, then that might be justification for you to have a DND-issued BlackBerry or cell phone provided to me.  Otherwise, I'm not that important that I need to be reached with such a short fuse.

You do NOT need to provide your PERSONAL cell phone number to your CoC unless it's going to be your only means of communication on leave or something like that.  If your role in the CF is sufficiently important that you need to be reached on short notice, a DND-issued device will be provided to you.

"When ordered to do something you do it".  No, when an order is patently wrong, you do not have to do it.  The CF didn't provide your personal cell phone, isn't paying for your personal cellphone, and you're not at the CF's beck and call via your cell phone.  You need to provide contact information sufficient enough to get a hold of you commensurate with the level of readiness you're currently working under.  If you're an on-call tech, and need to be at the work site within 30 minutes of the flare being sent up, that's sufficient justification for a DND-issued cell phone.  If you're not under any heightened requirement for readiness, leaving a message on your home phone should be sufficient if you're expected to work at 0800 the next day.
 
In this particular case, they called his house, his wife answered but wouldn't provide the cell number.  She sent the mbr a text which he received as soon as he left his eye appointment and he called the supervisor about 30-40 minutes later.  This wasn't enough for the supervisor because he thought he should have the cell number even though having it wouldn't have made a difference because the phone was turned off while in the appointment.

He has unlimited texting but only 50 minutes daytime airtime but unlimited airtime with his wife on a family plan.

The CoC can order people to do a lot of things but there are still limits to what they can do that some people don't seem to understand. 
 
That's just wrong.

An order to provide your personal cell phone number is about as lawful as an order to a CF member who doesn't own a cell phone to go out and buy one for all the reasons mentioned above.
 
I'm retired now but being a military family... I have many family members currently serving. This question came up the other day on personal cell phone use in the workplace and I wanted to know if the policy has changed.

I have a young CPL working for a MCPL who insists that her subordinates use their own personal cell phones so she can be in constant communication with them (and to pass on orders). When she passes on orders, she insists that they respond within 5 minutes to her text messages that she sends to their personal phones She also seems to be oblivious to cell coverage, signal strength, building shielding, service outages, battery strength and the multiple other technical issues associated with cell phone use.

I have only been out a few years - but my understanding is that this is not an authorized form of communications; the use of personal cell phones (as these phones are not issued / maintained / serviced by DND). My understanding would be that by implementing her own internal policy within her shop - she is acting outside her authority. I also see her creating a liability situation for DND. By making this a work policy in her shop she inadvertently makes DND liable for the cost of those phones. Basically - if she wants to hijack people's personal phone for official military work, then DND becomes inherently liable for the cost and therefore would need to be paying everyone's cell bill and maintaining their phones - which is outside of her authority as a MCPL.

Anyone also know of a CFAO or Canforgen that clarifies this issue. Or has this become acceptable standard practice?
 
Making mountains out of mole hills!

Explain to me how DND would be liable for the maintenance and costs of everyone's cell phones? Would that then entitle DND to restrict its use? This is a silly arguement, does that mean I have to send a carrier pigeon to inform work I'm sick, because Im not allowed to use my personal cell phone for very basic conversations about minor work incidents?

It seems to me this MCpl is trying to maintain a good line of communication with their troops, and should be commended, not attacked for "acting outside her authority" I guess the alternative would be to keep all of her troops close by and insist they are present at work to receive section orders at the end of the day! Because that's an effective approach to personnel management!

This is right up there with the good idea faires who continue to insist on memos instead of using email, or insist on paper copies of leave passes, instead of e signing!

Sorry for the rant, just boggles my mind that we, as an organization, fail to use common sense to move forward.

Just my  :2c:
 
I had a cell phone only from about 2008 til I retired in 2015.  I also maintained a landline.  None of my last three units ever got my cell phone number.

If info came out between end of day and next work time, they could call my home phone and leave a message.  Since when did everything get so urgent??

