How do bills like these work for jobs where you are literally on call for outages?
Then you're on the clock and by definition not after (your) hours.
Michigan bill would bar employers from requiring after-hours coms with workers
111–120 of 238 posts
Re: Michigan bill would bar employers from requiring after-hours coms with workers
#112I think stuff like this is much better settled with compensation than legislation. For example when I was an engineer 15-20 years ago, my friends would deprioritize jobs with lots of on-call needs, but would still take the jobs if they were exceptional in some way or the comp was especially good. Why can't we do that in most other job categories as well? I can think of a bunch of areas where this kind of bill would d…
> I think stuff like this is much better settled with compensation than legislation.
The only reason we get compensated at all is because of legislation. They'll pay us as little and work us as hard as they're legally and physically able to.
Re: Michigan bill would bar employers from requiring after-hours coms with workers
#113Earlier quoted context omitted.
If long and irregular hours are expected, then those hours should be tracked and paid out at a rate. Companies absolutely abuse salary exemptions and it’s getting ridiculous. If you have to “clock in” at the exact same time every day, “clock out” at the exact same time every day, and are expected to work additional scheduled hours outside of work, you should be paid hourly and receive overtime. You are an hourly empl…
Oh I've known from back my food service days that "management" aka salary was a fucking scam. It was ALWAYS a way to get massive unpaid overtime extracted upon threat of firing. And overtime for workers was inexcusable, no matter what. Got a rush? Too fucking bad, clock out. These days professionally, I agreed to 40h/week. That's what they get. If there's a real outage or un-manufactured crisis, then I'll stick aroun…
> I don't work for free for capitalists.
What's your opinion on [cuck licensing](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48708655)?
Re: Michigan bill would bar employers from requiring after-hours coms with workers
#114Android used to have an "office hours" setting which would prevent specific email accounts from notifying you outside of your specified times. I had my work GMail set to notify only between 0800 (so I could check for a "don't come in" message) and 1700 Mon-Fri. Of course, it didn't account for holidays / sick leave etc, but it was good at prevent me from panic checking every ping. I wish that was a feature on modern…
Second phone?
If a device is owned by a corporate entity it becomes trivial for them to engage in wildly intrusive monitoring.
For example, if Apple can verify the device was purchased by a corporate entity and then enrolled in an mobile device management system, it will allow a lot of things that it won't allow on a personal device - things that can be used for monitoring.
Re: Michigan bill would bar employers from requiring after-hours coms with workers
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
Take for example a university. Many of them seem to use Duo[1], which is not something you can replace with Google Authenticator or other TOTP app. They require it for students as well as faculty and staff. Is it reasonable for them to have to provide a device to all those people, forcing them to carry two devices around, and then also deal with replacing lost or broken devices? The cost of this would simply be added…
> Is it reasonable for them to have to provide a device to all those people, forcing them to carry two devices around, and then also deal with replacing lost or broken devices?
No, but it's also not reasonable for them to only offer something that can't be used with other software. Use a different 2FA scheme
Re: Michigan bill would bar employers from requiring after-hours coms with workers
#116Earlier quoted context omitted.
The comment I was replying to appears to be a call for unquestioning belief. Which is the far extreme in the opposite direction.
Assume good faith. Don’t cross examine.
> assume good faith
Becoming harder and harder by the day as the internet and society change, with the bots and the growing inequality and all.
Re: Michigan bill would bar employers from requiring after-hours coms with workers
#117Where I work, in Michigan, people used to be compensated if they were called for on-call work. Then, probably 15 years ago, they decided to give everyone a little raise, based on how much on-call work they did in the previous year, then ended the extra payment for on-call. Anyone who was hired for, or moved into, a position that required on-call work got nothing and continues to get nothing. I used to get called a lo…
> Then, probably 15 years ago, they decided to give everyone a little raise, based on how much on-call work they did in the previous year, then ended the extra payment for on-call. Anyone who was hired for, or moved into, a position that required on-call work got nothing and continues to get nothing. If Alex was previously on-call from time to time and got a raise to account for that typical amount of on-call, it sou…
Over 15 years it all gets lost. When they made the change, I was on a team that didn’t do on-call, because we were 24x7, so our pay remained the same. Eventually I got a new role, also without on-call. One day the boss thought it would be a good idea if we start doing on-call support. There was no pay adjustment for this, no new job I applied for where on-call was part of the deal I signed up for. It just happened.
It could be called an edge case, but when the on-call pay is built into the base salary, it creates the expectation that a person is never off the clock and no time is truly their own. It also removes the incentive to minimize on-call work.
Re: Michigan bill would bar employers from requiring after-hours coms with workers
#118> But in general, should this bill become law in Michigan, an employer could not require an employee to access or respond to work-related matters outside of their assigned hours... Violations could be reported to the state's Department of Labor and Economic Opportunity, with fines to the company and/or overtime pay to the employee among the possible results.
It will be too easy for employers to say to the DOL the employee was not actually required to respond to the work-related matter when they told the employee they are expected to. Laws like these don't solve problems (bargaining power disparity caused by a variety of factors), they solve symptoms. It may not have a significant effect.
Re: Michigan bill would bar employers from requiring after-hours coms with workers
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's relevant. We're people sharing and discussing, not a TV show. The idea that if we're discussing a problem that only people with that problem may share their experience is absurd at face value.
"10% of Americans are uninsured. A US state is pushing to insure all of their residents." "I'm insured!" "Open-source software projects are being spammed with LLM generated PRs. Contributions are becoming more restricted". "I have a repo that isn't being spammed!" Sometimes sharing a somewhat related experience is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand, and also completely uninteresting. It does not matter that s…
This is a forum where people share their opinions and experience, not a TV show or news story or narrative.
If people's opinions or thoughts don't fit a narrative you want, a forum likely isn't the place to find it.
Everyone gets to share, there's no rules here about not sharing / having a different experience than others.
Re: Michigan bill would bar employers from requiring after-hours coms with workers
#120Earlier quoted context omitted.
"10% of Americans are uninsured. A US state is pushing to insure all of their residents." "I'm insured!" "Open-source software projects are being spammed with LLM generated PRs. Contributions are becoming more restricted". "I have a repo that isn't being spammed!" Sometimes sharing a somewhat related experience is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand, and also completely uninteresting. It does not matter that s…
This is a forum where people share their opinions and experience, not a TV show or news story or narrative. If people's opinions or thoughts don't fit a narrative you want, a forum likely isn't the place to find it. Everyone gets to share, there's no rules here about not sharing / having a different experience than others.
Everyone gets to share but it's also completely within the forum rules to call out irrelevant anecdotes as uninteresting to the discussion.
I have no idea why you're making a comparison to a TV show; nothing that was described was anything akin to that. I just made examples out of insufferable and clueless forum comments, that very clearly detract from discussion more than they contribute to it.
I don't think you should assume that describing meaningless and unrelated anecdotes as "uninteresting" is equivalent to users calling for a forum ban, which is seemingly what you're doing when you point to forum rules when encountering a critique.