Right to disconnect?

[AZRWinger]

The evidence is the fact that these rules are in place in Europe and companies haven't crumbled under the crushing weight of not having staff on call at all times.
Somehow companies in Europe can manage fine working with them.

Where is the evidence these companies are successful because they are prohibited from contacting employees outside regular work hours?

If a company has time critical components they can pay for people to be on call, they can't just have salaried staff being forced to work for free and then get angry when they refuse.

Right, salaried pay for hourly work. Timeclocks for everyone including executives.

If you think there's something wrong with that statement then I'm glad I don't have a job in the US where working for free is somehow seen as virtuous.

It's not working for free, it's working on a salary.

People have lives outside of work and shouldn't be guilt tripped into missing family events or cancelling holidays simply because a manager decides he wants the person in for some extra work. This law protects people who value their lives outside of work.
If you don't then fair enough but many, many do.

Not a word about the payroll crash scenario described earlier. Should all employees be forced to do without their pay because one didn't wish to be contacted? That's virtuous? Not.

Managers who arbitrarily demand extra hours for trivial reasons soon find themselves without good employee's. By the same token, salaried employees who insist on shift work for mission critical assignments are begging to be replaced.

 

[Luce]

Many EU countries have a right to disconnect law which makes it illegal for companies to contact employees outside working hours and I'm wondering if you think that law should be enacted in the US?

I think this law would help with people being overstressed and harassed by work and would be a fantastic idea but what do you think and why do you disagree if you do?

Right to disconnect - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I absolutely agree with this.

However, I am a first responder, so no love for me.

But yeah, if they're that busy, they should hire additional people.

 

[Peter]

I absolutely agree with this.

However, I am a first responder, so no love for me.

But yeah, if they're that busy, they should hire additional people.

Yep, I'm pretty sure people like first responders are on call anyway in Europe.
This law is mainly to protect bog standard office and warehouse staff being called in at all hours and being punished for simply having a life outside work.

 

[Peter]

Where is the evidence these companies are successful because they are prohibited from contacting employees outside regular work hours?

Right, salaried pay for hourly work. Timeclocks for everyone including executives.

It's not working for free, it's working on a salary.

Not a word about the payroll crash scenario described earlier. Should all employees be forced to do without their pay because one didn't wish to be contacted? That's virtuous? Not.

Managers who arbitrarily demand extra hours for trivial reasons soon find themselves without good employee's. By the same token, salaried employees who insist on shift work for mission critical assignments are begging to be replaced.

As I said, the fact that companies manage with this law in efect in Europe and can't contact people outside work hours shows it is possible.
Work/life ballance means something in Europe and we're willing to protect it.
If that means companies are ever so slightly poorer then boohoo what a shame, I'm sure the shareholders will cope.

 

[Groogrux]

The law doesn't stop you from doing extra if you want it simply says employers must not contact people outside work hours if they don't want to be contacted and they can't be fired or disciplined for that.
Your colleague for example would not be able to be fired for simply not wanting to be contacted outside working hours and she would also have a case for pay disparity.

Again, this law works perfectly in Europe and hasn't caused companies problems or to flee.

She does not have a case as I have a different job title which entitles me to a higher pay grade even if we do the same job. I’m not arguing against the policy, it just won’t work for all job roles. Some jobs require you to be on call when necessary.

 

[Peter]

She does not have a case as I have a different job title which entitles me to a higher pay grade even if we do the same job. I’m not arguing against the policy, it just won’t work for all job roles. Some jobs require you to be on call when necessary.

The law doesn't stop a company from saying someone is on call, they simply have to pay for that service.
They can't expect someone who isn't on call to act as if they are which is exactly what many American companies do.
They have someone on a standard 9-5 and then get angry when that person doesn't want to do extra for no extra pay.

 

[Luce]

I am just sitting here watching people say that people should work for free.

Sounds like communism.

 

[Peter]

I am just sitting here watching people say that people should work for free.

Sounds like communism.

This is the same people who get angry at people for the crime of only doing what they get paid for and deride it as quiet quitting.
Americans are getting sick of companies and managers taking the absolute piss and piling more and more work on people and not paying for the extra work.

