3 ms·
It seems perfectly okay if you were hired at a job where on-call is a stated requirement. Is this a controversial opinion? I’ll admit that I sometimes find myse
by emerged 5y ago
It seems perfectly okay if you were hired at a job where on-call is a stated requirement. Is this a controversial opinion? I’ll admit that I sometimes find myself out of phase with some of the dominant HN views on at-will employment, but it would be useful for me to know what the perceived flaw in my stance is.
- monksy 5y agoNo. If a job is expecting you to be oncall is the part of your job, they are looking for ways to not pay you for the work. (This is not talking about an occasional once a year expectation. ) This is a rotating or permnant basis of where you are expected to be ready to work and they're not paying you.
- austhrow743 5y agoIf someone offers you money while at the same time providing a list of things you need to do to get that money, they are paying you to do those things.
- ipaddr 5y agoYou are agreeing for them not to pay you standard pay for 24 hour availability. The company is getting out of paying for that availability.
- joshuamorton 5y agoSo if you insist on not doing oncall and they reduce your salary, were you getting paid for oncall or not?
- monksy 5y agoIf you are expected to be on call you should calculate that as part as your hourly salary. You can quickly be a person that is working below minimum wage.