Ruby on Rails Creator Supports After-Work Email Bans (signalvnoise.com) 135
An anonymous reader writes: David Heinemeier Hansson, the creator of Ruby on Rails, is applauding talk of an after-work e-mail ban, writing that "the ever-expanding expectations for when someone is available have gotten out of hand... Work emails are ticking in at all sorts of odd hours and plenty of businesses are dysfunctional enough to believe they have a right to have those answered, whatever the hour. That's unhealthy, possibly even exploitative... Same goes for forcing everyone to work in an open office. The research is mounting on all the ills that come from persistent noise and interruptions from that arrangement."
While acknowledging that his firm's project management tool Basecamp has a "perfect storm" of features that can send emails and texts after hours, Hansson points out that at least version 3 (released in 2015) shipped with a scheduling feature that will hold notifications during weekends and other specified off-work periods. "What we need before we can even dream of having something like the French response is a change in attitudes. Less celebration of workaholism, more #WorkCanWait. More recognition that stress from unrealistic and unhealthy expectations and work habits is actually a real hazard to health and sanity."
While acknowledging that his firm's project management tool Basecamp has a "perfect storm" of features that can send emails and texts after hours, Hansson points out that at least version 3 (released in 2015) shipped with a scheduling feature that will hold notifications during weekends and other specified off-work periods. "What we need before we can even dream of having something like the French response is a change in attitudes. Less celebration of workaholism, more #WorkCanWait. More recognition that stress from unrealistic and unhealthy expectations and work habits is actually a real hazard to health and sanity."
Reasonable expectations. (Score:5, Insightful)
As a business owner, I expect my employees to by reasonably available, even after hours.
What is reasonable? Well, if it's an emergency of some sort, I call or text them, depending on the immediacy. (Emergency being defined as anywhere from "someone's sick, can you cover a shift?" to "something's on fire".)
Anything below emergency I typically email and expect to be done when convenient - typically the next work day. If the employee checks their email after hours or on weekends, it's up to them if they want to take care of it right then (if it's something they can do from home), but I never expect it.
We have business hours for a reason. As far as I'm concerned, if it's not something I'd do while outside work, why would I expect that from my employees?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
it's up to them if they want to take care of it right then
Tomorrow is fine. No pressure. Hopefully Tom down the hall doesn't get to it first - I have to make the decision on that promotion tonight.
Re: (Score:1)
exactly - that typical talking out of both sides of their mouth. End of year review comes around - you did great, Tom did better - he kept answering and solving all those non-emergencies all weekend long. You only did it 47 weekends out of the year....
"Family first"....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
it's up to them if they want to take care of it right then
Tomorrow is fine. No pressure. Hopefully Tom down the hall doesn't get to it first - I have to make the decision on that promotion tonight.
If you're projecting that attitude to employees, than you're moving into the oppressive "not required but actually required" mentality, where nothing optional is really optional.
Any job like that is one that you don't need. It's all stress, little reward, and no loyalty. Quit and go somewhere better.
No need for new laws to allow quitting (Score:2)
This has always been an option in a free country.
What TFA talks about is making the country a little less free and "protect" employees from these emails.
Re: No need for new laws to allow quitting (Score:1)
"Quit and go somewhere better"
There are a lot of reasons why that advice is fairly useless in practice for a lot of people.
Family, needing certain benefits, local job market, moving costs, temporary unemployment, job security vs happiness.
Re: (Score:1)
s/free country/free labour market/g
Of course for everyone that isn't richt the laber market is a captive market, not a free market (as they are forced to participate in it)
Depending on your locale and education background the labour market _might_ still be a competitive market where you have meaningfull choices about what job you except, but even that is increasingly untrue for an increasing percentage of the population.
Given the above some governement (or union) counterweight to the imbalance in power betw
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly! I left a job where that happen. (Names replaced to protect the guilty):
Boss: Fred, our search engines are showing high CPU load. Can you look?
Fred: I am at the park with my kid at the moment.
Boss: Can you head home?
Fred: Is Pete available (Pete golden boy).
Boss: Pete is grilling with his kids.
Fred: But Pete is home?
Boss: Pete is busy.
Fred: I am 20 minutes away from nearest computer to remote in with and if Pete is home...
Boss: Pete has family from out of town, you are just at the park...
Fred: sigh.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, well your problem there is that you worked for a bunch of cunts.
