[vfc1]

You got to admit that the EU at least has the courage to take some controversial measures in the best interest of their people.

I can't see this soon enough, I have family that answer emails in vacation all the time, that get phone calls like its nothing.

I know people that connect everyday from home to the office network to work one or two hours (extra) otherwise it's impossible to keep up with the workload.

Most managers know this, and turn a blind eye as it's in their best interest to get employees to work as much as possible.

[skohan]

I spent part of my career working in the US, and now I work in Germany, and I can say the labor laws make a huge difference. Some would say this type of law hampers innovation, but at some level if there is not a basic fair playing field set for everyone, there will always be the incentive for some to over-work to get ahead.

[theshrike79]

There is a limit to creative work. Quality will suffer if you work 12 hours a day 7 days a week.

It's better to do the 7.5 hours, go home and come back rested the next day. Your subconscious will be working on the problem anyway.

Most European countries seem to be over the glorification of long grueling hours. In the US and Japan it's still a badge of honor how much you work - never mind that productivity in either country isn't scaling relative to the hours used.

[bvcvbuiy]

When I see someone working long hours I always think that either this person must be very disorganised or should move to a less exploitative company. I don't see it as honorific at all (I live in the UK).

[machinelabo]

I personally know people that work very hard 12 hours a day and their output is stellar. Not only are they creative, but they build some of the most amazing systems I've ever come across in record time. They're handsomely paid with equity and monetary compensation.

I work in a startup with 45 top notch engineers.

[theshrike79]

Yes, I worked 12 hours a day with stellar output too.

Then one night I found out could't sleep. At all. Had to take a few pills just to get some shuteye and woke up with a shitty metal taste in my mouth every morning.

I started getting heart palpitations at odd times. Was on SSRI for a few years just to get over the burnout. Acid reflux so bad I could only eat unseasoned chicken and white rice for 6 months.

Since that episode I've learned moderation and have had a hard 8h/day policy with rare exceptions. No issues since, and my output hasn't really changed.

[skohan]

Two questions would be: 1) do they actually work 12 hours a day, or have they found a way to appear to do so? and 2) how long have they done this for? When I was at my first startup, I had periods of 16 hour days, but after a few years of this I would not go back.

[theshrike79]

Exactly.

There's a huge difference between being at work 12 hours a day and actually doing something productive with that time.

Japan is an excellent example of this, in their office culture you never leave before the boss does and try to be at the office before them. People spend 12+ hours at work and don't produce more than other people who work sensible hours.

Coronavirus and remote works might be a savior for that culture.

[machinelabo]

I wondered the same but their work output is evident. I can see the commit history and their responsiveness to issues.

Not saying anything about whether this is a good idea or not. Just saying that I know people like this that I used to be skeptical about before.

[mewpmewp2]

I'm afraid this type of law will decrease salaries in Europe compared to US.

For instance I work at an international company and I already get paid 2-3x less than same level engineers in US. I feel like this would increase the gap even more.

And I'd prefer to have the option to over-achieve if this is what I choose to do with my life.

[skohan]

Have you considered moving to the US?

But honestly the pay gap is not due to labour laws, at least not directly. It's because there's a war between the big tech firms to acquire talent which doesn't exist the same way in Europe.

[mewpmewp2]

I have actually seriously considered it, and this international company is one of the reasons why I joined it because of the opportunity to relocate. US also has much better opportunities for entrepreneurship and other things in my opinion. Simply due to scale of English speaking crowd and of course people there are more likely to buy things.

But it would require coming out of my comfort zone so much. I have a girlfriend here, family, friends and much more.

I have calculated that I could "FIRE" in US so much faster compared to where I live. Especially if I did some years of work in USA and then "FIRE"d at some low cost of living country.

But I think I'm not going to do it for now. Luckily the company pays well in my country too, just not as well. But I do have a lot of regrets that I'm not using my potential to the fullest.

Why do you think US has so many big tech firms compared to Europe and other places? And why is there so much war between tech companies specifically in US?

[theshrike79]

> Why do you think US has so many big tech firms compared to Europe and other places? And why is there so much war between tech companies specifically in US?

Less regulation. Facebook would've hit multiple EU privacy laws before it got even medium-sized.

Uber, Doordash and others would've never gotten past EU labor laws. They're having trouble even now.

And yes, the US has a huge concentration of enthusiastic talent willing to do pretty much anything as long as it's "disruptive". Also the US has ridiculous amounts of people wit millions to waste on said disruptive ideas. (Like over-engineered juice presses).

[skohan]

> Why do you think US has so many big tech firms compared to Europe and other places? And why is there so much war between tech companies specifically in US?

Historical/incidental reasons I suppose. I think a lot of it has to do with a lot of the big tech giants, and a lot of VC being centered there (especially around SV specifically) so there is a lot of defensive hiring. When facebook pays a developer $250k per year, it's not only because of the value they're providing facebook, but it's because of the value they could provide a startup which could compete with facebook. By driving up the price of talent, they price startups out of the market.

Startups in Europe have much less access to VC funding, so they are less of a threat.

[908B64B197]

It's no accident.

- World class universities

- Weak/non-existent non-compete

- Better risk tolerance from VC (Can't just park the money in real-estate. Worth it to invest in the Next Big Thing)

- Higher compensation means the best world-wide come work in that ecosystem

[GekkePrutser]

I definitely get 3-4x less than US in the EU country where I live.

But who cares.. I like the low-pressure life here. Rents are lower than the US too. We have socialised healthcare, safe gun-free cities. That's worth a lot more than a number on a bank statement.

I hear that in the US people will lose their healthcare when they lose a job and it could cost $1000 a month (which is more than my monthly rent)! Here it's simply free. That brings a lot of peace of mind.

[rayiner]

> I hear that in the US people will lose their healthcare when they lose a job and it could cost $1000 a month (which is more than my monthly rent)! Here it's simply free. That brings a lot of peace of mind.

That's not true in most of the states where people actually live. For example where I live in Maryland: https://www.marylandhealthconnection.gov/lost-your-job-you-c...

> Yes, you have 60 days from the date of losing your job to enroll in health coverage through Maryland Health Connection. You do not have to wait for open enrollment. A special enrollment period allows you to enroll in a health plan

Eligibility for free or subsidized healthcare depends on income. Here are the income limits in Maryland: https://www.marylandhealthconnection.gov/how-to-enroll/medic.... For a family of 4, if you earn less than about $36,000 a year you qualify for Medicaid, which provides free healthcare, including prescription drugs. For a family of four, you can enroll your kids in Medicaid if your family makes under $55,000 per year.

Above that it's a sliding scale based on household income.

[dragonwriter]

> a family of 4, if you earn less than about $36,000 a year you qualify for Medicaid, which provides free healthcare, including prescription drugs.

It provides free health insurance; as Maryland Medicaid has cost-sharing requirements, it is not completely free health care. Prescription drugs, in particular, are not free for Medicaid recipients, though they are subsidized ($1-$3/prescription).

https://www.kff.org/health-reform/state-indicator/premium-an...