:dunno:
 
trooper142 said:
Making mountains out of mole hills!

Explain to me how DND would be liable for the maintenance and costs of everyone's cell phones? Would that then entitle DND to restrict its use? This is a silly arguement, does that mean I have to send a carrier pigeon to inform work I'm sick, because Im not allowed to use my personal cell phone for very basic conversations about minor work incidents?

It seems to me this MCpl is trying to maintain a good line of communication with their troops, and should be commended, not attacked for "acting outside her authority" I guess the alternative would be to keep all of her troops close by and insist they are present at work to receive section orders at the end of the day! Because that's an effective approach to personnel management!

This is right up there with the good idea faires who continue to insist on memos instead of using email, or insist on paper copies of leave passes, instead of e signing!

Sorry for the rant, just boggles my mind that we, as an organization, fail to use common sense to move forward.

Just my  :2c:

Cool your jets there, Turbo. You speak of common sense and the like but it appears you aren't using any either. I suspect there wouldn't be an issue if the MCpl was being reasonable about it... but in this case, that appears to be in question. If I had a boss that insisted that I respond to their text messages within 5 minutes, I also wouldn't be playing ball.

We don't need carrier pigeons. We have duty staff if there is an actual emergency and no one can get in contact with the member (suggest they wait more than 5 minutes for a response). If not, get better at passage of info and pass on timely direction at the end of the day (I'm a little perplexed as to why this is an outlandish idea... it has worked pretty well for a century) or wait until the next day when I get back at the same time, same place as always.
 
ballz said:
Cool your jets there, Turbo. You speak of common sense and the like but it appears you aren't using any either. I suspect there wouldn't be an issue if the MCpl was being reasonable about it... but in this case, that appears to be in question. If I had a boss that insisted that I respond to their text messages within 5 minutes, I also wouldn't be playing ball.

We don't need carrier pigeons. We have duty staff if there is an actual emergency and no one can get in contact with the member (suggest they wait more than 5 minutes for a response). If not, get better at passage of info and pass on timely direction at the end of the day (I'm a little perplexed as to why this is an outlandish idea... it has worked pretty well for a century) or wait until the next day when I get back at the same time, same place as always.

I guess we are resorting to name calling now? I may have expressed my point of view, but I never resorted to name calling; unless you consider me calling unnamed people who make ridiculous decisions good idea fairies, name calling? In which case I will apologize.

You're probably right that the MCpl is being a bit unreasonable expecting a 5 minute turn around time but thats arguing semantics really; but let's venture into that for a second. How many troops do you know who purposefully screen calls from blocked numbers, or private numbers? I can personally think quite a few. Maybe this is an issue at this unit, and the MCpl has come up with a solution, albeit not a thoroughly thought out one.

But the real issue posed here was the question of making people respond via their personal cell phones. Did DND reimburse people for a land line back when it was common for every household to have them? Was this landline of theirs an authorized means of communication about military matters such as section orders? I have no idea because I don't have a landline, and I suspect a good number of the troops, including this one maybe, don't either. It is well within reason for you to be expected to be reachable; before with landlines, and now via text and cell phone.

It is absurd to suggest DND cover the expenses of a commonplace method of communication employed by the vast majority of troops. If we use that logic, DND should be providing with a method to get to work and covering that expense! It is faulty logic.

I would suggest maybe someone correct the tenacity of this MCpl, maybe suggest being a little more flexible on turn around times, but her employment of using cell phones to contact members of her section is sound IMO.

Again, just my  :2c:
 
If you are important enough that you need to be reached on 5 minutes notice, you'd be issued a phone etc


Most of these "urgent" texts are probably routine administration that can wait...
 
Spectrum said:
If you are important enough that you need to be reached on 5 minutes notice, you'd be issued a phone etc


Most of these "urgent" texts are probably routine administration that can wait...

I completely agree, but doing routine section orders or routine admin stuff via text is sound leadership IMO.