No sane boss would pick the person who was 20 minutes from home over the one who was actually at home barbecuing to do the emergency work. If nothing else, it's an extra 20 minutes and that might mean the difference between "customer says we saved the day" and "customer just fired us".
Your bos was a fuckwit. Fortunately, most employers aren't that bad,
time for a union (Score:2)
That seems like the only way to put as hole bosses in there place or at the very least say no with no risk of your job.
Re: Reasonable expectations. (Score:1)
Re: Reasonable expectations. (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is if it becomes an expectation, by allowing employees to do it it sets off a competition between them, which is good for the employer, but bad for the employee who doesn't work extra hours. Someone will say its employees choice, but unless they are getting paid more for it, they could work the extra hours at their own business or another one and actually benefit from working more. So no, unpaid extra labour, even for salaried employee is not acceptable, it is bad for the employee, not the ideal
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is if it becomes an expectation, by allowing employees to do it it sets off a competition between them, which is good for the employer, but bad for the employee who doesn't work extra hours.
That depends on your point of view, I guess. Personally, I think businesses are better served by their employees thinking of themselves as a team rather than competitors. Competition breeds resentment, and an unwillingness to help others at the expense of yourself. I think employees who help each other with tasks, thus making up for each others weak points, makes the business stronger than the dog-eat-dog everyone for themselves mentality.
It also makes for a happier work environment, and happy employees are
Re: (Score:2)
Emergencies are the exception Ofc.
The place I work, management is by crises only -- everything is an emergency. Dilbert cartoons only scratch the surface at the depth of insanity, inefficiency, and inhumanity.
But, of course, if ANY laws are enacted in the US, they will only step up their move to India, China, and now Vietnam. Thanks Obama.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
"Emergency" as in the production web server is down, or "Emergency" like the boss needing a question answered ASAP on a Saturday afternoon because they have no social life?
I'm be willing to work OT to fix the former, but the latter can wait until Monday morning. Odds are they will find another ass kissing employee to answer the question by then, anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
The only fair thing to do is either ban contact out of work hours or pay staff to be on call. It has to be explicit, it can't be an unwritten "expectation".
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's perfectly reasonable to make after hours work available to employees, if they're inclined to deal with it... as long as there is an acknowledgement of the after hours work and some compensation - if not overtime pay, then comp time during core hours.
To me core hours are those times when your professional colleagues should expect you to be available, responsive to questions. If you're doing significant after-hours work, then there should be significant on-call time during core hours when you're
Re: (Score:1)
Fuck off.
Re: (Score:2)
As a business owner my people do get calls etc etc outside of their normal work days. If they are on salary they take a comp day. If they are hourly I pay them 4 hours overtime (assuming the emergency takes less than 4 hours). This is not hard people.
In this the salaried guys get screwed a bit since on a work day they get nothing but they also get the benefits of salary, need to rush out to pick up sick kid at school, doctors appointments, hours are your own etc etc.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Sorry, but it is just wrong to expect employees to be available outside of scheduled work hours! My time off of work is MY time, and an employer has no right to expect me to use any of that time for their benefit! I have been taken to task because I wouldn't cover someone else's shift on my day(s) off. I replied that I make plans with family and friends on my days off, and (mostly) I refuse to change those plans. My time outside of scheduled work hours is MINE! Many employers have for many years expecte
Re:Reasonable expectations. (Score:4, Insightful)
Sorry, but it is just wrong to expect employees to be available outside of scheduled work hours! My time off of work is MY time, and an employer has no right to expect me to use any of that time for their benefit!
...and here we have the flip side to selfishly unreasonable attitudes of bosses.
I have been taken to task because I wouldn't cover someone else's shift on my day(s) off. I replied that I make plans with family and friends on my days off, and (mostly) I refuse to change those plans.
If you've got plans and can't cover, then that's your prerogative. Perhaps what you've been "taken to task" for is your attitude, though? They way you've stated it here sounds like you're being overly confrontational when a simple, "sorry, I have plans" would have sufficed.
It sounds like it's definitely possible you're that asshole who always expects other people to cover for them, while resenting anyone expecting the same in return. When someone is sick, there's almost never anyone who is happy to come in on their day off, but people do it to help out the other employees. If nobody does, the business is short-staffed for the day, and those who are there are the ones who are the worse for it. Covering shifts is not done so much for the benefit of the business as it is done for the benefit of your co-workers.
My time outside of scheduled work hours is MINE! Many employers have for many years expected an employee's job to be their entire life. Sorry, my job is not the only thing in my life
It sounds like you've had bad experiences with employers. It sounds like you need to find better places to work.
