[HN Gopher] I Don't Want to Be on Call Anymore ___________________________________________________________________ I Don't Want to Be on Call Anymore Author : kiyanwang Score : 80 points Date : 2021-11-28 12:38 UTC (10 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.honeycomb.io) (TXT) w3m dump (www.honeycomb.io) | habeebtc wrote: | This model of oncall (what I currently operate off) is less | abusive than how DevOps teams were run at my last company. | | I would get called on days off, evenings, weekends. As late as | 1am. I once brought my laptop to a Cubs game, because I knew I | would get called (and I did). It was mostly because Devs broke | the build, and their managers refused to have them learn how to | triage that themselves because it would be extra responsibility. | jmmv wrote: | Really liked the article. One thing I'd add (and that I wrote | about before here: https://jmmv.dev/2021/07/principal-engineers- | oncall.html) is that high-level engineers should be on-call. | These engineers (along with management) are the people that can | most easily make a difference in making the rotation better: and | not because of their technical skills, but because if they | "suffer through the pain", they may be able to set priorities to | fix things. | | As some other people have alluded here, though, in some | organizations engineers seem to "escape" on-call rotations the | more senior they get, which is unfortunate... | redisman wrote: | Get the VPs and Directors on call and see how quickly we'll | change priorities lol | Buttons840 wrote: | > It is engineering's job to own their software | | I'll accept this responsibility so long as it comes with the | corresponding authority. | | Now tell me, do I really own the software? | redisman wrote: | I have denied your request for a new feature because I have | ownership over the project and decided we should work on X. Oh | I don't actually have any power but you think I'm an idiot who | can't see that? Cool | datavirtue wrote: | Ahh the ownership argument, dashed upon the rocks. | indymike wrote: | At some point, there has to be someone to push the right button | at 3AM. That can be done by shift work, it can also be handled by | on call. In general, a job with on-call requirements should | disclose that up front, and compensation should be better than | the same position without the on-call requirement. For small | teams, on-call may be the only way to do it because there isn't | going to be a night shift. | cushychicken wrote: | Hell no, you're not a monster for not wanting to be on call. | You're normal. Being on call is fundamentally not that fun. | | You're also totally normal if you respond to an incentive | structure of offering senior level and above employees the perk | of not having to carry a pager. Some companies use this to hire | senior talent because, hey, it works. | | As a side note: there's a shitload of negative solidarity in this | thread. That's the attitude of: "If I must eat shit, everyone | else must eat some too". I think this article (while a little | flawed) makes a good pivot towards positive solidarity, and | asking the question: "Is there a way to achieve this goal where | everyone eats less shit?" | dmitrygr wrote: | I ask every team I interview with whether they have any sort of | on call. A "yes" answer terminates the interview, unless quickly | followed by "but we can make an exception". Call me a monster if | you wish, but my time is mine and my family's. | snicker7 wrote: | My team is distributed across the world. We ensure that we have | multiple SME's for the most critical systems in each region. No | one has to wake up at 3 AM. | willcipriano wrote: | My argument is that as the tech side of the organization takes on | more and more of the operation of the business, it also needs to | be taking on more of the rewards. | | For example if the expectation is that a engineering team | designs, builds and maintains the machine twenty four hours a day | that is responsible for the majority (if not all) of the firms | profits then the majority of the rewards must flow there. | | One the other hand, traditional methods for doing this have | fallen by the wayside. With performance overhangs and other | chicanery, what was once a lottery ticket is now a lottery ticket | that someone will almost certainly try to steal from you once it | becomes worth something. Instead of rewarding engineers who keep | the lights on, we make them look for another job every 2 years to | keep with the market. | | People like to say tech is eating the world, tech is doing | virtually all the killing but the hangers on seem to do the bulk | of the eating. | shoo wrote: | Ah, capitalism! The company makes surplus profits that can be | extracted by shareholders (and executives and employees, | although these get labelled as expenses, not profits) if it is | able to sell goods or services at a price point much higher | than the cost of producing the service. | | The cost of keeping the machine running is an operational | expense. There is supply and demand in the labour market. If | the team keeping the machine running generates $100m of profits | for the company and costs $5m in compensation, but it is | possible to hire a similar team at market rates to do a | comparable job for $5m , then it doesn't make much sense to pay | the team more than $5m. The excess value of $95 m generated by | the team's activities can be captured as profit. | | It's also important not to neglect the contributions of other | roles. The machine is only able to produce revenue because it | is matched with customers who are a good fit for the service | the machine delivers and are willing to pay for it. If there | are no customers then the machine and the engineering team that | support it produce no revenue. So arguably the sales team that | is able to identify potential customers and help them | understand if renting access to the machine could help them | also provide a large amount of value to the company. | | If you take the same high performing engineering team that | builds and operates a valuable service in one company, and drop | them into a different business context where there are simply | much fewer paying customers, or the sales team isn't able to | deliver, then the value the engineering team are able to | generate in the new situation may be zero or negative. Maybe | most of the value generated by the service isn't due to the | team who built and maintain it, but the surrounding business | context. Leverage is a big thing. The highest paying roles are | often in situations with more leverage (in huge orgs or huge | projects), not because the work is necessary more skilled or | harder than work in other smaller scale situations. | | If some of the salespeople and engineers believe they are | getting paid disproportionately little compared to the value | they create, they could consider banding together and starting | their own venture where they would be the owners, not the | employees. Much easier said than done, and much easier to | stomach if starting in a situation where they have the | financial safety net and career connections so they'll be okay | if the business fails. | teeray wrote: | > My best idea is 'pay people more,' but that doesn't sound so | compelling as a pitch. | | I would not accept a position that paid for on-call, even if they | paid more. That just legitimizes encroaching on personal time and | likely will make it happen more often. Pay me instead in | equivalent PTO (or greater) so that there is a stronger forcing | function to reduce pages. | b3morales wrote: | I like this, but of course it collides with the trend towards | only offering unspecified (so-called "unlimited") PTO. | teeray wrote: | I also add a mandatory annual minimum PTO rider when it's | "unlimited" | dilyevsky wrote: | At google you could choose either 1/3-2/3 of your hourly pay | (base) for each hour of being oncall outside of 9-5 or | equivalent number of hours of additional pto. Best oncall comp | structure I've seen ever since. Somehow people like to parrot | only employee unfriendly practices from big corps... | mindvirus wrote: | I think the challenge that organizations run into with on call is | that the costs of it are hidden and delayed - reduced | productivity and lower retention. I think that because of this, | organizations do not invest in keeping their systems in order. | | The question is, what do you do about it? At some point things do | have to escalate to an engineer, and I don't think it's practical | to have a 24/7 engineering team staffed for every service | (although having 24/7 non-eng support is very reasonable). | | The best solution I've seen is having error budgets and on call | compensation commensurate with required response times. Error | budgets since they balance maintaining and expanding the service, | compensation to respect people's time. | | What have you seen that works? | supernovae wrote: | If your business requires 24x7 coverage, you should pay for | 24x7 coverage and not expect the same people working 8x5 are | the ones who will do it "because it has to be done". | | I once worked for a tech company that said they had follow the | sun rotation and i was dumb enough to take the job only to find | out that the other countries had strict labor laws and follow | the sun didn't mean the US folks would have their