4 ms·

You are paid 2/3 for time spent at home playing with your kids on the weekend. Unless you are working half the weekend, every weekend you are oncall, the tier-

You are paid 2/3 for time spent at home playing with your kids on the weekend. Unless you are working half the weekend, every weekend you are oncall, the tier-1 OCC policy wins over time-and-a-half for time worked.

thfuran 4y ago
I'm having a bit of trouble reproducing your results. How exactly are you coming up with 2/3 > 3/2?
- joshuamorton 4y ago
  Because, and I can't stress this enough, if I am at home cooking dinner or reading or playing video games, I am not working, so 2/3 of my entire weekend is more than 3/2 of time worked unless I am working 9-5 all day Sunday responding to pages, which no one is. Time and a half for hours worked is only > that 2/3 for time not worked if you're working 50% of the time, which you aren't, at least not regularly.
  - Tao3300 4y ago
    > home cooking dinner What if the call comes right then? Now dinner is fucked. They'd better pay a lot to go messing with my outside life.
    - joshuamorton 4y ago
      I would not cook a risotto while on call, but most dinners are not "fucked" immediately if you have to walk away with a few minutes notice (esp if you have a partner/roommate, but even if not) This is like the equivalent of saying dinner (or your day) is ruined if someone knocks on your front door unexpectedly. No it's not. And yes, you're getting paid 2/3 of your (large) salary for the possibility of this inconvenience.
      - Tao3300 4y ago
        Should be more if you ask me. I'm only going to get so many risottos in my life, but software will always be busted. If that's what employee lives are worth to Google, well, I guess that explains some things.
        joshuamorton 4y ago
        Yes, 65$ an hour for the (relatively low) possibility of a burnt rissoto is truly an injustice. The alternative is that your company expects you to actually work full time for the weekend, since that's what they're paying you for. Is that really what you want?
        Tao3300 4y ago
        > The alternative is that your company expects you to actually work full time for the weekend That's a strawman. Surely there are more alternatives, so I question whether or not you're acting in good faith. There's some dissonance here bc I see you getting viciously defensive (is that really what you want?) over something you're presumably happy about?
        joshuamorton 4y ago
        No I mean economically speaking, of you are being paid your full time (or time and a half rate) the company is rationally going to expect you to actually work during that time. If the company is paying the (overtime) cost of full time work, why would they expect less? Like unless you believe that there is truly no difference in the imposition of "normal" work and oncall situations, and you believe that no one else who is rational can see a difference, it follows that oncall will be compensated less, because it is a lesser imposition to the people who choose to do it. If you believe there are other rational alternatives, present them. Don't deal in innuendo and then claim I'm acting in bad faith. Nor am I being defensive, lol. I absolutely, in good faith, do not believe you fully understand the effects of what you and others in this thread are suggesting. And given that you weren't able to present any alternatives, I still really don't think you do. And the whole take is stupidly privileged, to boot. "I'm only going to get so many risottos in my life". Getting paid $65 an hour to not cook risotto is not an imposition to most people, or even most software engineers.
  - thfuran 4y ago
    >Because, and I can't stress this enough, if I am at home cooking dinner or reading or playing video games, I am not working Unless you happen to be on call, of course. Are you going to advocate for not paying people who work in call centers for the time between phone calls? Being on call is working, even if you've just been told to hurry up and wait.
    - joshuamorton 4y ago
      Please tell me how I can cook dinner at home while sitting at my desk at a call center. If you're going with the inconvenience definition of labor argument, the inconvenience of having to be somewhere specific is greater than...not.

thfuran 4y ago

I'm having a bit of trouble reproducing your results. How exactly are you coming up with 2/3 > 3/2?

joshuamorton 4y ago
Because, and I can't stress this enough, if I am at home cooking dinner or reading or playing video games, I am not working, so 2/3 of my entire weekend is more than 3/2 of time worked unless I am working 9-5 all day Sunday responding to pages, which no one is. Time and a half for hours worked is only > that 2/3 for time not worked if you're working 50% of the time, which you aren't, at least not regularly.
- Tao3300 4y ago
  > home cooking dinner What if the call comes right then? Now dinner is fucked. They'd better pay a lot to go messing with my outside life.
  - joshuamorton 4y ago
    I would not cook a risotto while on call, but most dinners are not "fucked" immediately if you have to walk away with a few minutes notice (esp if you have a partner/roommate, but even if not) This is like the equivalent of saying dinner (or your day) is ruined if someone knocks on your front door unexpectedly. No it's not. And yes, you're getting paid 2/3 of your (large) salary for the possibility of this inconvenience.
    - Tao3300 4y ago
      Should be more if you ask me. I'm only going to get so many risottos in my life, but software will always be busted. If that's what employee lives are worth to Google, well, I guess that explains some things.
      - joshuamorton 4y ago
        Yes, 65$ an hour for the (relatively low) possibility of a burnt rissoto is truly an injustice. The alternative is that your company expects you to actually work full time for the weekend, since that's what they're paying you for. Is that really what you want?
        Tao3300 4y ago
        > The alternative is that your company expects you to actually work full time for the weekend That's a strawman. Surely there are more alternatives, so I question whether or not you're acting in good faith. There's some dissonance here bc I see you getting viciously defensive (is that really what you want?) over something you're presumably happy about?
        joshuamorton 4y ago
        No I mean economically speaking, of you are being paid your full time (or time and a half rate) the company is rationally going to expect you to actually work during that time. If the company is paying the (overtime) cost of full time work, why would they expect less? Like unless you believe that there is truly no difference in the imposition of "normal" work and oncall situations, and you believe that no one else who is rational can see a difference, it follows that oncall will be compensated less, because it is a lesser imposition to the people who choose to do it. If you believe there are other rational alternatives, present them. Don't deal in innuendo and then claim I'm acting in bad faith. Nor am I being defensive, lol. I absolutely, in good faith, do not believe you fully understand the effects of what you and others in this thread are suggesting. And given that you weren't able to present any alternatives, I still really don't think you do. And the whole take is stupidly privileged, to boot. "I'm only going to get so many risottos in my life". Getting paid $65 an hour to not cook risotto is not an imposition to most people, or even most software engineers.
- thfuran 4y ago
  >Because, and I can't stress this enough, if I am at home cooking dinner or reading or playing video games, I am not working Unless you happen to be on call, of course. Are you going to advocate for not paying people who work in call centers for the time between phone calls? Being on call is working, even if you've just been told to hurry up and wait.
  - joshuamorton 4y ago
    Please tell me how I can cook dinner at home while sitting at my desk at a call center. If you're going with the inconvenience definition of labor argument, the inconvenience of having to be somewhere specific is greater than...not.