Most of the roles I've had involved irregular and long hours. In most cases, I've been happy to take these roles.
The article isn't clear how exactly this is intended to work. I think no surprise hours that aren't recognized in the terms of employment makes sense. But also I think I should be able to agree to being available if I am willing to be. Remote Michigan tech workers already have enough trouble as tech companies insist on returning to office.
If long and irregular hours are expected, then those hours should be tracked and paid out at a rate. Companies absolutely abuse salary exemptions and it’s getting ridiculous.
If you have to “clock in” at the exact same time every day, “clock out” at the exact same time every day, and are expected to work additional scheduled hours outside of work, you should be paid hourly and receive overtime. You are an hourly employee. Not a salary one. You might be called a salary employee. But no, you’re working as an hourly employee.
If companies expect you to be on call, that’s great. Pay an on call hourly rate. Problem solved. But you can’t just take a salary employee, treat them like they work at McDonald’s and then pay a base bi weekly salary. That’s not okay IMO.
If I am paid on salary, I would rather just be trusted to meet deliverable dates than have to worry about clocking in. If that isn't amenable to you, don't agree to it. Why does this government need to butt in?
Do remember that without the government, there very literally would be no forty-hour work week. Individuals don’t have the same bargaining power as employers, not by a long-shot.
I have never worked 40 hours or less in a salaried role. That should be my choice. That has afforded a level of expertise that has given me a lot of bargaining power. People should be free to unionize, and I should be free not to.
To your point about government needing to backstop working conditions, the minimum wage in Indiana is 7 dollars an hour, and yet I can get a job paying 18 dollars an hour at Taco Bell. Why do you imagine that to be the case if employers have so much bargaining power?
These laws may not do much protecting when the economy is relatively good and people may have a lot more freedom in changing out abusive jobs.
There is something I call the restaurant quality economy measure, a tracking method of how the economy is doing. If you go into a place like Taco Bell, or some otherwise middling restaurant and the service is really bad, and take this as a trend over a lot of eateries then is very likely you live in good economic times. Now switch that, if the average crappy place you go into has really good service then that's a good sign things have gone wrong.
Quality workers have moved down the economic ladder of employment. These people would gladly be doing something that paid more and had more prestige, but that employment doesn't exist.
What does that have to do with your statement. It's when the economy goes really bad employees realize they are in the position of power. It's this pretty much this way right now in most computing related employment, most companies have tightened down and invested more in AI than people. This means your workers will put up with a lot more bullshit in order to not be fired. And when the economy is doing bad all over, that's when the employers break out the abusive bullshit because they can? Are you going to go get a different job?
Top down laws from the government preventing people from entering contracts that they are eager to take 1. contribute to the "bad economy" you refer to as if it's some unpredictable moon cycle and 2. affect my ability to find a good job if the economy does turn bad.
Not sure why you are deliberately misrepresenting the proposal here. You're free to continue working the extra hours. Maybe spend a few fewer hours working and repalce it with practicing basic reading comprehension.
I think you are misunderstanding what the implications of the proposal would be in practice. It says I can increase my hours on my own accord. Cool. I can't leverage my willingness to do so to my benefit because the proposal will make being the counterparty in that discussion illegal. A company may want to hire someone who can be always available, but they can't find that person, i.e. me, because they legally can't make it a job requirement.
I got a perfect score on the SAT reading comprehension section. Thanks for that valuation contribution to the discussion.
Again to my point, there is a lot of "I" in your comment. What this legislation means is that on aggregate, the politicians sponsoring are hearing from their constituents that they are being overworked via expectations of off-hours communication. This might not be the case with you.
> If I am paid on salary, I would rather just be trusted to meet deliverable dates than have to worry about clocking in. Why does this government need to butt in?
This legislation...does not affect you then. All it's saying is that the employer cannot require you to respond to something on 9pm on a Friday, Saturday or Sunday unless you are paid for it. You are still free to do so, it's just that your employer can't fire you if you don't. This seems sort of reasonable to me.
The government needs to butt in because this arrangement doesn’t benefit the employer. They would prefer you “clock in” while still receiving a salary exempt pay check.
So, why would they do something that works against them? Think about it. Do you go out of your way to advocate against yourself? No, right? So why would you expect them to do that? It’s just not a reasonable expectation.
Now, they might still do it anyway. Great, but you can’t expect that. So, we need to curb the incentives to get the desired behavior.
It’s just the dynamics of human behavior. Companies aren’t some magical beast - they, too, fact the push and pull of human behavior and incentives.
Oh I've known from back my food service days that "management" aka salary was a fucking scam.
It was ALWAYS a way to get massive unpaid overtime extracted upon threat of firing. And overtime for workers was inexcusable, no matter what. Got a rush? Too fucking bad, clock out.
These days professionally, I agreed to 40h/week. That's what they get. If there's a real outage or un-manufactured crisis, then I'll stick around. But its comp time for the week.
I don't work for free for capitalists. If they want more labor, they can pay for more.
i like giving stuff away for free, but if it's tenable for the market i'll look at agpl3. The thing that would break my spirit is if something i made was used, for free, by a company to infringe on privacy or show interstitial ads. I used to not care, now i do.
Stops tivo-ization. And stops app-ification (making a GPL3 into a webapp and significant changes, but not sharing as well).
But most of the FLOSS orgs (FSF, etc) don't want blood from violator companies. Instead they just want mealy-mouth halfassed responses that amount to 'open the source'.
I remember what happened to copyright violators who copied Metallica and Britnry Spears back in the early 2000's. Fucking kids got hit with $4000 settlements or $135000 lawsuits.
That's the type of vigor and destructiveness I want FLOSS orgs to go after for-profit copyright violators.
I think the most moral position is reciprocity: I'll give you free stuff if you pay it back/forward. If you want to lock it down then too bad, I locked it down first so pay me.
Which is basically the situation you get from [A]GPL. You still have the option to offer a different license in exchange for money.
Same. For my role I need to be able to be on hands after 5 here and there, and I knew that going in and works great for me because of the level I’m at. But absolutely employees should have the full choice without coercion or fear of repercussions.
This is simple. You're on call, you're paid to be on call. Anyone accepting anything different is encouraging this behaviour. Unionize and this goes away.
The article isn't clear how exactly this is intended to work. I think no surprise hours that aren't recognized in the terms of employment makes sense. But also I think I should be able to agree to being available if I am willing to be. Remote Michigan tech workers already have enough trouble as tech companies insist on returning to office.