nights and | weekends, but that the US folks were doing off hour support for | the rest of the world because we don't have labor laws that | protect our workers rights. I literally had to keep a seat warm | from 8-5 my time to do the bulk of my work from 5-9pm and on | weekends to "work around the customers" and they failed | miserably at making tech work... (fin tech.. where they through | money and soul sucking work at every problem) | redisman wrote: | Shift work has been a thing for decades. I would imagine hiring | some percentage of your devs for the night shift wouldn't be | that hard as many people enjoy that lifestyle. Then you already | cover the majority of the 24 hours with normal work | PicassoCTs wrote: | On call is a dysfunctional company culture attacking its own | workforce in a battle of attrition. Its the equivalent of | rheumatic fever to a company process. If you need it, your | reliability engineering is failing and the process that should | mend it, is instead busy fixing symptoms. | | Such a company is already dieing and will do once the team "on | call" is used up, burned out and gone.It will be replaced in the | market by something more vital, still capable to value its | workforce. | ckdarby wrote: | Are you saying, every fortune 100 tech company's reliability | engineers are failing to do their jobs? | | MAANG all have on-call individuals even with the fact they're | across all timezones and have been growing steady. | nzmsv wrote: | There are different ways of handling on-call and the | practices at the companies you mention are very different, as | is the on-call load. | | There is a world of difference between someone voluntarily | accepting on-call as part of their duties in exchange for | higher pay or a 4 day work week, and on-call being forced on | everyone. | supernovae wrote: | He's saying we're all suckers... and sometimes, it takes a | long time to find out how true that really may be. | dopylitty wrote: | This misses the key point that on-call itself is an abusive | practice regardless of how well an organization practices it. | | If an organization thinks their systems should be available 24x7 | they should staff people 24x7. | | There is no situation where it's ok to contact someone to do work | outside of their work hours. | [deleted] | echelon wrote: | > There is no situation where it's ok to contact someone to do | work outside of their work hours. | | This lacks perspective. | | Imagine that your system runs banking, healthcare, telecom, | etc. | | Of course someone needs to be on call 24/7. The best people to | hold the pager are the engineers that work on the system. | shoo wrote: | that's a pretty selective quote. you skipped over: | | > If an organization thinks their systems should be available | 24x7 they should staff people 24x7. | | One way to achieve 24x7 coverage without anyone being | structurally on-call outside of standard office hours could | be "follow the sun" support -- have offices in multiple | timezones around the world and run 3 x 8 hour shifts each day | of support working their local office hours to provide 24/7 | coverage. Still need enough staff at each site to handle | rotation for covering weekends and for people to go on | holiday and get sick or quit for new jobs etc. | | I can understand why many companies would prefer not to pay | for that if they can get away with cheaper alternatives, and | why they might prefer to understaff and push the burden onto | employees, but that's the company's problem, not the problem | of the individual worker who trades their life by the hour in | exchange for money. | echelon wrote: | If you're not a global empire with offices all over the | world yet, the simpler thing is to pay your engineers well | and tell them being oncall is one of the responsibilities. | emerged wrote: | It seems perfectly okay if you were hired at a job where on- | call is a stated requirement. Is this a controversial opinion? | I'll admit that I sometimes find myself out of phase with some | of the dominant HN views on at-will employment, but it would be | useful for me to know what the perceived flaw in my stance is. | monksy wrote: | No. | | If a job is expecting you to be oncall is the part of your | job, they are looking for ways to not pay you for the work. | (This is not talking about an occasional once a year | expectation. ) This is a rotating or permnant basis of where | you are expected to be ready to work and they're not paying | you. | nouveaux wrote: | Doctors are on call. Firemen are on call. | | There are plenty of jobs that are not on call. Lots of | enterprise positions do not require you to be on call. If you | work on a site that requires 24/7 uptime, why is it so hard to | accept that engineers have to be on call? | hirundo wrote: | "There is no situation where it's ok to contact someone to do | work outside of their work hours." | | Here's one. I get paged for urgent fixes maybe three times per | year. To staff all three shifts with senior engineers to cover | for that would be enough to make the company unprofitable and | lose many jobs. I don't much like being woken in the middle of | the night for such things, but it's clearly necessary and not | abusive. | dopylitty wrote: | If they can't afford to staff for 24x7 operation and maintain | profitability that's their problem. They should either reduce | their service hours or charge more. | | By working for free you're subsidizing your organization's | unsustainable business model. | jsolson wrote: | Below a certain level I mostly agree with you. One company | in my past didn't work this way, and one too many pages in | the middle of the night for a business I wasn't personally | invested in made it an easy job to walk away from. | | That said, there is a level of seniority at which "their | problem" is "your problem." If you'd chuck the business out | the door rather than getting paged a few times a year, | you're not ready for that level yet. This varies by company | and organization size, but fundamentally you can't (and | shouldn't try to) anticipate everything up front. Sometimes | you need the knowledge, judgement, or simply signing | authority (literal or metaphorical) of someone specific. | lightbendover wrote: | Getting paid 200k+ for a job that had on-call as part of | stated duties (and thus baked into the comp) prior to | accepting the offer is now working for free? There is | hyperbole and then there is whatever this is. | | Don't like it, quit and find a company that is moving | slowly and doesn't value ownership from engineers, someone | else will fill in the vacant post. Sounds like a reasonably | sustainable business model to me, especially since it has | worked like this for over decades at some companies. | UncleMeat wrote: | The number of pages is only part of the story. Even if you | never get paged a single time, oncall still sucks because you | have some response requirement. If I _could_ get paged and I | need to respond within 30m then it is no hikes for me this | weekend. | [deleted] | LandR wrote: | Yeah,my issue with being on call is that i can't ever really | let loose if I'm expected to be contactable anytime | 24/7...what if I'm out with friends, drunk, high, on the side | of a mountain? Etc. | | My hours are 9-5, after that is entirely me time and if you | expect me to br contact able and in s state of contribute | you're going to be disappointed. | | No amount of money is worth losing that me time. | je42 wrote: | Usually, being "on call". should mean no alcoho, and have | inet + computer closed by i.e. 5-15min or so. | | which also means that this should be time that is paid on | some hourly rate for the lower quality of live during the | on-call time. | | Also, there should be a rotation, with enough people to | make this bearable. | wildrhythms wrote: | Are you describing the current state of on-call? Because | that is what it is. | | There should be no rotation; there should be no on-call | in the first place. If hiring staff to work normal hours | is too expensive for the company, then the company has | bigger problems than a service going down. | alistairSH wrote: | The article explicitly states that's reasonable. It's the | rotating pager duty that's unreasonable. | [deleted] | xtracto wrote: | I am quit amazed at the general reaction of this forum to | this standard industry practice. | | If you want a cushy 9-5 job, go work for a code factory like | HCL, TCS and whatnot. That way you can build crap and wash | your hands after handling it to the customer. | | In a startup environment, you gotta build your shit and | maintain it to. It's an environment that's not for everyone. | | I've been in oncall roosters several times in the past. And | it made freaking sure we wrote the best software we could. | | I also have been on the management side of it, and the way I | set it up is that whoever was the oncall engineer, if he had | to work for more than 2 hours after normal working hours, he | would get an additional PTO day. It actually worked quite | well. | coldtea wrote: | > _If you want a cushy 9-5 job, go work for a code factory | like HCL, TCS and whatnot. That way you can build crap and | wash your hands after handling it to the customer._ | | You got it backwards: if you want a crappy quality of life | (or have no life and you only identify with the company | that sees you as a replaceable cog), and