[rayiner]

Finland, the example used by the poster I was responding to, doesn’t have “completely free health care” either. Prescription drugs have a 50 euro deductible and 40-100% reimbursement rates depending on the situation: https://www.medaffcon.fi/en/market-access-finland/

[CommanderData]

Health insurance is not the same as universally free health care at the point of service / request for every citizen.

[rayiner]

Most countries with “universal healthcare” actually have some sort of “universal health insurance.” And it’s usually not free at the point of service. Finland for example has a user fees and co-pays at the point of service.

[dragonwriter]

> I hear that in the US people will lose their healthcare when they lose a job and it could cost $1000 a month (which is more than my monthly rent)!

This is true with some caveats:

If you lose your job, you lose health insurance from the job by default. But in general you have a choice to buy the same plan you had, at the full cost (including whatever the employer used to pay), which can, yes, be $1000/mo — or significantly more.

However, you will usually also then have the option of buying a plan from your state’s healthcare exchange, which may not be as good as your employer plan, but the lowest cost options will come consistently be far less than $1K/mo. [0]

And depending on income and other factors, you may be eligible for subsidies to pay part or all of the cost of an exchange plan, or you may be eligible for public insurance via Medicaid.

[0] https://www.kff.org/health-reform/state-indicator/average-ma...

[brtkdotse]

I’m having a hard time figuring out if you’re trying to paint a rosy or a bleak picture.

[1123581321]

That comment appears to be attempting neither. The healthcare situation in the US is complex and does not fit into any simple narrative without omitting information.

[lallysingh]

If you have a family, it's more like $2500/month for healthcare.

[theshrike79]

And if you have kids, it's like grand per kid for daycare right?

The US tech sector is _perfect_ for a single male engineer, who doesn't have any health issues. You can work 16 hour days, sleep on the office sofa and earn six-seven figures before you're 30.

But as someone who's definitely not 30 any more, with a family and health issues there is no way I'm even considering moving to the US.

I could easily triple or quadruple my take-home pay, but I'd be taking all the safeties off my, and my family's, life. Not a fan.

[rayiner]

> And if you have kids, it's like grand per kid for daycare right?

It depends on your income. Here in Maryland, families of four making up to $70,000/year are eligible for childcare subsidies.

These numbers come from high income people who try to imagine what it would be like to be low income but don’t actually know about all of the programs the US, especially blue coastal states and the Midwest, have for people under a certain income level.

For higher income people like engineers, their employees will pay for their healthcare. Things like daycare can be a stretch, but you only pay that for a few years before the kids are eligible for free per-school. Say you have 2 kids and they need $1,500/month daycare for four years. (That’s more than I pay in Maryland which is a high cost state.) That works out to about $3,600 per year over a career. Two people working will absolutely make that much more in take home pay the US than in Europe.

[rayiner]

It depends on how much money you make. Here in Maryland, for a family of four making $70,000 per year, the premium is under $300/month for a high deductible plan, and under $500 for a low deductible plan. Even a family making $100,000 receives federal subsidies: a low-deductible plan is under $800/month, and a high-deductible plan is under $450/month.

We implemented a sweeping healthcare reform a decade ago now. You can't just pretend that never happened.

[GekkePrutser]

Wow, this is literally more than I make after tax :( And I have a senior IT job at a multinational.

But I suppose wages take this into account. High rent prices, healthcare etc. Otherwise people wouldn't be able to live off their wage.

[lallysingh]

Note: almost all of this would be paid by my employer on my behalf. I'd be on the hook for ~$350/month

[freeone3000]

Programmers can. Most people cannot.

[coldtea]

>otherwise it's impossible to keep up with the workload.

The workload can increase arbitrarily. It should be confined to what can be completed within working hours - the extra work over that should be an exception under special circumstances (e.g. a sudden order), not the norm.

[tcldr]

> You got to admit that the EU at least has the courage to take some controversial measures in the best interest of their people.

Do you think it's a coincidence they get such a bad press?

[colejohnson66]

At least in America, a good portion of it is a cultural difference. The EU tends to take worker protections more seriously without considering collateral damage (according to some). OTOH, America just does nothing because there’s an entire political party who’s big premise is “any and all regulation is bad regulation.”

[tcldr]

Another way of saying 'The EU tends to take worker protections more seriously without considering collateral damage' is 'The US tends to take corporate protections more seriously without considering collateral damage'.

[nescioquid]

>> ...there’s an entire political party who’s big premise is “any and all regulation is bad regulation.”

In fact, since Clinton took the Democratic party in a Neo-liberal direction (and made Reagan's dream of NAFTA a reality, "reformed" welfare, and the Glass-Steagall deregulation) I'm under the impression we have two such parties.

[claudeganon]

There's a bipartisan consensus that working people should be screwed. Uber's c-suite is staffed by Democratic Party insiders and they just got Prop 22 passed, Democratic leaders just came out in support of a stimulus bill that indemnifies companies against COVID-related harms they place their employees in to keep making money. You can find no shortage of well-paid liberals on this site that will tell you that unions are the scourge of the earth, despite their political influence being responsible for just about everything that makes the EU a better place for workers.

[colejohnson66]

I’m not denying that there are Democrats who support business over workers. All I said was that the Republican Party (in Congress) seems to believe that any and all is bad while Democrats believe in some or more (depending on how you feel).

It also doesn’t help that people want to label everyone so much to fit into just two categories. Feinstein (D-CA) is very pro-surveillance while some of the party (in congress) believes otherwise. Romney (R-UT) voted to convict Trump while every other Republican voted to acquit.

I’ll admit it is a bit hypocritical of me to lump all Republicans together, so I’ll clarify with: it’s where the party (in congress) seems to be heading (or already is). Obviously not all Republicans support that idea.

[claudeganon]

The beliefs of individual members of the Democratic Party are largely irrelevant compared to how they function collectively as a political body at both the state and national level. With that view, they've been definitively anti-worker since the Clinton era and have been shifting further and further right since Reagan's presidency.

The obstacle to change in this country is not the Republican party, but Democrats who use them as an excuse to mask their similar, steadfast allegiance to business interests at the expense of everyone besides white collar workers.

[lotsofpulp]

Basically every state that has a semblance of worker protections is led by Democrats. They aren’t perfect, but the problem isn’t mostly Democrats, who at the federal level can’t get anything done without support from Republicans, who are far from making worker protections any part of their initiatives.

It’s funny how federal government employees got paid parental leave though, but no legislation for non government employees was brought to the floor.

[OneGuy123]

As an European I can tell you that Europeans feel completely disconnected from those EU politicians, they do whatever they please and there is no real input from anyone. The isolated themselves and then force countries into submission via monetary fines if they don't get in line.

[tcldr]

That's exactly the line most of the press seem to tout – and it's that 'feeling' which has been exploited by those who see the EU as an obstacle to their regulatory goals or vision.

