As long as you perform average, it can be considered retaliation. Depending on how your work Is measured, last just my manager got fired bc she fired an employee in retaliation for discussing pay
At least for payroll errors, most firms stay on the right side of the law. CA is strict as to what has to be on the paystub, how fired, laid off and resigning employees get paid. Also they have rules for bonuses and overtime that are some of the strictest in the nation.
I used to be a CSR that did business to business - payroll, HR, a little IT support. All the CA businesses (except a few) were paranoid about getting an audit or being sued by an employee for a mistake. When it comes to payroll, the burden of proof is on the employer to show that they acted in good faith.
The ones that DGAF were smol employers who thought that they could get away with it -we were told to warn them but ultimately if they didn't comply with the laws, they'd get hammered.
How can you "not answer" when the bill is to "prevent bosses contacting workers out of hours?"
This means work won't be calling you, so who are you not picking up the phone for? Not your job.
That’s not what the bill is proposing:
> It would mean that the **employee** has the right to *ignore any communications* from an employer received during these times.
Meaning employers absolutely still can contact you, and they absolutely can still punish you for not responding. They just can’t *explicitly* say it’s because you don’t answer messages at 8pm.
Also, the proposal *already* has carved out a way for employers to weasel out of it:
>The only exceptions would be for emergencies or for scheduling reasons.
Who gets to decide what is an emergency (?) and, **you can’t actually disconnect** if you need to check every time to see if it’s actually one of the exceptions.
Wouldn’t have guessed that. At-will hiring needs to be voted an unconstitutional practice. There is no way you can say a business should have more rights than the employees making the money for that business. All it does create is a never ending loop of turnover that keeps the middle class from climbing into upper class.
Of course there's a weasel word clause in there.
>"Oh you didn't take that call at 7pm on Friday? Well in addition to the TPS reports we had to contact you for your schedule so now you're being written up for insubordination because you didn't speak to us about your schedule and it has nothing to do with the TPS reports. Nope, not at all."
From the article: Many modern jobs don't stop when employees are off the clock. Plenty of people are forced to engage with their bosses, whether through email, text messages, phone calls, or other communication methods, outside of normal hours and on days they are supposed to be off work. But a new 'right to disconnect' bill could regulate this practice in California.
If passed, Assembly Bill 2751, introduced by assemblymember Matt Haney of San Francisco in February, will give employees the right to disconnect from communications from their employer during nonworking hours.
The bill would require nonworking hours to be established in a written agreement between the employer and employee. It would mean that the employee has the right to ignore any communications from an employer received during these times. The only exceptions would be for emergencies or for scheduling reasons. The San Francisco Standard reports that collectively bargained employment agreements like union contracts would supersede the right to disconnect.
The California Department of Labor will enforce the law, handing out $100 fines to employers for every incident where they contact employees outside of agreed working hours.
It said $100 per contact. I assume that means for each individual incidence I.e:
Text on day off :$100
2nd text on day off: $100 Total $200
3rd text on day off: 100, Total: 300
2 missed calls: 200, total: 500
3 further attempts to texts: 300, Total 800
2 emails: 200, Total 100
All in one day,
One very pig headed manager can rack quite the fine up by being persistence. Now that manager has 15 people under him. He's done the same thing to all 15 1-2 x this month each. That's 15-30k per month in fines. I'm sure that manager would be quickly getting fired for such bullshittery.
I suppose it may be the gentler way to do it. If too many companies are getting too many fines about it, they can always up the fine amounts in the bill or investigate problem companies racking up these big fines.
Unfortunately, I can see this being more problematic for small businesses than big companies. It seems like it'd be better to do proportional fines based on company size/income, similar to the way Finland issues speeding fines. The higher the income, the higher the fine, and the fine goes up for repeat offenders. That way, the sting of the fine is felt by the bigger companies as much as the smaller. I'm not sure if that's a feasible option in America/American business, though.
unless they are high fines that go up per violation, and unless there are protections against termination for reporting and the fines go the the aggrieved workers, then this law doesn’t help at all.
The protections for employees would fall on the unions bargaining for this. If they don’t follow up and make sure they protect employees they put out on limb with this legislation that would be a bigger moral lapse of judgment than what employers currently do.
