3 ms·

yeah. totally agree. i call bullshit on being available 24/7/365 when you're the only person doing the job. even if you ignore the implications this has on you,

yeah. totally agree. i call bullshit on being available 24/7/365 when you're the only person doing the job. even if you ignore the implications this has on you, this is a terrible idea if only from the redundancy/keeping the lights on kind-of perspective where if you quit you're left with 0 people doing an "important" job.

bigiain 8y ago
I've told bosses in the past "Your payslip says you're paying me for 40 hrs a week, which was the agreement when you employed me. I think it's reasonable to ask for the next 20hrs at time and a half, and anything beyond that at double time. So if you want me on duty 24x7x365 - to start you'll need to pay me our current agreed 40hr amount, plus 20 hours at time and a half, and 108 hours at double time to cover a full 168 hour week. That's 7.15 times as much as the 40hr/week rate to get 24x7. To get "365", which means I'm also on duty during public holidays, sick days, and vacation days, that'll come out to 8.5 times the 40hr a week rate. Let me know when that rate starts applying to my paycheques, and I'll then stop turning my phone off whenever it suits me outside office hour." Interestingly, none of them have ever taken me up on that, but it's often lead into productive discussions about how you need at least five people to properly cover a 24x7x365 roster - and that the cost of that is quite reasonable - if you genuinely need 24x7x365 coverage.
- lotsofpulp 8y ago
  My leisure time is worth far more than 1.5x or 2x, with each additional hour being exponentially worth more than the last. I would be giving up time with family, excercise (my health), and my other goals, so I don’t see how a simple 2x would even begin to cover the loss of those.
  - bigiain 8y ago
    Yeah - of course that's all true. My numbers are based around super-hard-to-argue-against standard employment law for other professions where I live. If you work as a waiter or a shop assistant that's the sort of overtime deal you get automatically. When you push that minimum legally required remuneration to its obvious extension if your boss is asking you to be on duty 24x7, it's difficult for them to argue a reasonable case _down_ from having to pay you 8 times as much money. The primary aim of that line of reasoning is to point out "if you need my job covered 24x7, employing and paying another four people with my skills to make sure it's covered for the 130 hours a week I'm not in the office is a more reasonable and less expensive way of doing it than trying to make it all my problem." Quite often, in my experience, it's because the boss suddenly has their first customer ever suddenly demanding it, and they've not done the maths already and been immediately able to tell the customer "Sure. That'll cost you about ten times as much as a weekday business hours only support. When would you like us to start billing that? I'll need that in writing, of course."

bigiain 8y ago

I've told bosses in the past "Your payslip says you're paying me for 40 hrs a week, which was the agreement when you employed me. I think it's reasonable to ask for the next 20hrs at time and a half, and anything beyond that at double time. So if you want me on duty 24x7x365 - to start you'll need to pay me our current agreed 40hr amount, plus 20 hours at time and a half, and 108 hours at double time to cover a full 168 hour week. That's 7.15 times as much as the 40hr/week rate to get 24x7. To get "365", which means I'm also on duty during public holidays, sick days, and vacation days, that'll come out to 8.5 times the 40hr a week rate. Let me know when that rate starts applying to my paycheques, and I'll then stop turning my phone off whenever it suits me outside office hour." Interestingly, none of them have ever taken me up on that, but it's often lead into productive discussions about how you need at least five people to properly cover a 24x7x365 roster - and that the cost of that is quite reasonable - if you genuinely need 24x7x365 coverage.

lotsofpulp 8y ago
My leisure time is worth far more than 1.5x or 2x, with each additional hour being exponentially worth more than the last. I would be giving up time with family, excercise (my health), and my other goals, so I don’t see how a simple 2x would even begin to cover the loss of those.
- bigiain 8y ago
  Yeah - of course that's all true. My numbers are based around super-hard-to-argue-against standard employment law for other professions where I live. If you work as a waiter or a shop assistant that's the sort of overtime deal you get automatically. When you push that minimum legally required remuneration to its obvious extension if your boss is asking you to be on duty 24x7, it's difficult for them to argue a reasonable case _down_ from having to pay you 8 times as much money. The primary aim of that line of reasoning is to point out "if you need my job covered 24x7, employing and paying another four people with my skills to make sure it's covered for the 130 hours a week I'm not in the office is a more reasonable and less expensive way of doing it than trying to make it all my problem." Quite often, in my experience, it's because the boss suddenly has their first customer ever suddenly demanding it, and they've not done the maths already and been immediately able to tell the customer "Sure. That'll cost you about ten times as much as a weekday business hours only support. When would you like us to start billing that? I'll need that in writing, of course."