(Unless, of course, your bad attitude is leading you to believe everywhere is oppressing you, in which case what you need to change is yourself.)
Even if I am paid, I have the right to refuse, and also the right to be informed of schedule changes during regular work hours.
Which is not always possible. Unplanned issues and emergencies come up, and reasonably accommodating those situations should be expected.
One more thing, far too many employers these days consider employees to be an easily replaceable commodity, one which is owed nothing in the way of consideration or loyalty of any kind!
On the flip side, far too many employees think their employers are owed no consideration or loyalty of any kind. This lack of trust and resentment comes from both directions, and is a serious problem whichever direction it comes from.
Re: (Score:3)
No, we don't. The flip side would be some jackass who leaves an hour early whenever he likes, or demands you pay more than you agreed. Someone simply sticking to the deal as written is neither selfish nor unreasonable
Re: (Score:2)
In short, your human resources have learned to treat you as an income resource, so now it's suddenly a problem.
Nope. I get along with my employees just fine. If problems come up at work, they help deal with them. If they have problems come up (work or personal), I do what I can to fix or accommodate. I'm sorry you feel so jaded that you automatically assume the worst. I guess the difference is that I treat my employees like adults, and find that most of them act like it.
Re: (Score:1)
I agree to both sides of this. If it's an emergency I understand the employer who calls you outside office hours, and I'd be less than impressed by whoever was a dick about it all the time. But, I also expect them to realize that this is something they can't take for granted (people do have the right to a life outside work) and also that you should strive to make this be the exception. They should also give you exceptional compensation when they do this, since it is an exceptional (or should be) thing to as
Re:Reasonable expectations. (Score:4, Insightful)
Covering shifts is not done so much for the benefit of the business as it is done for the benefit of your co-workers.
Bullshit. Sure, things can be more hectic for an employee if people can't come in, but if the business weren't harmed by not having the specified number of people there, I'm pretty sure you'd find out that having 4 people instead of 5 there is suddenly "correct staffing levels" instead of being "short-staffed".
Untrue. Staffing levels are typically made for expected peak business requirements, and sanity levels of employees.
Let's use fast food restaurants as an example: If they decide they need 15 people for a shift, then odds are they "only really need" 12-13. But then what happens when you have a day with 15-20% higher customer levels? The customer gets worse service than expected, leading to less repeat business, leading to worse long-term sales, which is why they schedule in the extra employees. Additionally, there are various types of prep work that are scheduled in for those employees to do each day that can be put off until later in situations of peak customer turnout. There's also the employee sanity levels to account for: At that 12-13 staff level, the employees are stretched thinner, their stress levels run higher, and they're more likely to make mistakes. If those mistakes cause extra work, this quickly compounds the issue. While this may be acceptable in the short run, it's a nightmare long-term as the employees hate their jobs, the work environment turns toxic, and it starts to effect customer service.
With this built-in staffing buffer, a short-staffed business's employees can deal with it for a few days before their stress levels get high enough to really affect their work. So yes, covering for a coworker is more for the coworkers' benefits than it is for the business's, as the problems short-staffing causes are felt by the employees immediately, but not by the business unless it lasts for a long enough time.
Re: (Score:1)
far too many employers these days consider employees to be an easily replaceable commodity
Let me guess. If you were given an offer for a better job, you'd have no problem leaving your current job to go take it - because who wouldn't want a better job, right? But you think that the person who currently writes you a paycheck shouldn't have the same flexibility that you reserve for yourself, right? Yeah, I see.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure you have no problem conducting personal phone calls, texting, personal emailing and maybe some Amazon while on the clock THEIR though. Even though that is THEIR time and THEIR money at that point.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
This seems nice, but it isn't. You can ask people to come in when there is an emergency, but you can not expect them to do so.
Which, if you'd read my entire post, is pretty much what I said. I even explicitly stated such: "We have business hours for a reason."
Reasonableness is the point of my post - and everyone has different ideas of what is reasonable to them.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, so like an unpaid 911 operator. You expect them to be on call for an emergency, but if an emergency doesn't come then no pay.
That ... is a bizarre interpretation of what I posted.
It also shows that you have no concept of what "emergency" meant in my post, or what "on call" means in a business setting. Or, frankly, how jobs and getting paid work.
Re: (Score:2)
No, he's right. By expecting them to answer in an emergency, you're still putting an availability requirement on them. In sane countries, you can't require that without pay.
