this post was submitted on 03 Sep 2024
601 points (98.1% liked)

Antiwork

8259 readers
7 users here now

  1. We're trying to improving working conditions and pay.

  2. We're trying to reduce the numbers of hours a person has to work.

  3. We talk about the end of paid work being mandatory for survival.

Partnerships:

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Yayannick@lemmy.ml
uthredii@lemmy.ml
sexy_peach@feddit.de
yogthos@lemmy.ml
601
‘Who dreams this crap up?’: Kevin O'Leary slams new rule that allows employees to ignore their bosses after hours (finance.yahoo.com)
submitted 2 months ago by return2ozma@lemmy.world to c/antiwork@lemmy.ml
138 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] boonhet@lemm.ee 1 points 2 months ago

If it was worth stressing about, it was worth discussing with me when I was on the clock.

If your users suddenly start getting errors in prod at 6 PM, that wasn't something that anyone would've known 2 hours earlier when you were still at work, but it affects business nonetheless.

However, a company of any real size should have employees who get paid to be on call to deal with ongoing issues. In the example of the software industry, this would be site reliability engineers who take part of an on call rotation.

But if you're a max 20 person startup? You bet your ass that your average software engineer can expect a phone call.

So what I'm saying is that nuance is a thing. Working for a large corporation, or just in a job where nothing you do can be super urgent? Literally ignore your boss. Working in a small company where you taking that phone call has an actual impact on the company's near-term financial performance or reputation? Might be worth reconsidering your stance, but probably not if your boss is an asshole and you know that no matter how well you perform, you'll never get promoted.