I have personally, on more occasions than I wish to count, have been sitting at a unit, not allowed to go do personal PT, admin, or professional development because I had to be at section orders at the end of the day; which ended up being, again more often than not, a mix of the following: we are having an exercise 10 months from now(not kidding), PT tomorrow be here at the same time you're always here, nothing to pass on see you tomorrow at the same time you're always here. The list goes on.

Now before anyone says, well thats just poor leadership. I know, thats exactly my point. This MCpl seems to be attempting to employ better leadership by allowing her troops to be given basic admin stuff via text or phone calls, instead of making them wait around. Again, she's a bit tight with the 5 minute expectation, but that can be worked out with a small chat and suggestion of a more efficient way.

 
You have to be able to be contacted...not be on the end of a cell phone 24/7.  There are probably people that have to be, but I doubt a section under a MCpl  falls into that category.  She probably depended on younger generations obsession with the cell phone that is never far away.
 
I don't think using modern means of communication is a bad leadership/management tool.  I ask people who work for me to give me their private cell number (never had issues with people not giving it) and in return, I make the deal to only contact them on their cell phone during work hours of after hours if something can't or shouldn't wait till the next day.  It ends up mostly being casual, non work-related texts/calls...
 
There are precious few in the CAF who need to be on 5 min response times when not on operations.

Maybe, just maybe, a few people need to take some deep breaths.
 
CampCricket said:
I'm retired now but being a military family... I have many family members currently serving. This question came up the other day on personal cell phone use in the workplace and I wanted to know if the policy has changed.

I have a young CPL working for a MCPL who insists that her subordinates use their own personal cell phones so she can be in constant communication with them (and to pass on orders). When she passes on orders, she insists that they respond within 5 minutes to her text messages that she sends to their personal phones She also seems to be oblivious to cell coverage, signal strength, building shielding, service outages, battery strength and the multiple other technical issues associated with cell phone use.

I have only been out a few years - but my understanding is that this is not an authorized form of communications; the use of personal cell phones (as these phones are not issued / maintained / serviced by DND). My understanding would be that by implementing her own internal policy within her shop - she is acting outside her authority. I also see her creating a liability situation for DND. By making this a work policy in her shop she inadvertently makes DND liable for the cost of those phones. Basically - if she wants to hijack people's personal phone for official military work, then DND becomes inherently liable for the cost and therefore would need to be paying everyone's cell bill and maintaining their phones - which is outside of her authority as a MCPL.

Anyone also know of a CFAO or Canforgen that clarifies this issue. Or has this become acceptable standard practice?

I'd classify that as harassment:

'Harassment may include the abuse or misuse of authority inherent in the position of an individual.'

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-policies-standards-defence-admin-orders-directives-5000/5012-0.page
 
trooper142 said:
I guess we are resorting to name calling now? I may have expressed my point of view, but I never resorted to name calling; unless you consider me calling unnamed people who make ridiculous decisions good idea fairies, name calling? In which case I will apologize.
Wow, sensitive much? It's an expression. I don't care who you call a good idea fairy.

trooper142 said:
You're probably right that the MCpl is being a bit unreasonable expecting a 5 minute turn around time but thats arguing semantics really; but let's venture into that for a second. How many troops do you know who purposefully screen calls from blocked numbers, or private numbers? I can personally think quite a few. Maybe this is an issue at this unit, and the MCpl has come up with a solution, albeit not a thoroughly thought out one.

I'm not sure the nuances of how it is executed are just"semantics." As has been demonstrated in this thread, and I have done it myself numerous times, people utilize technology all the time with success, without hassle, and without push back if they execute it in a manner that shows a moderate level of respect for their subordinates / peers / etc.
 
Folks: If some deep breaths are needed then step back and take one or disengage altogether. There’s a bit of defensiveness creeping in in an otherwise fine discussion, so let’s keep the discussion going and prevent the downward spiral.
 
Back
Top