crappy products | and customer service from a company that doesn't care (to | plan right, to hire accordingly, to treat its staff right) | go on call and overwork, producing sleep-derived crap. | | Craftsmen and artisans take their time and have boundaries. | | "Feature factories", startups, and mass market crap | companies forego 9-to-5 and indoctrinate naive employees | that they do something important by doing so. | | > _In a startup environment, you gotta build your shit and | maintain it to. It 's an environment that's not for | everyone._ | | Yes. It's for starry-eyed naive youngsters right off the | bus. The kind of people to believe they're "changing the | world" by building a Facebook or Groupon. | vasco wrote: | > Craftsmen and artisans take their time and have | boundaries. | | I've been an engineer on-call for 7 years since | graduating. In the meantime I handled a handful of | business critical situations, developed my ability to | keep cool during crisis and put my skills to the test. | When I started doing it, I wasn't even paid for on-call. | Now I am. The money has no bearing on me having been | exploited or not. I've done it because it's cool, and | when I think it's too tiring I won't do it anymore. | | Am I less of an engineer, not a true craftsman (wtv that | means), because of this? There's other opinions in the | world, no need to be so close minded. | yawaramin wrote: | When you were doing on-call without being paid, that's | called wage theft. It's the single biggest kind of theft | in North America: https://www.epi.org/publication/wage- | theft-bigger-problem-fo... | | It's also the kind of theft that insidiously convinces | you that it's really cool and that you're actually OK | with it because you're learning how to 'keep cool during | crisis'. You know how else your employers could have | taught you that? By providing actual training during | working hours, while you were being paid. | SpicyLemonZest wrote: | I mean this with all the respect in the world, but I | think you've gotten yourself caught in an ideological | bubble here. To someone who doesn't already agree with | you, this comment sounds like an argument against the | concept of wage theft more than an argument against | oncall. After all, you can't prove something's bad just | by classifying it under a nasty-sounding label! | yawaramin wrote: | I purposefully did not make an argument against on-call, | although I might have easily done that and others have in | this thread. All I said is that doing on-call _without | pay_ is wage theft. And this is not an ideological bubble | thing, as anyone will quickly understand if they ask a | plumber to do on-call for their house plumbing system | without pay. | foldr wrote: | >In the meantime I handled a handful of business critical | situations, developed my ability to keep cool during | crisis and put my skills to the test. | | That's great, but you could still have done all those | things if you were being compensated appropriately for | the extra time you were putting in. | | It's like unpaid internships. I'm sure unpaid interns | often do learn useful skills and make useful connections. | But the practice is still exploitative. | coldtea wrote: | > _The money has no bearing on me having been exploited | or not. I 've done it because it's cool_ | | Convincing them of the "coolness" of it is the most | common way to exploit the naive/fresh. | | The same people who do so to others, wouldn't even piss | if they weren't compensated for it... | | (And being exploited or not is not a personal decision. | If you aren't compensated for overtime, then you are | exploited. It just means you're ok with it.). | np- wrote: | I think most experienced engineers realize on-call is a | complete fool's game -- you will never get accolades for | fixing shit at 2am. Literally never. Your only "reward" | will be to become the escalation point to continue getting | called at 2am. It's not only mentally demanding work, but | also bottom-feeding work that gets no recognition. No one | is doing their best work after being woken up in the middle | of the night, it's all band-aid hacky fix shit that is | being generated. Also in general the type of personality | who would tolerate working 2+ hours beyond their working | time is probably the type of person that isn't even going | to use up all of their PTO to begin with, so I always find | those kinds of rewards laughable. | yawaramin wrote: | You do understand that most startups fail, right? Clearly, | on aggregate, their practices are not really working or | worthy of imitation. For the ones that succeed, there's a | huge element of luck. Otherwise people would make | guarantees about success. | whycombinatore wrote: | On call typically means you gotta be online and respond | within 15 minutes if paged. That's abusive. If you want a | person to do that, then pay them for that. As an example, on | call in Amazon works the way I described, and yes it is | abusive. | sdfhsdrhsd wrote: | Unless you're working hourly or the on-call duties weren't | disclosed during salary negotiations, you're already paid | for it. I'll happily take a call after hours if it means | I'm in a cushy job being paid 200k/year to solve puzzles. | My partner manages a Safeway and makes well under half what | I do for easily twice the work, and he's effectively on- | call 24/7 for his store. Is either situation ideal? No, but | I recognize that even with the injustice of having to ack | an occasional alert at 2am, I'm in a crazy fucking comfy | spot. | ActorNightly wrote: | They do pay people for that - the salaries at MAANG are | inflated as is. | syshum wrote: | >>On call typically means you gotta be online and respond | within 15 minutes if paged. | | No place I have ever worked has this kind of oncall policy. | | Most I have seen have a response time of 1hr, note | resolution, but response. | | Amazon is large enough they should have people staffed 24/7 | just by staggering the timezone codes at the different | offices. This is how Cisco TAC works, you call them you get | what ever timezone code is "day time" at that time. | | So I would agree that 15min on call is abusive, luckily | this is not my experience as "typical" in the industry, | hell even fully staffed 24/7 call centers typically do not | have a 15min response time | conradfr wrote: | In France you're necessarily compensated for being on call | and then paid when you are paged. | the_jeremy wrote: | I interviewed at Brex, and they required getting online | within 5 minutes of being paged. (I did not get the offer, | but I would not have accepted the offer after learning | that.) Where I currently work the response time is "ideally | within 15 minutes", which is a lot more manageable, since | plenty of places I like to go are within 15 minutes of my | house. My job pays more than average because of on-call, | it's 1 week out of 6, and there's probably an average of 1 | call out of business hours per week (mode is 0). | sokoloff wrote: | One argument is that you _are being paid_ for it; it's just | not broken out into two lines, but the dollars are there. | | If you're making $200K/yr, maybe $150K of that is for your | job and $50K is for being on-call. That seems like a more | than fair price (or at least one that's in the ballpark) | for periodic on-call service. | kelnos wrote: | In my experience, often people paid _more_ end up not | having on-call duties. I know several people who have | negotiated high salaries from the start of their | employment along with a stipulation that they will never | be on the on-call rotation. | | In my own situation, I removed myself from on-call duties | during a leave of absence, and never went back on after I | returned to work. Since then, I've still gotten the same | raises I got before. | lumost wrote: | An unfortunate reality of on call is that companies care | about projects delivered, not disasters averted. | | Unless your stepping in to right the ship when a company | is on fire operationally, and can point to specific | action/results you delivered to right the ship - getting | pages 8x per week does nothing for your career. | redisman wrote: | If that was the case we could easily see it in the | salaries of on-call versus not on-call positions. This is | clearly not the case. | [deleted] | exsmelliarmus wrote: | > If an organization thinks their systems should be available | 24x7 they should staff people 24x7. | | I'm a software engineer. I'm paid well partly because things | like oncall are necessary. It's priced into the compensation. | | > There is no situation where it's ok to contact someone to do | work outside of their work hours. | | It sounds like you should find a company that agrees with this | opinion. I don't agree. | koheripbal wrote: | I partially agree. It really depends on how often I'm called | when on-call. | | There is a world of difference between being called twice per | year, and twice per week. | | ...and it's fine for that to be priced in as long as those | expectations are as clear as the salary when I take the job. | coldtea wrote: | > _I'm a software engineer. I'm paid well partly because | things like oncall are necessary. It's priced into the | compensation._ | | Or you priced yourself down. | JackFr wrote: | Being on call is separable from your role as a software | developer and can be compensated separately. My wife's (non- | technical) organization has a requirement for a junior and a | senior duty officer to be available 24/7/365. These shifts | are compensated and available for people to sign up for. If | shifts don't get filled, they fall to _senior_ managers in a | rotation. You can be sure these managers somehow pay enough | that they only very rarely need to take shifts themselves. | [deleted] | tragictrash wrote: | Haha, That's why you still have to do on call. | nzmsv wrote: | This attitude is very common with software engineers and I | find it baffling. Is it some kind of inferiority complex? I | doubt Warren Buffett worries that he is overpaid and demands | to be woken up in the middle of the night for some self- | flagellation. So why do so many software engineers think "I | am paid well so I deserve whatever the company throws at me"? | You are selling something: your skills, expertise, and time | on this planet. These things are limited and valuable. | Negotiate the price and terms of the sale! | rocgf wrote: | I also find it baffling that people still think about | things the way you do. | | It's not necessarily some kind of inferiority complex or | anything else, it's about the free market. | coldtea wrote: | "Free" market just means people bound by monetary | considerations... | rsj_hn wrote: | It means no one has to trade with you if they don't like | what you have to offer in return. If you consider that | "bound", then OK, but that language doesn't illuminate, | it hides. | | It is a painful slap in the face when the market doesn't | price what you have to offer as high a you like. I know a | friend who was convinced that her calling was to be an | artist, but always had a hard time selling her works, and | often complained about the unfairness of life. I guess | she was "bound" by monetary considerations by not being | able to make ends meet as an artist. Eventually she gave | up and became a hospital lab tech and is well | compensated. So the market was telling her that her | skills as a hospital lab tech were much more valuable to | society than her skills as an artist, even if her own | preferences were otherwise. | | At the same time, some other artist can buy an entire | oceanside condo for one painting, because the market does | value their output very highly. | | That's all that we're talking about here. It is "free" | but that doesn't mean that you'll be able to get whatever | you want in exchange for your own output. | nzmsv wrote: | The free market works the other way too though. If lab | techs were in high demand (as they are), and your | friend's employer was demanding an unreasonable schedule, | she'd be free to jump ship to a better job. Right now | software engineers have that kind of market power, so why | not use it? If tomorrow the market decides we are | overpaid, we'll either accept it or change jobs like your | friend did. What I don't get is not using the power the | free market gives you because?... | staticassertion wrote: | Lots of other fields have on calls or out of work | expectations. That's part of the job, and you're | compensated highly. | | It's not like on call is a shock or something, it's not | "whatever they throw at me", it's just... part of the job. | My sister is a dentist, she has to be on call sometimes, | it's not a shocker or something you don't know when you're | signing up for the job. | | You're implying that people aren't negotiating, but that's | baseless. Software engineers are highly compensated because | of these expectations, and we all negotiate accordingly. | wildrhythms wrote: | >we all negotiate accordingly | | This is quite a sweeping statement to make. My first | engineering job salary was non-negotiable. I was told to | either accept it, or they 'rapidly' move to another | candidate. | option_greek wrote: | I would say its a superiority complex : thinking software | engineers are paid well and hence need to be ready to | sacrifice more to maintain this superior position. | | And of course also because the risks of bad or interrupted | sleep is not recognised widely and mostly ignored. | drewcoo wrote: | Which is why you can also see the exec team paged in the | middle of the night, right? Because they're paid well and | need to sacrifice? | joshuamorton wrote: | Yes, and had their vacations cut short and other such | things than rank and file employees would tolerate far | less. | SpicyLemonZest wrote: | I've definitely seen my exec team get paged in the middle | of the night, and they didn't give any indication that it | was unreasonable or uncommon. If anything they seemed to | enjoy it, which to be honest I do as well. Being woken up | to solve a problem (on rare occasion) can be validation | that you're an important person working on important | things. | gladinovax wrote: | Clearly you don't think very highly of yourself. Sad. | dang wrote: | Can you please not create accounts to post flamewar | comments to HN? It's not what this site is for, and it | destroys what it is for. | | https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html | [deleted] | redisman wrote: | Gross | strken wrote: | Every oncall rotation I've been in for the past five | years has had C-suite executives in it. Earlier the CTO, | currently the CEO. | [deleted] | skybrian wrote: | While I agree that in general they shouldn't feel bad about | asking to be being Paid More (tm) you are making | unwarranted assumptions about how happy they are with their | current employment situation. You don't know them, don't | know how much they're paid, and don't know how well or | badly they deal with being on call. | | There is nothing immoral about deciding you're happy. | nzmsv wrote: | I never said it's wrong, I just said I don't understand | it. I think my post sounds a lot less moralizing than the | one I am replying to. On-call is not some kind of basic | virtue. It is simply part of a job description, and | that's a business contract. | | I personally think that a much healthier alternative | would be to look for a position where one can maintain | their physical and mental health, and give back extra | income to worthy causes. There are many organizations | much more worthy of my time and money than a bunch of | managers who are too cheap to hire people for a follow- | the-sun support org. But I'll accept a job with on-call | if I think the rest of the deal outweighs the negatives. | | It's still fair to call out on-call as a negative though. | It's something to be aware of when accepting a job and | for companies to keep in mind when recruiting. | coldtea wrote: | > _There is nothing immoral about deciding you're happy._ | | It is when it sends a signal (about the job, market, etc) | that also affects others. | shukantpal wrote: | No it is not. Because your signal is the truth for you. | dcow wrote: | Under what moral framework? | nzmsv wrote: | Not moral, practical. The majority of places that do on- | call do it because it's the default. | | That's the problem with on-call: it somehow took on moral | undertones. And as a result it does not feel safe to | speak out against it. | | If on-call was widely seen as a negative (that a few | people like because it gives them a sense of importance, | more power to them) then there would be far fewer | companies pushing for it as the default. As it stands, | most people suffer silently for lack of an alternative. | And the first step towards change is to make it OK to | publicly say that on-call's a negative, a health hazard, | and other options exist (though they may cost more). | skybrian wrote: | If you believe that software engineers are not paid | enough and it's morally important to do something about | it then apparently I sent the best signal of all by | retiring and thereby increasing demand for everyone else. | But since this is absurd, I won't pat myself on the back | too much. | | More generally, free markets are doing absurd things all | the time (see Matt Levine) which makes it hard to extend | moral reasoning very far without getting the equivalent | of divide-by-zero errors. So I don't think we should be | all that concerned about how it affects the job market in | general when negotiating with an employer. You know what | you want better than you know what anyone else wants. Ask | to be Paid More (tm) if that's what you want, but if you | don't want to, you don't have to and people saying there | is some kind of moral imperative to try to become even | more wealthy at a faster rate can be ignored. | taormina wrote: | Feel free to drive down your own value. This is the exactly | what people are talking about when they say that they are | looking for young and naive employees to exploit who won't | know better. You're paid the big bucks because you have a | very in-demand skill. Being dumb enough to answer a call at | 3am is entirely orthogonal. | abc_lisper wrote: | Please heed this. This is the lesson you don't want to | learn from experience | philosopher1234 wrote: | Why not? | haswell wrote: | Speaking from experience, the ensuing burnout and lack of | sleep leading to other health challenges isn't worth the | "life lesson". | abc_lisper wrote: | Because, you undervalue your time, you open yourself for | abuse. May be that project that is behind can be done by | you after work, as you sometimes do work then anyways. I | have seen some managers who are acutely sensitive to this | and