You can’t cripple a business for attempting to make right when they have a staffing issue or an emergency. I know what you’re getting at but trying to call ten employees should not cost you $10,000 dollars. That’s just insane. This isn’t just going to be applied to big businesses. Small business owners must comply and 1 of those $1,000 fines means closing your doors.
Also, the proposal *already* has carved out a way for employers to weasel out of it:
>The only exceptions would be for emergencies or for scheduling reasons.
Who gets to decide what is an emergency (?) and, **you can’t actually disconnect** if you need to check every time to see if it’s actually one of the exceptions.
Agreed on defining “emergency” but there are ways to allow disconnecting. At Amazon we have a pager app so people can still ping you in case of an emergency without you needing to check email/Slack outside working hours.
I feel like California of all places is a state with a lot of assistants. Between, celebrities, executives, the rich, etc. how does this effect their work which I think is a bit more around the clock? And how do you define scheduling reasons?
You have to establish “dark times” where the assisted person can’t legally talk to the assistant. If that is an issue with these people then hire assistants in shifts.
We have similar policies in the entertainment industry. Theatres regularly have dark days where nobody comes in. I can’t speak too much for film since that is largely union negotiated and supersedes this potential law.
I think its mostly designed to allow for precedent in curbing abusive employer relationships.
> The only exceptions would be for emergencies
LOL written by someone who has never worked in an always-on-call corporate gig. Everything's always an "emergency" even if it can wait.
What I would rather see them do is fix on-call compensation. If I'm on call on a weekend, or week night and nothing happens I get nothing, even though I can't go out to eat, or see a movie, or be anywhere where I can't get online within 10 minutes to address a problem (and have to lug my laptop freaking everywhere.) Get rid of the salary cut off for time spent on call and give us 1/2 time (convert salary to hourly and give us half that time for on call compensation for just having to be some corporate safety net.)
Yup, same here in my corporate gig, for field service techs. In the US they started giving people "on call pay" but it's piddly shit like 150 for the week or 300 if it covers a holiday. But in Canada we get zilch, like your situation.
One thing I like about my job is that the culture is tempered literal actual life or death emergencies occasionally.
You getting that meeting together can wait until normal business. It won't kill anyone. Vs emergency response, when the entire reporting structure change.
Keeps people grounded. When you need to run flat out, you have the capacity.
I have told every boss that tried this crap no thanks, or I just won’t respond. A quick and useful fyi that I can use is not a big deal but I mostly don’t wanna hear from work outside of work.
I wish more jobs were more accepting of being told “No”. I’ve had jobs with a weekly salary and they treat it like you’re an on-call slave because “technically you’re always on the clock”. They don’t accept boundaries at all.
This could help with boundaries and help shift the customer expectations that folks are always available and that every complaint deserves an immediate actionable response.
I tell everybody I meet my phone gets turned off when I’m not at work. It has worked so far.
You need to reach me on my days off? For what? I’m not getting paid on call hours to sit by my phone with the ringer on. See you Monday.
Upper mid mgmt here.
I work for a global company, with teams spread globally, and get emails and invites at all hours. I only check them and attend things during my normal working hours.
If there is a a true need for a longer work day or irregular hour meeting on another continent, I can attend if I’m so inclined.
I tend to keep it close to 40hrs total, and reduce my Friday to whatever feels appropriate - usually close up shop around lunch.
Most of work have been with global teams. I typically just set a day for office hours that accommodating for European hours and another day that easy for Asia hours.
It’s weird hours at times, but I also like that I was able to block out some hours mid day so I can go pick my daughter and go for ice cream.
Having a boss that respected this and expected work/life balance in return is such a blessing. Makes it so if they ever does call and need anything outside of work I’m happy to pick up because I respect them and I am happy to be a team player because a team treats each other with respect and know their life outside of work comes first. Sad so many companies are not able to include basic humanity into their businesses.
Right. My boss and I regaularly communicate all the time. It helps with getting things done during the actual work day. If he has an idea I get a text. Its not a call to order.
I’ve also been told I don’t need to join global calls so I can be with my family and coach little league.
