Michigan bill would bar employers from requiring after-hours coms with workers • Hacker News Board

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

#161

Post by Henchman21 » Sun, Jun 28, 2026, 10:01 PM UTC

jackfischer wrote: post #157

quadrifoliate wrote: post #44

Lots of privilege in this thread showing. This is the equivalent of "what global warming, it was so cold today". Please remember that just because you aren't expected to have consistent unpaid after-hours comms doesn't mean that others don't. Bills like this would help a lot of people who are victims of "can you just take a look at this real quick" at 6pm. It does need to be at the country level though, otherwise emp…

Why is this a government issue at all? It was unclear from the article why some contingent that doesn't like their relationship with their employer ought to be able to inflict their solution on everyone in Michigan via politics as the mechanism instead of the market

Government is meant, in part, to give some amount of power & push-back to the least among us. Representative government is the solution we arrived at after we decided it was kinda shitty to just kill each other.

Why are you trying to deny people the representation they deserve and prevent the government from doing something people might want? Seems like some ideologically-based bullshit to me.

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

#162

Post by annzabelle » Sun, Jun 28, 2026, 10:02 PM UTC

otherme123 wrote: post #136

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…

When US people come to Europe, they are shocked because indeed a business closes at 2 pm, and if you arrive at 2:05 pm it is your fault. If your contract says 9-5, you are not expected to work at 6 pm in the name of customers. The business need to hire someone to cover the evening, and customers get used to buy things in comercial hours. Yes, some people do overtime, but society structured around the fact that worker…

Retail workers in the US are paid hourly and clock in and clock out to shifts, with strict rules around schedules and breaks. If a retail business has a stated closing time (say, 7pm), and you show up at 7:05 (or honestly 6:55), you will not be served.

The main detriment to quality of life of retail workers is that most of them are kept part time below the number of hours where employer health insurance is mandatory, and that most large businesses no longer do set weekly shift schedules, and instead it's algorithmically determined and random.

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

#163

Post by nunez » Sun, Jun 28, 2026, 10:04 PM UTC

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.

Loads of jobs where this is expected: sales, education, hospitality, definitely the entertainment industry, etc.

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

#164

Post by bluehatbrit » Sun, Jun 28, 2026, 10:05 PM UTC

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…

All of these are the problem of the business, and negatively impact the employees ability to disconnect and enjoy their free time.

If you need an executive assistant to be available in the evenings, hire evening cover. If it's not worth it to the employer pay for that cover, then why should it be on the employee to do that work for free during their time off?

Employers need to remember that employees often don't have a stake in the business. Free extra work gains them nothing, and loses them what little free time they had. That's not a trade, it's theft of time through a power imbalance.

It's reasonable for a business to pay the proper price for the full services it receives from it's staff. Businesses have proven they're unable to be fair in this regard, so it's reasonable to regulate them.

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

#165

Post by roughly » Sun, Jun 28, 2026, 10:08 PM UTC

tbrownaw wrote: post #124

grayhatter wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it doesn't, or at the very least, that wasn't my read and I don't think that's a reasonable interpretation. The comment starts with the topic, shock at the lack of curiosity from a group happy to comment in the theme of news interesting to hackers, and concludes with an argument that someone sharing their life/experience is something valuable. IMO, the only reasonable argument one could take, is that roughly beli…

I don't really see any other interpretation of saying that if someone says you're wrong you should update your worldview. There isn't much that could be other than a call for unquestioning belief.

You saying “this doesn’t happen to me” and someone else saying “it happens to me” is not that person saying you’re wrong. It does not happen to you, that has no bearing on whether it happens to them. Them suggesting it happens to them gives you information you did not have before, namely that a thing happens that you have not personally experienced. That you haven’t personally experienced a thing doesn’t make you wrong, it makes you a human with a particular life story, just like them. We’re all the blind men groping at the elephant.