The fact is that you get to vote for your MEP if you choose to, and they in turn for the commission. It's weird that on the one hand people say the EU "[does] whatever they please and there is no real input from anyone" and on the other have no idea about the EU parliamentary process. It is what you make it.

The EU isn't perfect, but I'm always surprised by those in EU countries who think that it would be in their long-term interests to forge a path alone in a bi-polar geopolitical sphere dominated by the US and China, rather than club together with their EU neighbours and have a voice on the world stage.

[auganov]

> and on the other have no idea about the EU parliamentary process. It is what you make it.

Yes. But the problem is people have a very hard time doing that. You cannot engage with EU level politics the same way you can in a real country. All these people speak different languages. Very hard to stay engaged when you have to listen to translations. You hardly ever get the kind of engaging coverage you would for domestic politics.

I know most of the politicians and parties in my country. I would easily recognize and have some opinion about most prominent congresspeople and senators in the US. Same goes for knesset members. Yet off top of my head I couldn't name you 10 EU MEPs. I know names of the biggest parties in the EU parliament but I couldn't tell you much about them.

Unless EU actually tries to establish a common culture and a common language, I don't see much changing.

[Spearchucker]

My boy goes to a European School (schools set up for employees of the Union), because my girlfriend works for a European institution. I sit on the parents association of the school. That said -

There already is a common language and it's English. It may not be officially recognized but it's what everybody working for an EU institution uses.

Not knowing any MEPs by name is your choice and not a deficiency of the EU.

[auganov]

Watch any EU parliament video and count how many people speak English.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=io8aRZUFCxE

Even the speaker of the house doesn't. President of the EU commission starts off in her language, briefly reads some English off a piece of paper and then switches back. Maybe 1 in 3 or 4 MEPs speak some English. It's very hard to watch. And mind you, in most EU countries regular people would have trouble following the English translation too, they'd need to find one in their language.

I'm not questioning what you said about those working in EU institutions, I'm sure that's true. But that's irrelevant, that's not what drives politics.

[johnzim]

The MEPs only get to vote on candidates selected by the council of ministers - there's a means to provide their own candidate if they don't ratify that decision but in reality, the commission is for politicians who missed out on elections in their member state.

[Zenst]

Some member countries got to vote in the last and one before MEP elections for candidates that did not represent the ruling group that runs the EU.

Bit like say New York voting for Mr Happy as President and the country all votes for Mr Sad who has candidates in every state apart from New York. Now in that instance the people of New York's democratic say be kinda futile say in who runs the country as they had no chance. THAT is exactly how MEP voting choice was in some EU member countries that didn't have any EPP representation, say or choice and not a single EPP MEP voted for and yet it is the EPP that runs the EU.

Yes the EU isn't perfect but when they can't even sort out their own accounts and get them signed off year upon year, that's not a good sign of leadership or credibility. Heck even they admit they need to reform, which is sad as they didn't admit that until after the whole UK interdependence vote and that vote only came about as the UK leadership went to the EU for reforms and got palmed off with some tokens. Ironically had the EU even bothered to do any attempt at reform before the UK left, the UK could of tabled another vote as things would of changed and sadly the EU didn't do that and more so France been insistent that any reforms do not happen until the UK has left.

Remember that the EU was a trade agreement that people voted to join, what it became is something the people had no direct say in at all and that was the root of much divide that has grown over the past few decades. Me I do feel it is in the best interest of the EU and the UK to divorce as the UK has held the EU back upon many votes and looking at the voting history shows this and the EU could of had better financial regulations decades ago, regulations needed to work with the EURO financial model and that has not been good for the Euro.

No tabloid or other such outlet was used to form this opinion, other opinions may vary.

[M2Ys4U]

> Some member countries got to vote in the last and one before MEP elections for candidates that did not represent the ruling group that runs the EU.

That's equally applicable at the national level too

>THAT is exactly how MEP voting choice was in some EU member countries that didn't have any EPP representation, say or choice and not a single EPP MEP voted for and yet it is the EPP that runs the EU.

The President of the European Commission may be an EPP member, but the college as a whole is pretty representative of the party make-up of the Parliament as a whole:

Party-Group / Commission / Parliament

EPP-EPP / 37% / 24%

PES-S&D / 33% / 21%

ALDE-RE / 19% / 14%

Ind-NI / 7% / 14%

ECR-ECR / 4% / 8%

>Yes the EU isn't perfect but when they can't even sort out their own accounts and get them signed off year upon year, that's not a good sign of leadership or credibility.

That's not true, you are repeating disinformation.

EU accounts have been signed off with a clean opinion every year since 2007.

> Heck even they admit they need to reform

So? Integrating an entire continent - and doing it right - takes time and needs to be done in an incremental fashion.

> which is sad as they didn't admit that until after the whole UK interdependence vote

Again, that is not true. Nobody thought that as soon as the Lisbon Treaty came in to force that the job was done.

>and that vote only came about as the UK leadership went to the EU for reforms and got palmed off with some tokens.

Once more - that is simply not true.

The UK didn't go to the EU with reforms, the UK went to the EU with a set of demands for special treatment. Demands that, in part, would undermine the single market.

> Ironically had the EU even bothered to do any attempt at reform before the UK left, the UK could of tabled another vote as things would of changed

Can you guess what I'm about to say? Yup, that is not true.

The people championing brexit (and by that I mean the politicians and notorious business people like Dyson and Martin) didn't give a shit about "reform". They wanted out and they were damned well going to get out by hook or by crook.

Do you really think the likes of the ERG would ever have countenanced a second vote?

>Remember that the EU was a trade agreement that people voted to join

ARRRGH. No. No it wasn't.

The EU has always, always, been a political project to integrate Europe.

Don't believe me? Let me quote a landmark case from the Court of Justice from 1963:

"The Community constitutes a new legal order of international law for the benefit of which the states have limited their sovereign rights, albeit within limited fields and the subjects of which comprise not only member states but also their nationals. Independently of the legislation of member states, Community law therefore not only imposes obligations on individuals but is also intended to confer upon them rights which become part of their legal heritage. These rights arise not only where they are expressly granted by the treaty, but also by reason of obligations which the treaty imposes in a clearly defined way upon individuals as well as upon the member states and upon the institutions of the Community."

Does that sound like it's talking about a mere trade agreement?

And bare in mind that the UK, Denmark, Ireland, Greece, Portugal, Spain, Austria, Cypress, Malta, Sweden, Finland, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Slovenia and Croatia all applied to join, and then did join, after that judgment was given.

That's 21 of the current 27 member states, plus the UK.

> what it became is something the people had no direct say in at all

Every member state has to agree to treaty changes. People could have voted for governments that would say no to those changes. Many member states usually have referendums - the proposed constitution was vetoed by referendums. Ireland extracted concessions by rejecting the Lisbon Treaty the first time around.

[Zenst]

> EU accounts have been signed off with a clean opinion every year since 2007.