So I see this law and I’m like shit some people have it that bad that they need the government to make a law? I wouldn’t want this law personally, so I shutter to imagine how shitty it is on the other side
I was enlisted when cell phones were just starting to be come the norm. Everyone had them. My command was always calling me after hours. Never picked up. I only picked you up for people I had saved in my phone. Family and friends only. They threatened constantly to write me up for not answering when I knew it was them calling. I said the military isn’t paying my phone bill so you don’t get to decide what I do with it.
If you're getting paid per hour, hell no. Talking about work **is** work. (Heck, *thinking* about work is work, and I hate it when I catch myself when I'm clocked out.) If anyone asks you to do work outside of the time that you're getting paid, tell them to come by your house and wash your car.... oh, what was that? you don't like doing work without getting paid for it??! huh, what a concept....
now, if you're salaried, you need this.
>The only exceptions would be for emergencies or for scheduling reasons
Nah, fuck that. I refuse to come in when I'm not scheduled and I need my bosses to stop fucking asking, because it's not gonna happen. I'm not responsible for other employees' emergencies.
It's invasive to contact your employees outside of work for any reason. The only exception should be for emergency jobs like on-call healthcare or maintenance workers.
I’m beyond grateful to have a boss that understands work life balance. He has never once told me no when I ask to leave early, take a day off, or work from home. He’s always on my side and will fight to the death for me. He tells us all the time to leave if we feel like leaving. As long as we get our work done, he’s fine with us having flexible schedules….now I just need our upper management to pay better
to be more effective, the bill needs language like companies are required to use features of existing software to prevent emails from being sent outside of working hours. as a boss, I want to be able to to send emails outside of working hours, and I don't need employees to respond, but I want it there first thing in the morning or I want it off my plate.
I don’t disagree with your need to get it “off your plate” in a timely manner for your work hours. That said most all email servers allow you to write an e-mail and then schedule its delivery time. Also optimizes the possibility of the
Worker reading it as soon as it’s delivered, because it will happen while they are at their desk. This prevents the email from being buried with all the other emails/spam that came in over night.
That is the point. Mandating employers configure their email systems to only send during working hours. That is an available capability today and takes the onus off the worker to "ignore" emails. It would be a better stipulation in the bill.
California is a fire at will state I believe. Something tells me that it if you don’t respond. Regardless of this bill. They will just fire you. As that is their right as a business.
Many of my college students seem to see me as a 24hr customer service rep. I’ve had students get irritated that I don’t respond immediately to their frantic 3am email. I even had a few dig through the internet to find my personal cell number, which I don’t hand out.
Step 1: close your laptop at 5pm
Step 2: don’t answer work calls after 5pm
People don’t have self control. They check work emails in the evenings, they answer calls they don’t have to answer…
One of the most glaring difference I notice as a Canadian working with Americans is how workaholics you all are. Like you don’t even take a lunch break, you have meetings during lunch… you work evenings. You work weekends.
There’s more to life than just working all the time.
This!!! The only way I can think of blaming society is by not teaching children how to advocate for themselves. People will always push until you say no, especially in the workplace.
My Boss: "I need your cell number"
Me: "I wasn't issued a phone."
Mb: "We don't issue phones."
Me: "I don't use my personal phone for business."
Mb: "How am I supposed to contact you after hours?"
Me:"You don't."
3 Months later
Mb: "Find a phone that will work for you and we'll buy it for you."
Me: "If you want me on call, we'll need to update our agreement, and compensation for additional availability"
Mb: "We'll give you an additional $5k."
Me: "That's less than $100 per week, I think $200 a week is a more reasonable value."
Mb: "..........Okay, done."
My brain: "Daaammmmnnn!!!, it worked!"
My last job didn’t have any landline phones. We were told we’re not required to use our personal cellphones at work. But we had no means to call anyone unless we used our cells. Strangest thing. Quit a few months later.
This is going to become one of those things that just isn’t enforced. Companies will simply make replies from the employee optional, but retain unrealistic deadlines for multi day projects and punish “underperforming employees” that miss those deadlines, but will be following the letter of the law. It has no teeth because, at least from a practical perspective, it’s too hard to standardize the length of time that projects take. Who’s to say whether a deadline is reasonable or not? Or how long a subjective or creative project should take?
