3 ms·

It's interesting that both the article and many comments take as a base assumption that on-call should exist and then go into how it should be compensated or st

It's interesting that both the article and many comments take as a base assumption that on-call should exist and then go into how it should be compensated or structured. I would argue that on-call shouldn't exist at all. If a company wants a system to be supported 24/7 it should have three eight hour shifts. Of course companies balk at this, saying it's too expensive, but if their product isn't worth paying extra for then perhaps it's also not worth being up 24/7. This is the sort of thing that should be enforced by law or by a strong union contract because businesses can't be trusted to act in their employees' best interests.

alismayilov 8y ago
In general, 8-hour shifts are more difficult to do than on-call. When you have an on-call duty, you might not get any call at all during the night. However, a shift means you have to be awake during the night which is really bad.
- ThrustVectoring 8y ago
  If you're limiting yourself to co-located teams, sure. US is UTC-8 through UTC-5. Add someone in the EU or South Africa and you cover with someone that's on UTC through UTC+2. Australia, Japan, and SE Asia include UTC+7 through UTC+10. If you're set up for international remote work (or satellite offices), you can get things set up so that someone's always on duty.