597
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 03 Sep 2024
597 points (97.9% liked)
Antiwork
7692 readers
5 users here now
-
We're trying to reduce the numbers of hours a person has to work.
-
We talk about the end of paid work being mandatory for survival.
Partnerships:
- Matrix/Element chatroom
- Discord (channel: #antiwork)
- IRC: #antiwork on IRCNow.org (i.e., connect to ircs://irc.ircnow.org and
/join #antiwork) - Your facebook group link here
- Your x link here
- lemmy.ca/c/antiwork
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
There are a lot of jobs that require out of hours support, specifically those that aren't tied to business hours. In tech at least, many of the sites and services you use are built off the backs of software engineers that are paged at 5am because latency is a little higher than normal.
I don't raise this to say that this rule is bullshit, but to say that there are a lot of arguments that will be used to push people to work longer than their allotted hours. IMO this is absolutely required, but I would go further and say that any contact outside of working hours implies a working contract, and guarantees that the employee is paid for the disruption caused. That includes on-call too, which is often unpaid.
Labor laws in the US are, frankly, hilariously bad. You deserve unlimited sick pay, at least 25 days holiday (separate from sick leave), and the removal of at-will employment. What is described here is the bare minimum of what you should have.
There is a very easy solution to this dilemma: pay someone to stand ready at off-hours.
While true, there are some complications to this:
IMO, this is EXACTLY where outsourcing should be used. Either move someone from the US (or your home country) to where you need support, ensure you have a good triage system for issues that might come up, etc.
What is complicated? You give two bullet points and a potential solution that all fall under the umbrella of "paying someone." This solves the problem.
It's a simple solution to what's a more nuanced problem.
Be honest. If faced with the choice to cut hours/roles, move roles overseas, or to "pay more", do you think many business owners will do the latter?
You need to consider the nuance here, otherwise you find a similar situation to the minimum wage rises, where businesses complain about the operations not being viable because they need to start treating workers like humans.
Yes, I agree. We definitely need to consider the "nuance" of a situation where business is asked to treat their workers like human beings.
You can be as obtuse as you want. You know I'm right, and it's exactly why legislation is needed to ensure these things are done correctly to stop businesses from exploiting the rules.