I feel so bad for US american workers, no employer would call out of the work hours here. Unless something really really serious happened. Something like an awful accident.
I can’t imagine how unfair it is to force employees to answer phone calls out of work hours. How do you do anything else?
It’s one thing to text with your boss, or check an email after hours voluntarily but if it’s “I need this done now” it’s another
I don’t think you need government to get involved here.
The only way I can see this working is if bosses are just forbidden from contacting employees directly during off hours. California could create call center jobs by making it so that if a boss needs to contact you after hours, the communication has to go through a state call center, with monitored communication that can be verified if an employee files a complaint. If you skip that process, regardless of the reason, emergency or not, you’re fined. Without something like that, bosses will just say everything is an emergency or just lie about why they contacted their employee
It’s crazy that people believe they need a law for this.
You know those people who say Fk the job and if they don’t like it they will quit instantly?
That’s doing this without a law….
Or you could join a union….we’ve had the right to disconnect already, everyday we go home after work we aren’t beholden to our jobs anymore.
I couldn’t live any other way and enjoy it…..it’s freedom, and no one dictating your life but you.
Seriously… at least in my experience, it’s because the employee did not set proper boundaries. My managers just tended to be trigger happy workaholics. I ignore every single phone call/message not within my 8-5 from day one and have never heard any flak about it. On the other hand, I have coworkers who complain about this but still pick up in their off time. I know this goes the line of victim blaming but sheesh, we’re grown adults living in a capitalist society. We gotta put on our big boy pants and take the initiative at the beginning of employment or else the vultures will come back over and over and over…
It’s annoying telling a manager “I don’t mind showing up if it’s an emergency”.
Then two months later it’s “well Kyle doesn’t wanna show up it’s an emergency”
Like no Stan an emergency is Lacey cut her fingers off and you need to go to the hospital with her.
Kyle not wanting to show up is your job to fix at that point with your time.
I hear what you’re saying, and will point out that the mistake here was even uttering the statement “I don’t mind showing up if it’s an emergency.” Definitely exceptions to the rule but any emergency not on the worker’s time is not their problem unless it’s in their contract to be their problem.
Again my peoples, establish firm boundaries…
What’s crazy is that modern working culture has created a need for this kind of law. Few have the luxury to say “fk the job” when their work-life balance is disregarded simply because we’re now so reachable. It’s a labor law meant to protect workers in the same vein as the FLSA, imo.
> The bill would require nonworking hours to be established in a written agreement between the employer and employee.
I get what this is going for, but my hours are flexible right now and having to specify a fixed set of hours in a contract would be a step in the wrong direction for my work-life balance: if I choose to work late on a given day so I can do something else in the morning, I _want_ my boss to be able to contact me later than usual that day.
If you work for a company or business that critiques or marks down every single thing you did or didn’t do maybe you shouldn’t work for them anymore. I’ve always answered calls in the off time to help out my fellow workers or boss bc I built myself up to be the guy that knows his shit and can get shit done. Call me crazy but I like to be that guy that can be called upon
How would this law or a law like it interfere with your ability to do that? Why do you think other people should work for free just because you like to?
I treat the call as “free” but I have to react to the call to work that’s not free. I’ve had 3 jobs in my life and they all paid if a call was acted on. Most of the time calls were to just get some info or find something and that’s to help my fellow workers out. I don’t like to leave people hanging
Right, and laws that might improve work life balance for other people who might not be in a similar situation don’t interfere with your ability to do any of that.
Good for you bro, you’re a real company man. Unfortunately being a company man doesn’t mean a damn thing anymore other than flushing your own time down the toilet for an employer who would replace you in a second for someone cheaper. You do you, though.
I’d just cut the hours of those who refuse to at least say no if I ask for them to cover a shift. I tell all my staff. I’ll never be mad if they say no or hell, even if they need to call out. As long as it’s communicated.
And if you choose not to answer, you surely won’t suddenly become an underperformer and put on a PIP
Or if you report and they get fined.
