[HN Gopher] We're All Working, All the Time: Workers Deserve the...
___________________________________________________________________
We're All Working, All the Time: Workers Deserve the Right to
Disconnect
Author : adrianhoward
Score : 94 points
Date : 2022-05-17 19:34 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (novaramedia.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (novaramedia.com)
| imapeopleperson wrote:
| Siru Murugesan, an engineer at Twitter, admits to working just 4
| hours a week.
|
| Disconnected enough imo
| sys_64738 wrote:
| Don't tell them your phone number then they can't add you to some
| BS WhatsApp group.
| midislack wrote:
| It's called taking an hourly position. Many people prefer it.
| When you're on salary you're owned by the company, period. That's
| what getting a salary means, you're no longer getting compensated
| for individual slices of time because all your time is owned.
| It's only by the good graces of the company which purchased you a
| year at a time that you get time off. But that too is highly
| discouraged. Taking all your time off every year shows you might
| have priorities other than your employer, and by extension your
| career.
|
| Don't they teach people what being on salary even means any more?
| dools wrote:
| Outside of North America, most professionals wind up using the
| same mobile number for personal and business use, or they have to
| carry 2 phones.
|
| That's why my product BenkoPhone is so important! Currently
| Australia only, coming to a virtual mobile number starved
| territory near you.
| [deleted]
| thih9 wrote:
| Isn't the answer as simple as: "turn off work devices and work
| notifications when you finish work"?
| VGltZUNvbnN1 wrote:
| Even if you're able to disconnect physically from your work, it
| can be hard to disconnect mentally especially if you fear
| repercussion from your superiors.
| sys_64738 wrote:
| Write all the things on your mind down so you can forget
| them. If you fear retaliation from your superiors then get
| another job.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| I'm a dev. There's a certain amount of "being available" that
| comes with the job. I accept it... _as long as it 's rare_.
|
| At a previous job, we had a yearly trade show that we displayed
| at. I knew that the month before, I was going to be working more
| than 40 hours a week. The rest of the year was pretty much
| straight 40 hour weeks. I accepted that.
|
| At my current job, my boss once called me in at 9 PM for an
| emergency. I was there until 1 AM (and he was there both before
| me and later than me). That happened _once_ (in 13 years). I
| accept that.
|
| If it's every week, that's a management problem, not a worker
| problem. I'm not management, and they don't pay me to fix
| management problems.
| gsibble wrote:
| They make a case that there's a difference between men and women
| in how much overtime work is put upon them. In my household with
| my wife and I both working from home with lots of off-hour
| communications and demands, I see a clear difference. I'll put my
| phone into do not disturb or other modes and disconnect from
| work. I also turn off many/most notifications normally including
| email. She's entirely unable to detach from work, even refusing
| to put her phone on do not disturb, for fear of missing some
| critical Slack/Email/Text/Call/Whatsapp/Telegram/Signal. I'm
| comfortable in my role that I can turn off and not get yelled at
| while she isn't. I've noticed this pattern with previous partners
| as well. So it may be a difference between how willing women and
| men are to detach and risk missing something vs. employers
| treating them differently. Honestly, this article draws some
| conclusions about that without any supporting data.
| turtledove wrote:
| Women also pick up a huge amount of work in the form of chores,
| childcare, emotional labor, and general running of the house.
|
| This labor is typically unpaid and expected to be done on up of
| whatever other work the women do to pay the bills.
| bennysomething wrote:
| Sorry this might be true, but certainly never been true for
| me. I work late, cook dinner, do house work, do garden work,
| do all the life admin, organise any repairs or do then
| myself. I am the main bread winner too. Yes my wife spends
| more time with our daughter but that's only because she works
| part time.
|
| It's feels a bit unfair to be told that because I'm a man I
| don't do enough.
| turtledove wrote:
| I'm sorry, where did anyone tell you that you didn't do
| enough (because you are a man)?
|
| I think you might be reading things that no one is saying.
|
| Saying, "this commonly happens" is not the same as saying,
| "you are doing this."
| UnpossibleJim wrote:
| >>Women also pick up a huge amount of work in the form of
| chores, childcare, emotional labor, and general running
| of the house<<
|
| It seems implicit in this statement. I'm also the cook
| (my wife doesn't know how), we split laundry, handle
| child care together when possible (with my mother coming
| over to help). My wife is in school and doesn't earn an
| income ATM and we aren't sure what happens when she
| graduates, but even with me working full time chores are
| split as I work from home. Different people have
| different strengths. We have a son and there are some
| things I like that he does that she doesn't.
