"Don't bother me, I'm off the clock."
-
wrote on 17 Mar 2022, 12:20 last edited by
As always, it's a judgement call. I'm not sure this happens enough to consider a law.
-
wrote on 17 Mar 2022, 12:23 last edited by
All in favor of it, unless your terms of employment include extra-hours access. And then I think you ought to be paid for it.
-
wrote on 17 Mar 2022, 15:01 last edited by
The company owned me, body and soul, 24 x 7.
Keep it simple.
-
wrote on 17 Mar 2022, 15:06 last edited by
At Credit Suisse I oversaw a team of 200 who were in Singapore, Hong Kong, NYC, Mexico City, and London.
I regularly checked email 20 hours a day. 5 or 6am conference calls happened more than once a week (that's how you get NY-LON-HK on one call). East Asians in banking expect to work into the evening when the US wakes up.
It's just part of the job.
-
wrote on 17 Mar 2022, 15:11 last edited by
If you are compensated for it, yes. But too many are not.
-
At Credit Suisse I oversaw a team of 200 who were in Singapore, Hong Kong, NYC, Mexico City, and London.
I regularly checked email 20 hours a day. 5 or 6am conference calls happened more than once a week (that's how you get NY-LON-HK on one call). East Asians in banking expect to work into the evening when the US wakes up.
It's just part of the job.
wrote on 17 Mar 2022, 15:23 last edited by@jon-nyc said in "Don't bother me, I'm off the clock.":
It's just part of the job.
That entirely depends.
About five years ago, I had a job that required working every day in July. Every single, including the 4th. And no vacation during that time, that would be ludicrous. But everyone knew that going in. We were all fine with it. It was as you say part of the job and we made it fun. Hell, management paid for beer and food truck rentals half the time.
3 years ago, I got called into HR because I didn't tell my boss where I'd be on Mother's Day Sunday. The job had nothing to do with Mother's Day, and there wasn't anything pressing going on over that weekend. But my fuckface boss made a promise to her boss that a project would be done by then, and then was pissed I couldn't be reached. (Ironically her boss didn't even give a shit, he just assumed people would be back Monday/Tuesday so no big deal.) I was almost fired for not being available 24/7, which was apparently an unspoken policy adopted when this failed abortion of a manager started her job.
After that I stopped eating dinner with my family for about 9 months because a new sociopathic boss at a new job wanted to hear himself speak for at least 90 minutes a day, every evening. Weekends, too. When I pushed back, I was accused of not taking my job seriously.
Entirely fucking depends.
-
wrote on 17 Mar 2022, 15:26 last edited by Mik
I think these things tend to find their own level at each entity, as is appropriate to the position. Abuse will result in higher turnover. No need for legislative interference.
-
wrote on 17 Mar 2022, 15:32 last edited by
People with the ambition to move up the ranks will by and large welcome the opportunity to field emails at 3 AM, at least while they're proving their worth to the company. It may grow old eventually, but if it does, they can just retire.
-
wrote on 17 Mar 2022, 15:32 last edited by
As for low paid people doing that, well, they must be desperate for the job, for whatever reason.
-
I think these things tend to find their own level at each entity, as is appropriate to the position. Abuse will result in higher turnover. No need for legislative interference.
wrote on 17 Mar 2022, 15:33 last edited by@Mik said in "Don't bother me, I'm off the clock.":
I think these things tend to find their own level at each entity, as is appropriate to the position. No need for legislative interference.
Laws like this get promulgated here largely when:
- Some crazy asshole (or enough crazy assholes) do things that make the news,
- The nation reads said news, and
- Demands something to be done.
I'm more or less fine with that. The question for me then is, have there been enough incidents of this kind to make such a law necessary.
I don't know. There are scads of boomer managers who have little to no technological social skills and don't understand how to properly use texting, emails, phone calls, Zoom meetings and Slack messages. But people are leaving their jobs in droves, so maybe this can still be settled individually. No idea, but a law wouldn't surprise or anger me.