You're confusing "getting a call a few times a year to see if you're available to help with something" with "being on call". There's a difference - in the first case, which is what I was talking about, it was something unexpected coming up and you being called to see if you can help deal with it. It's the type of emergency where it's last minute and as such you're free to refuse. The second case is being "on call" where emergencies come up often enough, due to the size or nature of the business, that it's e
Re: (Score:2)
We have a rota of people who are on call and they are paid well for the privilege. I do not take part in this rota, so am not to be called. I'm not penalised for this, other than not getting on-call money.
You've got some misunderstanding over likelihood of actually being called, here. Places with someone on call expect to have to call someone often enough that they set up for that. Places without someone on call (like my business) typically have something happen only a few times a year at most.
Why should you expect something and yet not pay for it? If you expect me to deal with an emergency, even once per year, that means I am on call.
1) The only thing I expect is that you'll answer the phone and talk to me for a minute. After that it's up to you to decide if you can/will help out with the emergency. 2) I don't know why you think I'm implying you wo
Re: (Score:2)
So you expect me to never sleep, swim, surf, go diving, camping or any other phone free activity.
If you're not by your phone, you're not by your phone. WTF is wrong with you that you keep insisting on assumed unreasonableness? Do I have to make a post 15 pages long with all the reasons someone might not be able to answer their phone, or the times I'd consider calling, or what I'd call for? Or can you just go along with the spirit of what I've stated repeatedly about being reasonable?
Jesus, if you need this much babysitting to figure anything out, I'd bet you've never had a boss trust you enough to not
Re: (Score:2)
To be honest, it still sounds like a problem with you.
No, I'd say it's a problem with you making wild assumptions and assuming the worst of someone just because they're an employer instead an employee.
What's your business continuity plan look like, call up all your staff and hope someone picks up?
More or less. Nothing we do is going to be dire enough that the whole place falls apart if someone can't be reached. (Unless the whole place literally falls apart, but somehow I think that'd be more of a call to 911.) Worst case scenario we close down during normal business hours - not the end of the world. And yes, I trust whoever's in charge to make that decisi
Re: (Score:3)
More or less. Nothing we do is going to be dire enough that the whole place falls apart if someone can't be reached. (Unless the whole place literally falls apart, but somehow I think that'd be more of a call to 911.) Worst case scenario we close down during normal business hours - not the end of the world. And yes, I trust whoever's in charge to make that decision.
So even your "emergencies" aren't dire enough that not getting through to someone will cause a big issue. They're not even likely or dire enough for you to perform any form of contingency planning. It's on the scale of "I sure hope someone can deal with this now, if not, it's fine, it can wait till tomorrow." It really doesn't sound like anything you expect might go wrong is worth putting any of your own resources towards managing. If it's not worth it for you, why should you expect it to be worth it for yo
Re: (Score:3)
And it's because of bosses like you that I don't give work my home email, nor would I EVER check work emails from home. I don't get paid to do that. I wouldn't allow a boss to call me after work hours unless I was specifically contracted to provide after hours service and to be on call. If I'm on call, you're paying me for that service for every hour I'm on call. I promise not to masturbate at work during work hours, if you promise not to call me with business shit during my rest hours.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And it's because of bosses like you that I don't give work my home email, nor would I EVER check work emails from home. I don't get paid to do that.
Since I said I never expect the email to be checked or responded to until the next work day, I'm not sure what your issue here is?
I wouldn't allow a boss to call me after work hours unless I was specifically contracted to provide after hours service and to be on call. [...] I promise not to masturbate at work during work hours, if you promise not to call me with business shit during my rest hours.
You "wouldn't allow" a boss to call you if an emergency came up? You equate being asked to cover someone's shift (a option you can accept or refuse as you wish) to be equivalent to masturbating at work?
I hate to tell you this, but you've got the exact shitty attitude of employees that mirror the attitudes of shitty bosses. You're completely self-centered and care only about yours
Re:Reasonable expectations. (Score:4, Insightful)
You're completely self-centered and care only about yourself, and couldn't give a fuck about anyone else
classic case of pot calling kettle black.
in today's corp world, this perfectly defines how a COMPANY acts. they are spoiled little fucking brats who have too much of a labor pool to pick from and think the world revolves around THEM.
I find it precious that you try to turn it around. in the history of the modern age, life has NEVER been as good for companies as it is right now. they have everything on a golden platter and they lord it over us, pretty much constantly.
