Top
Best
New

Posted by cebert 5 hours ago

Michigan bill would bar employers from requiring after-hours coms with workers(www.cbsnews.com)
184 points | 130 commentspage 2
throwaway85825 1 hour ago|
Companies that desire on call need to be willing to pay an hourly rate for 24 hours of possible labor.
gblargg 1 hour ago|
At least an ongoing retainer fee, plus paying for time spent dealing with comms.
throwaway85825 55 minutes ago||
Lots of in office people aren't doing work 100% of the time, they still get paid because they could be asked to do something. Same goes for on call, just with a flipped percentage.

Further for non fixed work schedules any shifts that aren't scheduled two weeks in advance should be paid overtime.

shimman 16 minutes ago||
Why is the onus on workers to make sure they are working 100.00% of the time? It's not their company, they aren't management. If you want them to cosplay as managers maybe pay them as such rather than trying to pit them amongst each other.
hintymad 56 minutes ago||
That means tech companies won't hire engineers in Michigan if they are required to be oncall, as many such engineers rotate their oncall schedules?
cebert 4 hours ago||
Direct link to the bill: https://legislature.mi.gov/Bills/Bill?ObjectName=2026-SB-094...
giancarlostoro 42 minutes ago||
How do bills like these work for jobs where you are literally on call for outages?
ThrowawayTestr 40 minutes ago|
Then you're on the clock and by definition not after (your) hours.
gblargg 1 hour ago||
I'm fine if they want to give me extra work when I'm not on the job. I round up to the hour, so choose your after-hours emails wisely.
tbrownaw 3 hours ago||
How would this interact with existing rules around exempt / non-exempt (roughly, salaried vs hourly) employees?

I would think it would already be expensive to make someone paid by the hour do extra work stuff during time they're not already being paid for.

tptacek 3 hours ago|
It doesn't. As drafted it applies to exempt employees. (It's just a proposed bill; it's unlikely to happen and if it picked up any steam presumably it would be drafted more carefully.)
ElProlactin 3 hours ago||
While I don't disagree with the intent, the reality is that workers are already at a significant disadvantage and many don't feel they have the leverage to be more firm about boundaries (with most of them feeling this way being correct about their lack of leverage).

Laws like this will just encourage workarounds (like moving work to jurisdictions where such laws don't exist) and, eventually and wherever possible, elimination of positions (AI).

cadamsdotcom 3 hours ago|
While I understand how you can see it this way, laws like this have worked in many other places (yes some of those were places where employers had fewer options to move interstate, but that’s a costly thing to do for employers)

It does actually work - think of it like a speed limit. If everyone is forced to go at a certain maximum speed (ie. the same max no. of contact hours per week per employee) then it’s not a (relative) loss if a business can’t operate at “full capacity” for more hours than its competitors.

ElProlactin 3 hours ago||
I won't say that laws like this can't have any impact, but it's a global marketplace and change is constant.

Executive/virtual assistants, travel coordinators, bookkeepers, cold callers, real estate transaction coordinators, social media marketing managers, medical transcriptionists and billers, customer service reps, medical records analysis, architectural drafting, video editors, etc.

Many Americans used to be able to earn decent wages working in these roles. Now, it's much harder and there's much less opportunity. A ton of these roles are now filled by freelancers/contractors in places like the Philippines.

Obviously, this didn't happen just because of US labor laws. Wages are the big driver. But laws like this do in some cases give businesses reason to look at places where wages are lower and employees are more "flexible".

It's easy for tech people who feel secure in 6-figure/year jobs to scoff at this but go and talk to someone who used to work in these types of roles how life has been over the past decade.

headz 4 hours ago||
It kind of baffles me that this needs to be a bill. I guess I'm lucky that I've never worked for a company that required me to be constantly online. (I work remotely for a US company, work European working hours, and nobody requires me to be online outside of them.)
geetee 3 hours ago||
I've worked at companies that don't outright require it, but they utilize a few workaholic employees to set an expectation sane people can't live up to. It creates a stressful environment where expectations are unclear. Combine that with the current job market and you effectively hold your employees hostage.
toomuchtodo 2 hours ago||
You are lucky. This bill is for the unlucky, because luck is not a strategy as it relates to labor rights and protections.
headz 2 hours ago||
Yeah, now I see that my message came out a bit differently than I wanted it to. What I wanted to say is that it sucks this needs to be a law instead of just being common sense.
toomuchtodo 1 hour ago||
Absolutely sucks, but it’s where we’re at, so it must be done. If your policy isn’t law, it doesn’t exist except as a suggestion.

Personally, I was very lucky. I recognize it was almost all luck. Born at the right place to the right people. Opportunities I was lucky to have because of that. Winning when gambling on relationships, professional work, and in the capital markets. I advocate for unlucky people whenever possible, because humans who did not choose to be here should not suffer due to their poor luck.

“We must take the world as it is and not as we would like it to be.” —- Maurice Allais

geor9e 3 hours ago||
it's spelled "comms" although that is still jargon and the actual headline is "contact"
cebert 6 minutes ago|
HN has a restriction on title length. I had to shorten the title somewhere. I’m curious what you would have shortened instead of just being snarky.
cactusplant7374 2 hours ago|
Michigan is becoming poorer relative to its neighboring states. Maybe not the right time for this?
More comments...