| turtledove wrote:
| A generalization implicitly does not include all cases.
| The existence of counter examples does not invalidate the
| general case.
|
| Saying a pattern exists in no way implies you,
| specifically, fit that pattern.
| nickff wrote:
| Your first post in this thread wasn't a clear
| generalization, it was a vague statement about what
| 'women do'. This could be interpreted as saying 'all
| women do', 'many women do', 'more women than men do',
| 'some women do', or 'modal women do'.
| PretzelPirate wrote:
| I want to support turtledove here.
|
| They weren't expressing an opinion that men don't do
| work, but stating what research shows: that women tend to
| take on unpaid work disproportionately to men, including
| house work: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34465574/
| fknorangesite wrote:
| Who said anything about you specifically?
| DontMindit wrote:
| RappingBoomer wrote:
| >The uncoupling of work from the office - something that long
| preceded the pandemic, but has been accelerated by it - has meant
| work could be done at any time and from any location.
|
| oh look, yet another piece of propaganda pushing the idea of
| ending working from home in favor of returning to the office!
| rr808 wrote:
| I've worked in Europe and USA and the attitudes to days off are
| very different. People in Europe always take 1 or 2 week
| vacations and dont stay in touch - no one expects them to. At the
| end of year they have to use or lose vacation time so natrually
| everyone takes time off. USA people will go to their lake house
| but stay on call all the time. Finish the year with unused
| vacation time - seems just quite common.
| travisgriggs wrote:
| For me, the root cause of problems here, is not the "soft", after
| work hours--some jobs need that kind of thing--but rather the
| escalation of expectations without another negotiating
| opportunity.
|
| It's a lot of work to enter into employment arrangements with a
| company. For both the employee and employer. What's problematic
| is when either side is "surprised" by a change in expected
| behavior after the fact. It's frustrating, because you have sunk
| cost in entering the employment agreement. So middle managers
| abuse their employees by springing these types of things after
| the job has gotten going. The employee has the freedom to walk,
| but not without paying a certain opportunity cost.
|
| The job offer should make very clear up front in the listing what
| these "soft" expectations will be. And if they do, the
| employee/employer needs the recourse to renegotiate the
| situation.
|
| I've seen this go the other way as well. Employee takes job, puts
| in a few months, and then springs untold issues on the employer.
| Like the abusive middle manager, if they make it minimal enough
| to just be annoying, it's not worth firing them for it, it just
| becomes a drag on everyone else.
| jpdaigle wrote:
| > It's frustrating, because you have sunk cost in entering the
| employment agreement
|
| It's even more precarious for US immigrants where many types of
| immigrant visa (H1B, L1, TN) are tied to continuing to hold a
| specific job.
|
| Don't like that job anymore? Get laid off, or reclassified into
| a different position? Oops, you're in violation of your visa,
| you have a week to leave the country.
|
| There's a huge power imbalance between the class of workers
| that have US permanent residency or citizenship, and those on
| work visas.
| spaniard89277 wrote:
| In spain we have mandated clock in and clock out, even
| remotely. I've had this for years but it seems it solved this
| problem for other people.
| jmyeet wrote:
| This is an especially American problem, at least in the developed
| world.
|
| And what sets the US apart from the rest of the developed world?
| The almost complete lack of labor organization ie unions.
|
| Your shitty life isn't because of [insert wedge issue here]. It's
| because of your material conditions. Poor white people have way
| more in common with poor black people than either do with rich
| people. But so many Americans believe they are simply temporarily
| embarrassed millionaires [1].
|
| This propaganda is so successful that something like 30% of
| Americans believe in the Great Replacement [2]. It's pushed on
| mainstream media [3].
|
| [1]: https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/328134-john-steinbeck-
| once-...
|
| [2]: https://www.npr.org/2022/05/17/1099233034/the-great-
| replacem...
|
| [3]: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-
| politic...
| EddieDante wrote:
| If workers want the right to disconnect, they need to exercise it
| without asking permission of management or the government.