I have no idea what your work life is like. maybe you are rich and you are a business owner. I suspect you are or you are of the R persuasion who thinks that all roads lead to 'business should have all the say'.
or maybe you're a republican shill trying to shift the argument in your party's direction.
but its clear as crystal; this is the golden era for corportism and if a company wants something, THEY GET IT. they get laws passed as created by their PACs and the economy is so bad that no one dares talk back to the employer.
Re: (Score:3)
You're completely self-centered and care only about yourself, and couldn't give a fuck about anyone else
classic case of pot calling kettle black.
Howso? I said, "be reasonable". The post I responded to pushed an unreasonably one-sided view, to the point where they equated being called outside of work for any reason with being allowed to masturbate at work.
in today's corp world, this perfectly defines how a COMPANY acts. they are spoiled little fucking brats who have too much of a labor pool to pick from and think the world revolves around THEM.
Often, yes. It's one of the reasons I started my own company - to avoid working for one like that.
I find it precious that you try to turn it around. in the history of the modern age, life has NEVER been as good for companies as it is right now.
I find it naive that you don't think bad employees exist. And life is not better for companies than ever. It's actually pretty awful for anything that isn't a MegaCorp.
I have no idea what your work life is like. maybe you are rich and you are a business owner. I suspect you are or you are of the R persuasion who thinks that all roads lead to 'business should have all the say'. or maybe you're a republican shill trying to shift the argument in your party's direction.
Pretty much off-base on everything
Re: (Score:2)
When people see each other as people, they tend to empathize with them. This is what makes society work. Somet
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Reasonable expectations. (Score:4, Insightful)
Since I said I never expect the email to be checked or responded to until the next work day, I'm not sure what your issue here is?
If there is no expectation of the email being attended to, then why are you posting it to the employee during outside of work hours. It's reasonable if you're working late or early and are taking care of your unattended business and posting it to the work email address. It's a whole other kettle of fish when you post it to my personal email at home. I don't check work emails from home, I never have and never will. Email by definition is work that can wait until it's attended to.
Work having the ability to just contact me at any time causes stress and devalues my free time. I've experienced it first hand from when I ran a business and customers thought it was fine to ring my home number at 9pm and ask for help. Thankfully, I found that billing them slowly stopped this from happening.
If I'm constantly on the clock, expected to take note of work emails and phone calls - or even if as you claim you just "hope" that I will - that places undue pressure on me. It's hard to relax, sink a few beers, whatever, if you're always wondering if that damn phone will ring and you need to try and sound sober and possibly drive somewhere...which you won't be able to do after only 2-3 beers.
Want to spend a romantic night out with your significant other? Sorry dear, I have to cancel plans, work has an emergency. No, it's not a real emergency, but the micro-managing panic stricken rule loving turd who manages me thinks it's important enough to cancel my plans for the evening.
You "wouldn't allow" a boss to call you if an emergency came up?
This is not an emergency. It never has been and it never will be. Call one of the other workers who are on-call for that shift. Maybe don't staff things so poorly that being a single person down is "an emergency". Besides, I don't do shift work - I am salaried, and like everyone else in my office it doesn't matter at all if we miss a few days here and there. Meetings can be rescheduled. Work will wait, deadlines should never be so tight that missing a single day is catastrophic.
You seem to be a passive-aggressive person who wants it both ways. You want to be casual and say "it's cool, just do it tomorrow" but then are still putting mental pressure on your workers to get it done in their own free time.
I have worked in IT for 30 years so I've seen my fair share of death marches, weekend work to practice deployments, after hours support for mission critical systems, etc. I watched one team spend six months on a death march that never seemed likely to end. They worked 6 days a week, 12+ hours each day and at the end still shipped a truly execrable product. Possibly because they were all so dog tired the whole time and couldn't think straight.
I protect both my team and my employer by not allowing such conditions to arise for my team members. I set realistic deadlines, tracked the project diligently and made sure they had their free time as uninterrupted as possible. We hit every deadline and shipped high quality products each time. Tired IT workers are crappy IT workers.
It's also about having agency in your own life. Work shouldn't be able to dictate all the terms of your life, both work and leisure. Do I need to leave my phone on during this play I'm watching in case work decides it needs me? Should I sit down and eat dinner first or am I meant to check the last emails from work first. Should I have already done that on the train / bus home like I see so many others do? Do I need to do that to compete, and if so, is that a competition I want to enter and have even a remote chance of winning?