 

[Luce]

This is the same people who get angry at people for the crime of only doing what they get paid for and deride it as quiet quitting.
Americans are getting sick of companies and managers taking the absolute piss and piling more and more work on people and not paying for the extra work.

Yep. Millennials and Zoomers are a bit more assertive than my generation was.

 

[Peter]

Yep. Millennials and Zoomers are a bit more assertive than my generation was.

I think the difference is people back in the day we're actually treated with at least a bit of respect in work and could normally have a solid job with good prospects if they put the effort in.
These days it doesn't seem to matter how hard you work or loyal you are you'll get fired at the drop of a hat and pay rises are seen as a luxury bonus.
The chances of young people being able to afford a house is at an all time low and you have people claiming its their fault so they should just suck it up and take whatever abuse work throws their way.

It used to be possible to have at least a half decent standard of living with a single 9/5 wage for a family but try doing that now.

Depressing doesn't cover it.

 

[Noodlegawd]

The Randian fallacy that government is evil but corporations are virtuous is something I’ll never understand.

Corporations can't force you to do anything. Government can.

 

[The AntiDonald]

Why?
If a company wants you to be on call they can pay for that, otherwise staff should know they can ignore work outside hours without threat.

I ran a service company for almost 15 years. If any of my employees just ignored work when they were outside work hours, they would have been looking for a new job. This type of thing may be OK for some types of employment, but not in the service industry. Customers problems don't stop happening after 5pm.
I was as the supervisor, on call 24 hours a day, every day of every year. The only time I was free was while on vacations.

 

[Peter]

I ran a service company for almost 15 years. If any of my employees just ignored work when they were outside work hours, they would have been looking for a new job. This type of thing may be OK for some types of employment, but not in the service industry. Customers problems don't stop happening after 5pm.
I was as the supervisor, on call 24 hours a day, every day of every year. The only time I was free was while on vacations.

If you're OK with that then fine but expecting others to be available 24/7 is madness.
This is exactly why the law is needed as firing someone for not wanting to be on call at all times is insane.

People have lives outside work and you don't own them simply because you employ them.

 

[ataraxia]

China is an economic giant due solely to trade with the west, especially the US. If that trade evaporated, China's economy would crash and burn faster then Joe Biden can eat an ice cream cone, and te dicatorship would soon crash as well. That is also largely why they have not yet invaded Tawain. They may be exploiting their workers, however that has nothing to do with the size of their economy.

Trade helps everyone. That’s a basic economic principle. The west’s economy would not do too well either if it cut off it limited trade with China. That’s yet another reason most economists don’t like Trump’s isolationism and tariff proposals.

Only people without an understanding of how economics works think that’s a good idea.

 

[Peter]

Trade helps everyone. That’s a basic economic principle. The west’s economy would not do too well either if it cut off it limited trade with China. That’s yet another reason most economists don’t like Trump’s isolationism and tariff proposals.

Only people without an understanding of how economics works think that’s a good idea.

Yep.
All tarrifs will do is create a titfortat trade war where the US imposes tarrifs and the effected country retaliates and the cycle will just continue.

No country is just going to let the US impose tarrifs and harm trade and not respond that's not how that works.
The US needs the rest of the world but the rest of the world can cope without the US.

 

[ataraxia]

Yep.
All tarrifs will do is create a titfortat trade war where the US imposes tarrifs and the effected country retaliates and the cycle will just continue.

No country is just going to let the US impose tarrifs and harm trade and not respond that's not how that works.
The US needs the rest of the world but the rest of the world can cope without the US.

How are folks in the UK feeling about being cut off from the EU these days?

 

[Peter]

How are folks in the UK feeling about being cut off from the EU these days?

It's not fantastic but not a total disaster.
We'll muddle along as always.

It's the Budget today where the Chancellor announced government spending plans for the year.