repeatedly use this to their advantage while charming | the underlings. Next, being on call means it is difficult | to plan that long vacation, or a unplanned night of shit | faced drinking with your buddies, or unable to sit with | your kid in the night when she is sick. A perspective of | life as unpredictable events helps reinforce this idea. | You are, with out compensation making life predictable | for others while making it less predictable to you. | Third, your mental and physical health. Sleep disorders | because of restlessness, groggy mornings and the stress | that comes with normal working hours will take a toll | over long term. | willcipriano wrote: | I was on a team that had lost a lot of it's members. We | worked hard to keep up and were on track to meet | deadlines. Some time went by, we were working nights and | weekends and every time we asked we were assured that | they were hiring but "couldn't find the right person". At | the same time, every week we would hear about a new hire | in management. They were magically able to find some new | hires as soon as deadlines started to slip, had we not | worked those nights and weekends I am certain that they | would've found someone to hire much earlier (the first | guy they did hire said the process took three months, | they were clearly dragging their feet). Too bad I learned | that lesson after already spending the day of my | daughters birth in long meetings about testing | environments. | | Why would they pay for something they can get for free? | taormina wrote: | Let's do the laziest back of the napkin math. Let's | pretend you make $100k and work 2000 hours a year. You | make $50/hr. Let's say you do 50 hours of week between | trying to impress your boss and getting woken up to do | call. Congratulations, you are now a $40/hr employee! | | Also, in my experience, the people who aren't getting | woken up at 3am (aka. your boss) don't value the time and | effort needed to stabilize these systems. So they want | you working on the new shiny product feature that will | get them promoted. Fixing the crappy data pipeline that | shouldn't alert every other night isn't a priority when | you aren't the one being woken up. | | Well, it should be a priority, but I also don't work at | that previous job for this exact reason. I took a nice | pay increase and have never had to be on-call. Don't | settle. | | EDIT: Original 2000 hours comes from 40 hours a week * 50 | weeks. Like I said, back of the napkin math here. | staticassertion wrote: | > Congratulations, you are now a $40/hr employee! | | Another way of thinking about this is that you've | invested 10 dollars of your paycheck into your career. I | worked way more than 50 hours a week when I started my | career. Subsequently, I was able to drop out of school | early (by 2 years, saving 10s of thousands of dollars), | get a full time job, increase my compensation by 50% | within 2 years, and then by 200% the following year when | I changed companies. | | By your math I'm sure I was getting paid 1/3rd of my | actual compensation. But that has more than paid off in | terms of the investment. | Volundr wrote: | > Also, in my experience, the people who aren't getting | woken up at 3am (aka. your boss) don't value the time and | effort needed to stabilize these systems. | | There's the rub. The issue isn't being on-call, it's not | prioritizing making sure the system is robust so that on- | call is boring. | | In my last job there was no formal on-call, but if shit | was going bad I'd be expected to resolve it, or track | down the right resources to do so. In my current there is | a formal on-call rotation. In my 15 years at the previous | job I probably got called out of bed 3-4 times (and due | to my roll I was the first call, if anyone got woken up, | I did, and then had to wake anyone else needed). In my 7 | months in the new job it hasn't happened yet. | | When everything is on fire, it feels obvious to me that | asking your $x00k employee to put it out isn't | unreasonable. What is unreasonable is making that the | plan instead of having robust fire-prevention systems and | making that the exception. | skybrian wrote: | Downvoted for insulting someone you don't know anything | about. | NullPrefix wrote: | same | coldtea wrote: | Downvoted the above for hollier-than-thou preaching and | missing the point. | [deleted] | gh0std3v wrote: | > It sounds like you should find a company that agrees with | this opinion. I don't agree. | | I agree that on-call is necessary in certain professions | (e.g, doctors). I also agree that if an employee is willing | to do on-call and they are compensated accordingly, then the | practice is still ethical. | | However, to call someone to do work outside work hours is | unreasonable. On-call is considered work time, so I am | expecting to be contacted during that time. However, if I'm | not on-call, then it is not time for me to work, and I | shouldn't be contacted by my company and feel pressured to | answer the call. | UncleMeat wrote: | But loads of software engineers don't have oncall. And these | jobs don't pay less as a rule. If you aren't _at least_ | getting overtime pay, then you are being scammed. | thrower123 wrote: | Industrial companies that have an assembly line go down call | people in to fix it at time and a half or double pay. | | Something is a little fucked with tech for doing it for free. | booleandilemma wrote: | The tech industry is filled with a special kind of person who | thinks they are the best at what they do. They get paid a lot | (for now) so they make the mistake of thinking they're at the | same level of real professionals like doctors, lawyers, and | engineers. The industry encourages this delusion by throwing | around essentially made-up feel-good titles like "software | engineer", "senior software engineer", "staff software | engineer", etc. | | When these people begin to doubt themselves and their line of | work, they're told they have "impostor syndrome" and | everything is fine. | | The reason the industry does all of this is because it | discourages their workers from forming unions. They trick | their workers into thinking unions will slow them down. | | There will come a day when the industry is flooded with | enough saps that their high salary is pulled out from under | them and they'll understand the reality of the situation. | They'll be left working for pennies and at odd hours of the | day. | Der_Einzige wrote: | That day will literally never come. Software is too hard | for average people to get good at in numbers that will | displace our salaries. | | Covid remote jobs are incapable of lowering USA salaries | despite the fears of outsourcing. Your fears of people | thinking they are better than they actually are are wrong - | and so is the implication that "we will get what we | deserve" - well, unless what we deserve is another doubling | of compensation for switching jobs every 2 years... | vasco wrote: | And at that point unions will make sense, like in any other | low paid, undifferentiated type of work where the worker | has a really hard time "just changing jobs" when things get | abusive. That is not the situation in IT now. | datavirtue wrote: | They don't have a union so they hoover up the boss' arbitrary | bullshit. Very simple. Most people just comply. They are the | worse because they set unreasonable expectations for everyone | else. Unions protect you from the other emoloyees' bad deals. | dylan604 wrote: | Submit an invoice for a minimum 1 hour charge for any after | hours work/calls. Devs need to start billing like lawyers. | HarryHirsch wrote: | The "personal responsibility" narrative has seeped far to | far into American life to be tolerable. Back then, we had | industrial operations that were running 24 hours/day, | things like factory assembly lines, steelmaking, the | electric and gas utilities, and they had on-call rotas. But | then we also had proper engineering practices, none of this | "take ownership" crap, which reduced incidents, and we had | unions that were in a position to push back on employer | demands. | | Instead we have self-indulgent junk like that. Wonder what | my uncle would say, he was chief engineer for the gas | company back in the day. | bengale wrote: | I always managed to get out of doing any on call work by | pushing this point. There was a price for being put in the | list of numbers that would reach my phone during non work | hours and then further charges if I had to answer a call. | Was always a pretty tense discussion with managers but they | never wanted to pay for it and I never worked for free. | rubinelli wrote: | You should also be compensated for the time you spend on-call | (which means you can't take on other commitments you | otherwise might.) Anything less and it's outright | exploitation. "We pay you well" is a non-sequitur. | ianai wrote: | "We pay you well" just means "the labor market favors us so | much that we can hire a replacement for you to do it." | Charitably, it's because their pay is above a willingness | to work threshold in the market. As a market participant, | the supply side of labor typically is too large, not at all | organized, and lacks information and any market power to | price these things into valuations. | ploxiln wrote: | > "We pay you well" is a non-sequitur. | | Not at all. The choice might be between $60k salary plus | around $20k for overtime in one career, vs another career | with $200k+ salary plus crazy benefits (gym memberships, a | variety of mental health services, $20k in fertility | treatments (no joke), 3+ months paternity leave, over 10 | more things I can't even name they make no sense...) | | I don't even use any of the benefits, just the money (and | the parental leave) but calling a few on-call nights per | month "abuse" or "exploitation" is just ... without | perspective. Nobody that does real work has it this cushy - | not doctors, not teachers, not construction workers. Maybe | aristocratic political appointees or something, but jeez, | no field that is accessible to anyone with an old laptop | and sufficient motivation. This is as cushy as it gets, for | a _real_ job. Enjoy it while it lasts. | credittw2021 wrote: | Agreed. | | My brother makes about what I do, but he is an MBA and a | plant manager with background in logistics. | | Sometimes he gets calls and has to go in to work. Hell | there has been at least one instance where he had to drop | everything and courier a bag of parts on a commercial | flight so a line wouldn't stop. | | That said, I have worked in 'abusive' on call | environments. I.e. we had a system that would break at | least once a week between 3am and 6am (like, multiple | times in that period). But because the oncall labor to | remediate was 'free', fixing the problem was never a | priority over the 2 years I worked there. | [deleted] | sidlls wrote: | It's the "superhero" complex so many software engineers have. | The dopamine hit they get when they resolve some outage or | thorny bug or whatever (and the ensuing accolades from their | peers) interferes with their ability to reason clearly about | their compensation and the circumstances of their employment. | SpicyLemonZest wrote: | I guess I don't understand the line you're drawing here. If | they enjoy the circumstances of their work, why _should_ | they go out of their way to "reason clearly" about how it's | actually bad? I could understand if there's a collective | action problem, but as many people in this thread have | attested, people who want a job without oncall duty can get | one. | b3morales wrote: | Remaining neutral on the on-call point, but as a | practical/logical matter, things that _feel good and make | you happy_ can still be bad for you personally, | especially if they 're multiplied over the long term. | Three or four gin and tonics every night feels great | until your doctor reveals that your unexplained weight | loss is from cirrhosis, or cancer. | ebiester wrote: | So, can this mythical 24x7 support the code you wrote? Did you | write documentation that explains every case that could go | wrong? | | If your team writes code that doesn't need to be supported by | an engineer, then your team won't get called. | pylua wrote: | The truth is that other services break , the network breaks , | and someone will believe it's your software and it will be | your burden to prove it at 2am in the morning . | redisman wrote: | Hah hilarious. Let me just go tell management our bar is now | "never breaks" rather than "ship it". | kayodelycaon wrote: | I can't even be on-call if I wanted to. ADA requires a company | justify any essential job functions. Justifying a programmer | needing to be on call is difficult because it is a secondary | role. | | Programmers aren't hired to do on-call. The company just decides | they can skip hiring anyone for those roles by reusing "existing | assets". Same with single sources of knowledge. They don't invest | in having sufficient capacity. | | Basically, companies hire people who can do multiple jobs as | cheaply as possible and with has as little support as possible. | Which is not sustainable. | | ADA can really highlight dysfunctional systems. | | For anyone saying a small company can't afford this, ADA doesn't | apply to companies under 15 employers or that can demonstrate | undo-hardship given their resources. (By the way, trying to hire | employees as contractors does not work.) | JoshTko wrote: | Not an SWE, but how common is on call duty, and are there no | companies that pay spot bonuses per issue? | SpicyLemonZest wrote: | It's hard to quantify exactly how common it is. Common enough | that you'd need to deliberately search for jobs that don't have | it, but not so common that you won't find any. | | I've never heard of spot bonuses per issue, although I imagine | it would create a perverse incentive to have noisy alerting | that files a lot of issues. Flat bonuses per oncall shift exist | (and I think they're a great idea) but they're relatively rare. | varispeed wrote: | Nothing wrong being on call as long as you are being paid to | adequately. I always refuse being on-call if I am not being paid | full hours plus extra for outside 9 to 5 for the entire duration | regardless if anyone called. | ckdarby wrote: | Author lists off group of people who should not get pager duty | and I think it is unfair to the rest of the team that individuals | who fall into the groups outlined are able to escape the duties | and responsibilities of the job. | | If the job posting or interviewing was upfront about the role | will have on-call then the interviewee should make the decision | to not apply or accept the offer if they're unable to fulfill the | responsibilities. | kayodelycaon wrote: | Many programming jobs require on-call and overtime when they | shouldn't. I wouldn't be able to have a job if that requirement | was truly valid. It's usually not. | | I can't do on-call for medical reasons, nor can I work | overtime. Neither of these are considered to be an essential | job function for programmers, regardless of job descriptions, | under ADA. A company must justify that job requirement. They | can't. | | By the way, the "fairness" reason is explicitly excluded by | law. It's the entire reason ADA exists. | msrenee wrote: | You think it's unfair for people who have young children to not | be expected to also be on call 24/7? The author even specifies | that they're talking about kids too young to sleep through the | night. It's unfair for people with sleep disorders to not have | to worry about getting called in at 2 am? In the anxiety case, | it even sounds like the employee really wanted to be on call, | but maybe needs to see a specialist to handle their reaction to | stress. | | If people don't deserve a little slack due to personal | circumstances, what happens when you find yourself in a | situation where you can't pull your weight? I feel like people | who think that not being able to do 110% of your job at all | times makes you unqualified are in for a rude awakening when | they find themselves in a similar situation. | twic wrote: | It's unfair for people who have young children to not be | expected to also be on call 24/7 _and be rewarded in the same | way as people who don 't, and are_. | datavirtue wrote: | There is no reward for OnCall work...except for a lack of | respect. The OnCall people have always been viewed as less. | I'm not doing anything on call unless our department head | is on the bridge the entire time. OnCall is a pain that is | inflicted during working hours. | [deleted] | barrkel wrote: | That attitude leads directly to ageism, sexism and other | discriminatory practices, and has second order effects on | society which are contrary to the long term interests of | capitalism - a stable consumer base with disposable income. | | Fairness isn't a straightforward concept, but your conception | is more naive and - I'd guess - self-serving than most. How do | you feel about progressive income taxes? Under a simplistic | model of fairness, flat rates seem fair, but in reality the | marginal ability to pay increases, and perceived pain of paying | decreases, with increased income and wealth. | | Now expand that concept from the monetary domain to the time | domain, and consider how fair it is for people who are | particularly time poor - for non-selfish reasons - to need to | spend more of their time on the job. Affordances can be made | for inclusiveness and they can be fair. | kayodelycaon wrote: | Fairness, as used by the parent, means "if someone else can | do something, I should be able to too." | | The other person's situation is never a factor. They see | someone getting things for free and they think they should | have them for free too. | barrkel wrote: | Do you feel the same way about maternity and paternity | leave? | ToddWBurgess wrote: | I was on call for 5 years at an old job (non IT). Getting paged | and yanked out of bed at all hours messes with you in so many | ways. Being sleep deprived you turn to high sugar drinks and | foods to keep you awake. The sleep deprivation and bad diets | causes you to put on weight. Going to bed with the idea you could | get paged does terrible things for your anxiety. On top of that | all the sleep deprivation changes your personality. | | You become highly irritable and it really brings down your mood. | Eventually I couldn't deal with it after 5 years and I pretty | much walked off the job. I didn't realize the toll it was taking | on me and what being on call was doing to me until I was no | longer on call. | Der_Einzige wrote: | We need federal legislation that bans super strong Service level | agreements in cloud tech. Amazon has the best cloud entirely | because of their hellish on-call