Things in living memory which seem very anachronistic now

[WesternLancer]

I 100% agree that there's no legal obligation, however it may be very difficult to avoid in some circumstances.

For example, my employer enforces the use of Microsoft Authenticator push notifications for logging in to company resources. I could decide that I don't want to use a Smartphone, but that would mean having to find a new job.

Does your employer provide or offer you a phone for that or are you expected to use your own personal phone?

 

[najaB]

Does your employer provide or offer you a phone for that or are you expected to use your own personal phone?

Some more senior people get a company phone, the majority do not.

 

[WesternLancer]

Some more senior people get a company phone, the majority do not.

I think this is a really bad trend. No doubt you have little choice.

I have a colleague who refuses to provide his mobile number to the employer and argues if they want him to be contactable on a mobile he’s happy for that if they provide the phone.
Seems reasonable to me.
After all he’s not expected to use his own laptop or buy pens and paper for occasions where he might need them.

 

[najaB]

I think this is a really bad trend. No doubt you have little choice.

I have a colleague who refuses to provide his mobile number to the employer and argues if they want him to be contactable on a mobile he’s happy for that if they provide the phone.
Seems reasonable to me.

Not quite equivalent since the app is only used for push notifications when logging in to systems. It can't be used to contact you.

 

[WesternLancer]

logging

Aha. I see. Good point. I misunderstood

 

[Ken X]

My employers always provided a company mobile. They installed a second phone line to my house and all the equipment to operate broadband with laptop and docking station. Work was kept strictly separate from personal systems.

Just before I retired there was a suggestion of using new recruits own broadband systems to save money. It was firmly stamped on. If they wanted us to do the job then they provide the kit. There wasn't much resistance from the gods.

Mind you, if anything naughty or personal was found on the company system you were for the high jump.
Seemed fair to me.

 

[najaB]

My employers always provided a company mobile. They installed a second phone line to my house and all the equipment to operate broadband with laptop and docking station. Work was kept strictly separate from personal systems.

ISTR that the tax considerations around work-from-home equipment used to be quite different to how they are now. I wasn't on the sales side so don't know the details but I do remember that when I started working at BT Business they used to have a teleworker package of phone line, broadband (and mobile?) which had to installed as a business line, billed to the company specifically so that the home worker didn't get hit with a benefit in kind tax obligation.

Then the rules changed (I want to say somewhere around 2015?) and that whole package went away.

 

[AM9]

For example, my employer enforces the use of Microsoft Authenticator push notifications for logging in to company resources. I could decide that I don't want to use a Smartphone, but that would mean having to find a new job.

I doubt that would be enforceable if challenged, - as others have said, if they insist on use of a particular tool in the execution of paid work, they are obliged to offer to provide the means.

 

[WesternLancer]

I doubt that would be enforceable if challenged, - as others have said, if they insist on use of a particular tool in the execution of paid work, they are obliged to offer to provide the means.

but who would 'enforce' that? No one I can think of.

 

[35B]

I doubt that would be enforceable if challenged, - as others have said, if they insist on use of a particular tool in the execution of paid work, they are obliged to offer to provide the means.

My employer has a similar set of policies. While your point may be correct, there is no way that I or anyone else would wish to bear the cost and risk of challenging this to the nth degree.

While I may not be legally obliged to do many things, the reality is that the choices that are open to individuals are social rather than legal - and that those choices are largely made by others, not individuals

 

[Silent]

I 100% agree that there's no legal obligation, however it may be very difficult to avoid in some circumstances.

For example, my employer enforces the use of Microsoft Authenticator push notifications for logging in to company resources. I could decide that I don't want to use a Smartphone, but that would mean having to find a new job.

Can’t you use an iPad or extra laptop for Microsoft Authenticator

 

[AM9]

My employer has a similar set of policies. While your point may be correct, there is no way that I or anyone else would wish to bear the cost and risk of challenging this to the nth degree.

