Midweek Update

I don’t know what it is about this week.  For some reason, every time I glance at a news source, I see absurdity and irony.  And sadness too, yes, plenty of that; but in the spirit of reporting the Happy News, I’ll skip over those parts.

So, here in Boston we have – rather, had, until this week, a low-buck bus company called Fung Wah.  This company has been in the news with increasing frequency for at least the past year.  None of the news has been good.  It seems they were able to offer standard Boston-to-New York runs for a mere $15 because they kept their costs low.  Very low.  The buses have crashed, broken down, failed inspections, you name it, repeatedly for as long as I can recall. 

Everybody loves a bargain.  Earlier this week, the company’s extreme thrift caught up with it when it was discovered that three quarters of the buses in the fleet had cracked frames.  They had repeatedly failed safety inspections, yet were still on the road. Now the Department of Transportation has stepped in and grounded the entire fleet. 

But wait, there’s more: 

It seems a Fung Wah bus broke down near Hartford, CT.  The company called in a tow service, which hooked the bus to a giant tow truck and drove away.  Only problem was, they hadn’t properly attached the hook.  They managed to tow the bus into the middle of the highway, whereupon its bumper broke off, leaving the bus sitting there, blocking traffic, without lights, while the tow truck drove away, towing a bumper.

The geniuses in the cab were unaware that the bus wasn’t still behind their truck until they were stopped by police, three exits further down the road.  Upon pulling them over, the police observed that they were somewhat incoherent.  It turned out that both crew members were suffering from carbon monoxide poisoning. 

You just can’t make this stuff up.

In other news this week, a $5 million class action suit was filed against Anheuser-Busch, alleging that they have been watering down Budweiser beer.  Is that even possible?  Perhaps the tested containers had been confused with bottled water that had somehow been tainted with trace amounts of beer?  I just can’t wrap my brain around this.

A few days ago, I endured a seemingly endless radio news story about the proper nomenclature for addressing a retired pope.  The official verdict seems to have settled on “"pope emeritus Benedict XVI" or "Roman Pontiff emeritus Benedict XVI."  Or, to his close friends, “His Holiness.”   I find all of these rather ponderous and difficult to remember.  How about something more intuitive, like The Holy Diddler?

Marissa Mayer, CEO of Yahoo, has come out full force against Yahoo employees “working at home.”  Yes, the head of a technology company has banned a practice that virtually all other technology companies tout as the ultimate workplace perk – and from which several have profited handsomely.  I can’t quite figure this one out.  The primary reason cited was the notion that employees will benefit from being “physically together.” 

That would be the approx. 14,000 people that Yahoo employs worldwide.  Yahoo had better plan for one hell of a big addition to their building in Sunnyvale. 

I’m not suggesting that “working at home” is a universally good thing.  Clearly it would not work well in some industries, or with some employees (read: those likely to run up billable hours in the hot tub) but c’mon, a freakin’ technology company?  This is akin to Starbucks subjecting its employees to random bloodstream-caffeine tests, and firing those who have consumed the evil bean.  It runs just a bit counter to the corporate mission.

Having celebrated New Years’ Day with a partial sigh of relief for having survived, sort of, the “Fiscal Cliff,” we now face The Sequester.  I’ve given up on trying to follow the particulars.  The perpetual brinksmanship in Washington has led me to lose interest.  I have Brinksmanship Fatigue. 

The paradox here is that there are (presumably) real financial ramifications that may directly affect me, indeed, affect all of us; but I have become detached.  It’s like watching the Poker Channel on an old, black-and-white TV with bad reception and rabbit ears, while stoned and wearing someone else’s eyeglasses.  They’re playing for real stakes, using my money, but it’s so far away, so surreal that I just can’t bring myself to care.  So go ahead and duke it out, Elected Drama Queens, just let me know how badly I’ve been screwed when you’re done.  This time.

All for now.  I'll be in touch, so you stay in touch.  Or however that goes.  Good luck, and good night.

 

Bring Your Own What?

The “BYOD” (Bring Your Own Device) phenomenon has caught on like wildfire in the business world.  Wikipedia defines BYOD as “the policy of permitting employees to bring personally owned mobile devices (laptops, tablets, and smart phones) to their place of work and use those devices to access privileged company information and applications.”  Everything I’ve read about BYOD seems to indicate that it’s wildly popular among employees, especially the “Millennials.”  It’s considered a privilege, a convenience, a morale booster, a perk that’s essential to a company’s ability to successfully compete for top talent.
 

I don’t get it.