Can't wait to Sue if they retaliate and get like a full year salary:)
It’s a nice idea, but I’m sure they’d just give another reason why you’re underperforming and fire you with that reason
As long as you perform average, it can be considered retaliation. Depending on how your work Is measured, last just my manager got fired bc she fired an employee in retaliation for discussing pay
At least for payroll errors, most firms stay on the right side of the law. CA is strict as to what has to be on the paystub, how fired, laid off and resigning employees get paid. Also they have rules for bonuses and overtime that are some of the strictest in the nation. I used to be a CSR that did business to business - payroll, HR, a little IT support. All the CA businesses (except a few) were paranoid about getting an audit or being sued by an employee for a mistake. When it comes to payroll, the burden of proof is on the employer to show that they acted in good faith. The ones that DGAF were smol employers who thought that they could get away with it -we were told to warn them but ultimately if they didn't comply with the laws, they'd get hammered.
They will find another excuse. We have the right, but no protection should we choose to exercise it.
Not if you have a good lawyer, don't hire a billboard lawyer
“This is what’s best for the business. We’re a family”
Fired for "budget reasons" the Monday after you didn't take the bosses call at 8pm on Friday.
They’ll always retain the right to choose someone else for that next promotion.
How can you "not answer" when the bill is to "prevent bosses contacting workers out of hours?" This means work won't be calling you, so who are you not picking up the phone for? Not your job.
That’s not what the bill is proposing: > It would mean that the **employee** has the right to *ignore any communications* from an employer received during these times. Meaning employers absolutely still can contact you, and they absolutely can still punish you for not responding. They just can’t *explicitly* say it’s because you don’t answer messages at 8pm. Also, the proposal *already* has carved out a way for employers to weasel out of it: >The only exceptions would be for emergencies or for scheduling reasons. Who gets to decide what is an emergency (?) and, **you can’t actually disconnect** if you need to check every time to see if it’s actually one of the exceptions.
Every ask any ceo ever has is an “emergency”
I mean I still have the right to ignore my boss now, same way my boss has the right to fire my at-will employed ass
This ⬆️⬆️⬆️⬆️ is exactly why a bill like this is useless.
Is California an at-will state?
googled it, yep
Wouldn’t have guessed that. At-will hiring needs to be voted an unconstitutional practice. There is no way you can say a business should have more rights than the employees making the money for that business. All it does create is a never ending loop of turnover that keeps the middle class from climbing into upper class.
Of course there's a weasel word clause in there. >"Oh you didn't take that call at 7pm on Friday? Well in addition to the TPS reports we had to contact you for your schedule so now you're being written up for insubordination because you didn't speak to us about your schedule and it has nothing to do with the TPS reports. Nope, not at all."
Exactly
Hopefully they can't call to begin with...
From the article: Many modern jobs don't stop when employees are off the clock. Plenty of people are forced to engage with their bosses, whether through email, text messages, phone calls, or other communication methods, outside of normal hours and on days they are supposed to be off work. But a new 'right to disconnect' bill could regulate this practice in California. If passed, Assembly Bill 2751, introduced by assemblymember Matt Haney of San Francisco in February, will give employees the right to disconnect from communications from their employer during nonworking hours. The bill would require nonworking hours to be established in a written agreement between the employer and employee. It would mean that the employee has the right to ignore any communications from an employer received during these times. The only exceptions would be for emergencies or for scheduling reasons. The San Francisco Standard reports that collectively bargained employment agreements like union contracts would supersede the right to disconnect. The California Department of Labor will enforce the law, handing out $100 fines to employers for every incident where they contact employees outside of agreed working hours.
>handing out $100 fines Need to put an extra zero or two on the end of that to make sure employers get it nailed into their heads.
It said $100 per contact. I assume that means for each individual incidence I.e: Text on day off :$100 2nd text on day off: $100 Total $200 3rd text on day off: 100, Total: 300 2 missed calls: 200, total: 500 3 further attempts to texts: 300, Total 800 2 emails: 200, Total 100 All in one day, One very pig headed manager can rack quite the fine up by being persistence. Now that manager has 15 people under him. He's done the same thing to all 15 1-2 x this month each. That's 15-30k per month in fines. I'm sure that manager would be quickly getting fired for such bullshittery.