|
| I sure as hell don't ask permission to turn off my company-issued
| devices at 5pm and ignore them until 8am the next morning. Nor do
| I ask permission to ignore work-related comms outside of business
| hours, because I don't work for free. I already have the right to
| disconnect. I have _always_ had it, because I am a human being
| and autonomy is a human right.
|
| Remember: power yields nothing without a demand, and direct
| action gets the goods.
| zwieback wrote:
| Same here, when my hours are up I'm done, work will be there
| for me in the morning. I'm surprised how many of my coworkers
| say they "feel" like they can't do that. I'm working in an
| engineering organization with major retention issues so at this
| point there's no way we will be punished for insisting on work-
| life balance.
|
| I think at least 50% of the problem is on the employee side.
| cameronh90 wrote:
| Hell, most of the time I don't even reply to things immediately
| during work hours.
|
| Unless it requires absolute immediate attention, don't expect
| an immediate response. If you want sync comms for
| collaboration, organize a meeting and I'm all yours for two
| hours or as long as it takes. Otherwise, I'm putting myself on
| DND and checking my email and IMs every few hours so I have
| some space for deep focus.
| gsibble wrote:
| This is my attitude. Come 5pm, the phone goes into a focus mode
| ignoring work. I ignore any other desktop communications,
| frequently closing Slack and Superhuman. Disconnecting from
| work is the only way to stay sane. No one has yelled at me yet
| at this job. Previous jobs were awful though. We started work
| at 10am everyday and the CTO woke me up by calling twice at 7am
| to break through my do not disturb, just to tell me to push a
| feature asap. Nothing critical at all. Some bosses absolutely
| have zero respect for personal time and space.
| musicale wrote:
| > Some bosses absolutely have zero respect for personal time
| and space.
|
| Pecking order is everything.
|
| In most organizations, exercising said disrespect for
| subordinates is a key method for management to demonstrate,
| enforce, and enjoy their higher social status.
|
| Similarly, subordinates must exercise respect and deference
| to the time, space, and attention of management. This is a
| key method to help employees demonstrate, acknowledge, and
| internalize their lower social status.
|
| Any threats to the status hierarchy threaten the structure of
| the organization and are usually dealt with harshly.
| pnutjam wrote:
| Last place I worked, I was on call once every 4 weeks or so
| which entailed getting up in the middle of the night at least
| 3 days and often more then once. They also practiced dog-pile
| trouble shooting where everyone was expected to hop on "red
| alerts" and stay on the call until the issue was resolved.
|
| I've seen it take 6hrs+, running past 5 o'clock or sometimes
| starting in the evening and running for hours.
|
| During the pandemic, I unplugged around 3pm to grab some new
| shoes for a kid that had ripped theirs out, because other
| guys were around and after 5pm I'm on my own. Boss starts
| texting me, "where are you" and "you should do this stuff
| after hours"...
|
| This really left a sour taste and I've since moved on.
|
| We need some sort of ability to demand OT, hour for hour comp
| time, and after hours compensation. One person can fight
| back, but we are constantly undercut by management. I would
| often try to comp time and get hit up because it's a busy
| week, then later that comp time would evaporate and I'd get
| alot of flack trying to claw it back. My preference is not to
| comp my time in the morning, but I'd end up clocking in an
| hour later afew times a week just to try and get some of my
| time back.
| zrail wrote:
| > We need some sort of ability to demand OT, hour for hour
| comp time, and after hours compensation.
|
| The word is "union". You want a union.
| taf2 wrote:
| Did you get a new job and does it have better options for
| you requiring less time?
| pnutjam wrote:
| Yes, more pay and better on call hours. All remote.
| cameronh90 wrote:
| Compensation or time off in lieu for overtime and callouts
| is the bare minimum we should expect. That shouldn't even
| be up for debate, and I'm glad to say, everywhere I've
| worked (in the UK) respects that.
|
| Where I have problems is being expected to be available
| while "on call" but not being paid for it. In my opinion:
| if you can't get shit faced, you're working, and should be
| compensated accordingly with all working time regulations
| applying as normal.
| pnutjam wrote:
| Yeah, we didn't get anything above our regular salary.
| genewitch wrote:
| Remember the hurricane that hit Virginia in 2012 or 2013?
| I wasn't even "on call" - i was just the only person with
| credentials. I told the DBA and the boss and the CTO that
| you can't just fix an outage at a cloud provider due to
| hurricane with telnet and a prayer candle.
