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

Michigan bill would bar employers from requiring after-hours coms with workers

cbsnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 238 posts

Re: Michigan bill would bar employers from requiring after-hours coms with workers

#21

Post by cadamsdotcom »

ElProlactin wrote: post #14

While I don't disagree with the intent, the reality is that workers are already at a significant disadvantage and many don't feel they have the leverage to be more firm about boundaries (with most of them feeling this way being correct about their lack of leverage). Laws like this will just encourage workarounds (like moving work to jurisdictions where such laws don't exist) and, eventually and wherever possible, eli…

While I understand how you can see it this way, laws like this have worked in many other places (yes some of those were places where employers had fewer options to move interstate, but that’s a costly thing to do for employers)

It does actually work - think of it like a speed limit. If everyone is forced to go at a certain maximum speed (ie. the same max no. of contact hours per week per employee) then it’s not a (relative) loss if a business can’t operate at “full capacity” for more hours than its competitors.

Re: Michigan bill would bar employers from requiring after-hours coms with workers

#22

Post by cadamsdotcom »

nickjj wrote: post #18

I'm curious, how often are people getting contacted outside of work hours for "regular" jobs? I do SRE / Platform type of work where I'm technically on-call 24/7/365 but as a salaried worker I don't receive over time or anything like that. If an on-call event happens where I end up putting in 2 hours on a Saturday or Thursday night, I'd use my discretion to leave early or start late another day. In the roles where on…

You are lucky in that you don’t have the type of employer who needs to be reined in via the law.

There are some true scumbags out there.

Re: Michigan bill would bar employers from requiring after-hours coms with workers

#23

Post by cmatta »

Havoc wrote: post #16

Maybe I just have abnormal leverage but I've never had after hours coms be an issue. I've had two phone for basically all my working life and just don't look at it outside of work hours. Don't think I've ever been challenged on why are you not reading after hour messages. Everyone around me is professional enough to know that its a discussion that would go poorly.

This is a pretty self-selecting group, so I'm not surprised that most people reading this don't have a problem with after-hours coms. If you've ever worked in hospitality or retail, you'll know that managers will call/contact you at all hours to make sure they have coverage. It's irritating.

Re: Michigan bill would bar employers from requiring after-hours coms with workers

#24

Post by tough »

SoftTalker wrote: post #9
pwg wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. If $job is not willing to buy and hand me a "work phone" then they are out of luck, nothing for $job gets put onto my private phone. If they think they need this ability, then they also need to add a line item to their budgets for the cost of the phone and the service. And when faced with this alternative, they have not, so far, decided they want to pay for a phone.

Where do you draw the line? If the employer wants you to install a 2FA app on your phone, do you demand a separate phone or alternate 2FA device for that and mark yourself as a troublemaker? Or do you just do what 99.8% of the staff does and install the app?

I would install the app on the shittiest iPhone backup i have (I must have like 10 iPhones by now, i dont sell old ones)

You can also perfectly use 2fa without a phone, unless your shitty company is using some shitty propietary 2fa, and even then, its just a "key" or "qr" they give you, that then you totally control and can use in mostly any 2fa compatible app, like Passwords. app from apple, 1Password, or Authy (RIP)

Installing shitty apps just cause your company tells you to is a great way to get your personal phone hacked too

Sames goes with all the MITM bullshit, If you want to install malware on my 6k macbook, you've gonna have to buy me your own "work macbook" for me to handle that shit. And i wont touch it for anything else than work. But installing spyware from work in my personal computer is a big NO NO.

Re: Michigan bill would bar employers from requiring after-hours coms with workers

#25

Post by pwg »

SoftTalker wrote: post #9
pwg wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. If $job is not willing to buy and hand me a "work phone" then they are out of luck, nothing for $job gets put onto my private phone. If they think they need this ability, then they also need to add a line item to their budgets for the cost of the phone and the service. And when faced with this alternative, they have not, so far, decided they want to pay for a phone.

Where do you draw the line? If the employer wants you to install a 2FA app on your phone, do you demand a separate phone or alternate 2FA device for that and mark yourself as a troublemaker? Or do you just do what 99.8% of the staff does and install the app?

> Where do you draw the line?

If they want me to have some "special device", they pay for the hardware for me to have said "special device".

My private phone is not for their use, ever.

Re: Michigan bill would bar employers from requiring after-hours coms with workers

#26

Post by tptacek »

tbrownaw wrote: post #19

How would this interact with existing rules around exempt / non-exempt (roughly, salaried vs hourly) employees? I would think it would already be expensive to make someone paid by the hour do extra work stuff during time they're not already being paid for.

It doesn't. As drafted it applies to exempt employees. (It's just a proposed bill; it's unlikely to happen and if it picked up any steam presumably it would be drafted more carefully.)

Re: Michigan bill would bar employers from requiring after-hours coms with workers

#27

Post by marsninja »

Hot take: The reality is unless this becomes a ban on after hours coms (which likely isn't feasible), economic incentives will prevail. Folks that are less available, less engaged, and in less communication will be darwin'd out.

Only question, is this good for employees, and bad for employers, or the other way around? Creating new ways folks can "get ahead" that is non-obvious (or worse non-official) can lead to issues.

Re: Michigan bill would bar employers from requiring after-hours coms with workers

#28

Post by tbrownaw »

Havoc wrote: post #16

Maybe I just have abnormal leverage but I've never had after hours coms be an issue. I've had two phone for basically all my working life and just don't look at it outside of work hours. Don't think I've ever been challenged on why are you not reading after hour messages. Everyone around me is professional enough to know that its a discussion that would go poorly.

> Maybe I just have abnormal leverage

It could also be a personality thing or a worldview thing.

Some people just have a hard time saying "no" in general, or are constantly looking for reasons to jump at shadows.

Or there's people teaching that the world runs on class warfare and anyone with any amount of power is always looking for an excuse to abuse that power.

Re: Michigan bill would bar employers from requiring after-hours coms with workers

#29

Post by ElProlactin »

cadamsdotcom wrote: post #21
ElProlactin wrote: post #14

While I don't disagree with the intent, the reality is that workers are already at a significant disadvantage and many don't feel they have the leverage to be more firm about boundaries (with most of them feeling this way being correct about their lack of leverage). Laws like this will just encourage workarounds (like moving work to jurisdictions where such laws don't exist) and, eventually and wherever possible, eli…

While I understand how you can see it this way, laws like this have worked in many other places (yes some of those were places where employers had fewer options to move interstate, but that’s a costly thing to do for employers) It does actually work - think of it like a speed limit. If everyone is forced to go at a certain maximum speed (ie. the same max no. of contact hours per week per employee) then it’s not a (re…

I won't say that laws like this can't have any impact, but it's a global marketplace and change is constant.

Executive/virtual assistants, travel coordinators, bookkeepers, cold callers, real estate transaction coordinators, social media marketing managers, medical transcriptionists and billers, customer service reps, medical records analysis, architectural drafting, video editors, etc.

Many Americans used to be able to earn decent wages working in these roles. Now, it's much harder and there's much less opportunity. A ton of these roles are now filled by freelancers/contractors in places like the Philippines.

Obviously, this didn't happen just because of US labor laws. Wages are the big driver. But laws like this do in some cases give businesses reason to look at places where wages are lower and employees are more "flexible".

It's easy for tech people who feel secure in 6-figure/year jobs to scoff at this but go and talk to someone who used to work in these types of roles how life has been over the past decade.

Post reply on HN