Whilst the debate about how accounts with errors could be signed off, the matter probably best covered here:

https://fullfact.org/europe/did-auditors-sign-eu-budget/

> That's equally applicable at the national level too

Very true and politics as it stands needs an overall to align with modern times as akin to electing one tool to handle all issues for 4-5 years is never an ideal solution as anybody who uses tools can attest. A more granular say in things is needed and whilst we are stuck with a limited choice selection of inputs we can only put an X every 4-5 years, politics will always drift from public opinion however initially the party was elected.

>Do you really think the likes of the ERG would ever have countenanced a second vote?

Point I was making is that had there been something that irrespective of how it effected the UK seen to change within the EU then politically there would of been a fair reason to put the brexit vote back to the people as what they had voted upon had changed and would of been a valid reason to enable that. Sure both sides had their rhetoric charismatics but the crux was without that change it would of been seen as a repeat vote, if something in the EU had changed then that would be totally different and even Tusk at the time as did many EU politician state that the EU needed some reforms. That is a matter they don't disagree upon, yet Macron has made it clear that any such reforms do not happen until the UK has left the EU. Which I can equally respect, but equally lament.

> ARRRGH. No. No it wasn't.

The UK people had a say to join the ECC

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Economic_Community

The first say they had in any EU aspect (including Maastricht) political as a direct question was Brexit. Yes many other members took many changes from the ECC to the EU today too the people for a vote and whilst much of that was mooted for votes upon Maastricht and the like and even EU membership (Liberal Democrats was keen upon that until they got a result of leave). Sure you can say people voted for parties that made promises of votes, sadly such things got left so long for what result, the children of the parents who voted to join the ECC for the sake of the children, those children growing up and predominantly voting to leave the EU (which the ECC became).

So we shall agree to disagree upon that. As whilst the EU has always been political, in this instance the only say the people had upon membership of the EU was to say no, they said yes to the ECC in which the EU evolved into with the people being given no direct say and that may also of made a huge difference.

Crux is as far as the EU goes, most UK not really embraced it's direction and kinda seen the UK become that disgruntled employee that takes loads of sick days and causes disruption for the rest of the class and voting history of the UK and it's influence of vote upon others to play sheep and follow has seen many an EU initiative stymied by the UK's veto. Personally I do believe that had the EU had financial regulation changes they wanted without the UK blocking to protect it's own interest (which was fair and right for the UK), then you see initiatives the majority wants and needs blocked by a single member. Now that's EU democracy at work and general right, but without the closer integration of currency et all the initiative has tried to build upon foundations that are not as robust as could be. That and the impact upon the Euro and the amount of QE to keep the Euro competitive for exports as well as imports makes for a financial juggle that has seen much unfairness. After all Euro countries locked in at time of joining, so if they played up their status to join then they are locked at a level at which technically they are below and vice versa. So if Italy or Greece made out things better than was when joining then down the line the impact would see a huge negative impact, equally if say Germany played down it's finances when it joined, then it would see a better return with that lock-in. Of course that is all over simplified and the whole matter is very complex in the details, but the crux is - the EU better of without the UK and since UK been locked out of EU votes, seen financial changes move forward. Whilst the UK not the only country with protected interests that has held many things back, financial services has been one that is cornerstone for the EU's unity.

So yeah, the UK people voted to join a trade agreement and first say upon the political project of the EU and they said no and it all could of been avoided. In that time the whole things best summed up by UK comedy of old: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37iHSwA1SwE

> Every member state has to agree to treaty changes. People could have voted for governments that would say no to those changes. Many member states usually have referendums - the proposed constitution was vetoed by referendums. Ireland extracted concessions by rejecting the Lisbon Treaty the first time around.

Yes, but not all those member countries took any of those voted to the people as a referendum and many who did, reran those referendums seeing a change in outcome to say yes. The UK had no such referendums and that is a source of much lament and a product of failings of all UK political parties to various degree's as they all had the opportunity.

One flaw in the EU that they do need to fix is how large corporations can abuse country tax laws and by that use the single market to pick the cheapest member tax liability wise and funnel sales via them to negate local country tax they would of paid had they paid all taxes locally. So can expect in a year or so for Amazon, Google, Apple et all to not have the headline how they only paid a few pennies on the pound tax wise as they will no longer be legally able to use the single market quirks to their advantage tax wise. So there is that, and a source of unfairness that the EU really needs to fix. Though when they had Junker as president who was probably one of the most knowledgeable people upon such issues, nothing changed. I say one of the most knowledgeable as he did set-up the Luxenbourg ones many a large corporation enjoy. Indeed the Guardian feels he was unhelpful upon such issues: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jan/01/jean-claude...

But however you look at it, if you had a company and one employee that caused most of the chaos and issues and their heart wasn't in the job, would you not let them go in the interests of the company and rest of the employee's?

Either way, the EU has an opportunity to address it's unity and I hope it does or be more referendums down the line and that can all be avoided.

[alkonaut]

As another european, I don't agree (Just so we are clear that there are obviously differences here).

[stingraycharles]

There are a lot of statements in your comment, some of them are correct — I really do feel that there is a lack of awareness of the EU, how it’s organized, and what they do. But I do not think they do as they please without any input, etc.

[White_Wolf]

What I do: - Unless soone is dying it's not urgent; - I turn my work smartphone and laptop off at the end of the work day and back on in the morning; - My work smartphone switches to DND during lunch break; - Out "work" VOIP is routed to a "out for lunch" message during lunch;

Unless someone is dying it's not urgent.

P.S We don't get overtime so no reason to do any. On extremely rare ocasions I did some extra hours with the condition I take them off next day or that week's Friday.(Ex: Our online trainig server went dead the day before a training course. And yes... after that they bought a spare one. Don't get me started with IT related budget)

[tzs]

I check email and sometimes answer when on vacation, because often 10 minutes spent addressing a small issue while I'm away prevents several days or a week or two of dealing with a huge issue when I get back.

I'm the guy who if something messes up has to go through the databases trying to figure out what data is incorrect, and goes through logs and reports to try to infer what the data should be, and then figure out a way to fix it.

If I know it is starting to happen, and it isn't something I can quickly suggest how to fix or at least how to temporarily stop until I get back, I can at least usually tell someone what extra logging to add so that I'll have an easier time later on the cleanup.

I'd rather lose 10 minutes during my vacation than get back and immediately be made miserable enough to need another vacation.

[lotsofpulp]

That's a management issue of having no redundancy for someone performing something so crucial. If you're that crucial to operations, then you should be paid extremely lavishly, or be the owner, otherwise you're getting the short end of the stick.

[GekkePrutser]

Not really. If you formalise this kind of redundancy it leads to super annoying things like on-call rosters. Which are awful for a worker because it means you MUST be available immediately, can't drink or go out to the shop or whatever.

I much rather just have them call me for that one critical issue that happens in a very long time, and appreciating me putting in the time after hours, than being forced to sit at home waiting for something to break which never actually happens.

In practice there is always someone available who is able to make time for it so there is really no need for on-call rosters. As such the act of stepping up and helping out avoids having this heavy commitment.

