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

141–150 of 238 posts

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

#141

Post by Analemma_ »

siliconc0w wrote: post #57
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…

Google pays their oncall a % of their full-time base salary depending on the oncall tier (5 min response time vs 30 minutes). This should probably be required - there is a different mindset and set of restrictions when you're expected to pick up a page. It also forces companies to use on-call judiciously - not every service needs a 5 min SLO.

When I quit Amazon and went to work at Google I had my mind blown by actually getting compensated to be on-call outside work hours. My coworkers shook their heads and told me I wasn't the first.

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

#142

Post by gamblor956 »

lpolovets wrote: post #106

I 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…

It may only seem like a small ask for you to tell an EA to do something afterhours but it's a significant amount of work on their end and it restricts the kind of activities they can do because you have effectively made them on call 24/7.

You're basically the reason these rules are being proposed.

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

#143

Post by nfw2 »

preg_match wrote: post #87
nfw2 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of the roles I've had involved irregular and long hours. In most cases, I've been happy to take these roles. The article isn't clear how exactly this is intended to work. I think no surprise hours that aren't recognized in the terms of employment makes sense. But also I think I should be able to agree to being available if I am willing to be. Remote Michigan tech workers already have enough trouble as tech compa…

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…

If I am paid on salary, I would rather just be trusted to meet deliverable dates than have to worry about clocking in. If that isn't amenable to you, don't agree to it. Why does this government need to butt in?

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

#144

Post by yamillove »

shimman wrote: post #127
yamillove wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

This is a stupid rebuttal. Society is allowed to improve the life work workers while working. Just because you want people to personally suffer doesn't make it right. This is some old school puritan classism right here.

“ because you want people to personally suffer”

I never said I want people to suffer. I think your position is stupid because it will cause suffering through layoffs.

Very rarely has government intervention worked recently. But I guess you think these workers are stupid too and can’t take care of themselves.

Just get off their backs, I promise you they can handle without your performative outrage.

“ Society is allowed to improve the life work workers while working” This is not society doing anything. This is literally a politician that is advocating for government intervention in the economy.

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

#145

Post by malicka »

nfw2 wrote: post #143
preg_match wrote: post #87

Earlier 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…

If I am paid on salary, I would rather just be trusted to meet deliverable dates than have to worry about clocking in. If that isn't amenable to you, don't agree to it. Why does this government need to butt in?

Do remember that without the government, there very literally would be no forty-hour work week. Individuals don’t have the same bargaining power as employers, not by a long-shot.

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

#146

Post by tengbretson »

Jgrubb wrote: post #132
roughly wrote: post #58

There's a weird incuriosity in the responses here for a place that calls itself Hacker News. "This doesn't happen to me" is about the least interesting or useful response you could have to someone telling you something happens to them. Someone is telling you the world works differently for them than it does for you, which means you've got an opportunity to learn something new about the world and expand your model. Ev…

"Privilege is thinking that something isn't a problem because it doesn't affect you personally." is a sticker I bought once.

I've never bought a sticker like that.

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

#147

Post by nfw2 »

malicka wrote: post #145
nfw2 wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I am paid on salary, I would rather just be trusted to meet deliverable dates than have to worry about clocking in. If that isn't amenable to you, don't agree to it. Why does this government need to butt in?

Do remember that without the government, there very literally would be no forty-hour work week. Individuals don’t have the same bargaining power as employers, not by a long-shot.

I have never worked 40 hours or less in a salaried role. That should be my choice. That has afforded a level of expertise that has given me a lot of bargaining power. People should be free to unionize, and I should be free not to.

To your point about government needing to backstop working conditions, the minimum wage in Indiana is 7 dollars an hour, and yet I can get a job paying 18 dollars an hour at Taco Bell. Why do you imagine that to be the case if employers have so much bargaining power?

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

#148

Post by antonvs »

lpolovets wrote: post #106

I 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…

> But if you can't ask your EA to do a quick email check a few times in the evening

Thanks for making the case for laws like this.

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

#149

Post by nickjj »

BirAdam wrote: post #138
stackskipton wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm SRE/Platform, I got paged out last night because Devs apparently can't properly crash applications. Sure, I can move hours as well but my partner doesn't care that I get off at 3 on this Friday instead of 5, she has to work till 5 and my page out interrupted our outing to the movies. Not everyone life is ultra flexible.

Same here. Applications developers and QA often can't really do their jobs, so I get roped in on every problem it seems. Plans to go out with my family on my birthday? Canceled. Plans to go kayaking with my wife on Saturday? Canceled. At this point, I am extremely tempted to leave my job, sell my house, buy some land in Wyoming or something, and just be content to be poor.

I know it's easier said than done but is there anything you can do to become an advocate for change?

I've been fortunate to have a very limited amount of on-call events. At one place for 3.5 years there was 1 event. In another place there's been 2 in the last 9 months but on the bright side these events are taken seriously in the sense that dev time is immediately prioritized to hopefully prevent them from happening in the future.

All code being written gets reviewed by someone and there's an expectation tests are included. Of course that doesn't prevent all bugs, but there's an attempt at quality control by the teams producing the code.

I think part of this role (SRE / platform / DevOps / whatever you want to classify this as) is technical implementation but also coming up with systems and workflows to reduce downtime and risk when performing deployments. Not all management is open to change but IMO it should be brought up and taken seriously. There are companies out there who care about both providing value to customers while also keeping team morale high.

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

#150

Post by theptip »

swiftcoder wrote: post #63
theptip wrote: post #33

This seems mostly good for restaurants, some concerns I had from the title seem to be handled reasonably. It’s not preventing “can anyone cover Saturday” messages in a group chat. Just the case where shift changes are made and workers are _required_ to work outside their contracted hours. Seems this would fit with what good food service employers do, would put pressure on the more abusive fast food chains. Maybe the…

It only bans uncontracted oncall. If your job description includes on call responsibilities (and compensates for them appropriately), it doesn’t appear that would be a problem?

This seems to be the crux, I couldn’t find a place where the bill explicitly says, so AIUI the rule making could fall either way.

Are you “compensated for being oncall” if your contract says you may do some unspecified amount of oncall, and your pay doesn’t change if you do or don’t?

You could imagine a judge / regulator deciding either way right?

Post reply on HN