-
As for low paid people doing that, well, they must be desperate for the job, for whatever reason.
wrote on 17 Mar 2022, 15:35 last edited by@Horace said in "Don't bother me, I'm off the clock.":
As for low paid people doing that, well, they must be desperate for the job, for whatever reason.
There are many, many more ways this can happen beyond the two examples you listed, and they happen everywhere. It's a far more complicated issue.
-
wrote on 17 Mar 2022, 16:44 last edited by Doctor Phibes
I think the law's a good idea. They shouldn't be able to discipline people for not working when they're not at work. Fucking email.
If you need somebody to work outside company hours, you also need to pay them to do it.
-
@Mik said in "Don't bother me, I'm off the clock.":
I think these things tend to find their own level at each entity, as is appropriate to the position. No need for legislative interference.
Laws like this get promulgated here largely when:
- Some crazy asshole (or enough crazy assholes) do things that make the news,
- The nation reads said news, and
- Demands something to be done.
I'm more or less fine with that. The question for me then is, have there been enough incidents of this kind to make such a law necessary.
I don't know. There are scads of boomer managers who have little to no technological social skills and don't understand how to properly use texting, emails, phone calls, Zoom meetings and Slack messages. But people are leaving their jobs in droves, so maybe this can still be settled individually. No idea, but a law wouldn't surprise or anger me.
wrote on 17 Mar 2022, 23:55 last edited by@Aqua-Letifer said in "Don't bother me, I'm off the clock.":
@Mik said in "Don't bother me, I'm off the clock.":
I think these things tend to find their own level at each entity, as is appropriate to the position. No need for legislative interference.
Laws like this get promulgated here largely when:
- Some crazy asshole (or enough crazy assholes) do things that make the news,
- The nation reads said news, and
- Demands something to be done.
I'm more or less fine with that. The question for me then is, have there been enough incidents of this kind to make such a law necessary.
I don't know. There are scads of boomer managers who have little to no technological social skills and don't understand how to properly use texting, emails, phone calls, Zoom meetings and Slack messages. But people are leaving their jobs in droves, so maybe this can still be settled individually. No idea, but a law wouldn't surprise or anger me.
I'm a boomer. I worked with scads of boomers. I don't know of any who couldn't use texting or emails effectively. Zoom (or something like it) was hit or miss. But webinars and group phone meetings were common.
-
wrote on 17 Mar 2022, 23:59 last edited by
If you work, you should be compensated. Presumably, that involves reading and responding to emails while "off the clock."
But, the field is very weird. Our nurses got paid to "be on call." They weren't actually working during those hours, but they had to be available, usually within the hour. Being tied up for 8-16 hours when you can't go to a movie, party, etc should be a reason for compensation. If they got called in to do a case, the pay-per-hour rate rose, of course.
And, I never got paid a dime for "being available" for 60 hours every 7-8 days.
-
If you work, you should be compensated. Presumably, that involves reading and responding to emails while "off the clock."
But, the field is very weird. Our nurses got paid to "be on call." They weren't actually working during those hours, but they had to be available, usually within the hour. Being tied up for 8-16 hours when you can't go to a movie, party, etc should be a reason for compensation. If they got called in to do a case, the pay-per-hour rate rose, of course.
And, I never got paid a dime for "being available" for 60 hours every 7-8 days.
wrote on 18 Mar 2022, 00:09 last edited by@George-K said in "Don't bother me, I'm off the clock.":
If you work, you should be compensated. Presumably, that involves reading and responding to emails while "off the clock."
But, the field is very weird. Our nurses got paid to "be on call." They weren't actually working during those hours, but they had to be available, usually within the hour. Being tied up for 8-16 hours when you can't go to a movie, party, etc should be a reason for compensation. If they got called in to do a case, the pay-per-hour rate rose, of course.
And, I never got paid a dime for "being available" for 60 hours every 7-8 days.
All of our nurses that were on call, received call pay. Back in the 90's, it was $1/hr. From 2000 on, it was $1.50, then finally, $2/hr.
Shucks, at one point in time, they got $2/hr show-up pay. If they just showed up for their regular shift and didn't call in, a 12-hr shift got you another $24/day.