While I may not be legally obliged to do many things, the reality is that the choices that are open to individuals are social rather than legal - and that those choices are largely made by others, not individuals

So what happens if an employee has their personal phone stolen/lost or is broken such that they cannot function in their job? The individual can still present for work yet be prevented from performing because their employer has locked their system behind an application. Because nobody challenges the employer's created restrictions, the staff are in jeopardy should they be unable to gain access.

 

[35B]

So what happens if an employee has their personal phone stolen/lost or is broken such that they cannot function in their job? The individual can still present for work yet be prevented from performing because their employer has locked their system behind an application. Because nobody challenges the employer's created restrictions, the staff are in jeopardy should they be unable to gain access.

The answer depends on the employer, their employment policies, and then also the employee's culpability. Speaking again for my employer and others that I've met, it is possible to go through a helpdesk process in that event. In your argument for a black/white binary, you are ignoring the role of reasonableness in considering the balance.

 

[sprunt]

The answer depends on the employer, their employment policies, and then also the employee's culpability. Speaking again for my employer and others that I've met, it is possible to go through a helpdesk process in that event. In your argument for a black/white binary, you are ignoring the role of reasonableness in considering the balance.

I'd say it's never reasonable for an employer to require an employee to provide equipment for doing the job at their own expense. Since the vast majority of people will have a smartphone it ends up not being an issue, but if someone chooses not to the employer should provide one (and can reasonably require that it isn't used for the employee's personal activity).

The argument about concert tickets raises a better case for a lot of people for how it's very hard to do your thing without a smartphone now. There are so many events, from small (Dice) to huge (Ticketmaster) that have only app based ticketing.

 

[WesternLancer]

I'd say it's never reasonable for an employer to require an employee to provide equipment for doing the job at their own expense. Since the vast majority of people will have a smartphone it ends up not being an issue, but if someone chooses not to the employer should provide one (and can reasonably require that it isn't used for the employee's personal activity).

The argument about concert tickets raises a better case for a lot of people for how it's very hard to do your thing without a smartphone now. There are so many events, from small (Dice) to huge (Ticketmaster) that have only app based ticketing.

of course the issue behind this sort of stuff is the 'fake' self employment situations out there (esp in the gig economy) where people will be providing all their own kit but are technically not employed by the likes of the businesses they are exclusively carrying out work for

 

[najaB]

Can’t you use an iPad or extra laptop for Microsoft Authenticator

You definitely could use an iPad/Android Tablet, I'm not 100% sure about installing on a PC (though you could use a phone emulator). But that's a lot of hassle to go through to avoid using a smartphone.

So what happens if an employee has their personal phone stolen/lost or is broken such that they cannot function in their job? The individual can still present for work yet be prevented from performing because their employer has locked their system behind an application. Because nobody challenges the employer's created restrictions, the staff are in jeopardy should they be unable to gain access.

There's no jeopardy*. I can't speak for all employers but for us you would raise a helpdesk ticket and my guess is they'd give you one of three solutions: reset your authentication methods so that you can install Authenticator on a new device, if you don't have a new device to install to then a loan of one of the test devices and install Authenticator on that, or get a temporary exemption from the conditional access policies so that you can go back to SMS TOTP code authentication. They would never completely remove the necessity for MFA.

*Unless you are an office-based employee with a remote work agreement in place, one condition of which is that you are responsible for your equipment, Internet connection, etc. required to be able to work.

 

[35B]

I'd say it's never reasonable for an employer to require an employee to provide equipment for doing the job at their own expense. Since the vast majority of people will have a smartphone it ends up not being an issue, but if someone chooses not to the employer should provide one (and can reasonably require that it isn't used for the employee's personal activity).

