The anti crunch hours license • Hacker News Board

Re: The anti crunch hours license

#111

Post by michaelt » Sat, Mar 30, 2019, 5:47 PM UTC

chrisseaton wrote: post #78

gus_massa wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Personally I don’t find “everyone is doing this so it must be rational” a very convincing argument. After all, maybe everyone else followed that same weak argument.

Re: The anti crunch hours license

#112

Post by chrisseaton » Sat, Mar 30, 2019, 5:49 PM UTC

michaelt wrote: post #111

chrisseaton wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Personally I don’t find “everyone is doing this so it must be rational” a very convincing argument. After all, maybe everyone else followed that same weak argument.

But conversely how do you think everyone arrived at an unsafe practice particular to just these doctors who do handovers and no others? And why do you think they’re campaigning themselves to bring them back for safety in the UK?

Re: The anti crunch hours license

#113

Post by nicoburns » Sat, Mar 30, 2019, 6:05 PM UTC

TheCoreh wrote: post #18

I live in Brazil. Under Brazilian labor laws, a work week is defined as 44 hours, with each work day having up to 8 hours. So you just excluded companies that have ever had anyone do more than one hour of (paid) overtime any week. Which is basically every company in my country, considering (occasional, paid) overtime is normal and predicted in the relevant laws. Here, 12 hour shifts with 36 hour rest periods is also…

> So you just excluded companies that have ever had anyone do more than one hour of (paid) overtime any week.

I think this was entirely the point of the license. The authors presumably believe that companies shouldn't make their workers work this long, and they don't want those companies to do to benefit from their work. Thus providing an (admittedly small) incentive for those companies to reduce their working hours.

Re: The anti crunch hours license

#114

Post by povertyworld » Sat, Mar 30, 2019, 6:05 PM UTC

People should be careful what they wish for. Far too many Americans are trying to survive on part time jobs.

Re: The anti crunch hours license

#115

Post by magnetic » Sat, Mar 30, 2019, 6:14 PM UTC

abhinai wrote: post #31

In the best job I ever had in my life, my boss basically told me that she didn't care about the hours I kept or how long I worked every day as long as I got my job done. I usually showed up to work at 12pm and left around 4pm. It ended up being one of the most productive times of my life. I created products that had hundreds of millions of dollars worth of impact on the company bottom line. In my immediate next job I…

> In the best job I ever had in my life, my boss basically told me that she didn't care about the hours I kept or how long I worked every day as long as I got my job done. I usually showed up to work at 12pm and left around 4pm.

Did you have to interact with anyone?

I can imagine this can be challenging if another person you need to interact with follows the same principle with a 7am to 11am schedule.

Re: The anti crunch hours license

#116

Post by balfirevic » Sat, Mar 30, 2019, 6:34 PM UTC

abhinai wrote: post #31

In the best job I ever had in my life, my boss basically told me that she didn't care about the hours I kept or how long I worked every day as long as I got my job done. I usually showed up to work at 12pm and left around 4pm. It ended up being one of the most productive times of my life. I created products that had hundreds of millions of dollars worth of impact on the company bottom line. In my immediate next job I…

That's a pretty cool arrangement. How was "getting job done" defined? My experience as a developer is that there is always something to do. So where is the line drawn?

Re: The anti crunch hours license

#117

Post by pessimizer » Sat, Mar 30, 2019, 6:37 PM UTC

u801e wrote: post #102

vkou wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's probably a more optimal solution then either a current 8h handoff, or a zombie caring for you. However, doctoring, as profession, is a conservative one, and is highly resistant to process improvements. It took decades of effort, and decades of trivial mistakes (wrong organs removed, surgical instruments left inside patients when they are sewn up) to get the profession to even consider that maybe, maybe, check…

> There's probably a more optimal solution then either a current 8h handoff, or a zombie caring for you. I would imagine that it would involve overlapping shifts so the handoff process can be extended over time.

2 hours shared, 4 hours alone, then 2 hours shared?

The extreme case actually seems good; pair doctoring where shifts start four hours apart, so you spend the first half of your shift with one doctor, and the second half with another.

Maybe instead do 2 x three hours, and give doctors really reasonable work hours or time to keep up on current research.

I fear the conclusion to that would be managers saying "what are all these doctors doing, we need to lay 3/4ths of them off and make the rest work twice as much for 50% more pay!"

Re: The anti crunch hours license

#118

Post by gus_massa » Sat, Mar 30, 2019, 6:38 PM UTC

chrisseaton wrote: post #109

AlexCoventry wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you believe that? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_resident_work_hours#EU...

That’s exactly what I mean - cf https://www.theguardian.com/society/2009/nov/05/nhs-confiden... In the UK they always worked long shifts because it’s safer. They’re trying to stop them, and it’s less safe. Why do you think the reason the UK has always worked long hours is due to a drug addiction in the US rather than experience in safety?

> Two case studies involving teenagers who died highlighted the failures to consult senior medical staff early on.

It looks like they are not hiring enough senior staff, not handover problems.

Re: The anti crunch hours license

#119

Post by chrisseaton » Sat, Mar 30, 2019, 6:42 PM UTC

gus_massa wrote: post #118

chrisseaton wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s exactly what I mean - cf https://www.theguardian.com/society/2009/nov/05/nhs-confiden... In the UK they always worked long shifts because it’s safer. They’re trying to stop them, and it’s less safe. Why do you think the reason the UK has always worked long hours is due to a drug addiction in the US rather than experience in safety?

> Two case studies involving teenagers who died highlighted the failures to consult senior medical staff early on. It looks like they are not hiring enough senior staff, not handover problems.

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

Re: The anti crunch hours license

#120

Post by vortico » Sat, Mar 30, 2019, 6:44 PM UTC

jes5199 wrote: post #108

vortico wrote: post #2

Ah, yet another "open-source if you follow my principles" license. It should be an uninteresting fact at this point that yes, you can in fact put whatever clauses you want in your software license. Note that this is a license restriction addon, not a standalone license. To use, ammend to and reference by another license. Note that this removes "open-source" status from the original license if it is open-source, accor…

all open source licenses are “follow my principles” licenses. We’vr just had a monoculture of software principles for the last few decades.

I disagree because the OSI definition explicitly states that the software must not limit groups of people of any kind from using the software, regardless of how evil they may be or whether they comply to whatever monoculture you speak of. That's the point. By writing open-source software, you are explicitly allowing people with completely opposite ideals to use, review, and derive the software. And that's the beauty of it.