No. How is calling an employee at home harassment?
Answering the phone is “work”? The idea that I would have to pay an employee for the privilege of being able to talk to them is ridiculous.
When I did that it was because I was either genuinely concerned about the employee’s well-being or because I had a critical issue that couldn’t wait until that person’s next day at work. If I had an employee who was actively avoiding communication, the message that gives me is that they don’t put much priority on their work and they must not be very interested in getting better hours or a higherpaying position. If I had a full-time position to fill, you can bet I’m going to consider the person who’s willing to put in the extra effort over the person who never answers the phone when we need help.
Are they participating in work-related activities?
If it was that important, you should have taken care of it yourself rather than waste time driving to someone’s house.
Don’t you mean “work for free?”
But sending a one line email instruction someone to complete a ten page report does not impinge on the boss’s time as much, does it?
Well, if it’s at 10:00 a.m. to ask why they are not in the office yet, it isn’t.
If you have to call staff at home after work hours to get the work load completed you are understaffed, a very poor planner, or into power games.
I had a boss who was great at this game. He’d set unreasonable deadlines to make himself look good, tell me to write the final report after everyone else submitted their work at 5:00 p.m., then trash me for not joining the team for drinks to celebrate completing the project on time. At 5:00 p.m.
When the issue is, say, “he took the keys to the front door home with him”, I’m not sure how you’d expect to handle it otherwise. Have the doors re-keyed? Stay all night and make sure nobody robs the place?
And no, I don’t mean work for free unless we’re going by this metric where I need to pay my employees to answer the phone so I can ask them to come in and work for extra money.
I’ve never had a job that involved being contacted outside of work hours. As a small business owner, some people expect to be able to reach me 24/7, but I feel I set good and reasonable boundaries for that (the less reachable I am, the more money I make, to be honest). I also never expect to be able to reach employees/contractors 24/7, either. If I did, I would expect to pay a premium for it (or be paid a premium as an employee). If I email one now (1am my time) and he gets back to me tomorrow afternoon, that would be fine. Obviously I don’t do work related to emergencies (like MOST people, I assume). I can’t imagine that more than 1-2% of professions really have any reason for doing it. All that said, I’m not a big “There ought to be a law” guy. if anything I would just assume (I know) that any decent organization would not expect to monopolize a typical employee’s time, and in most cases it would serve no real business purpose or even be a negative.
They did, according to the BBC. See post #28.
Well this is the Dope, so as a general rule:
If it’s European then it simply must be superior. If it’s done in Sweden or Norway in particular then it’s not only superior, it actually exists on a new plane of enlightenment.
It was true 30-40 years ago. Not really anymore. People are much more often spreading their vacation time rather than taking a solid month, and more importantly, companies that simply close for a month in summer (mostly in the now less and less important manufacturing sector) have become pretty rare (possibly even non existent).
However, there’s still a significant drop of activity and many small shop owners pick this month to close down and go on vacations.
If you ask me, this drop in activity is a good reason not to take vacations in august:D
Simply as a matter of probability, when discussing differences in policy between countries, it’s likely that a lot of people are going to see benefits of the policies of countries other than their own.
Or do you think that policy should be supported as a matter of patriotism?
Kind of odd to think of a discussion about email and work hours in terms of superior and inferior - if there is an issue behind this it’s surely about protecting work/life balance with legislation because caplitalism left unregulated is an amoral arsehole?
If that doesn’t sound too superior.
I’m retired so this doesn’t apply to me any longer, but I also never owned a smartphone. If ever something was so critical that it required my immediate attention, my boss could have called me at home. Kinda like the olden pre-email days.
I am conflicted about this. I am very sensitive to the argument that there needs to be work/life balance and that it’s not right that professional success be tied to basically having no life.
But on the other hand, I am that person. I work a pretty solid 65 hour week as a teacher. The guy next to me works 40. Period. And I’m a much better teacher for it–I tutor more, have a much more cohesive vision for my course, produce better materials, have a better rapport with the kids, etc. I mean, he’s not bad at his job, but he’s no rock star. And my boss is a lot more concerned with keeping me happy than him–so I get better assignments, more opportunities to make extra money, etc., etc. Is that really wrong? Am I somehow selling him out by working a lot of unpaid overtime? Should my boss really be blind to the fact that I add more value to the school, and so it’s more important to keep me happy? That doesn’t seem right, either. Especially since in our context not working overtime would mean things like refusing to go over essays with kids, refusing to write them rec letters, cutting them off when they come in to talk about their problems . . .how could that be ethical?
But, on the other hand, there is the argument that there will be no pressure on the district to provide us with enough actual time to do what needs to be done if we continue to do it for free. But I tend to doubt that pressure would ever work, and in the meantime, it would mean sacrificing real educational and socio-emotional opportunities for today’s kids in the hopes that it will work out better for some other set.
I guess that at the end of the day I don’t think I am wrong for working 65 hours, but I don’t think he’s wrong for working 40, and I don’t think my boss is wrong for rewarding my choices and basically staying neutral on his. But it’s complicated.
But does that guy next to you have a family or say communty committments, do you have an immedate family, are you healthy and unstressed - it’s okay to talk about your commitment to unpaid hours but surely there’s a price being paid somewhere?
See post above.
Well, I guess you aren’t a lawyer or a consultant.
I don’t consider driving to an employees house to pick up the keys to the office “work”.
It depends. If you’re calling them to set their work schedule for the week or you have a legitimate emergency like the business with the keys, that’s one thing. If you’re calling them because you have more work you want them to do, that’s a different story.
In my field (consulting), taking a call or email outside of normal working hours IS work because often it requires spending the next several hours running some analysis or otherwise putting out a fire.
Not to mention, I typically work with offshore teams in different countries and time zones. So frequently I do need to send and receive emails before or after standard EST business hours.
But that’s part of the job and we get paid a lot of money to do it. The flip side is because everyone I work with is remote, I can typically work from home or anywhere I can connect a laptop to wifi and take care of personal shit during normal business hours. But that speaks to a different problem of work and personal time blending together.
I sometimes send emails as I think of them. But I tell the recipient they can wait until the next day to work on it if it’s not an emergency.
This will surely bring France back to its glory days.
Anyway, I could see from the start that this wasn’t a law (it’s a unions agreement) and it wasn’t for everyone (not even 10% of the workforce, I would imagine). But it still seems stupid. Just turn your damn computer off if it bothers you. Or don’t check your work e-mail. You should have a separate e-mail for personal stuff anyway.
And when you get in trouble for doing that?
Well, of course we both have other commitments and we’ve both set our lives around what we want: I had a toddler, and when he was born my husband quit his job to stay home because we both understood that I was the one that loved what I did, and I really didn’t want to have to always feel torn: I can only work the hours I work because I have a good system in place. But that’s not a coincidence: I married a man that understands me, delayed childbearing for 10 years, etc., etc to make this work. Yes, I am paying a price but I love my life. The guy next to me has a lot more time with his son, a lot more time for hobbies, etc. He’s paying the price in career advancement. He loves his life. That’s what he wants to do. I guess that while I see is this law assumes that his choice is better than mine, and deserves to be protected, or that my boss is being unfair when she favors me in all sorts of things. And I even understand that idea: no one should be punished for their commitment to their family. But fuck. I love my job. I love my life. Why shouldn’t my hard work, skill, and dedication translate into me being in a position to better shape and control that life? I AM paying the price, gladly–why shouldn’t I get the benefits?