3 ms·

On-call is even worse for people with disabilities. I quite literally can't do it unless I stop taking my antipsychotic. Under ADA, I can not be placed on call

On-call is even worse for people with disabilities. I quite literally can't do it unless I stop taking my antipsychotic. Under ADA, I can not be placed on call, regardless of policy, nor can I be discriminated against for that. On-call is not an essential function of being a software developer, with very few exceptions—all of which have nothing to do with "policy" or "fairness". Needless to say, companies (and some coworkers) really don't like this.

mrweasel 4y ago
Not to detract from you comment, but you don't have to have a disability. Some people simply cannot do on-call, disability or not. I had a co-worker at a previous job, he did two or three on-call rotation and told our boss that he couldn't do it. Mentally it's simply to much for him, especially outside business hours where he felt alone with to much responsibility. In terms of abilities and qualifications he was absolutely able to do the job. Nobody complained or got angry with him over it, because everyone could relate. At the other end of the scale I had another co-worker, in a more complicated scenario who absolutely didn't care. The payment for the on-call shifts was very good, so he just grabbed as many as possible. He would just take his laptop golfing, no problem. His reasoning: Either he'd know how to fix the problem, if not he'd just to call someone else and hand of the incident.
- tomg 4y ago
  > Not to detract from you comment, but you don't have to have a disability. Some people simply cannot do on-call, disability or not. Imagine being a single parent; or needing to support elderly or disabled family.
  - mrweasel 4y ago
    I didn’t even think about that, but absolutely. I’m not a single parent, but my wife works in retail and just those late hours make daycare pick ups, late afternoon meeting, on-call and incidents a major hassle.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
henryfjordan 4y ago
Unless you've tested this theory in court it might not be true. It's almost certainly not as cut and dry as you make it seem. Many companies put the same people oncall who write the code, meaning it literally is an essential function of a software developer to provide oncall support. You'd have to argue in court that it's not really essential but it would be situationally dependent. That said, I'd hope most places would be willing to accommodate you. Places I've worked have always treated oncall as a kinda optional "right thing to do". I've never seen anyone punished for missing an alert. You'd have a good argument if that were the case at your company but that approach to oncall is not universal.
- kayodelycaon 4y ago
  That would be one of the exceptions. For example, high-frequency trading firms always need developers on call while they are actively operating. Keeping those systems running correctly is essential to their role in the company. Same with small companies who have no other staff, assuming they even have enough employees (15) to be under ADA. :) For the more common scenario of on-call rotation, it would be very difficult to make that argument because other people can take up the disabled person's shifts.

mrweasel 4y ago

Not to detract from you comment, but you don't have to have a disability. Some people simply cannot do on-call, disability or not. I had a co-worker at a previous job, he did two or three on-call rotation and told our boss that he couldn't do it. Mentally it's simply to much for him, especially outside business hours where he felt alone with to much responsibility. In terms of abilities and qualifications he was absolutely able to do the job. Nobody complained or got angry with him over it, because everyone could relate. At the other end of the scale I had another co-worker, in a more complicated scenario who absolutely didn't care. The payment for the on-call shifts was very good, so he just grabbed as many as possible. He would just take his laptop golfing, no problem. His reasoning: Either he'd know how to fix the problem, if not he'd just to call someone else and hand of the incident.

tomg 4y ago
> Not to detract from you comment, but you don't have to have a disability. Some people simply cannot do on-call, disability or not. Imagine being a single parent; or needing to support elderly or disabled family.
- mrweasel 4y ago
  I didn’t even think about that, but absolutely. I’m not a single parent, but my wife works in retail and just those late hours make daycare pick ups, late afternoon meeting, on-call and incidents a major hassle.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

henryfjordan 4y ago

Unless you've tested this theory in court it might not be true. It's almost certainly not as cut and dry as you make it seem. Many companies put the same people oncall who write the code, meaning it literally is an essential function of a software developer to provide oncall support. You'd have to argue in court that it's not really essential but it would be situationally dependent. That said, I'd hope most places would be willing to accommodate you. Places I've worked have always treated oncall as a kinda optional "right thing to do". I've never seen anyone punished for missing an alert. You'd have a good argument if that were the case at your company but that approach to oncall is not universal.

kayodelycaon 4y ago
That would be one of the exceptions. For example, high-frequency trading firms always need developers on call while they are actively operating. Keeping those systems running correctly is essential to their role in the company. Same with small companies who have no other staff, assuming they even have enough employees (15) to be under ADA. :) For the more common scenario of on-call rotation, it would be very difficult to make that argument because other people can take up the disabled person's shifts.