Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The anti crunch hours license

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 140 posts

Re: The anti crunch hours license

#71

Post by sebazzz »

egypturnash wrote: post #69
AlexTWithBeard wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

your (x times y) work week is a privilege earned by a long history of labour activism in the Western world. With most of "us" being some kind of a software engineer, I'm sincerely curious: was 80-hours workweek ever a mandatory thing for an engineer (teacher, doctor)?

A quick search for “doctor work week” is returning numbers that start around 50 and go up to 108 for an emergency room surgeon. There is a horrible cultural expectation of crazy amounts of overwork in the US hospital world.

Seems dangerous in a medical profession. I certainly start making all kinds of obvious mistakes when tired or overworked, but my web application doesn't hurt anyone.

Re: The anti crunch hours license

#72

Post by Jarwain »

sebazzz wrote: post #71
egypturnash wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A quick search for “doctor work week” is returning numbers that start around 50 and go up to 108 for an emergency room surgeon. There is a horrible cultural expectation of crazy amounts of overwork in the US hospital world.

Seems dangerous in a medical profession. I certainly start making all kinds of obvious mistakes when tired or overworked, but my web application doesn't hurt anyone.

I read somewhere that the rationale is essentially that more mistakes are made when handing a patient off to another doctor on shift change. Communicating all the necessary information is difficult, context or details can be left out, resulting in larger mistakes being made by the incoming doctor. They think the tradeoff is worthwhile

Re: The anti crunch hours license

#73

Post by cimmanom »

chrisseaton wrote: post #60
jimnotgym wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hope so. Hospitals make their staff work counter-productive hours, as if they couldn't function with 8 hour shifts. And you don't need to put double quotes around employees. They are employees and deserve to work in a good environment like everyone else

Those long shifts are there to protect patient safety - they reduce the number of dangerous handovers. Part of being a doctor or in something like the military is putting other people first rather than having a comfortable short day.

What if handovers are dangerous in large part because the outgoing shift members are fatigued to the point of intoxication?

Re: The anti crunch hours license

#74

Post by gus_massa »

chrisseaton wrote: post #60
jimnotgym wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hope so. Hospitals make their staff work counter-productive hours, as if they couldn't function with 8 hour shifts. And you don't need to put double quotes around employees. They are employees and deserve to work in a good environment like everyone else

Those long shifts are there to protect patient safety - they reduce the number of dangerous handovers. Part of being a doctor or in something like the military is putting other people first rather than having a comfortable short day.

Handovers are dangerous, but making decisions that need your full attention after hard working 11:30 hours is also dangerous. And sometime doctors have even longer shifts.

It's an insane culture.

My guess is that it is easy to spot error in handovers (X didn't say/write this, Y didn't hear/read that). But errors due that you have worked 11:30 hours are more difficult to isolate.

Re: The anti crunch hours license

#76

Post by chrisseaton »

cimmanom wrote: post #73
chrisseaton wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those long shifts are there to protect patient safety - they reduce the number of dangerous handovers. Part of being a doctor or in something like the military is putting other people first rather than having a comfortable short day.

What if handovers are dangerous in large part because the outgoing shift members are fatigued to the point of intoxication?

Take this for example - from the Guardian, a very left-wing newspaper that is normally about as far from arguing for longer hours for works as you can possibly get.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2009/nov/05/nhs-confiden...

> The report suggests the shorter working week is responsible for a lack of continuity in out-of-hours care

> shortening rota hours had led to more shift changes between medical teams and greater chances for mistakes to occur

> the early effects of the 48-hour European working time limit on surgeons and found that these new rotas had almost entirely removed adequate time for handover of sick patients

Also think about this - those doctors who don't do handovers, such as a dermatologist doing out-patient clinics, don't work long hours. Hospitals only do it where clinically required.

Re: The anti crunch hours license

#77

Post by ubercow13 »

um_ya wrote: post #55
AlexTWithBeard wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

your (x times y) work week is a privilege earned by a long history of labour activism in the Western world. With most of "us" being some kind of a software engineer, I'm sincerely curious: was 80-hours workweek ever a mandatory thing for an engineer (teacher, doctor)?

In terms of a software development, laws/licences requiring maximum workweek hours is kind of pointless. If any company forces their employees to work in those kinds of conditions, they're going to get poor results, and their customers will notice. Software development requires a clear thinking mind, you can only get away with so much before productivity tanks. Manufacturing work is mindless, so they can get away wit…

Are you basically denying the existence of this problem?

Re: The anti crunch hours license

#78

Post by chrisseaton »

gus_massa wrote: post #74
chrisseaton wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those long shifts are there to protect patient safety - they reduce the number of dangerous handovers. Part of being a doctor or in something like the military is putting other people first rather than having a comfortable short day.

Handovers are dangerous, but making decisions that need your full attention after hard working 11:30 hours is also dangerous. And sometime doctors have even longer shifts. It's an insane culture. My guess is that it is easy to spot error in handovers (X didn't say/write this, Y didn't hear/read that). But errors due that you have worked 11:30 hours are more difficult to isolate.

Why do you think the hospitals do long shifts then? Just for fun?

They don't do it for people who aren't doing handovers, like general practitioners who can work half-days just a couple of times a week if they want, or administrations. So we know it isn't inherent for doctors or for the staffing of the hospital. Only for those doing handovers...

Re: The anti crunch hours license

#79

Post by zzzcpan »

geofft wrote: post #66
zzzcpan wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's irrelevant if you don't want to recognize, that people usually don't use OSI's definition when they talk about "open source".

"People"? Most people I know do actually mean the OSD. Most of my friends do, and certainly all my employers that have had open-source processes do—I can't necessarily use that process to release code to a weird non-OSD-compliant license just because the source is visible under some conditions. (Also, "people" use the word "copyright" when they mean "trademark", and post "No copyright intended" on their YouTube video…

You are assuming they do, but they likely don't. Counter example for this is SQLite. Almost everyone considers it open source, presumably even you. Lots of projects that embed it are considered open source. SQLite, however, is not OSI open source and none of the projects that embed it can be OSI open source either. And it's ok, because people generally don't think of open source as something with OSI approved licenses.

Re: The anti crunch hours license

#80

Post by logicchains »

geofft wrote: post #70
logicchains wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You have no clue why someone is working more than 10 hours consecutively or more than 45 hours a week. I have quite a few mainland Chinese friends in tech (I used to work there), and most work extremely long hours not because they like it, but because management and company culture enforces it and they're powerless to change it. They can't even conduct collective action, as that's essentially illegal. Chinese courts…

I think 'Kaveren isn't saying "You don't know why these people are working 10 hours consecutively" but rather "You don't know why every person who works 10 hours consecutively is doing so." There is certainly a problem with the culture of mainland Chinese tech work (as well as with game dev work), but a license that legally bans use from any company that ever asks anyone to work more than a 10-hour day has too much s…

>and is thus a license that perfectly reasonable employers will avoid

There are reasons a reasonable employer might adopt this. Maybe they never require employees to work more than 40 hour weeks, so they can advertise they follow this strict license to give them an advantage in hiring employees who want some guarantee they won't have to work overtime. Maybe they want to "open source" something to have the community contribute to their product for free, but don't want their competitors to be able to use it. Maybe a lone open source developer builds something with this license, then starts a business.

I think the idea is that if it catches on, eventually somebody will write e.g. a really important library using the license, then companies would have to consider using it.

Post reply on HN