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

191–200 of 238 posts

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

#191

Post by al_borland »

sokoloff wrote: post #184
al_borland wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That works as a thought experiment. Though I think someone getting 5 units for on-call will be less annoyed by on-call than someone only getting their base pay, even if it all shakes out to be at the same at the end of the day. With the 5 units, if they work more, they get more. With base pay only, every time that phone rings their hourly rate drops. It may just be optics, but optics make a difference.

Even that scenario works in both directions (as always). Engineering a system that doesn’t require off-hours work comes with a financial penalty to the team members if there’s explicitly segregated on-call pay. Write a good system and your pay drops to 95 units.

That’s true. I suppose I’ve worked in a martyr culture for so long it’s hard to see. I do everything I can to avoid getting called, and make sure if I do get called on something that it never happens again. Most don’t do that, they just brag about being up until 3am working. I sometimes start to feel guilty for not doing that anymore, but it’s usually their own fault.

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

#192

Post by _DeadFred_ »

I want a bill that prevents employees from using their phones at all for work cases. I've seen people who can barely afford their smart phone having to use it for work and then dropping it/breaking it where replacing it is a weeks salary.

Companies should be required to provide the tools needed, and that should include phone if a phone app is required to be used as part of the job. I'd say a replacement guarantee could work, but these sorts of places will fire someone if they requested such a guaranty be fulfilled so the only way is total ban.

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

#193

Post by pixl97 »

nfw2 wrote: post #147
malicka wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

These laws may not do much protecting when the economy is relatively good and people may have a lot more freedom in changing out abusive jobs.

There is something I call the restaurant quality economy measure, a tracking method of how the economy is doing. If you go into a place like Taco Bell, or some otherwise middling restaurant and the service is really bad, and take this as a trend over a lot of eateries then is very likely you live in good economic times. Now switch that, if the average crappy place you go into has really good service then that's a good sign things have gone wrong.

Quality workers have moved down the economic ladder of employment. These people would gladly be doing something that paid more and had more prestige, but that employment doesn't exist.

What does that have to do with your statement. It's when the economy goes really bad employees realize they are in the position of power. It's this pretty much this way right now in most computing related employment, most companies have tightened down and invested more in AI than people. This means your workers will put up with a lot more bullshit in order to not be fired. And when the economy is doing bad all over, that's when the employers break out the abusive bullshit because they can? Are you going to go get a different job?

Be glad the law exists then.

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

#194

Post by redserk »

nfw2 wrote: post #147
malicka wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Not sure why you are deliberately misrepresenting the proposal here. You're free to continue working the extra hours. Maybe spend a few fewer hours working and repalce it with practicing basic reading comprehension.

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

#195

Post by robhlt »

edent wrote: post #3

Android 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…

This is still a thing on Android if your work account is a Google account and uses the Work profile feature. You can pause all apps in the Work profile on a schedule (or on demand), so it includes any work apps you might have in addition to email.

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

#196

Post by Spooky23 »

yamillove wrote: post #99
Spooky23 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your fortunate. If you’re adjacent to operations or power, after hours comms is a common experience.

[flagged]

Not always.

I found myself in a job with golden handcuffs that made it difficult to leave, which went from the best job of my life to a nightmare on earth when a key leader passed away and replaced by someone whose sociopathy was one of his better attributes.

His insane pace put my boss in the hospital from the stress.

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

#197

Post by yamillove »

Spooky23 wrote: post #196
yamillove wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Not always. I found myself in a job with golden handcuffs that made it difficult to leave, which went from the best job of my life to a nightmare on earth when a key leader passed away and replaced by someone whose sociopathy was one of his better attributes. His insane pace put my boss in the hospital from the stress.

[dead]

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

#198

Post by SE5pc3JhY2lzdA »

I suppose if the position requires it, like being on call, companies will just avoid Michigan workers and either out source, or hire remotely in another state.

I'm originally from Michigan and have worked at lots of different jobs. I rarely ever was required to respond after hours, and if I did, it was part of my job (and explained to me in detail when I accepted the position).

Does this apply to Doctors and Nurses?

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

#199

Post by atoav »

roughly wrote: post #175
gofreddygo wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its valid but useless. Think someone says i'm thirsty all the time because there's little clean water available, what's available is expensive but it could be better if we did so-and-so. and someone replies I'm not thirsty.

It’s impossible for a lizard to convince a sheepdog to turn up the thermostat. It’s impossible for a sheepdog to convince a lizard to turn down the thermostat. Which one is right?

The two things you have commented on are not equivalent.

One person offers insight and the other reacts. Such a reaction is inherently on a different plane than a original statement, because you chose to make it about yourself, in the presence of another persons slice of their reality.

To give a crass example:

  A: I had a shitty day, they took my dog and killed it  
  
  B: Well, *my* dog is still alive
To which I would say: Congrats on telegraphing to the world you are a self-centered asshole that wouldn't recognize the concept of empathy if it jumped into their face.

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

#200

Post by atoav »

roughly wrote: post #173
tengbretson wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never bought a sticker like that.

I haven't either. I'm honestly questioning how many resources are being wasting on bumper stickers we don't buy. Is this why I couldn't find the sticker I wanted last week?

Well, I have many stickers I like.
Post reply on HN