Reasonable request for an assistant, or not?

Someone I am considering for a p/t assistant position does not have a smartphone and is not interested in getting one. While I would only be using this person about 10 hours a week, they would be part of a team that is working on a big project and might need to answer questions etc. on a short turnaround time. (The position is virtual so they would be paid for any time they spent, in the office or out.) As it stands now, they answer emails once a day, sometimes less, when they get to at a computer. I could see this being a big problem as we get into project mode.

Question: Should I expect regular email and text access/responses? Also, would I need to provide the phone and service? On the one hand, this seems fair. But on the other, every other candidate has a smart phone and has nost asked me to pay for it. I am also paying a fairly high hourly wage for an assistant position, so it doesn't seem as unreasonable to expect them to have a phone.

Sounds like it might not be the right person for you, as someone who doesn't use a smartphone is likely not going to be a frequent email checker in any event. I think whatever you need for the job in terms of responsiveness is up to you to specify and should be clearly spelled out to whomever you interview.

I think you need to supply the phone, however. I might be a holdout, but I carry two iphones because I do not want to mix business and personal lives. I don't want clients to text me to the same phone number my kids text me on. I just like boundaries, and it also ensures that I will never accidentally reply to a client text with a dancing cat gif.

Is it a freelance position? Can this person deduct the expense of the smart phone?

@shh, it is and they can. @frances, I hear you and respect your boundaries, but no one except this one candidate has raised the issue so I am happy to let them use their own (I prefer using a single phone myself.)

ETA: Your advice is right on target. It honestly didn't occur to me that this would be an issue with a 23-year-old kid!

Anytime/anywhere email and phone access is a necessity in the 2015 business world. Especially for someone who wants to work virtually. If he/she was otherwise nailed to a desk all day constantly monitoring email and responding to calls, that might be acceptable, but it does not sound like that is the case. Your expectations are totally reasonable and you should choose a different candidate.

Anyone who only responds to emails once a day or less isn't a good fit for a team that works on projects where it's important to be responsive on a short turnaround time. The problem isn't the phone, it's the metabolism.

I think it's strange that a 23 year old doesn't have a smart phone. I agree with tomdevon. This just doesn't seem like a good fit.

Make sure you let them know that lack of accessibity was a strike against their application. Responses are spot on. If you paid for the phone, this person may not use it as you expect if they aren't already accustomed to checking email more frequently.

Thank you all. It took me a little while to process this and say, "Wait a minute...." Sigh..back to the drawing board. This candidate was bright, enthusiastic and available. I think I will at least let them know that their lack of accessibility is a dealbreaker for me.

Agree, I think the best course is to let the candidate know the problem in advance of hiring someone else, particularly if it is the only issue. Therefore s/he can make a decision to correct the problem.

However, I'd be very clear in the discussion - "I'm prepared to hire you, but a condition is that you have a smartphone. Get the phone by [date], and the job's yours." If s/he buys a phone just to get this assignment, and you don't hire this person for other reasons, I could see how the candidate might be offended - not really your problem, but just a courtesy.

Being on call has a value beyond the person's hours. If someone works for you ten hours a week but some of it is on demand, as summoned by texts or emails, then that availability should be paid for beyond the hourly rate.

You are all right, and you are also corporate lackeys. 24 hr availability has become a necessity, and has been to the benefit of the company and a cost to the employee.

LOL! Not talking about 24 hour responsiveness. But a response within a day seems reasonable. And yes, Tom, I am paying a premium -- but I am also offering flexible hours and virtual work location.

Oh, within a day is definitely reasonable, and so is paying a premium. With that said, if you want her to have a smartphone, the extra cost on top of her wages is small. You can get some for less than $100, and the monthly fee might be $10 or $20 if you shop around.

Let's get real for a moment. If she doesn't have a smart phone, she's clearly not too concerned about being accessible and to me that's not good teamsmanship. Big projects involving a team and someone working remotely means that person has got to be available virtually.

I think 'feature phones' might have text/email access....my last basic phone before I got a smart phone did have email capability..and that was about 2010. The employee must be willing to use a phone for email/text...it would be reasonable for an employer to provide a phone.