There are two separate issues here. One is about employer provided devices, where the likely requirement for segregation is security driven and personal use is likely to be a no-no

The second is requiring the use of that advice. Many of my colleagues are uneasy about having work software installed on personal devices, because of the way that tools like Intune blur boundaries when there are personal and corporate instances of software on a single device. But my employer is not unusual in having insisted on personal devices being used, enforcing it by the simple expedient of making it nigh on impossible to get a corporately funded device.

of course the issue behind this sort of stuff is the 'fake' self employment situations out there (esp in the gig economy) where people will be providing all their own kit but are technically not employed by the likes of the businesses they are exclusively carrying out work for

Not necessarily - there's a simple cost argument for large companies, even where they are only dealing with fully employed personnel

The argument about concert tickets raises a better case for a lot of people for how it's very hard to do your thing without a smartphone now. There are so many events, from small (Dice) to huge (Ticketmaster) that have only app based ticketing.

Precisely - I can choose to live like a hermit but, if I do, I will pay a significant cost in other ways. The choice is, in reality, not a choice that any individual can reasonably make

 

[GordonT]

Licensed premises, open to the general public throughout most of the day on a walk-in basis, which offer a full meal menu but which do not admit under 18s (other than dogs if the establishment is "dog-friendly" but not "under 18s friendly").

 

[The exile]

but who would 'enforce' that? No one I can think of.

It’s one of the things unions are there for!

 

[najaB]

It’s one of the things unions are there for!

That, of course, assumes a unionised workforce.

 

[WesternLancer]

It’s one of the things unions are there for!

good point. but sadly one where a majority of workers sadly don't see the value of joining one...

 

[The exile]

good point. but sadly one where a majority of workers sadly don't see the value of joining one...

If their recruiting attempts are anything like what I’ve recently experienced, I’m not surprised. If I want to change the way the country’s governed, I vote in an election. If I want to change the way the Labour party is run, I join the Labour Party and vote.

 

[35B]

If their recruiting attempts are anything like what I’ve recently experienced, I’m not surprised. If I want to change the way the country’s governed, I vote in an election. If I want to change the way the Labour party is run, I join the Labour Party and vote.

Quite. I was in a workplace recently and a union was soliciting new members with a flyer headlined "Fight". Whether or not sympathetic to that union's general views, or it was able to represent me effectively, that position immediately repelled me for setting up conflict whether or not relevant.

 

[najaB]

good point. but sadly one where a majority of workers sadly don't see the value of joining one...

Or, where no recognition agreement already exists, in going through the hoops of establishing one.

 

[WesternLancer]

Or, where no recognition agreement already exists, in going through the hoops of establishing one.

Yes, tho you can get decent union help in worst case scenarios without there needing to be recognition agreement - eg access to legal help over employment law breaches comes to mind

 

[najaB]

Yes, tho you can get decent union help in worst case scenarios without there needing to be recognition agreement - eg access to legal help over employment law breaches comes to mind

That's true. But I doubt they would get involved in something like a company requirement for employees to use a specific app on their phones. Especially in a software company where the excuse of being unable/unwilling to use a smartphone isn't likely to go very far in 2026.

 

[35B]

That's true. But I doubt they would get involved in something like a company requirement for employees to use a specific app on their phones. Especially in a software company where the excuse of being unable/unwilling to use a smartphone isn't likely to go very far in 2026.

I think that wind may change - blurring of employer and employee data on the same device raises genuine questions of confidentiality - both ways.

Which tech, on which device, will I think become an issue at some point.

 

[najaB]

I think that wind may change - blurring of employer and employee data on the same device raises genuine questions of confidentiality - both ways.

Where there is a risk of data escape, I agree. However MS Authenticator doesn't access any device data.

 

[WesternLancer]

That's true. But I doubt they would get involved in something like a company requirement for employees to use a specific app on their phones. Especially in a software company where the excuse of being unable/unwilling to use a smartphone isn't likely to go very far in 2026.

agreed

 

[SargeNpton]

I think that wind may change - blurring of employer and employee data on the same device raises genuine questions of confidentiality - both ways.

Which tech, on which device, will I think become an issue at some point.

My last employer was quite hot on separating out personal and company use of IT. When GDPR came in, that only reinforced its policies.

Any company now that expects employees to use personal mobiles for any sort of business use should review its policies.