Re: (Score:2)
FYI: My personal practice is that my response depends on the medium. If you e-mail or text me, I will get bac
Re: (Score:2)
Do you pay them extra for being on alert? If not, then expecting anything is unreasonable.
In other words, you shift the cost of preparing for emergencies from your business to your employees, thus making
Re: (Score:1)
Do you pay them extra for being on alert? If not, then expecting anything is unreasonable.
I expect basic human decency from them. I guess in your mind I should be paying extra for that? You must be lovely to work with.
In other words, you shift the cost of preparing for emergencies from your business to your employees, thus making a higher profit at their expense.
In other words, you find asking someone if they want to pick up extra hours, and get paid for it, to deal with something unforeseen as me somehow making a higher profit off of them ... somehow? How's that work, exactly?
And are apparently proud of yourself.
Proud that I have a good enough relationship with my employees that I can call them up and ask them for help occasionally without them reacting like the self-importa
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, you should be paying for it. You are their employer, and you are expecting them to do something on their own time. You are the one not being a decent human being - you are expecting to get their time for free. If their effort is worth something to your company, you should compensate them for it. If it's not worth something to your company, you shouldn't be asking them to do it.
Why do your employees have to exhibit basic human decency, but you don't have to?
Re: (Score:2)
As a business owner, I don't believe I have any right to have any expectations after business hours, unless it was agreed upon on what is reasonable and what isn't and what compensation will be given if for any reason I am in the obligation to ask for something unreasonable. Why is that? Because the reverse also hold. If the employee is having personal matters that requires his/her immediate attention at the risk of not showing at work, these matters must also have been agreed upon, on what is reasonable an
Re: (Score:2)
Unless you've stipulated this in your employer/ee contract and pay for the imposed time, you're not being reasonable.
Then send the email to their work mail address, otherwise you're just trying to get them to burn their own time to read it and then think about the solution.
Which both actions men
Re: (Score:2)
Then send the email to their work mail address, otherwise you're just trying to get them to burn their own time to read it and then think about the solution.
I only ever use work email addresses. I find it odd that anyone would send work-related materials to a non-work address. Is this common elsewhere?
Which both actions mentioned indicate you try to get around.
Your definition of "get around" is odd. Email sent to a work address that I don't care if they see until they work next is not "getting around" anything. Calling someone to cover someone else's shift is typically a same-day affair and cannot wait. And an emergency is also, by definition, time-sensitive, and you need to know immediately who is and is not available
Re: (Score:2)
As a business owner, I expect my employees to by reasonably available, even after hours.
Well the changes to the FLSA will take care of that for your non-exempt employees. If you want them to answer emails or phone calls or whatever outside of their normal 40 hour work week, you will need to pay them for it.
I'd suggest that before December 1st, you develop a company policy prohibiting non-exempt employees from checking emails or phone messages outside normal work hours. At least if you want to be in compliance with the FLSA. And if not, your attorney will be happy with the additional business h
Re: (Score:2)
If they do work during their non-business hours, do they get OT? If not, then are they allowed to take time off to make up for it?
Re: (Score:2)
Time to share a horror boss story.
A long time ago I worked for a small software company (4 employees). The sort of small heartfelt mom-pop sort of operation that is meant to be so great for the economy and the worker.
I had been working there about 6 months, most of that time was building a brand new multi-media system capable of playing back video off a laser disk and placing interactive text on the screen, taking user response and moving on based on that. I built it from scratch in c++ after learning the l
Re: (Score:2)
>As a business owner, I expect my employees to by reasonably available, even after hours.
You can either
1) Mention this in the contract, and arrange for pay with a reasonable markup.
What makes you think I didn't?
2) Go fuck yourself.
Lovely attitude.
You're the business owner, so you deal with emergencies, or plan for others (your employees) to handle them.
The plan is that if one comes up, whoever is best equipped to deal with it (often me) gets a phone call to see if they're available. If they're not, then it goes to the next person. Hence, "reasonably available".
comment (Score:1)
E-mail takes more effort than receiving a call, so a ban is understandable. And when it comes to receiving a call or text, if someone is on call or providing help, then that probably should be counted as 1.5x pay rounded up by the hour. Otherwise, hire more employees.
Re: (Score:1)
E-mail takes more effort than receiving a call, so a ban is understandable.
I find it absolutely the opposite. If you get an email, you can ignore it until later, think over your answer, etc. You can even type a reply, and then re-read it before you send it off to make sure it sounds like what you want to say. With a phone call, you're on the spot - you need to decide if you answer it now . If you answer it, you need to decide what to say now . If you say the wrong thing, you can't unsay it.
