5 ms·

> To cater for emergencies and jobs with irregular hours, the rule still allows employers to contact their workers, who can only refuse to respond where it is r

> To cater for emergencies and jobs with irregular hours, the rule still allows employers to contact their workers, who can only refuse to respond where it is reasonable to do so. This clause pretty much invalidates the rest of the rule. Why should an employee need to justify their inability (or unwillingness) to respond? I can understand the "jobs with irregular hours", but otherwise shouldn't it be a best effort thing, without any obligation?

hanniabu 2y ago
And what constitutes an emergency. If nobody's wellbeing is at risk then imo it's not an emergency, but I doubt that how a company will interpret it.
- simondotau 2y ago
  The CEO might argue their wellbeing is at risk if they don't receive the bonus for reaching their quarterly targets.
dopylitty 2y ago
This only makes sense if emergencies are strictly defined. For instance "don't come to the office there's a bear inside" is an emergency. "the crud app you support fell over" is not an emergency. If the latter is an emergency to the company they should staff for 24/7 support, not rely on exploiting people during their off hours to provide free support.
- Aurornis 2y ago
  > "the crud app you support fell over" is not an emergency. I think a lot of people are going to be disappointed to learn that situations impacting business-critical operations would be considered emergencies. The assumption that Australia just outlawed the concept of having an on-call rotation is not supported by the article. The article says requiring an employee to be on-call 24/7 for general purposes would indeed be illegal. There was another example that someone could not be required to come in for a surprise shift with only a few hours of notice overnight. But completely eliminating planned on-call rotations is not part of the goal.
  - dopylitty 2y ago
    > But completely eliminating planned on-call rotations is not part of the goal. It certainly should be. You want your app supported 24x7 then pay for three shifts. If the government won’t make it a law then IT workers can make it a demand when they unionize.
    - SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
      Sounds like a great deal for the lucky 1/3 of developers who get assigned the day shift, but isn't it pretty rough for the majority? I'd much rather keep a normal schedule and get woken up every once in a while than work 5pm-1am or 1am-9am.
      - selcuka 2y ago
        > I'd much rather keep a normal schedule and get woken up every once in a while than work 5pm-1am or 1am-9am. It would be in the contract you'd sign when you accept the job. It's not like your current workplace will suddenly change the policy and force you to work at night. The world is already full of places with night shift jobs, and you are not currently working at one of those places.
        SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
        Why isn't it like that? If my company decided to follow a new rule that nobody can be oncall after hours, wouldn't they have to force at least 2 engineers from each oncall rotation into the new shifts? Even if I escape being one of those 2, shouldn't I expect to have 66% fewer day shift opportunities in the future?
        Draiken 2y ago
        Once again the lack of worker rights come into play here. Companies should never be able to change an employee's working hours like that. I'm guessing in the US they can, because they have almost no worker's rights. Where I live this would be illegal. As for new opportunities, well, maybe? The theory would say these weird hour shifts would cost more and companies would have to think harder about their operations and decide if the extra cost really makes sense. Employees would also ask for more money to work under these hours. I believe it would simply remove the inherent expectation that every tech product is guaranteed to be online 24/7 without any extra cost to the companies, only to the employees lives. That's a great outcome in my view.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
It's just a very narrow rule. The government has an explainer on it (https://www.fairwork.gov.au/employment-conditions/hours-of-work-breaks-and-rosters/right-to-disconnect https://www.fairwork.gov.au/employment-conditions/hours-of-w...), and their example of after-hours contact which might be legitimate involves 3 hours of document preparation due the next morning.
taneq 2y ago
> who can only refuse to respond where it is reasonable to do so What does this even mean? I didn't think employees had an obligation to respond at all? Presumably it's actually "whose right to refuse contact is only protected by law where it is reasonable for it to be so."
Daz1 2y ago
Something which would materially affect the businesses ability to continue as a going concern?

hanniabu 2y ago

And what constitutes an emergency. If nobody's wellbeing is at risk then imo it's not an emergency, but I doubt that how a company will interpret it.

simondotau 2y ago
The CEO might argue their wellbeing is at risk if they don't receive the bonus for reaching their quarterly targets.

dopylitty 2y ago

This only makes sense if emergencies are strictly defined. For instance "don't come to the office there's a bear inside" is an emergency. "the crud app you support fell over" is not an emergency. If the latter is an emergency to the company they should staff for 24/7 support, not rely on exploiting people during their off hours to provide free support.

Aurornis 2y ago
> "the crud app you support fell over" is not an emergency. I think a lot of people are going to be disappointed to learn that situations impacting business-critical operations would be considered emergencies. The assumption that Australia just outlawed the concept of having an on-call rotation is not supported by the article. The article says requiring an employee to be on-call 24/7 for general purposes would indeed be illegal. There was another example that someone could not be required to come in for a surprise shift with only a few hours of notice overnight. But completely eliminating planned on-call rotations is not part of the goal.
- dopylitty 2y ago
  > But completely eliminating planned on-call rotations is not part of the goal. It certainly should be. You want your app supported 24x7 then pay for three shifts. If the government won’t make it a law then IT workers can make it a demand when they unionize.
  - SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
    Sounds like a great deal for the lucky 1/3 of developers who get assigned the day shift, but isn't it pretty rough for the majority? I'd much rather keep a normal schedule and get woken up every once in a while than work 5pm-1am or 1am-9am.
    - selcuka 2y ago
      > I'd much rather keep a normal schedule and get woken up every once in a while than work 5pm-1am or 1am-9am. It would be in the contract you'd sign when you accept the job. It's not like your current workplace will suddenly change the policy and force you to work at night. The world is already full of places with night shift jobs, and you are not currently working at one of those places.
      - SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
        Why isn't it like that? If my company decided to follow a new rule that nobody can be oncall after hours, wouldn't they have to force at least 2 engineers from each oncall rotation into the new shifts? Even if I escape being one of those 2, shouldn't I expect to have 66% fewer day shift opportunities in the future?
        Draiken 2y ago
        Once again the lack of worker rights come into play here. Companies should never be able to change an employee's working hours like that. I'm guessing in the US they can, because they have almost no worker's rights. Where I live this would be illegal. As for new opportunities, well, maybe? The theory would say these weird hour shifts would cost more and companies would have to think harder about their operations and decide if the extra cost really makes sense. Employees would also ask for more money to work under these hours. I believe it would simply remove the inherent expectation that every tech product is guaranteed to be online 24/7 without any extra cost to the companies, only to the employees lives. That's a great outcome in my view.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

SpicyLemonZest 2y ago

It's just a very narrow rule. The government has an explainer on it (https://www.fairwork.gov.au/employment-conditions/hours-of-work-breaks-and-rosters/right-to-disconnect https://www.fairwork.gov.au/employment-conditions/hours-of-w...), and their example of after-hours contact which might be legitimate involves 3 hours of document preparation due the next morning.

taneq 2y ago

> who can only refuse to respond where it is reasonable to do so What does this even mean? I didn't think employees had an obligation to respond at all? Presumably it's actually "whose right to refuse contact is only protected by law where it is reasonable for it to be so."

Daz1 2y ago

Something which would materially affect the businesses ability to continue as a going concern?