3 ms·

> "being available" is not in any definition of labor I've ever read. If you're a firefighter, is it labor to be at the station playing cards, just because the

> "being available" is not in any definition of labor I've ever read. If you're a firefighter, is it labor to be at the station playing cards, just because there aren't any calls coming in right now? If you're an ER physician, is it not labor to be waiting for patients on a quiet night? > Reading a piece of fiction on my couch is not labor under any reasonable definition, because I am not working. If it's a Saturday and being on-call is preventing you from buying groceries or going to the movies, then being on your couch reading a piece of fiction is labor. If it's the Fourth of July and being on-call is preventing you from having a beer at the barbecue, then that's labor. "Labor" isn't just the activities for which you are actively producing value for somebody else. Labor is any time your allowed options are restricted as a result of your employer's decisions. Sometimes, those restrictions dictate only a single option of being on-site working on a specific task. Sometimes, those restrictions allow multiple options have some flexibility to them, but the existence of those restrictions at all means that it is still labor being required of you.

joshuamorton 4y ago
> "Labor" isn't just the activities for which you are actively producing value for somebody else. Labor is any time your allowed options are restricted as a result of your employer's decisions. Like I said, this is an abnormal definition of labor. It would mean, for example, that I am laboring 24/7, because there are some thing that my employment agreement does not allow me to ever do. If you'd like to work under that definition of labor, that's fine, but then you cannot square it with an hourly-wage based definition of compensation for labor, so "time and a half for additional hour beyond 40" makes no sense in such a context. I fully support people being compensated for such inconvenience. I don't think it makes sense to expect a greater-than-normal-work-time compensation for a lesser-than-normal-work-time inconvenience.
- sdf4j 4y ago
  What do you mean by lesser-than-normal-work-time inconvenience? Congratulations if you don't feel the inconvenience of pausing everything waiting for a call. For me that's more inconvenient than predictable 9to5 duties.
  - ornornor 4y ago
    I don’t know why it’s so hard to get your point across. 100% agree with you.
  - joshuamorton 4y ago
    To clarify, do you mean that you would rather be required to work all day Saturday than to be oncall all day Saturday?
    - krageon 4y ago
      What's the difference?
      - Morgawr 4y ago
        Are you genuinely asking what is the difference between having to occasionally fix an outage/alert from the comfort of your house vs having to consistently sit *in the office* dealing with all kinds of non-urgent task like answering emails, reporting bugs, writing code, attending meetings, responding to chat pings, etc with the expectation that you will be doing that for the entire 9 to 5 duration of your shift before you are allowed to go back home to your family?
        hurflmurfl 4y ago
        I believe that the difference IS obvious, but it's the "absolute" difference. The relative difference may very well not exist between the two scenarios. If I can't just go to the beach with my wife, if I can't go walk the dog in the farther-away park, if I can't play an online game that lasts over 40 minutes per match, if I can't schedule a music lesson - then if the above is my definition of free time, then it's going to be difficult to convince me that there's a difference between "you can't do this because you're working" and "you can't do this because you're on-call". All it takes is that I take "can't do it" seriously enough. If your typical day-off is filled with "short" activities, if you being on-call doesn't affect plans of other people close to you, if you plan your month so that you do all the housework & chores on your on-call days, then you'll probably be OK and will testify to the huge difference between the two. The perception of this difference will thus vary from person to person, from circumstances to circumstances, from lifestyle to lifestyle.

joshuamorton 4y ago

> "Labor" isn't just the activities for which you are actively producing value for somebody else. Labor is any time your allowed options are restricted as a result of your employer's decisions. Like I said, this is an abnormal definition of labor. It would mean, for example, that I am laboring 24/7, because there are some thing that my employment agreement does not allow me to ever do. If you'd like to work under that definition of labor, that's fine, but then you cannot square it with an hourly-wage based definition of compensation for labor, so "time and a half for additional hour beyond 40" makes no sense in such a context. I fully support people being compensated for such inconvenience. I don't think it makes sense to expect a greater-than-normal-work-time compensation for a lesser-than-normal-work-time inconvenience.

sdf4j 4y ago
What do you mean by lesser-than-normal-work-time inconvenience? Congratulations if you don't feel the inconvenience of pausing everything waiting for a call. For me that's more inconvenient than predictable 9to5 duties.
- ornornor 4y ago
  I don’t know why it’s so hard to get your point across. 100% agree with you.
- joshuamorton 4y ago
  To clarify, do you mean that you would rather be required to work all day Saturday than to be oncall all day Saturday?
  - krageon 4y ago
    What's the difference?
    - Morgawr 4y ago
      Are you genuinely asking what is the difference between having to occasionally fix an outage/alert from the comfort of your house vs having to consistently sit *in the office* dealing with all kinds of non-urgent task like answering emails, reporting bugs, writing code, attending meetings, responding to chat pings, etc with the expectation that you will be doing that for the entire 9 to 5 duration of your shift before you are allowed to go back home to your family?
      - hurflmurfl 4y ago
        I believe that the difference IS obvious, but it's the "absolute" difference. The relative difference may very well not exist between the two scenarios. If I can't just go to the beach with my wife, if I can't go walk the dog in the farther-away park, if I can't play an online game that lasts over 40 minutes per match, if I can't schedule a music lesson - then if the above is my definition of free time, then it's going to be difficult to convince me that there's a difference between "you can't do this because you're working" and "you can't do this because you're on-call". All it takes is that I take "can't do it" seriously enough. If your typical day-off is filled with "short" activities, if you being on-call doesn't affect plans of other people close to you, if you plan your month so that you do all the housework & chores on your on-call days, then you'll probably be OK and will testify to the huge difference between the two. The perception of this difference will thus vary from person to person, from circumstances to circumstances, from lifestyle to lifestyle.