6 ms·

This is just annoying for those with legitimate need to send messages. Like trying to solve sick leave vacancies or conveying practicalities.

standardUser 5y ago
Is it annoying? I don't think this article goes into enough depth to drawn any conclusions, let alone to conclude that the law was written to be as onerous as possible in common situations like these.
mym1990 5y ago
Everyone will try to justify their need to send messages as 'legitimate'. I imagine with this law that communication will become more proactive. If you need to solve a problem, do it earlier than later. If it is an emergency, than have an actual plan laid out.
- BiteCode_dev 5y ago
  Well, doctors and firefighters are legitimate. I can be similarly on call for data center duty. The problem is to well define those. But all in all, I don't mind my clients texting me after work hours. I just put my phone on mute.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - ratww 5y ago
    There is already a very simple solution to solve being "on call": pay the damn person for the hours they need to be ready to answer the phone. That's how Doctors and Firefighters (and developers!) do in places I lived. If I need to be sober or awake, or can't put my phone on mute... well, then I'm obviously on the clock. I also don't mind my company texting or calling for emergencies, but babysitting the system for free on PagerDuty like some SV companies ask to is incredibly stupid.
rjzzleep 5y ago
In Germany you - the employee - have to inform the workplace of sick leave before a certain time. And you're liable if you don't. But I'm sure that nobody will fine you for asking if someone that is sick that didn't report it. Some of these comments here are just strawman arguments.
- chrisseaton 5y ago
  > In Germany you - the employee - have to inform the workplace of sick leave before a certain time. And you're liable if you don't. You have to tell them you're going to be sick before you're sick?
  - marcosdumay 5y ago
    I read that as you have to inform before your shift starts.
- rightbyte 5y ago
  Ye, well but you can call in sick the same morning as you were supposed to go to work. Depending on the work, trying to fill the vacancy with off duty workers can be rather important. Lets say a folding bridge operator or something. Devs on the other hand almost never has work that has to be done right now, every day. With proper planning the "almost never" is just "never".
  - rjzzleep 5y ago
    Well then you need to make sure it's covered by your contract with the off-duty workers. If it's covered by the contract then you have nothing to worry about with this law anyway. If it isn't tough luck. Most countries already had rules about this. The thing with rules and laws is that they only matter when employees actually legally enforce them. When employees are scared of their employers it's generally fuckall for employers anyway. I don't get why people here freak out about this.
- tremon 5y ago
  The GP's comment is about what the employer does next. So, you as an employee inform the workplace that you're sick, as is required. Can the workplace now contact your (off-duty) colleagues to ask if someone can take over your shift? I would say that is a reasonable thing for an employer to do when faced with a scheduling emergency.
Jiro 5y ago
News reporting tends to leave out nuances. We need to see the text of the regulation to see if it actually has exceptions for situations like that. (Or rather, someone who speaks Portuguese needs to see it.)
vincnetas 5y ago
there's a saying that your lack of planning is not my emergency. but yes of course it's not black and white. there can be situations when you need to contact people.
- rightbyte 5y ago
  I agree. But there are alot of posts in society that need to be manned. I don't see how that is solvable if you can't contact off duty workers. Even if you have buffer extra on-duty workers you hit the long tail at some point. And I don't see how there could be standby extras for more unique posts.

standardUser 5y ago

Is it annoying? I don't think this article goes into enough depth to drawn any conclusions, let alone to conclude that the law was written to be as onerous as possible in common situations like these.

mym1990 5y ago

Everyone will try to justify their need to send messages as 'legitimate'. I imagine with this law that communication will become more proactive. If you need to solve a problem, do it earlier than later. If it is an emergency, than have an actual plan laid out.

BiteCode_dev 5y ago
Well, doctors and firefighters are legitimate. I can be similarly on call for data center duty. The problem is to well define those. But all in all, I don't mind my clients texting me after work hours. I just put my phone on mute.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- ratww 5y ago
  There is already a very simple solution to solve being "on call": pay the damn person for the hours they need to be ready to answer the phone. That's how Doctors and Firefighters (and developers!) do in places I lived. If I need to be sober or awake, or can't put my phone on mute... well, then I'm obviously on the clock. I also don't mind my company texting or calling for emergencies, but babysitting the system for free on PagerDuty like some SV companies ask to is incredibly stupid.

rjzzleep 5y ago

In Germany you - the employee - have to inform the workplace of sick leave before a certain time. And you're liable if you don't. But I'm sure that nobody will fine you for asking if someone that is sick that didn't report it. Some of these comments here are just strawman arguments.

chrisseaton 5y ago
> In Germany you - the employee - have to inform the workplace of sick leave before a certain time. And you're liable if you don't. You have to tell them you're going to be sick before you're sick?
- marcosdumay 5y ago
  I read that as you have to inform before your shift starts.
rightbyte 5y ago
Ye, well but you can call in sick the same morning as you were supposed to go to work. Depending on the work, trying to fill the vacancy with off duty workers can be rather important. Lets say a folding bridge operator or something. Devs on the other hand almost never has work that has to be done right now, every day. With proper planning the "almost never" is just "never".
- rjzzleep 5y ago
  Well then you need to make sure it's covered by your contract with the off-duty workers. If it's covered by the contract then you have nothing to worry about with this law anyway. If it isn't tough luck. Most countries already had rules about this. The thing with rules and laws is that they only matter when employees actually legally enforce them. When employees are scared of their employers it's generally fuckall for employers anyway. I don't get why people here freak out about this.
tremon 5y ago
The GP's comment is about what the employer does next. So, you as an employee inform the workplace that you're sick, as is required. Can the workplace now contact your (off-duty) colleagues to ask if someone can take over your shift? I would say that is a reasonable thing for an employer to do when faced with a scheduling emergency.

Jiro 5y ago

News reporting tends to leave out nuances. We need to see the text of the regulation to see if it actually has exceptions for situations like that. (Or rather, someone who speaks Portuguese needs to see it.)

vincnetas 5y ago

there's a saying that your lack of planning is not my emergency. but yes of course it's not black and white. there can be situations when you need to contact people.

rightbyte 5y ago
I agree. But there are alot of posts in society that need to be manned. I don't see how that is solvable if you can't contact off duty workers. Even if you have buffer extra on-duty workers you hit the long tail at some point. And I don't see how there could be standby extras for more unique posts.