4 ms·

On-call is meant to be for rare emergencies. If you're getting paged outside of work hours on each 1 week shift then something is wrong. It should in no way be

by niij 4y ago

On-call is meant to be for rare emergencies. If you're getting paged outside of work hours on each 1 week shift then something is wrong. It should in no way be equivalent to 168 hours of work.

xur17 4y ago
Agreed. I feel like there are significantly different "on call" expectations being discussed in the comments for this post.
PeterisP 4y ago
If there is an obligation to respond within a certain time, and an obligation to avoid certain activities (whatever you imagine that makes you unable to respond) then those are work hours even if nobody calls. It's exactly like a fireighter shift or call center shift where there happen to be no incoming calls, or a night shift at a remote gas station if no customers come during that night. And if you're getting paged outside of work hours, then there's zero obligation to answer your phone. There's no middle ground. If the employer says that these aren't working hours, they have zero right to ask what you're doing at these hours, much less put any conditions on it; it's your right to spend that time fishing in a remote lake with no cell phone service or go on a date or whatever and not even explain anything without any reprimand when you arrive at your scheduled start of work time; and if they want you to commit to a shift, well, "a shift" where employer tells you what to do (e.g. do not go fishing to a remote lake and don't sleep for 12 hours with your phone off) is by definition work hours. It is quite plausible that most of the times most employees will pick up the phone and solve reasonable issues, but that's an extra courtesy from the employee, going beyond what you can demand or expect; but the moment you start to require that, or ask an employee to precommit that they will definitely be monitoring their phone for rapid response, that means you're effectively assigning those hours as work hours. It's understandable that being on-call can be very light work in many cases (not all - quite a few counterexamples in this discussion), so you can agree on different compensation for them, but those definitely are work hours (they definitely aren't non-work hours, and there is no middle ground) and thus any rules on length of shifts and rest between shifts can and should apply also for on-call hours.
- niij 4y ago
  If someone works an on-call rotation and was told about it during the interview process then I see no issue with it. It's baked into the agreed-upon compensation already. I don't see how you can declare what an employer/employee are allowed to agree to. Working an on-call is completely reasonable for a salaried employee. If the terms changed after you were hired and you're bound by a contract (and cannot leave without penalty for a certain timeframe) then things would be very different. But the majority of the HN audience is in the U.S. where employment is generally at will.
  - PeterisP 4y ago
    > I don't see how you can declare what an employer/employee are allowed to agree to. Okay, I am coming from a non-US perspective where it's obvious that you can declare what employer/employee are allowed to agree to - "employee rights" means those things which are unalienable and nonnegotiable. I'll simply quote the universal declaration of human rights "24. Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay." - not only do countries have the right to intervene in employer/employee contracts, they have a duty to do so. If local employment law permits companies to require salaried employees to work 168 hours a week, then that law is literally enabling violation of human rights and should be changed.
    - niij 4y ago
      and that's great in theory, yet incredibly vague. I doubt it's targeting HCI that are predominantly on-call: medical professionals, infrastructure engineers, programmers, etc. I picture it as critical of 996 working hours and similar. In any case I suppose we have different expectations on what's reasonable. If you think a handful of pages per year from my consentual employer is infringing on my fundamental human rights then there's not much I can say to convince you otherwise.
      - PeterisP 4y ago
        I'm looking at this exactly from the perspective of jobs like medical professionals, infrastructure engineers - I have worked in power infrastructure and have relatives in medicine - where locally none of them are on-call (because the law proscribes this clear boundary); they do 12-18-24 hour shifts of work time, and once the shift ends, they can be (and often are) unreachable. It's not vague, it's extremely clear and simple. Even in a low-volume alert-monitoring position for infrastructure where you might get a few incidents per week (so zero incidents on a median shift) every shift is work time, and scheduled appropriately. It's not about the number of pages you get, but about the differing expectations on boundaries between your employer and your private time. I do have a strong expectation that employers should not be able to set any restrictions of what people will do in their non-work time, or even ask whether the employer will be out-of-service this weekend, in my opinion that is crossing a line. As I said, it's entirely reasonable if you get a handful of pages per year and service them - I also have been in roles where I got a handful of night calls per year and happily did what was useful, and I'd expect that in most cases that's okay for most people. However, if it becomes a requirement where I or you must be "on alert" for a whole week, then IMHO that's not reasonable anymore; I answered those calls but I had no duty to be ready for them and abstain from activities that make me unreachable, and if I had a contractual obligation to do so that would be unreasonable (and also a void, unenforceable clause violating employment law). And if you did not volunteer for it but an employer "pushed" this unreasonable requirement on you (e.g. as a condition for employment) then I would actually say that this violated your human rights even if you got zero pages per year; employees should have the practical right to freely decide how they spend their non-work time during the week (and they should have appropriate non-work time) no matter what contracts they sign.

by niij 4y ago

On-call is meant to be for rare emergencies. If you're getting paged outside of work hours on each 1 week shift then something is wrong. It should in no way be equivalent to 168 hours of work.

xur17 4y ago

Agreed. I feel like there are significantly different "on call" expectations being discussed in the comments for this post.