Many employers today have BYOD (Bring Your Own Device) policy and they don't reimburse employees for the cost of the device. Salespeople who use their devices a lot are often reimbursed a monthly amount to cover a portion of the service/data costs. Your expectations are reasonable.

She does not sound like a good fit. But I do think expectations for responsiveness for "very" part-time employees--who likely do not get paid vacation and other benefits--should not be the same as other project team members. It is really hard to account time-wise for each email response or "quick" phone call...

IMHO, having the smart phone and being accessible are requirements for the job. If she has neither, she is unqualified.

I'm really surprised people expect you to provide a phone for someone working for you 10 hours a week. Many companies don't provide phones for their full time employees, but still expect them to be available. It would never occur to me to buy a phone for someone working so few hours. Full time? Definitely. normal part time (e.g. 20-30 hours)? Probably. But 10 hours a week?

If you expect someone who will only work 10 hours per week to be accessible at all times, then you need to update the job description before interviewing more candidates. If I interviewed for such a job I would expect more than 10 hours pay to be "on call."

@yahooyahoo It's not a question of being "on call." The issue is what's a reasonable response time? Any time spent responding is paid. But is that same day/evening, within 24 hours, or longer?

I guess the answer is that I need to be clear about my expectations and the person can take it or leave it.

Btw, @tomreingold, wondering why you assume it's a woman?

yahooyahoo said:
If you expect someone who will only work 10 hours per week to be accessible at all times, then you need to update the job description before interviewing more candidates. If I interviewed for such a job I would expect more than 10 hours pay to be "on call."

deborahg said:
LOL! Not talking about 24 hour responsiveness. But a response within a day seems reasonable. And yes, Tom, I am paying a premium -- but I am also offering flexible hours and virtual work location.

Not having or wanting a smart phone, as well as not checking email more than once a day all sound like deal breakers to me.

One question, and just trying to be helpful: Once you get into Project Mode and may need quick responses, is it possible that job will expand to beyond 10 hours a week?

I understand that you plan to pay a premium wage, but if I was considering working for you I would need to be comfortable with the expected flow of work--whether it might be an intense 10 day of your choosing, for example, ranging to work that might mean a couple of hours each workday of the week.

of course if they are only 'working' 10 hours/week, they can't be required to have it on all day.

it might be reasonable to need a person accessible and working for a full hour between 9am-noon and again between 2pm-5pm...if they will always be home for at least an hour each time frame..or longer when there is more work...a smart phone may not be necessary.

If there is potential for a larger role/hours or to have you as a reference I would think this individual would be proactive in making herself/himself available unless of course they have another job and could not have the phone active while working the other job....

not a good fit if you are seeking a proactive/ strategic thinker

Not a good fit if she is seeking an "engaged" employee!

I remember seeing a certain co-worker drift out the door at 6:00PM when the rest of the team was just getting down to business.

No one likes a detached team member, it comes off as aloof.

I agree the lack of a smartphone is odd, and it creates the perception the person is kind of out of touch with reality, and perhaps not very motivated, but I think it's a leap to come to the immediate conclusion that s/he is wrong for the job.

A lot depends on what the person is doing outside the 10 work hours. If the person works from home, and really isn't doing a lot of errands and traveling about during the day, having regular access to a laptop or desktop and landline might be all that is needed - particularly if s/he has loaded relevant project management or design software onto it.

But if the person travels about a lot, or works on site for another employer - and shouldn't be using that employer's computer or phone for communicating with you - then the smartphone becomes more essential. However, it's not clear to me that the employer needs to supply or help pay for it.

I'd probably give the person one more chance, make it clear the lack of smartphone (and perhaps his/her relatively slow response to your communications so far) is an issue, and see if s/he agrees and can come up with a way to work around it.

Call me old and old fashioned, but a part time job shouldn't involve availability on an on call basis.

I guess the converse of this issue is, if someone shows up at an interview, and they have an iPhone 6, an iWatch, and the most updated Apple laptop, does that really make them the most qualified for the position?