[throwaway45349]

You can be on-call and still do other things -- it's not all or nothing. My workplace has tiered SLOs for on-call, some being as relaxed as O(30 minutes) for first response.

[GekkePrutser]

Yeah you can do other things but you're never really 'free'. You always have to be able to drop what you're doing at a moments notice. I really hate that feeling.

I'd rather just be there when it's really needed.

[freeone3000]

How is that different from your current state, when you are checking your email, even on vacation?

[rytill]

> O(30 minutes)

So, O(1)?

[lotsofpulp]

I would demand to be paid if I was asked to be on call. On call to me means I’m working.

[GekkePrutser]

Yeah but I don't even want to have the pressure of being on call.

If you don't have on-call and you help out after hours everyone's appreciative. Might even get a small thank-you from the recognition portal for it, and "don't worry about that early meeting tomorrow, someone else will handle that". That kind of thing.

With on-call there's pressure all the time but it's not visible to anyone, and if you happen to be not immediately available everyone's angry. It's the total opposite in terms of experience.

So I try to be around when needed specifically to avoid having on-call commitments. As long as the occasional issue works out fine this way, nobody will bother setting up a formal on-call requirement. Most of my colleagues feel the same and it works out great. When shit hits the fan we're there anyway.

And the times I help out after hours... Plenty of times I'm not doing much during working hours, or have a personal things to do.. It's give and take. I love that flexibility.

[lotsofpulp]

I don’t even understand the label of on call. If you’re on call, you’re obligated to your employer. If you’re obligated to your employer, you should be getting paid.

If your employer wants to pay you for time that you spend at home doing non work stuff until they call, that’s up to them.

How is the pressure of “on call” any different than any other day at work? Unless you mean that your employer wants you to work 7 days a week, with 2 of them where you’re at home waiting to get a call. But then that issue is working 7 days a week.

[mewpmewp2]

Sometimes this type of redundancy would mean taking 2-3x the time to do some simple tasks.

[comprev]

The bus factor is often the last thing considered

[yardie]

This sounds like failures on multiple levels, you, you're organization, and leadership. So what do they do when you're incapacitated?

[tzs]

In a small company you often cannot have complete redundancy for everything. For any given area there will usually be someone who is better at it than everyone else there.

If I'm incapacitated someone else will do the things I need to do that cannot be put off until I'm available again, but for some of those things it will take them longer and they might not do as good a job as I would have.

It goes the other way, too. I've done things that other people are better at when they were on vacation or out sick.

This is one of the reasons that documenting procedures is so important. For those things I do that do not have redundancy, I've written checklists and guides that others can follow to do most of the things I normally do. They have done the same for their areas of non-redundancy.

Because of this, I can't think of any time in the last 15 years that someone had to be asked to work during their vacation. If something went wrong in their area, others were able to either fix it, or at least mitigate its effects sufficiently for the fix to wait for the person to get back.

But I'm still going to take a look at email every day or so while on vacation, just in case. My checklists and guides aren't perfect. I'm not in an adversarial relationship with my coworkers, so on those rare occasions when they need to consult my guides and checklists when I'm away and those don't fully cover it, and I can dash off a clarification or suggestion that will help them and also save me a lot of time when I get back, I'm going to do it.

[GekkePrutser]

This exactly! And knowing there is all this crap waiting when you get back is also not helping to relax.

I'd rather spend 10 minutes every day on my vacation making sure things are good and fixing small issues, it gives me a feeling nothing is getting out of control.

Besides, I like my job. It's not the saltmines.

[notreallytrue]

> it gives me a feeling nothing is getting out of control.

I think many of us in technology feel the same, the trick is to repress the control freak inside you and enjoy your free time while someone whose job is to fix these problems works on them.

[GekkePrutser]

But fixing issues is something I enjoy :) And I can't hang out on the beach all day on my vacation, I get bored too quickly.

[notreallytrue]

That's another thing entirely

But being bored is part of the free time

Boring is good, not bad

Edit: I love it too, but when I'm bored I work on some side project (never completed one!) instead

[GekkePrutser]

For me it's not. Being bored makes me restless, unfulfilled.

It gives me a feeling of fulfillment if I can do a bit of work for 10 minutes and help people out.

[notreallytrue]

> I check email and sometimes answer when on vacation, because often 10 minutes spent addressing a small issue while I'm away prevents several days or a week or two of dealing with a huge issue when I get back.

The question is why ten minutes from home save days of work.

There's something horribly wrong going on if that's the case.

I'm on call a week every month, I get payed for it.

When I go back to work something happened that requires days or weeks of work to fix the issue, I will work to fix the issue for days or weeks, while still working no more than 40 hours/week.

Fixing management problems is above my pay grade.

[ghaff]

In my case, it's not so much saving days or weeks of my time. Rather, it's being able to answer someone's quick question, direct them to someone, take a quick look at a doc and say it looks OK (or make a quick edit), etc. I don't feel it's something I have to do--and I'll only rarely do something that requires more effort--but it often seems like a pretty good cost/benefit tradeoff.

[mewpmewp2]

While it seems good I am afraid as an European I will start getting even smaller salary compared to US counterparts. There will be less incentive to hire someone from Europe for international companies. I know this is an unpopular opinion. I work for an international company and I already get paid around 2-3x less than US counterparts at the same level.

I do work a lot, but I have accepted the fact if it means I can earn more. I can retire that much earlier this way.

[nraynaud]

on average US citizens retire later than Europeans and die earlier afterwards.

[makecheck]

Years ago I saw an executive call up a senior IT manager who was on vacation with his family and instruct him to cut it short and return immediately. Imagine how livid he and his family would have been.

I get that people can be “senior” and in charge of important things, etc. but at a certain point if “leaders” do these things they are simply being terrible people and not really “handling” unexpected problems well.

[woeirua]

And this is why it's so important to be financially independent. If you have money saved up in this situation you can politely tell your boss, that you won't be coming back from vacation period, and the only remaining question is whether you come back at all after your vacation. He might throw a hissy fit and try to make your life difficult, but you can always walk away if you have enough savings.

[dalys]

Not sure why anyone that is financially independent would take an office job with a crappy manager to begin with. But surely it would be better system if your country had laws that regulates this, instead of every individual needing to save up a million bucks as ”fuck you money”.

[maigret]

The mild version of that is to start looking for a new job ASAP.

[Tagbert]

Most managers in our org accept this at the employee’s discretion as part of a flex time policy where employees can use work time to handle personal issues even taking off large chunks of a day if needed.

[j1elo]

> I have family that answer emails in vacation all the time, that get phone calls like its nothing.

But why are they doing that? I get it, a disrespectful boss could require employees to respond email or calls, and fixing that would require a shift in their mentality. But apart from that, I think it is not healthy at all the trend of having an ultra-connected setup with notifications enabled for everything, everywhere. Even if someone's workplace has a nice and respectful work culture, having their phone pinging them with work emails on a Saturday is just too much of an subconscious temptation for a lot of people.