PeterisP 4y ago

If there is an obligation to respond within a certain time, and an obligation to avoid certain activities (whatever you imagine that makes you unable to respond) then those are work hours even if nobody calls. It's exactly like a fireighter shift or call center shift where there happen to be no incoming calls, or a night shift at a remote gas station if no customers come during that night. And if you're getting paged outside of work hours, then there's zero obligation to answer your phone. There's no middle ground. If the employer says that these aren't working hours, they have zero right to ask what you're doing at these hours, much less put any conditions on it; it's your right to spend that time fishing in a remote lake with no cell phone service or go on a date or whatever and not even explain anything without any reprimand when you arrive at your scheduled start of work time; and if they want you to commit to a shift, well, "a shift" where employer tells you what to do (e.g. do not go fishing to a remote lake and don't sleep for 12 hours with your phone off) is by definition work hours. It is quite plausible that most of the times most employees will pick up the phone and solve reasonable issues, but that's an extra courtesy from the employee, going beyond what you can demand or expect; but the moment you start to require that, or ask an employee to precommit that they will definitely be monitoring their phone for rapid response, that means you're effectively assigning those hours as work hours. It's understandable that being on-call can be very light work in many cases (not all - quite a few counterexamples in this discussion), so you can agree on different compensation for them, but those definitely are work hours (they definitely aren't non-work hours, and there is no middle ground) and thus any rules on length of shifts and rest between shifts can and should apply also for on-call hours.

niij 4y ago
If someone works an on-call rotation and was told about it during the interview process then I see no issue with it. It's baked into the agreed-upon compensation already. I don't see how you can declare what an employer/employee are allowed to agree to. Working an on-call is completely reasonable for a salaried employee. If the terms changed after you were hired and you're bound by a contract (and cannot leave without penalty for a certain timeframe) then things would be very different. But the majority of the HN audience is in the U.S. where employment is generally at will.
- PeterisP 4y ago
  > I don't see how you can declare what an employer/employee are allowed to agree to. Okay, I am coming from a non-US perspective where it's obvious that you can declare what employer/employee are allowed to agree to - "employee rights" means those things which are unalienable and nonnegotiable. I'll simply quote the universal declaration of human rights "24. Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay." - not only do countries have the right to intervene in employer/employee contracts, they have a duty to do so. If local employment law permits companies to require salaried employees to work 168 hours a week, then that law is literally enabling violation of human rights and should be changed.
  - niij 4y ago
    and that's great in theory, yet incredibly vague. I doubt it's targeting HCI that are predominantly on-call: medical professionals, infrastructure engineers, programmers, etc. I picture it as critical of 996 working hours and similar. In any case I suppose we have different expectations on what's reasonable. If you think a handful of pages per year from my consentual employer is infringing on my fundamental human rights then there's not much I can say to convince you otherwise.
    - PeterisP 4y ago
      I'm looking at this exactly from the perspective of jobs like medical professionals, infrastructure engineers - I have worked in power infrastructure and have relatives in medicine - where locally none of them are on-call (because the law proscribes this clear boundary); they do 12-18-24 hour shifts of work time, and once the shift ends, they can be (and often are) unreachable. It's not vague, it's extremely clear and simple. Even in a low-volume alert-monitoring position for infrastructure where you might get a few incidents per week (so zero incidents on a median shift) every shift is work time, and scheduled appropriately. It's not about the number of pages you get, but about the differing expectations on boundaries between your employer and your private time. I do have a strong expectation that employers should not be able to set any restrictions of what people will do in their non-work time, or even ask whether the employer will be out-of-service this weekend, in my opinion that is crossing a line. As I said, it's entirely reasonable if you get a handful of pages per year and service them - I also have been in roles where I got a handful of night calls per year and happily did what was useful, and I'd expect that in most cases that's okay for most people. However, if it becomes a requirement where I or you must be "on alert" for a whole week, then IMHO that's not reasonable anymore; I answered those calls but I had no duty to be ready for them and abstain from activities that make me unreachable, and if I had a contractual obligation to do so that would be unreasonable (and also a void, unenforceable clause violating employment law). And if you did not volunteer for it but an employer "pushed" this unreasonable requirement on you (e.g. as a condition for employment) then I would actually say that this violated your human rights even if you got zero pages per year; employees should have the practical right to freely decide how they spend their non-work time during the week (and they should have appropriate non-work time) no matter what contracts they sign.