And when it comes to receiving a call or text, if someone is on call or providing help, then that probably should be counted as 1.5x pay rounded up by the hour. Otherwise, hire more employees.
Places with on-call employees typically have some kind of extra compensation in place to c
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I find it absolutely the opposite. If you get an email, you can ignore it until later, think over your answer, etc. You can even type a reply, and then re-read it before you send it off to make sure it sounds like what you want to say. With a phone call, you're on the spot - you need to decide if you answer it now . If you answer it, you need to decide what to say now . If you say the wrong thing, you can't unsay it.
You've confused stress with effort. Typing up an answer, thinking about it, re-reading it, etc. is a lot more effort than just blurting out whatever answer you come up with first and being done with it.
Re: (Score:2)
You've confused stress with effort.
You're confused if you don't think dealing with stress takes effort.
Stressful situations take mental effort to deal with, and further mental effort to de-stress afterwards.
Also, it's quite obvious you have no telephone anxiety [wikipedia.org]. If you did, you'd never say using a phone takes no effort.
No easy solution (Score:1)
I like to be able to decide if I'm working outside of work hours or not. I think that's my right. However, employees who choose not to be available can be punished for it. When you allow flexibility, it will be abused. My boss may not be happy with me because I said I'd be unreachable during Memorial Day weekend, and thus can't be called into work on Monday. I feel I should have the option to spend this weekend watching racing, drinking beer, and eating burgers. I want to be able to watch the Monaco Grand P
Re: (Score:2)
Expectations and responsibilities (Score:2)
Meh. I like having access to work email after hours. Taking a quick peek at my inbox early morning or Sunday evening helps me plan my day around any high priority stuff. At my previous client, emailing during free time was getting out of hand especially after their BYOD scheme was rolled out. Interestingly, no one held the expectation that emails would be read or replied to after hours, not even manageme
Open plan (Score:1)
The original point of an open office was to encourage a sense of community and accessibility. The increased noise was noticed immediately but for some reason, managers stuck with open offices. It was probably the first step towards surveillance of office staff.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
open office is there for a few reasons.
first, its not there for YOU, the employee. lets get that straight and understood right off.
its there for management. they want to SEE who is doing what. yes, they are idiots; management in the US are mostly folks who can't do real work and are force to 'move up' so they become managers. in the US, in software, most manages (and workers) are indian and asian and they are used to being packed like sardines in a can. amercians are used to space and having personal s
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The original point of an open office was to encourage a sense of community and accessibility. The increased noise was noticed immediately but for some reason, managers stuck with open offices. It was probably the first step towards surveillance of office staff.
No,that's what you were told. Hell, I know so many people of all levels that have heard that line so many times they actually believe it. The are many who have never worked any other way, and don't know better. The only reason open floor plans were adopted (approved by the big boss), was lower cost. There is nothing worse for developers, yet it's repeated over and over due to the short sighted optics of capex $.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Open plan offices were around long before Pootube was even thought of. How old are you, 12?
Maybe after tenure (Score:2)
As an assistant professor, my job is on the line. If I don’t publish enough and bring in enough external funding, I’m gone at year 6. In theory, 5 years (the period over which I’m evaluated) should be enough to get out three top-tier venue papers, but other responsibilities make that a challenge. On top of that, aside from teaching, I set my own schedule, which means that sleeping in (which the kids won’t let me do) and working late are technically my own choices.
Don’t take
email? Easy for me (Score:2)
You know what happens when I get an email? Nothing. Not till I open my email and look.
Email is asynchronous communications. Email that expects 24 hour response is stupid on the senders part. You want fast response, use the right channel, or at least give me a heads up in the right channel.
You can send me 1000 emails all night long, wont disturb me one bit.
Re: (Score:3)
You know what happens when I get an email? Nothing. Not till I open my email and look.
Email is asynchronous communications. Email that expects 24 hour response is stupid on the senders part. You want fast response, use the right channel, or at least give me a heads up in the right channel.
This is exactly my view of it - if you email me, I'll get to it when I get to it. Don't expect me to be sitting next to my computer waiting for you.
However, I expect this is more directed towards those who have email on their phones and alerts set to chime every time they get an email. (Which, with the volume of junk mail I receive every day, makes me question the sanity of anyone who would do this.)
