Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Australian employees now have the right to ignore work emails, calls after hours

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 449 posts

Re: Australian employees now have the right to ignore work emails, calls after hours

#371

Post by nvarsj »

y-c-o-m-b wrote: post #346
warbeforepeace wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I work for FAANG and have had one page outside of working hours over that last 12 months. I do not respond to emails on weekends or evenings. I do not turn my work laptop on during vacation at all. I leave at home in a safe.

I envy you. I've been on-call numerous times just this month and got paged almost daily, many of them between 10pm and 6am, 2am on average. Our on-call duty is basically house arrest for a week. The worst part is 90% of the pages are not real issues or I can't even do anything about them other than wait for them to self-resolve. It drives me insane and because it's FAANG, it's nearly impossible to get this changed. I…

That on-call doesn't sound healthy at all. Have you tried improving it? You have a strong case for it - such a noisy on-call will miss real issues.

Re: Australian employees now have the right to ignore work emails, calls after hours

#372

Post by CalRobert »

glitcher wrote: post #340
fred_is_fred wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sometimes I get a random thought on a Saturday and send an email so I don’t forget. I have people on my team who view that as a “drop everything, cancel the wedding, pull the car over” level emergency. The issue is they ALL do this to themselves. They put work email on their phones, they have notifications enabled. Nobody asked them to do this, nobody asked them to read email all weekend. Even if I tell them “please…

Help them out by scheduling the email to be sent during business hours?

When did this shift happen? People shouldn’t check email when they don’t want to read it.

Re: Australian employees now have the right to ignore work emails, calls after hours

#373

Post by CalRobert »

Flop7331 wrote: post #356
fred_is_fred wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sometimes I get a random thought on a Saturday and send an email so I don’t forget. I have people on my team who view that as a “drop everything, cancel the wedding, pull the car over” level emergency. The issue is they ALL do this to themselves. They put work email on their phones, they have notifications enabled. Nobody asked them to do this, nobody asked them to read email all weekend. Even if I tell them “please…

That's what paper is for. Not email.

Are you really suggesting people use snail mail simply for async?

Re: Australian employees now have the right to ignore work emails, calls after hours

#374

Post by CalRobert »

fred_is_fred wrote: post #296
CalRobert wrote: post #281

Are people here treating emails like IM's? An email is inherently asynchronous. Why would I expect a response to an email before working hours? When did people start confusing them with synchronous communication?

Sometimes I get a random thought on a Saturday and send an email so I don’t forget. I have people on my team who view that as a “drop everything, cancel the wedding, pull the car over” level emergency. The issue is they ALL do this to themselves. They put work email on their phones, they have notifications enabled. Nobody asked them to do this, nobody asked them to read email all weekend. Even if I tell them “please…

E-mail should not have notifications

Re: Australian employees now have the right to ignore work emails, calls after hours

#375

Post by consteval »

nine_zeros wrote: post #341
consteval wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, because if you're not exploitative that would mean you're producing exactly as much money as you're paying out to your labor, or less. This is impossible in a capitalist system, because you go under. It can be done and sometimes is, but we call that charity. I've seen some businesses that take 100% of their profit and just redistribute it to their employees. But they can never expand, only float, and the company…

> No, because if you're not exploitative that would mean you're producing exactly as much money as you're paying out to your labor, or less. This is an incorrect understanding of exploitation. Even in the most ethical corporation to have ever lived, 100% of the money earned will not go to labor. The money earned by a corporation is always paid out to 1. Employees/suppliers 2. Government 3. Shareholders 4. Company's o…

There are economic systems in which 100% of the value produced is paid out to laborers. We're just not in one.

> Exploitation only starts at stripping your company's assets (labor, loyalty, real estate, supplies, customer goodwill) in order to boost other aspects - usually 3 and 4.

First, this is merely an opinion. It's not a matter of me "misunderstanding" exploitation. It's an opinion that this is when exploitation starts.

Also, this is UNAVOIDABLE. You MUST, necessarily, take some money away from labor to give it to 3 and 4.

Your entire thought process rests on this word here - "stripping". What is that? When does that begin?

Is one dollar stripping? To me, yes, to you, no. What is that magic number? And, if you can find that magic number, why is it correct? And who decides?

Re: Australian employees now have the right to ignore work emails, calls after hours

#376

Post by nine_zeros »

vitaflo wrote: post #350
mulmen wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Theft and fraud.

If you’re bad enough at your job to get fired you basically are a fraud.