Earlier this week, I had an opportunity to attend a forum that was hosted by the CIO of a major American company.  This company has, for years, handed out BlackBerry smartphones to the subset of its employees who were viewed as having a need for frequent off-hours contact, whether in the form of voice calls, e-mail, or access to corporate applications.  Thousands of these devices are deployed.  Some, of course, see more frequent use than others.  All, supposedly, represent some legitimate business need that is being fulfilled by the employee who is tethered 24/7 (or some subset thereof) to the office.

The CIO went on to describe this company’s relatively new BYOD program.  As is the case elsewhere (everywhere, it would seem,) the program is gaining new participants every day.  A large percentage of Blackberry-holders has elected to turn in company-owned phones in exchange for being set up with BYOD access via their personally-owned iPhones or Android devices.  The CIO concluded his discussion of the BYOD topic by musing aloud about what he might be able to do to entice the remaining BlackBerry-holders to jump ship.  I could easily have told him: PAY FOR THE DAMNED VOICE/DATA PLANS! 

This company, and according to recent surveys I have seen, a majority of others with a BYOD policy, contributes nothing toward the cost of owning and maintaining the device that the employee is willingly “bringing.”

Let’s break this down:

Behind Door #1 is a company-owned, company-paid-for Blackberry.  It costs the individual user nothing – nada – zilch.  All he/she has to do in order to realize the “benefit” of working while on personal time is to carry the thing around.  Not a bad deal, save perhaps for the obligation to safeguard it and to actually be productive by using it once in awhile.  If it gets damaged, the company replaces it.  Simple.  Free.

Behind Door #2 is the employee’s own iPhone (or whatever.)  He or she is already paying for voice and data access (which, for those living in a cave, is not cheap, and often comes with a volume cap – think “family share plan” voice minutes - beyond which the cost becomes prohibitive.) In exchange, the device owner enjoys the privilege of having exclusive personal use of the thing (and for playing ‘Words with Friends’ on airplanes, viewing porn on the beach, whatever.)  If the employee drops the phone, leaves it on a bus, or otherwise damages or loses it, he/she alone is responsible for the cost of replacing it.

Layer on BYOD, and a few things happen:  to the extent that the phone owner uses the device for work, those minutes and gigabytes get chewed up - the employer gets a freebie.  Additionally, there’s a contract involved (naturally) which, among other restrictions, prohibits the phone owner from lending the phone to anyone – even a family member – lest proprietary corporate data be exposed.

I ask you – which is the better deal?

Would your answer be the same if the comparison were between having a company car, all expenses paid, versus being allowed the “privilege” of using your own car for traveling on company business, without even so much as a mileage allowance? 

I didn’t think so.  So I’m back to not getting it.

There’s unquestionably a perceived cachet associated with being a BYOD participant. This reminds me of the early 1990s, when pagers were all the rage.  Pagers functioned, in essence, like a very long leash.  Paging was one-way – you couldn’t respond with any effective communication.  Instead, the thing went off while you were (in a restaurant, at a ballgame, driving, wherever) and you had to, as quickly as possible, find the nearest pay phone and make contact with the Very Important Person who was summoning you.  Cell phones were nearly non-existent; when they arrived on the scene, demand for pagers died, for obvious reasons.

I never wanted one of those things.  Cachet?  Seriously?  They struck me more like long-range house arrest ankle bracelets.  But they were seen by many as status symbols, nonetheless.  I believe they somehow engendered feelings of self-importance on the part of their users  - “Oops, excuse me, gotta run, I’m being paged {read: I am so very important that I must now drop you, dinner companion, like a hot potato, and go find a phone so as to take care of a very, very important matter.}”  

I “get” that many – perhaps most – people these days are in love with their phones.  I don’t get why, but I get that they are. Phones are status symbols now.  Etiquette has, predictably, taken a blow in deference to the elevated social standing that they impart (Excuse me, dinner partner, redux.)  No doubt this is a big factor in understanding the siren call of BYOD.

In pure economic terms, setting aside the question of “who pays,” it is more costly to operate two devices as opposed to one.  So in the aggregate, there’s an economic argument to be made in favor of BYOD.  It’s also less convenient to tote around two devices rather than one.  As implemented by most companies that have done so, however, the programs are tilted heavily in favor of the company and against the employee. 

There are a few enlightened firms out there that do offer a stipend or some other consideration that helps to defray some portion of the phone owner’s costs, but they are in the minority.  It seems only fair that, to the extent that it can be calculated, a proportionate share of the costs associated with using privately-owned equipment for business purposes should be borne by the business.  In my view, this should be the norm.  However, as long as employees continue flocking to buy-and-bring-your-own programs, the status quo is unlikely to change.