|
| Then i opened a bottle of whisky, and listened to them
| try to figure out how much data we lost, until about 5
| AM. I don't remember if i was hourly contract or hourly
| employee at that point, but i did get ~8 hours of pay
| that evening for doing nothing but not unmuting my voice
| on the phone call!
|
| I don't do Disaster Recovery anymore, no one _really_
| listens.
| jedberg wrote:
| This is the standard argument as to why no government
| regulation is necessary -- "because you can just walk
| away/change jobs!"
|
| You are lucky because you have the privilege of being able to
| do this. Not everyone does. A lot of people need they job they
| have to continue, and their boss _will_ fire them for not
| responding to an email at 9pm.
|
| Those are the people that need government protection and
| regulation, or a union, or both. Because their employer won't
| do it unless forced to and they don't have to privilege to
| ignore it like you do.
| jpdaigle wrote:
| I'm not sure how regulation can hope to really solve this
| when the problem isn't that an employer is forcing anything
| on you, but usually more one where your coworkers are
| independently making decisions about out-of-hours
| availability that create an unspoken culture, and usual and
| customary expectations that differ from the official written
| ones.
|
| You're perfectly free to completely ignore work after 5pm!
| Nothing bad will happen! A company will swear up and down all
| day long that they support flex time and you're not expected
| to ever answer any queries outside of your own working hours!
|
| But if a number of your coworkers decide of their own
| volition they're going to be in touch at all hours of the day
| and that becomes the default soft expectation, then _you_
| might look worse in comparison. Maybe not in the short term,
| maybe people will make a strong effort to un-bias themselves
| during performance reviews and not pay that any mind, but
| over time, you 're sharing the bonus and raises pool with
| workers who valued their time less than you and perhaps ended
| up getting higher visibility for it.
|
| Should regulation then mandate that your coworkers
| disconnect? Maybe. We do it for truckers, pilots, and flight
| attendants in safety-critical jobs: they're not _allowed_ to
| work more than a certain set of hours regardless of whether
| they 'd gladly do so.
| daenz wrote:
| >A lot of people need they job they have to continue, and
| their boss will fire them for not responding to an email at
| 9pm.
|
| If you have a boss like that, no amount of regulation or
| protection is going to help you. They will find a way to
| manipulate you and get around the rules. That isn't to say
| there shouldn't be any rules and regulations, but it is to
| say that this is the point of diminishing returns.
| jedberg wrote:
| The way the regulations help is that it sets the
| expectation that the next person will probably also say no,
| or that someone might try to fight you on it because they
| have stronger ground to stand on.
|
| Child labor laws work because company owners know that
| eventually they'll get caught. OSHA works the same --
| because they know there are penalties for it. Sure,
| sometimes companies get away with stuff, but there is
| always the chance that they won't.
| EddieDante wrote:
| > This is the standard argument as to why no government
| regulation is necessary -- "because you can just walk
| away/change jobs!"
|
| I didn't say this because I think government regulation or
| unionization isn't necessary.
|
| I said it because I don't believe government regulation will
| happen in the US in my lifetime. Nor do I expect to see the
| big 4 consulting firms unionized before Judgment Day. And,
| yes, I have lost jobs for not picking up the phone at 10pm on
| a Saturday night. Freedom isn't free.
|
| I look for individual solutions to systemic issues because I
| don't trust the collective to have my back. I understand that
| collective action is necessary, but let's face it: the left
| in the US is too busy dicking around with the culture war to
| show up for the class war. They think that labels describing
| race, gender, sexuality, etc matter more than whether you're
| working-class or owning-class.
|
| I'm looking out for myself because I've given up on anybody
| else looking out for me. I advise others to do the same.
| jedberg wrote:
| > And, yes, I have lost jobs for not picking up the phone
| at 10pm on a Saturday night. Freedom isn't free.
|
| Luckily you had the safety net to survive that.
|
| > I'm looking out for myself because I've given up on
| anybody else looking out for me. I advise others to do the
| same.
|
| Why not both? Look out for yourself but also try to help
| others?
|
| I honestly think tech workers for all the big companies
| will be unionized in the next decade. There is already a
| perfect model out there: The screen actors guild. That
| union sets minimum rules around pay, safety, overtime,
| residuals, and so on, but still allows for "superstars" to
| make far more.