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in "Don't bother me, I'm off the clock.":
@Mik said in "Don't bother me, I'm off the clock.":
I think these things tend to find their own level at each entity, as is appropriate to the position. No need for legislative interference.
Laws like this get promulgated here largely when:
- Some crazy asshole (or enough crazy assholes) do things that make the news,
- The nation reads said news, and
- Demands something to be done.
I'm more or less fine with that. The question for me then is, have there been enough incidents of this kind to make such a law necessary.
I don't know. There are scads of boomer managers who have little to no technological social skills and don't understand how to properly use texting, emails, phone calls, Zoom meetings and Slack messages. But people are leaving their jobs in droves, so maybe this can still be settled individually. No idea, but a law wouldn't surprise or anger me.
I'm a boomer. I worked with scads of boomers. I don't know of any who couldn't use texting or emails effectively. Zoom (or something like it) was hit or miss. But webinars and group phone meetings were common.
wrote on 18 Mar 2022, 01:31 last edited by@Jolly said in "Don't bother me, I'm off the clock.":
@Aqua-Letifer said in "Don't bother me, I'm off the clock.":
@Mik said in "Don't bother me, I'm off the clock.":
I think these things tend to find their own level at each entity, as is appropriate to the position. No need for legislative interference.
Laws like this get promulgated here largely when:
- Some crazy asshole (or enough crazy assholes) do things that make the news,
- The nation reads said news, and
- Demands something to be done.
I'm more or less fine with that. The question for me then is, have there been enough incidents of this kind to make such a law necessary.
I don't know. There are scads of boomer managers who have little to no technological social skills and don't understand how to properly use texting, emails, phone calls, Zoom meetings and Slack messages. But people are leaving their jobs in droves, so maybe this can still be settled individually. No idea, but a law wouldn't surprise or anger me.
I'm a boomer. I worked with scads of boomers. I don't know of any who couldn't use texting or emails effectively. Zoom (or something like it) was hit or miss. But webinars and group phone meetings were common.
Part of what I mean by "use effectively" is understanding (1) what kind of communication should be delivered as a text, IM, or email, and (2) what kind of expectations the sender should have regarding response time.
-
People with the ambition to move up the ranks will by and large welcome the opportunity to field emails at 3 AM, at least while they're proving their worth to the company. It may grow old eventually, but if it does, they can just retire.
wrote on 18 Mar 2022, 01:50 last edited by@Horace said in "Don't bother me, I'm off the clock.":
People with the ambition to move up the ranks will by and large welcome the opportunity to field emails at 3 AM,
That’s what I do. Except I don’t read (or write) emails during the business day. Managers will only remember my [dedication!] at 3am and thus will promote me. Strategery.
-
wrote on 18 Mar 2022, 15:39 last edited by
A lot of time, people bring it on themselves. Once they start a pattern of answering emails, texts, etc right away, it becomes the normal behaviour and other expect that.
I have found that it is rare (at least for me) that things are so so so critical that an email has to be answered IMMEDIATELY. If it is that important, give me a phone call.
But, as @jon-nyc mentions, sometimes the time change bewteen locations makes it necessary to extend the work day.
-
@Horace said in "Don't bother me, I'm off the clock.":
People with the ambition to move up the ranks will by and large welcome the opportunity to field emails at 3 AM,
That’s what I do. Except I don’t read (or write) emails during the business day. Managers will only remember my [dedication!] at 3am and thus will promote me. Strategery.
wrote on 18 Mar 2022, 17:11 last edited by@89th said in "Don't bother me, I'm off the clock.":
@Horace said in "Don't bother me, I'm off the clock.":
People with the ambition to move up the ranks will by and large welcome the opportunity to field emails at 3 AM,
That’s what I do. Except I don’t read (or write) emails during the business day. Managers will only remember my [dedication!] at 3am and thus will promote me. Strategery.
Just schedule them out for late-night and call it good you n00b. And please remember to use a random time like 3:17 AM for authenticity.
Stretch goal: set up a Slack chatbot with stock replies for late-night messages.
-
wrote on 18 Mar 2022, 19:50 last edited by
GMail has this feature called “scheduled send” …
