October 20, 2015

Since the birth of BYOD some 5 years ago, companies have been paying lip service to reimbursing employees who use their own mobiles for business calls. This blind BYOD stipend came under great scrutiny in a California court in August 2014 when they ruled that employers in the state now have to reimburse employees for personal mobile phone call charges related to business. The courts intention was that employers should not be in a position to offload their mobile business costs onto employees who opt into BYOD.

Prior to this ruling employers had focused their efforts around BYOD on data security rather than management of data costs. This ruling could be good news for employers who are now able to mitigate potential legal and HR issues which surround the use of personal devices for business.

The basic aspects of the ruling strive to ensure that employees are protected, and it currently covers mobile calls only, however it is likely that because employees use their preferred technology for more than just phone calls, this ruling could expandits horizons in the future to incorporate data consumption charges. The California court ruling is one of the first related to BYOD and as yet is limited to employers in that one US State. The question is – are we likely to see other US states and global geographic regions pushing for a mandatory decisions on the issue of ‘Telecom Split-Bill’.

However, an online survey in July this year undertaken by CompTIA, suggests that companies are moving away from BYOD and are supplying employees with the smartphones they would choose anyway.

This growing move away from BYOD seems to be driving the need for ‘telecom split bill’ requirements as enterprises can recoup the personal spends back from employees on business devices, as well as recouping tax on business usage.   

Bottom line is that the decline in BYOD makes financial sense for employers, whilst employees get to use their device of choice for business purposes.

Learn how CTI Group’s Analysis supports this growing requirement through ‘usage tagging’