|
| That's the kind of union developers need. One that
| specifies some minimums that companies must follow (like
| protecting after hours disconnection and making sure all
| the workers get a piece of the success) but still allows
| people to make more and get better benefits.
| EddieDante wrote:
| > Luckily you had the safety net to survive that.
|
| The only safety net I had was two months' salary saved
| up. I didn't even get unemployment compensation; by the
| time the company got nailed for classifying me as a 1099
| while treating me as a W-2 I had already found a
| different job.
|
| > I honestly think tech workers for all the big companies
| will be unionized in the next decade. There is already a
| perfect model out there: The screen actors guild. That
| union sets minimum rules around pay, safety, overtime,
| residuals, and so on, but still allows for "superstars"
| to make far more.
|
| I'd love to see that happen. I'm not counting on it. And
| I've given up on trying to persuade my coworkers to
| unionize. If I were at all charismatic or persuasive I
| wouldn't be working in tech to begin with.
| tick_tock_tick wrote:
| > I honestly think tech workers for all the big companies
| will be unionized in the next decade.
|
| 0% to even lets say 50% instead of "all" in 10 years is
| just not possible. The "valuable" employees (engineers)
| for these companies don't even want to unionize. You'll
| have to convince them that somehow it would work out in
| there favor before you could even start the effort and
| that would take years alone.
| nicoburns wrote:
| I can't see tech workers unionising over salary any time
| soon, but I can imagine it happening over something like
| the freedom to work remotely.
| neither_color wrote:
| In the early days of the labor movement when factory
| workers went on strike they had the problem of scabs
| -temporary workers brought in. These days any job done
| fully online can be outsourced, do you think we'll see
| instances of virtual scabs?
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| Just because you've given up doesn't mean you should advise
| others to do the same. Like an airplane, put the oxygen
| mask on yourself before helping others. You've then de-
| risked individually while supporting improvements for
| workers collectively.
| EddieDante wrote:
| Who says I'm giving up? I'm engaging in industrial action
| on my own since others in my workplace are unwilling to
| join me. I'm being the change I want to see in the world
| by engaging in work-to-rule.
| jedberg wrote:
| Work to rule only works if everyone does it, so that they
| can't single anyone out. If only people who can afford it
| do it, then it doesn't do anything at all.
| EddieDante wrote:
| I'm not sure what else I can do _on my own_.
| hinkley wrote:
| There are certainly situations where if you say "not it" the
| work just falls to other people (or worse, a single person)
| who is less comfortable or able to say no.
|
| But there are also situations where a person has been said
| 'yes' to so many times that they just assume something is
| wrong with anyone who tells them 'no'. Enough people have to
| say 'no' that it becomes normalized. Either a more 'fair'
| process is made or they finally hire enough people to do the
| job right (haha, who am I kidding, they'll never do that, but
| you can at least get to 'less wrong').
|
| It's really a tough matter of reading the room. Sometimes if
| you see someone asking for something that doesn't necessarily
| interest you, asking for it too makes it okay. Other times it
| causes the boss to catastrophize (well now everyone will want
| to do this so I'm not going to let anyone do it) and shut
| down.
|
| Asking people to follow labor laws that are almost 100 years
| old is not that big of an ask. I know everyone is busy
| LARPing feudal England half the time but someone has to call
| bullshit, and it's mostly the people with just a little bit
| of power who can actually do anything about it.
| onesafari wrote:
| Is that a real thing? Is it common to be fired for not
| answering email at 9pm in a job that doesn't require it?
| eikenberry wrote:
| IMO it's not about changing jobs, it's about setting
| expectations at jobs. That boss will only fire them for not
| responding at 9pm because they have the expectation that you
| will respond at 9pm. You need to set expectations early in
| the job when you aren't defying a standard behavior but
| setting that.
|
| If you are already stuck you might need to have a sit down
| with your boss and try to work something out. Maybe they are
| actually usually OK with your not responding until morning
| but you just have no way to differentiate between normal and
| urgent. It is possible that you could work something out that
| doesn't require changing jobs to reset expectations.
| turtledove wrote:
| Tech workers (and workers in general) can and should be forming
| unions to protect their time, their benefits, their IP, etc.