I constantly try to convince everybody around me about the mental health improvements that brings something as simple as disabling background updates of all messaging systems we use day to day. Configuring email clients, WhatsApps, Messengers, etc. to only update when you actively open their apps. It was a game changer for me.

[matz1]

To each their own, some people don't find it a problem, some do. You can't assume everyone work the same way.

[ravenstine]

While I like the EU's effort, I have to wonder how much of this is the responsibility of the individual.

> I have family that answer emails in vacation all the time, that get phone calls like its nothing.

We certainly all know people like this. But, at what point should employees outright refuse to be connected to work on personal time?

I get that people whom have families that depend on them have limited choice in how far they can rebel at work, but perhaps we need young people to be a part of a new culture of work-life balance where interacting with work during any unpaid hours is seen as optional. Only those who have little to lose can stand up to corporate and make a difference.

Personally, I wouldn't work for an employer that wants free time from me. If that means I don't make a lot of money, that's fine by me. Time has value.

Having regulation around this issue can help with professions like the legal profession where the real way up the ladder is by overworking in whatever way possible. For people such as myself, an engineer, where overwork and brown-nosing don't have a 1-to-1 relation with a bigger paycheck or greater job stability, they have more leverage over what their employer can or cannot do to them.

[justin_oaks]

I agree that this should be an individual responsibility, but sadly it just won't work. If you're the only individual in your company who protects their private time, then you'll feel pressure to fall in line. Even if the boss doesn't give you any grief, your coworkers will: "I respond to emails after hours, so why doesn't he?"

The bosses will likely favor those who work more than they should. And often working longer is seen more favorably than working better. This is mainly because it's more visible.

I tend to think that salaried positions and unpaid overtime shouldn't exist. But I'm open to arguments in favor of them. I just have a hard time seeing how they help align incentives of the employer and the employee.

[Fargren]

Because we are talking about an EU/US comparison, I'll nit pick this: salaried doesn't have to mean what it means in the US. I, like salaried workers in many (all?) European countries have a contract that says how many hours I have to work per week.

[phone[phone]]

> For people such as myself, an engineer, where overwork and brown-nosing don't have a 1-to-1 relation with a bigger paycheck or greater job stability, they have more leverage over what their employer can or cannot do to them.

Cherish your current employer because they are the vast minority of employers.

[_wldu]

I agree. Working from home (due to covid) has become "working all the time" for many of my friends and family.

[unicornfinder]

It absolutely has for me, but at the same time I don't mind it too much because the gains from being able to work from home have been worth it for me.

[gtfoutttt]

>I know people that connect everyday from home to the office network to work one or two hours (extra) otherwise it's impossible to keep up with the workload.

Then the work doesn't get completed on time! That's bad management not hiring enough people, not the fault of the employee. SMH y'all IT people need a union.

[jusssi]

It's the difference between a junior and a senior. The latter has better expectations of what one can get done in an average workday, and the confidence to push back with "sorry, looks like this thing's more work than expected, going to need another two days for it".

Btw. Looks like the Great America is woke and hates you for the word 'union' you used in your comment.

[bonestormii_]

The "confidence" of senior people to push back is greatly enhanced by the fact that they won't be expediently fired for doing so. And even so, plenty of senior positions suffer from this situation as well. I'm living this hell right now.

[Hamuko]

>The "confidence" of senior people to push back is greatly enhanced by the fact that they won't be expediently fired for doing so.

There's a problem with your country if you can be fired for refusing overtime.

[colejohnson66]

(in America) There’s no such this as “overtime” in most salaried jobs though. You’re paid just for being an employee, not for hours worked. Whether you work 35 or 60 hours, it’s the same pay.[a] As a result, employers don’t have to worry about overtime pay, only burnt out employees (but entry and junior levels are disposable, right? /s)

[a]: This also leads to the employer expecting one to be “on call” 24/7 regardless of your position.

[Hamuko]

>There’s no such this as “overtime” in most salaried jobs though. You’re paid just for being an employee, not for hours worked.

If there's no concept of overtime in most salaried jobs, there's a problem with your country as well.

I'm a salaried, full-time employee and I'm paid to work 37.5 hours a week, no more, no less. And the collective agreement for IT services industry (which is what concerns me as a developer) dictates that 40 hours/week is the maximum.

If you want to read our collective agreement, you can find it here: https://tietoala.fi/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/TES__englanti... Working hours are on page 19 (21 on the PDF).

[ingvul]

In which country are you working? My full-time work contract explicitly says that I will receive X EUR/year for working 40h/week. So, yes, they are paying for hours worked.

[reaperducer]

There’s no such this as “overtime” in most salaried jobs though. You’re paid just for being an employee, not for hours worked.

This used to be true, but has changed in a lot of states and cities in the last decade or so. Many people still think that salaried=work as long as the boss says.

In those places, being salaried doesn't mean you have to work unlimited hours with no compensation. This only applies to managers. If you don't directly manage people, you are legally entitled to overtime. Pre-pandemic, some states were cracking down on this.

It's worth checking your state and city's labor laws every couple of years because things change all the time.

[koonsolo]

Wow. It's very much regulated here in belgium. 38 hours and 20 holidays. If you do 40 hours, you get extra holidays for those hours.

It's clear in the contract how many hours you do for which pay.

Working on Saturday needs to be 150% compensated and Sunday 200%, but I might be wrong on this last part.

[aaaxyz]

Why would you ever sign an employment contract that does not even mention overtime?

[snow_mac]

This is why being a contractor is the best idea. You need need me to work 60? I'm billing for every, single hour. 35? Great! I'm going to leave early on Friday and not check my email until Monday morning!

[BurningFrog]

Then again, a competent senior engineer can easily get another job.

I'm just one atypical person, but in my experience, the employer is usually more nervous about the employee breaking things off than the employee.

[tdsamardzhiev]

The juniors won’t be fired either, but they don’t know that and usually get abused because of it.

If a company expects you to crunch, that means there’s too much work. If there’s too much work, it’s extremely unlikely that somebody doing a decent job would be fired.

[MisterBastahrd]

I currently work at an org where the least experienced dev has over 10 years of experience. Management is fine knowing that we will say what's on our minds if we don't think something is being handled properly.

[strictnein]

> Looks like the Great America is woke and hates you for the word 'union' you used in your comment.

Someday maybe our betters in Europe will understand that the American experience with unions is different than that of Europeans. And that American unions are a very different animal. Until that time, though, keep thinking we're just idiots.

[dvtrn]

Someday maybe our betters in Europe will understand that the American experience with unions is different than that of Europeans.

In ways that no one should be proud of, and anyone with a conscience should at least recognize needs redressing-even if the outcomes are things they as an individual wouldn't directly benefit from.

[stainforth]

The destruction of unions in America was not for righteous reasons.

[eeZah7Ux]

The level of anti-union violence in US is higher that what people might think:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_strike

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-union_violence

[nickff]

Previously-unionized industries declined in America, and new industries have been slow to unionize; I am not sure unions have been 'destroyed'.

[MereInterest]

So-called "Right to Work" laws mean that a union-negotiated contract may be made available to non-union members. At that point, the individually rational action is to leave the union, keep the dues, but benefit from the union's negotiation. As everybody does this, the union declines.

"At-will employment" laws mean that the burden of proof for the cause of firing is on the employee, rather than the employer. This gives free rein to employer's to fire workers considering unionizing, so long as there is the barest pretext of another cause. As forming a union becomes economically risky, unions decline, or fail to form in new industries.

Unions have been attacked in the US, through explicit policies meant to defund unions, and to prevent unions from forming.

[jusssi]

I don't feel shame for shaming unjust downvoters (that said, I've upvoted your comment, too).

A short googling for for "history of workplace safety in the us" reveals that unions had a hand in at least that. Probably in several other things you take for granted.

In my opinion it's a mistake to think that things like that cannot deteriorate away after they've been achieved once.

[theshrike79]

"Union" and "Socialism" have very different meanings on your side of the pacific :)

Just the stories about how union work is handled on US movie sets is just baffling. Directors can't even touch the lights without an Official Light Mover Union member doing it. If they do, all union people will just walk off set and that's the end of it.

In most European countries unions are more about collectively agreeing to some basic rules like wage, hours worked and other compensations.

[centimeter]

> SMH y'all IT people need a union.

Or just some balls. Don’t work more than you want to - either your employer will deal with it or you go find a new job. Not a big deal.

I work fewer hours than the median person at my company and I don’t think it has negatively impacted me much or at all. Any time someone tries to get me to do something that would require working additional hours I just say no or take extra vacation days in lieu (eg if I need to do something for a few hours on Saturday - I take an extra vacation day to make up. If it’s not worth it for the company, it doesn’t really need to get done on sat). Literally the worst case is you get fired, but probably nothing will happen.

[ericd]

Are you familiar with the mythical man month? Hiring more people might not get the same amount done as a few working really hard.

That said, burnout can make working harder worse than working a sane amount. But that doesn’t fall on the employer as much as the employee.

[aaaxyz]

>Hiring more people might not get the same amount done as a few working really hard.

That is highly dependent on when the new employee is added to the project. If it's done early (as a result of proper planning), it's most likely not gonna hurt.

[ericd]

One of the key points of the mythical man month is that communication overhead starts taking a larger and larger chunk of the total productivity as you scale the number of people involved, just to keep everyone synced up and rowing in the same direction. It's not really based on when the people are added.

[Viliam1234]

There is definitely such thing as too many people.

But with reasonable amount of people, if you start with the full team at the beginning, you can assign different responsibilities to different people. For example, one can do database, one can do web API, one can do web design, one can do integration with other systems, one can build and maintain continuous integration; you can also divide the domain knowledge among multiple people. Each person can focus on doing their part in such way that the others do not need to understand every single detail, and only use the agreed API.

However, if you add a new person late in the project... all simple things were probably already done, and all difficult things require a lot of knowledge about the existing code, that other team members already know, but if they spend their time explaining it to the new member, then their own work gets slower, so the overall speed reduces. (And yes, given enough time, the new member would learn everything and become just as productive as the old members. But the thing is, there is not enough time left at that moment.)

[gtfoutttt]

I wasn't referring to 9 pregnant women working one month to birth a child. There are a few cases where that book's core idea does make a lot of sense.

I was referring to my 40 hours ending on Friday at 5, and not returning to work until Monday morning. If management expects more from me then they need to hire more people or lower their retirement or delivery expectations.

[chrisseaton]

> Then the work doesn't get completed on time!

Do you realise in some fields work not getting completed on time could in some cases cause people to die?

Sometimes there is an emergency, and a professional saying 'sorry nope on vacation your fault for not having enough people to cover every eventuality' just isn't reasonable.

[Majestic121]

> Do you realise in some fields work not getting completed on time could in some cases cause people to die?

I'm sure there are jobs where this is true. I'm also sure it's not for 99.9% of people here.

[CalRobert]

It is reasonable. The buck stops somewhere. If you're on call sure but there are rules around that.

Don't guilt people who happen to have lifesaving jobs for taking vacations.

[chrisseaton]

> Don't guilt people who happen to have lifesaving jobs for taking vacations.

In many cases taking that job means accepting you may be forced to come in and work. Often called 'unlimited liability' for example. If you can't accept that, then leave the job to someone who can.

> The buck stops somewhere.

In this case apparently it's fine for it to stop with a dead person.

[notreallytrue]

> In this case apparently it's fine for it to stop with a dead person.

People that do a job where they can save lives accept the fact that saving lives is not granted.

People don't die because someone is slacking.

Do you realize how stupid that sounds?

[chrisseaton]

> People don't die because someone is slacking.

Not sure where you read this argument?

[aranelsurion]

Sounds like a poorly built strawman you have there.

How often do you believe people get asked to work extra hours to save lives in imminent danger? 1 in 10000?

This law would cover other 9999 cases.

[theshrike79]

If there is an actual emergency, there are clear rules of escalation.

The issue is escalated through different support levels up to the on-call person, if they can't handle it then MAYBE people are bothered during their vacation.

Or if production breaks at 1600 on a friday night, I can maybe work extra hours to solve the issue if it looks like I'm essential to solving it. It just means that I'm coming later on monday to make up for the hours.

[dbetteridge]

Of course its reasonable...

It may not be the decision people will make, it may be an ethical quagmire etc etc but you can't just expect people to keep working past their limits forever.

There need to be reasonable bounds.

[notreallytrue]

> Do you realise in some fields work not getting completed on time could in some cases cause people to die?

It doesn't work like that.

> Sometimes there is an emergency, and a professional saying 'sorry nope on vacation

Why are they relying on someone that is on vacation in the first place?

Are firemen supposed to not go on holiday ever during their work life?

That's simply the symptom of very bad management and on a larger scale of a very disfunctional society.

[chrisseaton]

> Why are they relying on someone that is on vacation in the first place?

Sometimes there are only so many people who can solve a problem and society can't afford to have an excess number of them sitting around doing nothing in case there is an emergency.

> Are firemen supposed to not go on holiday ever during their work life?

Firemen, police, politicians, military, are all subject to getting recalled from leave if there is an emergency and they are needed to prevent life being lost. Nobody ever said they can't ever go on leave.

> That's simply the symptom of very bad management

No it's reality!

Look at how many people criticise presidents who are 'golfing' when there is a crisis and life is being lost.

Some people just need to be able to respond no matter what.

[notreallytrue]

> Sometimes there are only so many people who can solve a problem

That's a very small subset of the entire workforce.

Maybe one in a million or less

> No it's reality!

It's not.

> Look at how many people criticise presidents who are 'golfing' when there is a crisis and life is being lost.

They are right.

The president is not a salaried worker, it's the president.

