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

201–210 of 238 posts

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

#201

Post by SE5pc3JhY2lzdA »

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…

This is the equivalent of "what global warming, it was so cold today"

Conversely, I've seen the latest heat wave in France to try to justify global warming all over HN comments, when the reality is that this is temperature and not climate.

"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 employers will just play off states against each other."

If someone that worked for me is unwilling to help out in these situations occasionally, I wouldn't make them do anything (and follow the law). I also wouldn't promote them.

Many higher level positions require a certain level of responsibility, and this would just show me that the person can't handle it.

I do agree though. If this law were in Michigan and I had a company here, any job that required after hours communication would be outsourced to another state or country.

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

#202

Post by atoav »

duxup wrote: post #89
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…

I think "this doesn't happen to me" is a valid response. We're all here sharing. I find the internet full of panic and fear and negativity these days and it overstates how pervasive a thing is. Example: I travel to Disney World sometimes. There's a recent hubub about transportation and the blame is all on "OMG THE INFLUENCERS ARE EVERYWHERE". In those situations it's interesting how many people will spread those stor…

Counterpoint: anecdotal evidence is sometimes actively harmful and you should consider not sharing it in certain situations.

I know, some people have the reflexive urge to make every situation about themselves, but I think you should instead be aware that (1) your own experience is not necessarily representative of the broader reality and (2) even if it is may distract from the topic being discussed.

Don't get me wrong, everybodies lived experience is in fact valid. And yet that doesn't mean it is appropriate to share it at all times. If your friend tells you their newborn died during childbirth telling them: "Well mine didn't" would be actively abusive behavior. If someone tells you an intimate story about how being poor affected them as a child, there are certain ways to share your experience of how your parents always bought you everything you wanted that productively add to the topic and others that distract from it.

Always remember that everybody just sharing their experience is a different thing from you reacting on some others experience. What may be a fun anecdote for you, may be a life-defining experience for others.

Aside from these examples anecdotal evidence can be destructive if it ignores that the plural of anecdotes is not data.

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

#203

Post by bob1029 »

I've worked for more than one small company that has an unstated policy to not hire employees who live in CA or NY. It sounds like MI might wind up on that list. I know of certain employees who reside in that state right now who are pulling ridiculous hours just to keep the business alive. None of them were forced into it or are otherwise unhappy with the circumstances they find themselves in. I've had many opportunities to re-enter the W2 labor pool and decided to stay out in the high seas.

Many moons ago, when I signed up to work at Samsung Austin Semiconductor they told me I might be responsible for odd hours. I agreed to this and had a pager strapped to my body until the day I quit the job 3 years later. No one seems to get weird about a doctor-style pager ripping employees out of slumber at 2am. The only time I got a break from the pager is when I was on a 777 on my way to South Korea. Then I got a new kind of pager when I arrived. Somehow teams messages and outlook are super evil by comparison to this.

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

#204

Post by genewitch »

SE5pc3JhY2lzdA wrote: post #201
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…

This is the equivalent of "what global warming, it was so cold today" Conversely, I've seen the latest heat wave in France to try to justify global warming all over HN comments, when the reality is that this is temperature and not climate. "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 emplo…

do you pay overtime for helping out?

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

#205

Post by genewitch »

nekusar wrote: post #178
microgpt wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't work for free for capitalists. What's your opinion on [cuck licensing]( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48708655 )?

People who choose MIT or BSD licenses etm are idiots. I'm staunchly for AGPL3, and harsh and strong enforcement actions against violators. You know, what the companies would do to us. Tit for tat.

i like giving stuff away for free, but if it's tenable for the market i'll look at agpl3. The thing that would break my spirit is if something i made was used, for free, by a company to infringe on privacy or show interstitial ads. I used to not care, now i do.

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

#206

Post by genewitch »

calvinmorrison wrote: post #105
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…

one of the most common in lower paying jobs is just CONSTANT scheduling churn, group texts with the entire restaurant/bar you're supposed to on. Instead of having a normal schedule everything is ad hoc

i heard, long ago, there's a reason for that. it can't be the nonsense it looks like since so many established places use ad-hoc scheduling, it appears. I like the other kind of ad-hoc scheduling, which is i roll in when i get in, and take lunch when i get hungry, and leave when traffic has cleared up.

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

#207

Post by whatever1 »

In America the definition of at will employment is so broad that employee exploitation is not covered. Technically you sign you will work at least 40 hours per week. So 120 hours is fine by the law. And if you die at work, hey it was your choice.

Now on the opposite side, I also understand that there can be a handful of cases in a year where you really need to work outside the work hours, law should not be making businesses so inflexible that they are doomed to fail.

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

#208

Post by genewitch »

encrypted_bird wrote: post #176
annzabelle wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

One thing that happens a LOT in retail is, say if a store closes at 10pm, a customer will walk in at 9:58pm, be there for 30 min to an hour, and employees HAVE to stay until they leave and cannot kick them out. If they do, they can get written up. Not all businesses do this obviously, but I've worked in retail long enough to have seen this happen a lot.

that's fine if the business is paying overtime for those employees, i imagine if that bumps them above 32 hours (for health coverage requirements) or over 40 hours thus requiring overtime, and it happens enough, they'll hire a minimum wage security guard to keep customers from coming in at 2 'til.

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

#209

Post by genewitch »

shimman wrote: post #128
throwaway85825 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lots of in office people aren't doing work 100% of the time, they still get paid because they could be asked to do something. Same goes for on call, just with a flipped percentage. Further for non fixed work schedules any shifts that aren't scheduled two weeks in advance should be paid overtime.

Why is the onus on workers to make sure they are working 100.00% of the time? It's not their company, they aren't management. If you want them to cosplay as managers maybe pay them as such rather than trying to pit them amongst each other.

i can't figure out what some of the commentary here is borne from. "you're not working 100% of the time so it's ok if they ask you to work outside of normal hours" is sadistic.

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

#210

Post by nfw2 »

pixl97 wrote: post #193
nfw2 wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Top down laws from the government preventing people from entering contracts that they are eager to take 1. contribute to the "bad economy" you refer to as if it's some unpredictable moon cycle and 2. affect my ability to find a good job if the economy does turn bad.

So no, to hell with that paternalism.

Post reply on HN