|
| I constantly see developers say they are paid well but treated
| poorly by their employers (unpaid overtime, oncall rotations,
| receding benefits). A union fights for what people need, and we
| absolutely should be unionizing to advocate for all the workers.
| Terry_Roll wrote:
| 0xbadcafebee wrote:
| Alternative is to start demanding startups form co-ops.
| Probably heretical on HN as it flies in the face of the whole
| tech start-up dream, which is for a couple tech bros to get
| massively rich at exit after overworking and under-rewarding a
| few employees. But a co-op would fairly represent the interests
| of all the workers without the adversarial nature of a union.
| You could represent your own interest and take votes on company
| direction.
| ratww wrote:
| In my personal and limited experience of being present in
| Union meetings, tech startups (the kind of we see on HN) were
| consistently more cut-throat and stubborn than enterprise,
| consulting and other tech businesses, so I doubt we'll see
| that voluntarily. Lifestyle business are a better bet... are
| those startups?
| turtledove wrote:
| Tech coops are great, and we need more of them.
| tick_tock_tick wrote:
| But if I'm joining another startup I explicit don't want "But
| a co-op would fairly represent the interests of all the
| workers without the adversarial nature of a union. You could
| represent your own interest and take votes on company
| direction.". I know exactly what I'm signing up for and it's
| not to guarantee failure. The reason I joined is because
| someone else has the vision and the dream or I would have
| done it myself.
| EddieDante wrote:
| > Probably heretical on HN as it flies in the face of the
| whole tech start-up dream, which is for a couple tech bros to
| get massively rich at exit after overworking and under-
| rewarding a few employees
|
| I feel like a substantial portion of HN is basically College
| Republicans who majored in CS.
| greedo wrote:
| Temporarily embarrassed millionaires...
| Layke1123 wrote:
| I think it's more likely that it's run by the Venture
| Capitalists and they help curate and drive the narrative
| more than not in an attempt to hopefully capture a small
| portion of people who can actually do software well and
| believe their stories.
| l33t2328 wrote:
| Smartish people who wanted the possibility of getting
| really rich used to go to wall street (as bankers, funds
| managers, etc), but tech is all the rage these days.
| [deleted]
| EddieDante wrote:
| airforce1 wrote:
| I think the video game "Dead Cells" was created by a co-op
| EddieDante wrote:
| Yes, a _French_ co-op.
| turtledove wrote:
| See also The Glory Society, KO_OP, Lucid Tales, Triple
| Topping, Future Club, Soft Not Weak, Stray Bombay, Pixel
| Pushers Union 512, Hopoo, Chromatic Games, to name a few
| other coop games studios.
| hinkley wrote:
| Software developers are top tier practitioners of Not Asking
| for Help When You Need It.
|
| We'll get unions about the same time it becomes normalized for
| developers to talk about seeing a therapist.
| turtledove wrote:
| For what it's worth, most of the devs I roll with these days
| have discovered therapy over the past couple years and are
| extremely thankful for it.
| alexfromapex wrote:
| I'm sure a lot of them exist but which one(s) are most popular
| so we can join?
| turtledove wrote:
| Communications Workers of America (CWA) and Industrial
| Workers of the World (IWW) are two working on unionizing
| workplaces at the moment.
| [deleted]
| exolymph wrote:
| In white-collar environments a lot of this shit is self-
| inflicted. Like if you let Slack send you notifications on your
| phone and check your email more than once a day when you don't
| really need to... stop doing that.
| greedo wrote:
| My department is required to have Outlook/Teams on our phones.
| We get reimbursed for part of our cell bill, but it's a
| pittance. We're expected to be reachable in an "emergency."
| HWR_14 wrote:
| Get a second cheap Android phone?
| ajmurmann wrote:
| Don't underestimate the power of peer pressure. If everyone but
| you is 24/7 responsive on Slack, you are at a disadvantage if
| you are not. Conversations might take place without you and
| come out in a way that you disagree with or your opportunities
| to contribute to important decisions is simply diminished. You
| might be seen as providing less value than others and be the
| one missing out on promotions.
| EddieDante wrote:
| If I wanted a promotion I'd cut my hair, dry-clean my suit,
| and update my resume. Best way to get a raise is to get a new
| job.
| marginalia_nu wrote:
| On the flip side, we shouldn't underestimate the competitive
| edge of actually having life-work balance. Recovering
| properly when you're off work makes you smarter and more
| productive when you're at work. Being chronically exhausted,
| bordering on burn-out is not a recipe for getting shit done.
