The Law is an Ass
Mobile Phone usage regulations are a mine field for employers
Confused employers and moaning employees are expected as a result of the new mobile phone legislation.
In its simplest form it prohibits the use of a hand held mobile phone whilst driving. However, employers seeking to cover themselves are having trouble unravelling the mass of regulations and laws that entwine them.
"As it stands, employers who provide drivers with mobile phones for business use could face criminal charges if their staff are caught using that equipment while on the move. But the legislation makes no provision for employees using their own mobiles on company business ," said Alison Loveday, employment partner at Manchester law firm Berg & Co.
Legal experts scrutinising the new legislation - which comes into force on December 1st, 2003 - say that Department of Transport guidance says employers will not be liable simply because they supply an employee with a mobile phone or if it phones the employee when he or she may be driving.
However, it does indicate that the company could be criminally liable unless it has expressly forbidden its staff using that mobile.
"But this highlights a loophole: what if the phone is not company owned? " said Alison Loveday.
"This has the potential to be massively confusing. It is unclear from this guidance whether an employer will be liable if the employee uses his or her own mobile phone for company reasons while driving and has not been expressly told that this is forbidden.
"Regardless of who provided the phone, this has potentially far-reaching consequences over insurance for instance. An employee involved in an accident while using his or her own phone may not be covered.
"The correct guidance from the legal community to employers is that companies should be writing to all their staff, whether they are provided with mobile phones or not, and tell those employees clearly and unequivocally that it is company policy that an employee must not use a mobile phone while driving on company business, and that breach will be treated as a serious disciplinary matter. "
Who'd be an employer these days....?
Somebody with too much time on their hands said:
"But this highlights a loophole: what if the phone is not company owned? " said Alison Loveday.
What if an Employee takes drugs whilst in a company car on company business?
What if an Employee decides to do a bit of serial killing whilst in a company car on company business?
What if an employee is eating a take-away Maccy'D whilst driving a company car on company business and has an accident?
Is Maccy'D liable for not ensuring he doesn't eat it on the move or warning of the dangers of eating a Maccy'D whilst on the move?
Should the Employer or Maccy'D take responsibility for informing the Employee of the blindingly obvious?
or
Should the individual be held responsible for their actions?
Its not the law that is the ass, its the assholes that try to interpret the law through magnifying glasses completely missing the point and spirit of the legislation in the first place.
....Danger..This HOT coffee you just ordered is HOT. Spilling HOT coffee on yourself will casue you HARM.When you leave the restaurant DO NOT get KNOCKED DOWN on the road outside by a vehicle. Getting KNOCKED DOWN is a serious risk to your health. 
Where does it all end? >>> Edited by Swilly on Friday 14th November 11:25
However, unlike laws governing violent slaughter and other activities which are at least considered proscribabal within wide slices of society, this new raft of ludicrous red tape undoubtedly represents another nail in the coffin for western commerce.
I can't see Chinese logistics people worrying about such things as their lion economy fumbles into world economic supremecy over the next 50 years, somehow.
Still, that won't worry the preventative w@nk stains who contribute nothing but anguish and impediment to the detriment of the spirit of enterprise, will it?
The rabid dogs.
Gassing Station | Motoring News | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff