[synt4x1k0]

Is this reasonable for many other jobs?

If you were working as a painter, a carpenter, a landscaper etc. Would people find it acceptable if you painted for an hour and charged for 15 hours? Just because they needed you for one?

To be clear, I am not attempting to demonize you or anything, but to me, this seems like a sort of entitlement that tech workers have that some other workers just cannot experience.

How can other professionals obtain that level of freedom?

[jermaustin1]

If I hired a painter and I told them they couldn't go home, go out to lunch, or leave the premises for 16 hours, even if they only take 10 minutes to paint, I'm paying them for that time.

If a company puts a demand on your time, they need to pay for that time no matter what your profession. So when I'm on call on a weekend and I'm expected to answer my phone and be immediately available and connected to the client, I'm billing them for the fact that I cannot leave the confines of my internet.

[tiew9Vii]

Absolutely this.

I worked for one of the big tech vanity names held as a poster child in the AU. They started to introduce mandatory on-call, which was non-negotiable. For an extra $200 AUD (ex tax) a week, you had the privilege of sacrificing all your personal time. Carrying a laptop, having constant phone-signal, not drinking, and being completely available within 15-30 minutes of the first ping was mandatory; otherwise, you could be facing disciplinary action.

Effectively it's a huge pay cut at less than minimum wage. For the loss of personal hours, you'd get significantly more money taking any minimum wage job. I don't go to work for free, I go to pay the bills.

Then the management blackmail starts, you get free food...a deli counter and fridge of soft drinks which I never used anyway. Then you get the be a team player, take it for the team emotional blackmail.

I'd happily do on-call on a best attempt if I'm available I'll answer the call for free. Restrict my personal time/activities outside work, I want paying at least minimum wage per hour after your company just IPO'd and worth several billion.

[sundvor]

That narrowed it down quite nicely.. what a harrowing policy!

I find it a bit despicable in the AU when owners who are the only ones to really benefit in case of success (never seen a stock option here) say we are a startup and have to make sacrifices to make it (big) etc.

First sight of trouble and your job is gone; I struggle to see the upside for anyone other than the owners.

[novok]

It's not about reasonable, it's about putting a disincentive price to an action. Many abuses of power come from the abusers not having to pay the price. They might not want you to work on the weekends if it costs them a lot. You often need to put an explicit price to these things, or people who do not respect informal boundaries will push them.

The entire point is to not work during that time.

[thrower123]

When my dad worked as a mechanic in a power plant, if they went down and had to call him in on a day off, it was a guaranteed minimum of four hours that they had to pay him, even if it only took an hour to fix whatever it was. Almost always at time and a half, as he'd already put in his 40. Double time on scheduled holidays.

You should have to pay for on-call service.

[munk-a]

I don't know about painter/carpenter/landscaper, but if you want to talk about plumber, they will be paid for every minute on site, their commute and usually their advertised "minimum visit time" if the job is particularly short.

When you are informally on-call you are unable to enjoy your time to the fullest, your employer is demanding a price from you without compensating you for your time, it is an obligation of yours for yourself, your friends and family and your co-workers to demand fair compensation for this time - that's a key component of labour exchange in the free market and good unions exist to help protect those rights for junior employees who tend to have less leverage when negotiating their rights than more senior folks.

[ska]

> Would people find it acceptable if you painted for an hour and charged for 15 hours?

It is perfectly common (and reasonable) to be expected to be compensated something for being available outside your normal hours.

E.g. many plumbers will charge you extra (or build into their fees) for a sunday emergency call, why shouldn't a developer ?

If I were in that consultants shoes I probably wouldn't propose 16 hours, but for sure I would bump my hourly rate (say 1.5x) or a min charge of 4 hours or something, if you wanted me available on say an hours notice over the weekend. If you wanted me available at the drop of a hat it would be more.

Scheduling normal work over weekends, etc. is a different issue, but being "on call" should always involve some compensation for the impact on your life.

[barry-cotter]

> How can other professionals obtain that level of freedom?

By being in such demand that the people who want to hire you will agree to those contract terms. If you’re extremely good at what you do and what you do makes our saves people lots of money they’ll deal with your problems. At the other end if your client is willing to keep on paying ever escalating rates they can be massive unreasonable assholes and you’ll still keep on working with them because the money’s just that good.

[cocomittens]

Pretty sure if you are on call as a doctor or medical professional you get compensated for that time, yeah.

[invalidOrTaken]

Market power, market power, market power.

In other words, no, it's not "reasonable" (reasonable being whatever people can agree on) for a painter or carpenter, but this is not intrinsic to the job itself. It's incidental to the accident that those jobs generally have less market power. If a carpenter did manage that, they could do it too.