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

211–220 of 238 posts

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

#211

Post by nfw2 »

redserk wrote: post #194
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…

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.

I think you are misunderstanding what the implications of the proposal would be in practice. It says I can increase my hours on my own accord. Cool. I can't leverage my willingness to do so to my benefit because the proposal will make being the counterparty in that discussion illegal. A company may want to hire someone who can be always available, but they can't find that person, i.e. me, because they legally can't make it a job requirement.

I got a perfect score on the SAT reading comprehension section. Thanks for that valuation contribution to the discussion.

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

#212

Post by microgpt »

genewitch wrote: post #205
nekusar wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think the most moral position is reciprocity: I'll give you free stuff if you pay it back/forward. If you want to lock it down then too bad, I locked it down first so pay me.

Which is basically the situation you get from [A]GPL. You still have the option to offer a different license in exchange for money.

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

#213

Post by fuzzy_lumpkins »

nfw2 wrote: post #49
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…

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…

Same. For my role I need to be able to be on hands after 5 here and there, and I knew that going in and works great for me because of the level I’m at. But absolutely employees should have the full choice without coercion or fear of repercussions.

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

#214

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#215

Post by gblargg »

genewitch wrote: post #209
shimman wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I took parent to be arguing that because people get paid at the office even though they aren't working 100% of the time, the same logic would dictate being paid when not at the office. The percentage flip would just mean that they aren't 100% doing leisure activities.

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

#216

Post by swiftcoder »

theptip wrote: post #150
swiftcoder wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Making companies spell this out explicitly in their contracts seems like a reasonable improvement to me

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

#217

Post by fossilwater »

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…

While abusive work environments may not be the norm for the majority of people, this being a law will benefit everyone.

Saying this doesn't happen to you in threads like this just signifies that you don't care, you basically downplay other people's bad experiences because well, it doesn't concern you.

You may not be affected now but you never know when it will happen to you or to someone close to you, and you would be glad that such law exists protecting you.

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

#218

Post by econ »

tengbretson wrote: post #146
Jgrubb wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

What if you did?

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

#219

Post by econ »

bellowsgulch wrote: post #160
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…

Despite dang and others saying x or y about Hacker News and how such and such is a noob opinion—-the people themselves, the demographic, has changed and I’ve seen it over the years.

Have the thought leaders been replaced with confused people???

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

#220

Post by jackfischer »

quadrifoliate wrote: post #171
jackfischer wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> Why is this a government issue at all? For the same reason anything is a government issue, i.e. that we regulate acceptable and unacceptable behaviors as a society, and periodically adjust what we find acceptable? If your employer starts dumping large amounts of trash on your property tomorrow and says "oh that's just part of our relationship with you", I bet you'll want to get the government involved real quick be…

The line of what rises to the level of "solve it with force", eg solve it with legal intervention, is understandably blurry. But in the trash example, if you indeed never agreed to it, that's already a legal issue and rightly so. This OTOH is a private aspect of the employee employer relationship and not exactly a human rights abuse like some of the pearl clutching comments here suggest FWIW writing as someone who went through and goes through very intense on call and all hours availability and firefighting for weeks on end, something I chose voluntarily. I don't want anyone interfering with my ability to choose that and accomplish what we accomplished.
Post reply on HN