| HWR_14 wrote:
| That's true, but it is a recipe for _looking like_ you 're
| getting shit done and claiming credit for the other
| people's work.
|
| Side note, look how much is written about Musks crazy work
| schedule. Without going down that rabbit hole too far, you
| can see why he makes that information public.
| sokoloff wrote:
| You're only at a disadvantage if you want to maximize your
| career trajectory at the expense of your work-life balance.
|
| If you wanted that, you'd be playing the same game as your
| 24x7 colleagues. That you aren't means you (quite reasonably)
| have other priorities.
|
| Neither you nor they are wrong; you're just optimizing for
| different things.
| birdyrooster wrote:
| So true... also these people are obsessive compulsive, they
| really can't stop that easily and their management is all too
| happy to reap the benefits while their health deteriorates
| slowly.
| jimbob45 wrote:
| IMHO I stay connected because it saves boatloads of time if
| someone just needs a quick yes/no after hours which can then put
| us far ahead in productivity compared to if I hadn't stayed
| connected. That typically results in less stress and less dense
| work for the team overall.
| musicale wrote:
| I like working at home, but I don't like living at work.
|
| I would agree that being on call after hours requires
| compensation. Unfortunately many "full time" jobs do not pay
| overtime and provide no compensation for on call time.
|
| Keynes was right about the increases in productivity and
| automation, but apparently absurdly naive in predicting it would
| result in reduced work hours for the same pay rather than in
| increased profit and unemployment.
|
| "Since our workers have become twice as productive, we've decided
| to double their pay and cut the work week in half" is not how
| most company managers think.
|
| Yet it would seem to be better for society as a whole if our
| lives were not consumed by endless drudgery; reducing the
| standard "required" work hours would seem to be a good idea for
| human health and happiness.
| lefstathiou wrote:
| The job market is a marketplace. Workers have a right to say no,
| employers have a right to hire someone else... so ask your
| employer in plain english what is expected from you and should
| they deviate from that, go somewhere else. If someone is willing
| to work under those conditions, that's their prerogative. This
| nation is at full employment, hiring good people is increasingly
| difficult, it's hard to make the case workers don't have options.
| They do and so do you. Salaries are increasing at an incredible
| rate, seems reasonable to me that expectations are changing along
| with them. Maybe the compromise is taking a lower salary or
| changing companies. Compromises have to be made...
| greedo wrote:
| The problem is that expectations are vague, and usually lean
| towards benefitting the employer not then employee. Take
| "unlimited PTO." That sounds great, but it's a terrible deal
| for the employees.
| gffrd wrote:
| I came here to say this: you are treated how you allow yourself
| to be treated.
|
| If you're working too much, do something about it. You have
| power.
|
| Very, very worst case scenario: you get fired. So what? It's a
| job. There are literally millions of them. Like OP said: you'd
| probably get a better job right now any way. Companies are
| tripping over themselves to acquire talent.
|
| If you're allowing yourself to be overworked, that's your
| choice.
| greedo wrote:
| The amount of privilege in this comment is amazing. Not
| everyone has an in-demand IT career. Some people are new to
| the work force, some are old and exposed to ageism. Some are
| non-binary, some are women, some are minorities. Some are
| poor. Some can't work remote, some need special
| accommodations due to disability, some can't afford the costs
| of relocating.
| hindsightRegret wrote:
| I see this argument come up all the time. However, the job
| market in general and especially in America is terribly
| inefficient. The vast majority of Americans work paycheck-to-
| paycheck and are tied down to their geographic location
| (family, children, housing). There isn't really a social safety
| net (by design, I think) in America for employees who
| voluntarily quit their jobs. So lots of people are stuck in
| jobs they hate, getting paid less than they deserve, and are a
| poor match for their skills. There are still lots of jobs that
| don't have the luxury of entirely virtual interview processes.
| Over time, I do hope the job market gets more and more liquid
| for candidates.
| hindsightRegret wrote:
| The Great Resignation was a step in the right direction.
| tick_tock_tick wrote:
| I'm still waiting for proof it was anything more then
| people changing jobs or taking time off when they got
| stimulus checks. I really doubt anything is coming of it at
| this rate let alone "societal" changes.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-05-17 23:00 UTC)