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

#166

Post by rainsford » Sun, Jun 28, 2026, 10:09 PM UTC

jackfischer wrote: post #157

quadrifoliate wrote: post #44

Lots of privilege in this thread showing. This is the equivalent of "what global warming, it was so cold today". Please remember that just because you aren't expected to have consistent unpaid after-hours comms doesn't mean that others don't. Bills like this would help a lot of people who are victims of "can you just take a look at this real quick" at 6pm. It does need to be at the country level though, otherwise emp…

Why is this a government issue at all? It was unclear from the article why some contingent that doesn't like their relationship with their employer ought to be able to inflict their solution on everyone in Michigan via politics as the mechanism instead of the market

Government regulation around conditions of employment has a very long history, because "the market" has a long history of producing things like Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire when it's allowed to.

While in theory the market punishes bad employers by making people not want to work for them, the reality is that for all but the most in-demand individuals, the power asymmetry between an individual and their employer is such that some level of government regulation is probably needed to maintain reasonable working conditions. You could certainly argue whether regulating this particular thing is a good idea or not of course.

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

#167

Post by elevation » Sun, Jun 28, 2026, 10:17 PM UTC

nunez wrote: post #158

Getting a separate phone and phone number for work has been one of the biggest quality of life improvements for my work life balance. It's a small change in the macro, but doing this enabled me to (a) choose the device I want, (b) keep work stuff off of my personal phone, and, most importantly, (c) COMPLETELY disconnect from work when the day is done. This became necessary after COVID induced WFH forced work into the…

A friend with an iPhone runs his a couple businesses with the Quo app (nee OpenPhone) which allows him to manage calls/sms for multiple business numbers from his personal phone while allowing him to automatically disable ringing after 5pm when he leaves the office to be a family man.

My problem is that my customers prefer to reach me over iMessage, and porting my number to any "business phone in an app" means I'd be downgrading to unreliable SMS in a green bubble. So if I want to separate work/personal use, I'd need to carry a second iPhone.

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

#168

Post by customguy » Sun, Jun 28, 2026, 10:20 PM UTC

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…

> I think stuff like this is much better settled with compensation than legislation.

Then you'd still need legislation for the compensation, or it ain't happening.

> Someone's shift ends at 2pm and you take over. At 2:05 you realize you need to ask them if a client issue got resolved or if they did some important item on their task list.

Not allowed to require someone to pick up the phone != not allowed to call them. And I think some general sense still applies, the spirit of the law, if you will. If it happens rarely, is only about important stuff, is not taken for granted (!), I think most people wouldn't mind. If you treat a worker well and appreciate them doing something they didn't have to do, they will notice. And if they're a jerk causing grief for the company over technicalities, just because they can, you will notice, and the sooner the better.

But let's say no, you can't even look at them once they're off the clock, much less ask them anything. Then the person who fucked up the handover will never do whatever mistake lead to that again. If it was an unavoidable thing, something that just happens every now and then, a cosmic ray that flipped a bit -- why expect to be able to externalize those costs to the unpaid worker? It's part of the business, whatever that business is.

> eventually that extra cost gets passed down to customers.

Funny how it's never the third yacht for the CEO who cannot even not look goofy on one that does that, but grandma not being called from one of her 3 jobs at 2am, that will absolutely drive costs through the roof!

Kidding aside though, you opened with

> my friends would de-prioritize 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?

But by the end of your comment, this is a problem that raises prices for everyone? Huh? Am I missing something?

And hey, it also slightly raises salaries and lowers blood pressure for everyone. It means that when a company does something for me, I know someone wasn't mistreated to make it happen. That's just a cool thing I want as much of in my life as possible.

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

#169

Post by magicalhippo » Sun, Jun 28, 2026, 10:20 PM UTC

tassadarforaiur wrote: post #38

SoftTalker wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

One of the biggest banks in the US forces staff and contractors alike to install a proprietary 2fa app on their personal devices. if you can get a company phone, you can't finish activating the MDM, to install the company 2fa app, without first using that 2fa app on your personal device. Even a company yubikey can't be activated without the 2fa appp, which again, you can't get on a company device without first instal…

Easy fix. The company buys me a second personal phone, which I can then use to set up the work phone which they also buy.

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

#170

Post by sokoloff » Sun, Jun 28, 2026, 10:39 PM UTC

al_borland wrote: post #117

sokoloff wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. I…

It gets lost in both directions, though. If you get paid 100 total units now for the value you bring to your company, how do you know that you wouldn’t get 95 units base and 5 units of on-call for the identical value that you create?