Budget 2024 summary: Key points from Rachel Reeves’s speech

Chancellor Rachel Reeves has delivered Labour’s first Budget since 2010 – here’s what you need to know.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[MAGAnificent]

Trade helps everyone. That’s a basic economic principle. The west’s economy would not do too well either if it cut off it limited trade with China. That’s yet another reason most economists don’t like Trump’s isolationism and tariff proposals.

Only people without an understanding of how economics works think that’s a good idea.

You are are making too many assumptions. I absolutely agree that trade should help everyone and our economy would hurt without it. However if a trade agreement is too one sided it can and has actually hurt us. For instance the NAFTA trade agreement devastated my local economy which did not recover for over two decades? Why? It benefited Mexico and Canada far more then it benefited Americans. The very cheap labor in Mexico attracted many American companies to shut down major operations in the US and move them to Mexico. And the trucks delivering imported goods from Mexico into the US did not have to follow all the environmental and safety regulations that Americans trucks were required to follow. It was cheaper for Mexico to export into the US then America into Mexico. A major International paper mill in my region took advantage of cheap Mexican labor and less regulations and moved operations to Mexico. Not only were those jobs lost, but many connected subcontracting businesses failed as well. As for Canada, their lumber industry flooded the American market with government subsidised lumber, making it nearly impossible for American lumber companies to effectively compete in many regions. Point is that free trade agreements should benefit both sides more or less equally, otherwise all our government is doing is signing an agreement for the sake of flashing it in front of the press. Fortunately under Trump NAFTA was repealed and replaced.

 

[blackharp]

Many EU countries have a right to disconnect law which makes it illegal for companies to contact employees outside working hours and I'm wondering if you think that law should be enacted in the US?

I think this law would help with people being overstressed and harassed by work and would be a fantastic idea but what do you think and why do you disagree if you do?

Right to disconnect - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

That sounds good to this American. Although I work for myself, I have been employed by many firms prior and it is draining when they squeeze you.

 

[Ganondagan]

Why?
If a company wants you to be on call they can pay for that, otherwise staff should know they can ignore work outside hours without threat.

Very high income employees are paid for that, thus their high income.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Why?
If a company wants you to be on call they can pay for that, otherwise staff should know they can ignore work outside hours without threat.

Let’s say you pay a software engineer 150k a year, it’s a given that kind of money could involve working after hours sometimes.

 

[Peter]

Let’s say you pay a software engineer 150k a year, it’s a given that kind of money could involve working after hours sometimes.

Not in countries with this law.
Just because you pay someone relatively well doesn't mean you own them outside work hours.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Not in countries with this law.
Just because you pay someone relatively well doesn't mean you own them outside work hours.

I understand that, but at the same time, pay rates for skilled jobs tend to be much higher in the United States than in most other countries. For example, in the United States a Senior DevOps Engineer can expect to make between $148,000 and $180,000 a year (between 250k and 300k a year in the Bay Area). In the UK, they can expect between $70,000 and $90,000 a year. In France they can expect between $65,000 and $85,000. In Germany, between $80,000 and $110,000.

Point being the same job pays twice as much here as in the UK. Moreover, in many jobs, like DevOps or SecOps, there is no way around having to work after hours sometimes because sites have to be up 24x7 and threat actors typically target organizations after hours. At the same time, I think a good work environment recognizes this and gives people flexibility in other ways. For example, if you need to take off this morning to run by the DMV, or take out the afternoon to go to your son's baseball game, that is fine, because there are times when you work after hours. Moreover, if I have someone on my team that had to deal with an outage after hours, I will often tell them take the next day off.

 

[The Mark]

Many EU countries have a right to disconnect law which makes it illegal for companies to contact employees outside working hours and I'm wondering if you think that law should be enacted in the US?

I think this law would help with people being overstressed and harassed by work and would be a fantastic idea but what do you think and why do you disagree if you do?

Right to disconnect - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I'd support a law that allows employees to choose whether they will or will not be contacted. Possibly with compensation if they're effectively "on call" like that.

 

[Peter]

I'd support a law that allows employees to choose whether they will or will not be contacted. Possibly with compensation if they're effectively "on call" like that.

Yep.
People can choose to be on call.
This law simply says anyone not on call can't be punished for not wanting to be contacted out of hours.