Comment by hackernewds

Comment by hackernewds 4 days ago

There has been a shift since the 9-5 meant you leave your laptop at work, and were virtually unreachable.

Next, you were reachable so managers especially also bothered you at 7PM (I even sometimes had meetings at a FAANG). In exchange, employees got the freedom often to work in their desired 40 hours as long as things got done.

Now, companies want it both ways where you come in 9-5 AND they want non office hours productivity as well. Somehow we've forgotten the paystubs and employee offer letters say "40 hours of work"

hparadiz 3 days ago

Been working remote since before COVID and this hasn't ever been a thing for me. I just don't reply after hours. At one gig where I ended up being laid off (it was Playboy) I would stress about not doing this or that but in the end my performance had nothing to do with it. They sold the store I was working on and that was that. Of course the 401k "match" that took 24 months to vest was entirely worthless. Now I don't even consider any equity that doesn't vest immediately as part of my TC.

These companies don't care about you at all. Put in your hours and always keep looking for the next thing.

Reply View 1 reply

epolanski 3 days ago

> I just don't reply after hours.
I'm a freelancer/independent contractor.
Every time I start a new gig, I make sure to answer private messages few hours later, and never outside the 8AM/8PM timeframe or during weekends. Ever.
I also make it black on white on contracts that I don't do meetings before 9AM or later than 5PM.
I immediately set a habit for people that I might be AFK and that I never ever answer work-related stuff in the weekends.
As months go by I start answering when I see it/have time, rather than purposefully delaying and occasionally I answer a message or a chat in the weekends if I lurk on the channels. Hell, sometimes I even did some work on the weekends too if some deadlines are close (I am still bound to the success of my clients after all) and make up for it when rhythms are lower.
But in the beginning I make sure to always set a tone where I'm just not there online and ready to answer 24/7.
I did the opposite years ago. I would make it a habit for people for always being up and ready, so when I had to do something (from preparing lunch to bathroom breaks) people would instantly assume I was working less or cared less.
I don't do the mistake anymore. Professional? Always. Connected and ready all time? As little as possible.

Reply View | 0 replies

rjh29 3 days ago

In Australia it is a legal right to not be bothered by your employer outside of working hours. I don't know if you can opt out of it, but it certainly helps change public opinion of what is expected of employees.

Reply View 0 replies

firtoz 3 days ago

In the UK anywhere I tried to become an employee in the last 5 years also asked me to sign the "I am ok to work more than 40 hours" addendum, and it was a condition with the offer.

Reply View 16 replies

xnorswap 3 days ago

I've had that in contracts, but have always crossed it out. I suggest you do the same.
No employer I've seen has ever questioned it, they know it'd be illegal for them to actually force you to opt-out your of your rights. If they put it in writing that it was a conditional part of employment they'd be in hot water.
They're just hoping you just sign away your rights "for free" so to speak.

Reply View | 4 replies
- znpy 3 days ago
  
  > I've had that in contracts, but have always crossed it out. I suggest you do the same.
  As of lately, I've seen some web-based signature systems (adobe something something docusign iirc?) and with such systems crossing lines is not an option anymore.
  
  Reply View | 2 replies
  
  tyre 3 days ago
  
  Well for one, you can’t just cross out a section of a contract, sign it, and have that be binding. The other party has to know about it (by you telling them) and then agree to those terms.
  In the esig case, you’d need to talk to HR to have the provision removed.
  
  Reply View | 1 reply
  
  sbarre 3 days ago
  
  > you can’t just cross out a section of a contract, sign it, and have that be binding. The other party has to know about it (by you telling them) and then agree to those terms.
  Yes I think that was implied by the original poster. The company has to counter-sign the modified document, which is why they always get you to sign it first, so they can review before they sign.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies
- BrandoElFollito 2 days ago
  
  Why crossing it out if this is illegal and non-enforceable ? This is raising a flag that could be avoided
  
  Reply View | 0 replies
aden1ne 3 days ago

This is the default in the Netherlands for many office jobs as well. Usually in the form of 'Subclause 2: The nature of the job may demand work beyond the stated hours in subclause 1. If this occurs, no additional payment shall be made'.
Never had a job where that wasn't a clause in the contract.

Reply View | 0 replies
vidarh 3 days ago

The limit in the UK is 48 hours. Beyond that they can ask, but they can't legally tie it to an offer.

Reply View | 3 replies
- hhmc 3 days ago
  
  technically it's the EU working hours directive that's binding (or being opted out of) in the UK
  
  Reply View | 2 replies
  
  vidarh 3 days ago
  
  It's correct that it was the Working Time Directive that required the UK to add it to UK law in the first place (over the strident objections of the Tory government at the time) but it is the Working Time Regulations Act 1998 that provides this regulation in the UK, and since Brexit the EU Working Time Directive 2003 has no legal force in the UK.
  
  Reply View | 1 reply
  
  oakesm9 3 days ago
  
  EU directives never had any direct legal force in the UK, or any other member state. The point of the directive is to say "all EU members need national legislation which meets these standards". It's then up to the member states to implement national laws using their own unique systems which meet the requirements of the directive.
  As you said, the Working Time Regulations Act 1998 is the UK law implementation of the EU Working Time Directive 2003.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies
_heimdall 3 days ago

These kinds of clauses seem toothless to me.
If a potential employee isn't willing to agree to work more than 40 hours they either don't take the job, or take the job but refuse to work those extra hours and risk being fired. Being fired is never fun, but the employee is still better off ignoring the contractual obligation there if it was a deal breaker anyway.

Reply View | 0 replies
rsynnott 3 days ago

As I understand it, before it went off in a huff, the UK was the only European country which allowed a _general_ opt out of the working time directive (many allow it for medical workers, and sometimes for other emergency workers). Accordingly, of course, many if not most UK employers obtain such an opt-out.

Reply View | 0 replies
guappa 3 days ago

Just not for free, then it wouldn't be work, it'd be an hobby :D
There are contract rates for how much overtime should be paid. Just ask to be paid.

Reply View | 0 replies
robpethick 3 days ago

To be fair, I've had the same thing but never had an issue just working my contracted hours

Reply View | 0 replies
SkyBelow 3 days ago

Being willing to work 40.5 hours fulfills this addendum. It doesn't mean anything more than that, nor does it apply to if you are still okay sometime in the future.

Reply View | 0 replies
[removed] 3 days ago

[deleted]

Reply View | 0 replies

jbs789 3 days ago

Before that it was the BlackBerry (my experience), and before that something else (presumably the pager, telephone, telegram, man on horseback?).

I just think it’s important we are all deliberate about what is important to us and therefore what we agree to. If the precedent is set early, it helps tremendously, in my experience.

Reply View 0 replies