Re: (Score:2)
However, I expect this is more directed towards those who have email on their phones and alerts set to chime every time they get an email. (Which, with the volume of junk mail I receive every day, makes me question the sanity of anyone who would do this.)
You can turn this off, or schedule it to only alert during working hours. If you do not, that is both your choice, and your problem.
After work Skype/WhatsApp/Telegram/Hangouts? (Score:2)
No need to ban it (Score:3)
Jeez, just let people decide if they want to check their work emails. Is no-one an adult any more?
It doesn't even sound like the French thing is really much of a "ban" anyway. It's more a recommendation that companies draw up rules on when people should/shouldn't be expected to check/answer work emails.
Make it an outright ban and how is someone who works a different shift supposed to leave me a message?
Just make it so companies can't expect people to deal with work emails (or punish them for failing to do so) outside of work hours unless formally agreed.
Re: (Score:2)
Jeez, just let people decide if they want to check their work emails. Is no-one an adult any more?
Nope. Or at least is seems that way more and more each day. (Please protect me from the big, bad world!)
Re: (Score:2)
They send the email during their shift, it goes to your mailbox and waits there, and you read it when you come to work?
Re: (Score:2)
It's good that the French are requiring the expectation to be made explicit.
Re: Dear Everyone Else: (Score:1)
So you make work your life for nothing other than to gain "things"
You have no life, wife, friends, or time for actually living, only time for work
That doesn't sound at all like you are successful at life, more a sad lonely failure at it.
Enjoy the future of telling your nurse (lacking loved ones and grandkids) all about how awesome your life was, sold away to companies long out of business and people long forgotten or dead, about your amazing accomplishments you're under NDA not to talk about :P
Re: (Score:2)
Some of us work hard because we like what we are doing.
This right here! If you love what you do, it is not really "work" in the sense that McBurger flipper is. Personally, I get to play with really cool toys and do interesting things, and they also give me money! Way cool!
Re: (Score:2)
you are young. I can tell.
and you are a corp's wet dream. good little WORKER BEE.
"pick up that can, citizen."
Re: (Score:2)
you are young. I can tell.
and you are a corp's wet dream. good little WORKER BEE.
"pick up that can, citizen."
Hahahaha! Nope. :) I am now well into that age were people say you can not get a job in IT anymore. (And yet still do easily)
And yes, I am a dream, because by the time the contract with me they have burned a lot of time and money on a project and still do not have what they need. So they cough up my bill rate, and are often surprised by how fast I finish, and how much less they spent then they thought.
My grandfather used to say "You can make excuses or you can make money, but you have to choose one."
Re: (Score:2)
I've read a few of your posts just now and the bitterness and despair really makes me cringe--Sounds like you've been burned by some bad companies. I personally can't relate (my work experiences are very different), and I don't work in tech. Care to share any details about the types of job you've experienced? Tech, IT, etc?
Re: (Score:2)
Virtue signaling? I'm not sure you know what that means. I want some dirt!!
Phones too (Score:2)
I won't do it (Score:1)
let them eat cake! (Score:2)
I think early business success has gone to Hansson's head, and he now thinks that as a wealthy, jet-setting CEO, he has the answers to everything. His views are the equivalent of "let them eat cake!"
Is this a work email address? (Score:2)
I think it depends on the type of job you have (Score:2)
I know chemical engineers that where called in to the plant for an actual emergency. It could be anything from a failure that will endanger the surrounding area or something like a piece of equipment is going to fail and they need to do everything they can to shut it down safely. I have even know engineers that where called in to try and save equipment that was worth tens of millions of dollars.
One thing in common with all of those is that in all those cases I haves seen companies more than make up for it a
Re: (Score:2)
That wouldn't change, except the company would have to formally agree with the employer that they would be working out of hours, and the compensation the employee receives for being available. This is just to protect people who don't have such protection and are still required to respond to emails on their own time.
Re: (Score:2)
I would bet it is already part of existing contracts for engineers that this kind of thing applies to and part of why most are paid so much in the first place.
Not that simple though (Score:2)
If you ban "after work" email, you also prevent me from having flexible hours. It's pretty common that I'll just take a random day for giggles, then make it up on a Saturday, or at night.
Sure, I can just take an actual day off and not make it up (and I do!), but I'll be less likely to do it when I need it if I can't just make up for it.
Re: (Score:2)
You can still arrange that with your employer. Nothing changes for you.
Personal Stuff on employers time (Score:2)
But tell people they can't text or make phone calls of a personal nature while on the employer's clock and they go hysterical.