Standing waiting for my English breakfast tea in the Last Word cafe in the forecourt of the British Library. A supervisor breezed in and interrupted service to scoop up mobiles from the counter staff. These were retrieved from bags and from a lower shelf. As she departed with her hands full, I asked what was the reason for this intriguing performance. She was called back and explained to me that this was because the contract of employment stipulated that staff should not have their mobiles on their bodies while serving. I pointed out that there is an obvious difference between an obligation not to have or to use mobiles while serving on the one hand, and their duty to hand over their mobiles to their supervisor. Since clearly I did not understand, the rules were patiently explained again to me. Staff had to sign a contract that stated they could not have their mobiles while working.
After going over our respective different interpretation of the “rules”, I gave up. But the image is with me. The staff were adults. They were trusted to work with electrically powered equipment and furthermore with equipment that generated hot water and steam. But they could not be left to comply with clearly stated rules. Transgression against these rules, which have potential safety implications, presumably carried sanctions of which they were aware. So why this need to subordinate themselves to the supervisor’s whim? What else will an employer feel that she/he has the right to sequestrate in a bizarre ritual of preventive action?
I wonder about the extent to which employers go in their desire to control those who have the misfortune to depend on them for their livelihood.
Professor Anita J Prazmowska
London
• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com
• Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters
• Do you have a photo you’d like to share with Guardian readers? Click here to upload it and we’ll publish the best submissions in the letters spread of our print edition
