3 ms·
I purposefully did not make an argument against on-call, although I might have easily done that and others have in this thread. All I said is that doing on-call
by yawaramin 5y ago
I purposefully did not make an argument against on-call, although I might have easily done that and others have in this thread. All I said is that doing on-call without pay is wage theft. And this is not an ideological bubble thing, as anyone will quickly understand if they ask a plumber to do on-call for their house plumbing system without pay.
- 1123581321 5y agoA better analogy would be a plumber you pay a handsome annual salary to maintain and improve your pipes--to what degree should they owe some emergency time in return is the question in this thread.
- lotsofpulp 5y agoPlumbers (or companies employing plumbers) warranty their work. Do employees warranty their work for employers? I have never heard of that arrangement in the US.
- 1123581321 5y agoI haven’t heard of that here either. The closest I can think of are sanctions that can be levied on individual employees by professional standards organizations. I do know trades warranties aren’t provided by employees working in that trade to their employer, just to customer individuals or organizations.
- oceanplexian 5y agoI think a another analogy is that you had a plumber do some work for you a day before a leak, and in the middle of the night the pipes start leaking and you need to call him out to prevent property damage. In that case I would absolutely not expect to have to pay extra because he warranties his own work.