[chrisseaton]

> The president is not a salaried worker, it's the president.

He works. He draws a salary. What do you think the difference is?

Why can't the Vice President delegate out of hours? Because that's not realistic? Well there you go... sometimes it's not realistic.

[bobthechef]

While I sympathize with the need to push back on bad management, the situation is a bit like being between a rock (bad management) and a hard place (unions). Tyranny of the few vs. tyranny of the majority or the mob. The latter is worse.

It's also kind of a mediocre bandaid for deeper social problems. An employer that can get away with asking you to do unreasonable amounts of work, work ridiculous hours, or achieve impossible feats OR ELSE probably doesn't have much market competition.

Also a quote from C.S. Lewis:

“Of all the tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under the omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber barons cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

[jchrisa]

Solving the market failure looks like UBI. I bet a lot of people who think unions are tyranny really don't like the idea of "free money".

[wutbrodo]

This is a bizarre generalization. I'd be willing to bet that most of the people who supported UBI before its moment in the political spotlight in the last five years are not as sanguine about unions as the average person on the left. This certainly describes me: I believe in heavy redistribution and taxation (especially of land!) but think that the left (which I consider myself a part of) has a consistent problem with being too arrogant to recognize how complex people's lives are, and damaging the worse-off in the name of helping them.

Insisting that support for unions and support for UBI must be linked is the same energy as insisting that more tightly restricting what food stamp recipients can buy is "helping" them.

[Viliam1234]

Both unions and UBI try to address the same problem: make it so that people do not have to choose between abuse and starvation.

But they are completely different approaches to this problem. For example, unions do not protect unemployed people, while UBI protects everyone. On the other hand, a union is something you could create tomorrow at your workplace without waiting for the rest of the country to change their minds.

In some sense, they are competing solutions, because if we had UBI, unions would be less necessary, because everyone who feels abused would have the opportunity to walk away... without ruining their life.

[wutbrodo]

Exactly, which is why the conflation of the two is so silly. There's a very tiny portion of humanity who actually _want_ others to starve, so competing solutions to the problem can easily show up in different views of the world.

Many people have a very simple-minded view of both politics and the world in general, which leads them to a low-resolution model that lumps things into two massive buckets and assume that everyone else takes their set of beliefs wholesale from one of the buckets.

[gtfoutttt]

I work in a union in the USA and I love it. 40 hrs every week. Paid vacation. Paid medical dental and vision. A real pension.

And CS Lewis is no expert. He's a preacher.

[xg15]

You still expect the 'mob' to work for you though, do you?

[tboyd47]

That's an amazing quote.

[minikites]

Really?

>The robber barons cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated.

We wouldn't have any billionaires if this was even remotely true. If having 999 million dollars doesn't satiate you, I submit there is no amount of money that will. We look down on hoarders who fill their house with old newspapers and knickknacks but when it's money hoarding we lionize it.

[tboyd47]

I'm more interested in the bit about "omnipotent moral busybodies." If shutting down 100,000 businesses, pausing children's education including special education services for a whole year, forcing the entire populace to wear cloth masks, shutting down religious services protected by the Constitution, mandating where you can & can't stand in the grocery store, and demanding the right to censor the news on all digital platforms doesn't satisfy their thirst for power, I submit that no amount of power will.

[Muromec]

Wait, what? 40 hour work week is controversial measure?

[antihero]

> The resolution comes just days after Germany's coalition government announced it is considering across-the-board tax breaks for individuals working from home.

Seems to run counter to another, more terrible idea:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-54876526

[IAmNotAFix]

> it's impossible to keep up with the workload

I don't know about employees keeping up with their workload, but what I can say for sure is that the workload keeps up with how much the employee is willing to take.

[lowdose]

If you deplete resources above a utility of 80% the waiting time becomes almost infinite. We can either buffer in capacity or WIP. This has been known lean at Toyota they never schedule beyond 20/24.

[dvfjsdhgfv]

> You got to admit that the EU at least has the courage to take some controversial measures in the best interest of their people.

What eactly do you consider "controversial" in the right to disconnect?

[duxup]

I appreciate this is a step but it's a non binding resolution that ... as far as I can tell doesn't have any exact legal language in it?

[kwanbix]

My experience is just the opposite. People disappear for their holidays and they don't even live a backup most of the time.

[treis]

>I know people that connect everyday from home to the office network to work one or two hours (extra) otherwise it's impossible to keep up with the workload.

If you ban work from home doesn't that mean those people have to stay at the office 1-2 hours longer to do their work?

[blibble]

it's not really the EU, it's the parliament, which can't legislate and has no way to force the parts of the EU that can to do anything

journalists often report that the EU "lawmakers" are doing something when in it's really the parliament passing non-binding resolutions that don't do anything

[M2Ys4U]

Parliament can't propose new legislation (except in one or two very narrow areas provided for in the treaties), but it is a legislature.

In nearly all cases (except again in narrow areas defined in the treaties) Parliament must pass the legislation first, before it goes to the Council. They then must agree any changes made by the Council.

And yes, Parliament can - and almost always does - amend legislation as it goes through the legislative process.

[blibble]

Webster defines a legislature as a body of persons having the power to legislate

the EU parliament cannot, so it's not a legislature

[M2Ys4U]

1) Parliament does legislate; and

2) Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive.

[op03]

It's all very courageous until you try to get projects done.

The EU reminds me of how the UN unravelled into irrelevance back in the 70s-80s. Lots of good intentions, cash flowed, all kinds of progressive projects were seeded but then what happened?

[allendoerfer]

Difference is, the member-states actually have given the EU some power in its area of competence, while the UN is just a club to keep in touch with each other (which is also very important).

[isoprophlex]

Strange, it seems we get plenty of projects done. Everyone on the client side is happy; Everyone on the team gets paid.

Doesn't sound too bad to me.

[olalonde]

> You got to admit that the EU at least has the courage to take some controversial measures in the best interest of their people.

That's very debatable. It will probably have unintended consequences like lowering salaries, increasing the intensity of workload during permissible hours, outsourcing or entirely eliminating some types of jobs. Ultimately, it just reduces the pool of possible arrangements between employers and employees. I know a few people who would readily give up their "right to disconnect" for a more interesting job or a higher salary for example.

[pietrovismara]

> It will probably have unintended consequences like lowering salaries, increasing the intensity of workload during permissible hours, outsourcing or entirely eliminating some types of jobs. Ultimately, it just reduces the pool of possible arrangements between employers and employees.

The exact same has been said for child labor abolition, reducing the work week to 40 hours, raising women wages and for literally every other improvement in work conditions we've conquered so far.

[olalonde]

Arguably, the bulk of improvement in work conditions came through technological development and productivity growth, not through regulations. Some of the best work conditions today are found in the largely unregulated (partly due to its global nature) software engineering job market. Also, why not go for 20 hours work week?

[pietrovismara]

Innovation made improvements in work conditions possible, protests and the following regulations made them real. I'm all-in for a 20h work week.