"Don't bother me, I'm off the clock."

[Aqua Letifer]

@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.

[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.

[Jolly]

@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:

1. Some crazy asshole (or enough crazy assholes) do things that make the news,
2. The nation reads said news, and
3. 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.

[George K]

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.

[Jolly]

@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]

@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:

1. Some crazy asshole (or enough crazy assholes) do things that make the news,
2. The nation reads said news, and
3. 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.

[89th]

@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.

[taiwan_girl]

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.

[Aqua Letifer]

@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.

[Axtremus]

GMail has this feature called “scheduled send” …

[Aqua Letifer]

@Axtremus said in "Don't bother me, I'm off the clock.":

GMail has this feature called “scheduled send” …

Try to keep up, man.

[89th]

@Aqua-Letifer said in "Don't bother me, I'm off the clock.":

@Axtremus said in "Don't bother me, I'm off the clock.":

GMail has this feature called “scheduled send” …

Try to keep up, man.

Except if you do this, even though the recipient will get it at 3:17am, the actual message will show the timestamp of when you clicked the schedule/send button. I think... last time I tried.

[Aqua Letifer]

@89th said in "Don't bother me, I'm off the clock.":

@Aqua-Letifer said in "Don't bother me, I'm off the clock.":

@Axtremus said in "Don't bother me, I'm off the clock.":

GMail has this feature called “scheduled send” …

Try to keep up, man.

Except if you do this, even though the recipient will get it at 3:17am, the actual message will show the timestamp of when you clicked the schedule/send button. I think... last time I tried.

Doesn't for me.Do you use Gmail or something else?

[89th]

@Aqua-Letifer said in "Don't bother me, I'm off the clock.":

@89th said in "Don't bother me, I'm off the clock.":

@Aqua-Letifer said in "Don't bother me, I'm off the clock.":

@Axtremus said in "Don't bother me, I'm off the clock.":

GMail has this feature called “scheduled send” …

Try to keep up, man.

Except if you do this, even though the recipient will get it at 3:17am, the actual message will show the timestamp of when you clicked the schedule/send button. I think... last time I tried.

Doesn't for me.Do you use Gmail or something else?

The one time I tested this was using Outlook. Hey, why did it lightning/thunder outside right when I said that?