Ms Anna K (asker) Jan 17, 2012:

I'm inclined to agree with Tony M that:

It could suggest that a lot of incoming calls were of a personal nature for the other employees, and nothing to do with actual work at all.

I think it fits the context best. Thanks to everyone for expressing your opinion!

Charles Davis Jan 16, 2012:

Echoing Liz, I would say that phone calls from prostitutes (expensive ones, no doubt) and bookmakers to a major bank are not just plausible but almost to be expected. I'm sure many of us have read some of the revelations of "high-end" prostitution (plus cocaine) among Wall Street investment bankers (eg. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/20/us-crime-prostitut... ), and bankers are basically gamblers anyway - they just can't help it.

David Knowles Jan 16, 2012:

I suspect that (as Tony M suggests) the calls were often of a personal nature and of dubious morality. Both are legal (in the UK), but not necessarily regarded as respectable!

Liz Dexter (was Broomfield) Jan 16, 2012:

Having known people who've worked for major investment banks, paying for hookers and bookies would not be that surprising ... !

Tony M Jan 16, 2012:

I'd say not I don't think it's so much a figurative use, but might imply something else.

It could suggest that a lot of incoming calls were of a personal nature for the other employees, and nothing to do with actual work at all.

Or I suppose it is just possible that they might be implying that the kind of customers this bank had included such professions — both noted for making large amounts of money and needing to dispose of them discreetly! However, I'd have thought this was the least likely of the two explanations.

Ms Anna K (asker) Jan 16, 2012:

Can the phrase be used figuratively and mean e.g. that many phone calls were minor and not related to the actual job the company was doing? The passage is about a major bank, so it's unlikely that "hookers" is used literally to say prostitutes were calling in the office.