> If you’re bad enough at your job to get fired you basically are a fraud.

Depends on who thinks you are bad enough and how they came to the conclusion.

If your boss thinks you are bad enough - the question is why do they think so? Is it laziness, incompetence, or merely small nonsense that the boss couldn't accept retroactively? Is this all via stack rank or fake BS quotas? What is it?

Re: Australian employees now have the right to ignore work emails, calls after hours

#377

Post by ivann »

Der_Einzige wrote: post #370
ivann wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This strike me as a very naive view of the world.

Look at how dominant the USA is compared to the europeans who love to make fun of us for working so hard. The USA is about to be flung into another golden century due to its dominance in GenAI. Frogs/the EU will be too busy eating caiver served by rude waiters to realize that huggingface and mistral are all they have to compete with us. Eventually they won't be able to afford the caiver anymore. You laugh, but look a…

And that's the confirmation. But given how emotional your response is I guess there is something personal to it so I won't push it.

I'm just curious as to why did you make a distinction between France and Europe.

Re: Australian employees now have the right to ignore work emails, calls after hours

#378

Post by nine_zeros »

consteval wrote: post #375
nine_zeros wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No, because if you're not exploitative that would mean you're producing exactly as much money as you're paying out to your labor, or less. This is an incorrect understanding of exploitation. Even in the most ethical corporation to have ever lived, 100% of the money earned will not go to labor. The money earned by a corporation is always paid out to 1. Employees/suppliers 2. Government 3. Shareholders 4. Company's o…

There are economic systems in which 100% of the value produced is paid out to laborers. We're just not in one. > Exploitation only starts at stripping your company's assets (labor, loyalty, real estate, supplies, customer goodwill) in order to boost other aspects - usually 3 and 4. First, this is merely an opinion. It's not a matter of me "misunderstanding" exploitation. It's an opinion that this is when exploitation…

> There are economic systems in which 100% of the value produced is paid out to laborers. We're just not in one.

You will need to give examples.

> Also, this is UNAVOIDABLE. You MUST, necessarily, take some money away from labor to give it to 3 and 4.

Absolutely. Can you point at where this was not implied?

> Your entire thought process rests on this word here - "stripping". What is that? When does that begin?

This where your understanding is completely off. It seems that you are missing the forest for the trees. Instead of focusing on "stripping", try to ask the question, "What steps can the company take when they are stagnating in revenue or margins?"

Peace!

Re: Australian employees now have the right to ignore work emails, calls after hours

#379

Post by glitcher »

CalRobert wrote: post #372
glitcher wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Help them out by scheduling the email to be sent during business hours?

When did this shift happen? People shouldn’t check email when they don’t want to read it.

Often others don't behave in the same way we would or even the way we would expect. My suggestion is in the spirit of trying to offer a little help to your fellow teammates with a few extra clicks, in what seems like a very low effort compromise.

I suppose it depends on your team dynamics, size, structure, etc. I work with a small, tight knit team and if I already knew someone was going to act a little neurotic with regards to a low priority weekend email, I would do the extra few clicks to make their life slightly better. In a large corporate setting maybe I would be less sympathetic, who knows.

Re: Australian employees now have the right to ignore work emails, calls after hours

#380

Post by ImPostingOnHN »

neom wrote: post #338
ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems we're in violent agreement: The sources you provided don't actually dispute the ones I did: indeed, they confirm that the real estate was sold out from under the restaurants. To further cement this point, your last link flat out says what we're all already saying: Private Equity can't/didn't save Red Lobster. This action further distressed individual restaurants, rather than helping them out. Instead, the so…

Why was it worse for the restaurants than the alternative? Why was the rent increased, by how much, and by who?? What was the difference between the payments and how much did it diff from market over time or at whatever time you're talking about. I'm an LP in GGC so I have lots of thoughts, happy to hear yours in detail!

Was the rent increased? Yes.

By how much? By enough to hurt the restaraunts. I'd be happy to hear from you the specifics of how much it was increased, per-restaurant, if that's what you're referring to.

Was it worse for the individual restaraunts than not jacking up the rent? Yes, paying more is worse than paying less.

Was it worse than not being bought out by PE? Probably, but that's the sort of prophesizing about what would have happened had reality been different, in which I'm not interested in participating. What we do know is that a lot of value was extracted from Red Lobster into the pockets of PE, leaving the company a withered husk of its former self, a common PE playbook.

Post reply on HN