powered by their absurd SLAs. | I'm sure this is one of the most important components behind why | there is so much oncall. | | I'd love to see amazon and bezos get punished instead of rewarded | just once for being slave drivers. Please pass federal | legislation against "999" or other extremely absurd SLAs. | yuppie_scum wrote: | Extremely important article. I have been a part of some hell | rotations and it is not sustainable at all. | draw_down wrote: | > I believe it's reasonable to expect to be woken up 2-3 times a | year, as an engineer for that system. | | Reasonable that may be, but the problem is you don't know which | 2-3 nights it will happen. No thanks. | cletus wrote: | So I've seen personally been involved in this at both Google and | Facebook. They have very different approaches. One works | reasonably well. One... doesn't. | | At Google, when you develop a service, you as a software team are | responsible for maintaining it. This includes being oncall. But, | depending on how critical the service is, you'll get bonus pay | for this oncall time. This can amount to >$10k a year. And your | oncall may not be that noisy. That is something and (IMHO) | significant. Generally you'll be oncall for a week but this can | vary. | | For sufficiently high profile services, oncall may end up being | owned by an SRE team. That's not really something that can be | thrown over the fence by SWE teams. SRE teams have to accept that | ownership. To do this, it requires meeting standards like having | an oncall runbook, a sufficiently long history (~6 months), | adequate metrics and so on. At that point, SWEs will still be | second level support for something SREs may need help resolving. | You'll still get paid for this. | | SREs don't generally have week long oncalls. For the highest | profile services, SRE support is global, meaning you'll have team | members in 3 time zones such that whoever is oncall is in their | normal working hours. So you might have an 8 hour oncall every | week or something. | | At Facebook, generally as a software team you'll be responsible | for that service forever. Some key services may be fully or | partially supported by PEs (Production Engineers). PEs are less | common than Google SREs. | | You don't get oncall pay at Facebook. It's simply expected. | Depending on your management, you may be expected to do that | oncall and everything else you're supposed to be doing. | | So here's why Google's system is better than Facebook's: | | 1. Oncalls, in my experience, tend to be a lot less noisy at | Google. Services tend to be much more mature and stable at Google | than Facebook; | | 2. Teams are generally larger at Google. This means that not | everyone needs to be oncall. This is good. There is an optimum | size for oncalls. IMHO it is about 8-12. Fewer than 8 and people | are oncall too much. More than 12 and you lose skills by not | using them often enough. | | 3. The pay is really important to (2) because it means that those | who are oncall at least get compensated for it. At a minimum this | sends the message that oncall is important and rewarded. It also | means those oncall are less likely to resent those not oncall, | which might well be the case if you're not compensated for the | extra work; | | 4. There are a ton of orphan projects at Facebook (IME). By this | I mean some product team (in particular) will develop something, | ship it and then... forget about it. Onwership of source code | trees and projects tends to be fairly strictly enforced at | Google. These orphan projects tend to create a number of support | issues and tasks that are a drain on oncall as there is no one to | pass those tasks on to. | | 5. Culturally, Google seems to acknowledge and respect oncall | work load more than Facebook does. For example, tasks at Facebook | have SLAs and I saw plenty of games played to avoid dealing with | tasks. Examples: changing priority to increase or remove the SLA, | silently closing tasks, passing tasks back months later to the | reporter asking "is this still an issue?", etc. | | So my point is that not wanting to be oncall is understandable | but for many engineers, it's going to be part of your job. If so, | you need to make sure your organization does it well. There's a | world of difference between an oncall you don't get paid for | that's 40 hours of work vs one where you get 2 tasks a week and | you're getting paid for possibly having to answer an alert. | | Hating oncall is indicative of a bad engineering culture IME. | Things like prioritizing shipping above all else, not rewarding | fixing things, unreasonable management driven deadlines and so | on. Oncall is the canary in the coal mine for all of that. | supernovae wrote: | Do you have kids? hobbies? friends? Do you like to go fishing | on weekends? Do you like to go out on a date on weeknights? Do | you like going to visit family on Christmas and Thanksgiving | and leaving your laptop at home? It's great explaining to your | 11 year old that you can't go to their recital because your on | call isn't it? | | It boggles my mind that you suggest people lose skills by not | using them often enough... these on call rotations aren't | skills. | | What's weird, is that we default to look at the goodness or | badness of something purely on "skills" and "money". | | Yes.. yes.. we've all read the SRE book and understand Googles | approach to flexibility - but... it doesn't have to be that | way. | | Ask yourself.. what's next? What are you looking to do after 25 | years of being on call? Will you still enjoy it? | | I'll never have those nights and weekends back that I spent | being on call for products and services that don't exist | anymore. Sure, I made some money - but it didn't have to be at | such a great cost. | vitus wrote: | At least at Google, oncall shifts aren't set in stone. If you | need to swap with a coworker (even for a few hours), you can. | Devs should not be holding 15-minute (much less 5-minute) | pagers; if your system is really that critical, you should be | working to onboard an SRE team. | | > these on call rotations aren't skills. | | Troubleshooting live production issues is a skill. | | Triaging incidents to prioritize actions to minimize user | harm is a skill. | | Assessing tradeoffs of mitigation strategies is a skill. | | The very tangible scenario of being woken up in the middle of | the night builds empathy with your devops / SRE organization | (which can manifest itself in designing more resilient | systems, engaging in less risky behavior, improving | documentation for the next oncaller, etc). | | Oncall isn't for everyone, and it's certainly not worthwhile | if you don't take away any lessons from it. But devs are | ultimately the closest ones to their code, and they should | take advantage of the opportunity to understand how it | behaves in production. | | > Ask yourself.. what's next? What are you looking to do | after 25 years of being on call? Will you still enjoy it? | | I've had bad weeks of oncall as well as quiet weeks. If it | ever gets to a point where bad weeks are much more frequent, | and nobody's doing anything about it, then yeah, I won't want | to do it anymore. But as long as it's still providing value | beyond humans providing blood / sweat / tears, and as long as | we're actually trying to make things better, I don't mind | holding a pager a few weeks a year. | cletus wrote: | > Do you have kids? hobbies? friends? Do you like to go | fishing on weekends? | | Do you like having a job that gives you money to pay for all | those things as well as the basic ability to, you know, live? | How far do you want to take this? Is working 40 hours a week | taking time away from your children, friends or hobbies? Of | course it is. | | But nobody owes you a living. A job is you trading your time | and your skills to someone else in a way that provides that | person value. There are going to be parts of that job you | like and probably parts you don't. | | If you really want to avoid oncall then fine, do it. That | will likely limit your career opportunities because some jobs | will require it or your coworkers may be rewarded (monetarily | and careerwise) because they're doing something you're not. | There's nothing wrong with that choice but at the same time | you don't get to complain because others benefit from doing | something you won't. | | > but... it doesn't have to be that way. | | For 24/7 production services then who exactly supports those | services? | | > I'll never have those nights and weekends back that I spent | being on call for products and services that don't exist | anymore. | | There's a pretty good chance that nothing you worked on will | exist in 25 years. What's your point? | joshuamorton wrote: | I'm confused, the post you're replying to says that the | Google model means you don't have nights OnCall. | | > . these on call rotations aren't skills. | | Incident response/management is absolutely a skill. | quelltext wrote: | > For example, tasks at Facebook have SLAs and I saw plenty of | games played to avoid dealing with tasks. Examples: changing | priority to increase or remove the SLA, silently closing tasks, | passing tasks back months later to the reporter asking "is this | still an issue?", etc. | | What kind of tasks are you referring to in the context of on | call here? Tasks to remedy the root cause of repeated alarms | paging folks? | cletus wrote: | Task is a general all-encompassing term here as well as the | internal task tracking tool everyone uses (called "Tasks"). | | Tasks could be filed by users of your service or external | reports that get routed to your oncall or an alarm that fires | because a metric moves outside of a "normal" range or | whatever. Alarms ("pages") will come to you and need to be | ACKed. Often they'll also generate a task. That task may | require separate action or not. Many times those will just | get closed or merged to existing tasks. | cghendrix wrote: | I have a question. Is this for all environments (dev, qa, | staging or whatever the equivalent is at google/fb) or just | production? | joshuamorton wrote: | SREs are (with a few exceptions) only responsible for | production (or more precisely, things serving prod traffic, | which may be multiple environments). Dev teams are usually | responsible for keeping qa and ci green. | hirundo wrote: | There's a salutary effect on developer conscientiousness to put | them on call for problems with their own code on production. If a | missing nil check means that you get dragged out of bed at peak | REM sleep, you check for missing nils harder. You test more. You | design your whole project around the requirement of getting | uninterrupted sleep. | | For years I was in this position for a trading company that had | pre-market downloads at 4am my time. Bad data and my own bad code | woke me up a lot ... which contributed a lot to making that code | wake-me-up proof for further years. | | Of course you should get paid for that time, and there's a | diminishing return to such character building exercises. But | eating your own dog food is worthwhile particularly in the middle | of the night. | kayodelycaon wrote: | This assumes your company is okay with spending time to write | reliable systems. | [deleted] | l0b0 wrote: | I and another person are taking over an old batch processing | system at work. The system itself is fairly stable, but interacts | with some other systems which keep falling over or changing | things without adequate notification. Currently there are (mostly | false) alarms almost every day, usually for stupid reasons like | the network falling over for a few minutes or disk use going | above a fairly arbitrary level. So when the subject of weekend | on-call came up we just went hard "no", and we've been discussing | solutions to _that_ ever since (adjusting cron scheduling, making | alarms more forgiving, adjusting customer expectations, improving | automation, etc). | | Importantly, we can do this because we live somewhere with | employee protection, and our contracts do not mention being on | call or working weekends. If you don't have that you're pretty | much SOL. | [deleted] | throwaway55421 wrote: | Most jobs I've had there was an implicit expectation that if your | shit breaks, you fix it. This resulted in systems which didn't | break because, well, that keeps work to working hours. | | A few years back I took a job with no mention of on call and then | was told there would be a fortnightly 24 hour slot, which later | turned into ~weekly as team members left. | | I left too. | | I have no idea why they felt it reasonable to not mention this | before I joined, they effectively just wasted a few months pay on | me on a gamble that I had no life outside of work. | | They seemed to find the idea that I don't take my laptop to the | pub, or up a mountain, or on holiday, some sort of bizarre way of | living. Sick system effect? Who knows. | Wiseacre wrote: | Sign of a wider lack of trust between employer and employee. | Yet the idea of unionization is still very unpopular. | throwaway55421 wrote: | I don't follow. | | Most jobs I've had were high trust, this was the weird | exception. I didn't need a union to fix that. | Wiseacre wrote: | It's not a rare phenomenon across the industry. Plenty of | my colleagues and I have experienced something similar. | 0x0000000 wrote: | > Most jobs I've had there was an implicit expectation that if | your shit breaks, you fix it. This resulted in systems which | didn't break because, well, that keeps work to working hours. | | My experience was similar in my last long-term software role. | We were not explicitly on call, but we | developed/deployed/supported an app which was critical to a | 24x7x365 business process. So we were careful in our testing, | code reviews, and deployments. | | One time in 7 years I had to answer an out of hours call | because of an issue in this app. | | I'll take that over semimonthly on-call rotas for suites of | apps my team isn't isn't responsible for. | cameronh90 wrote: | > if your shit breaks, you fix it | | What if you're drunk? | ozarkerD wrote: | Good thing I was drunk when I made it! | NikolaeVarius wrote: | Stop deploying shit then. Also, I am very good at fixing | systems even when drunk. Lots of practice. | throwaway55421 wrote: | You think about that when you design it. | | I used to work on trading systems which were managed in real | time by a rotating team of traders (i.e. mathematically | oriented people as opposed to software engineers). | | You design the system so that if it breaks there are at least | workarounds that anyone can employ without needing to write | code. For example, a big stop button, manual adjustments, | manual trading, etc. | | Maybe it stops printing money overnight and you take an | opportunity cost loss. That's fine, post mortem at work, fix | it. | | In the worst case if you're not available then someone with | ownership steps in like a CTO/founder level (who are of | course always on call almost by definition, though they | generally have the executive power to say - sod this, we'll | just leave it down for a while). | s0rce wrote: | Seems like "if your shit breaks, you fix it" = on call | 24/7... isn't it better to have a specific shift where you | know you are responsible and then you aren't the rest of the | time. | throwaway55421 wrote: | No, because in that case you are responsible for other | people's systems you have no idea about and there is no | incentive to fix them. | | I am always on call to secure my own house, so I have a | good alarm system, cameras, locks etc which means I | hopefully don't have to do much. It doesn't keep me up at | night when I'm on holiday because, well, it's | overwhelmingly likely that nothing will happen. | | If I were on call for the neighbourhood or general area | once a week, I'd probably have to physically be there | patrolling it because otherwise I have liability for things | which are outside of my control. | znpy wrote: | I used to be on call, and now I'm not anymore (but I changed jobs | in between). | | I'm not against being on-call but in my opinion if I get called | tonight then tomorrow morning I want to be able to start a | process that prevents the problem from happening again, and I | want to be able to put EVERYTHING in discussion. I don't want to | hear anything about development or operations, that thing must be | root caused and it must whoever can implement a fix (either me, | my team or the development team, either on our side or on | customer side) must drop everything they're doing and implement a | correction of error. | | TL;DR: | | If I can't fix stuff and prevent the problem from happening again | then I don't want be on call. | marcus_holmes wrote: | > In a healthy engineering organization, there are no gaps in | coverage. Every critical component is owned by a TEAM, not a | person. | | I just joined a large organisation that practices this, and it's | driving me nuts. Because no individual is taking ownership, | nothing happens. There's no accountability, no drive to improve | anything. We ask questions on Slack about "can someone deal with | this problem, please?" and nothing happens. Rather than an alarm | going off at 2am and the owner dealing with it (again), the alarm | goes off and nothing happens, no-one fixes it. Stuff stays broken | until it gets a ticket and assigned to a sprint (and even then, | people self-assign to tickets, and there's no consequences to not | finishing all the tickets on a sprint, so it's still relying on | someone to be vaguely interested enough to pick it up and deal | with it). | | I moved from being tech co-founder of a startup (where everything | is my responsibility and it's all on me to fix it) to this. It's | doing my head in. I think I actually prefer being "on-call" for | code I built and have complete control over. | DoneWithAllThat wrote: | I used to not mind oncall as much, before managerialism and | corporate attitudes took over tech. It was fun (I'd also | stressful) to feel in the trenches so to speak, while being | treated as someone mildly crazy for taking on the responsibility | but also not held to the same silly and stupid bureaucratic | attitudes that afflicted the rest of the company. | | Now I'm supposed to talk to businessspeak talk and walk the promo | game walk while also supposed to answer the phone at one am and | stay up all night saving the business from melting down. | | Yes I know I'm ranting. The industry has turned into a miserable | corporate grind like finance or something, only with the added | obligation of someone has to mop up to slop in the middle of the | night and that someone is me. | [deleted] ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-11-28 23:00 UTC)