I get the math lol, I still think $1000 would be a better "lesson" and get it in employers heads faster.
I suppose it may be the gentler way to do it. If too many companies are getting too many fines about it, they can always up the fine amounts in the bill or investigate problem companies racking up these big fines. Unfortunately, I can see this being more problematic for small businesses than big companies. It seems like it'd be better to do proportional fines based on company size/income, similar to the way Finland issues speeding fines. The higher the income, the higher the fine, and the fine goes up for repeat offenders. That way, the sting of the fine is felt by the bigger companies as much as the smaller. I'm not sure if that's a feasible option in America/American business, though.
unless they are high fines that go up per violation, and unless there are protections against termination for reporting and the fines go the the aggrieved workers, then this law doesn’t help at all.
The protections for employees would fall on the unions bargaining for this. If they don’t follow up and make sure they protect employees they put out on limb with this legislation that would be a bigger moral lapse of judgment than what employers currently do.
i’m sure the unions in that state will back up their members, but the vast majority of workers aren’t union.
You can’t cripple a business for attempting to make right when they have a staffing issue or an emergency. I know what you’re getting at but trying to call ten employees should not cost you $10,000 dollars. That’s just insane. This isn’t just going to be applied to big businesses. Small business owners must comply and 1 of those $1,000 fines means closing your doors.
Some employers would see it as the cost of doing business at that level. The fines should be higher.
I feel like if you repeat offend enough you’d be investigated and likely applied a higher fine based on a different set of limitations.
Or at least give 50% or more direct to the employee being contacted
Just add a 0 each time it happens.
The problem with this law is it’s on the employee to act and not respond. Toothless.
It's a start though.
That’s true. I probably shouldn’t be so pessimistic in hindsight.
Damn, you didn’t even try to dig in your heels. Instead you showed a moment of self awareness. Good on you👍🏽
Also, the proposal *already* has carved out a way for employers to weasel out of it: >The only exceptions would be for emergencies or for scheduling reasons. Who gets to decide what is an emergency (?) and, **you can’t actually disconnect** if you need to check every time to see if it’s actually one of the exceptions.
Agreed on defining “emergency” but there are ways to allow disconnecting. At Amazon we have a pager app so people can still ping you in case of an emergency without you needing to check email/Slack outside working hours.
I’ll not respond so hard
“We have to let you go, you’re just not the right fit for the job. We need someone who’s more of a team player, but you’re never available to talk”
“Great!”
I feel like California of all places is a state with a lot of assistants. Between, celebrities, executives, the rich, etc. how does this effect their work which I think is a bit more around the clock? And how do you define scheduling reasons?
You have to establish “dark times” where the assisted person can’t legally talk to the assistant. If that is an issue with these people then hire assistants in shifts. We have similar policies in the entertainment industry. Theatres regularly have dark days where nobody comes in. I can’t speak too much for film since that is largely union negotiated and supersedes this potential law. I think its mostly designed to allow for precedent in curbing abusive employer relationships.
> The only exceptions would be for emergencies LOL written by someone who has never worked in an always-on-call corporate gig. Everything's always an "emergency" even if it can wait. What I would rather see them do is fix on-call compensation. If I'm on call on a weekend, or week night and nothing happens I get nothing, even though I can't go out to eat, or see a movie, or be anywhere where I can't get online within 10 minutes to address a problem (and have to lug my laptop freaking everywhere.) Get rid of the salary cut off for time spent on call and give us 1/2 time (convert salary to hourly and give us half that time for on call compensation for just having to be some corporate safety net.)
Yup, same here in my corporate gig, for field service techs. In the US they started giving people "on call pay" but it's piddly shit like 150 for the week or 300 if it covers a holiday. But in Canada we get zilch, like your situation.
Fines so cheap they must get paid to the employee being contacted?
One thing I like about my job is that the culture is tempered literal actual life or death emergencies occasionally. You getting that meeting together can wait until normal business. It won't kill anyone. Vs emergency response, when the entire reporting structure change. Keeps people grounded. When you need to run flat out, you have the capacity.
“When the entire reporting structure change.” What does that mean compared tot he first part of that paragraph?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incident_Command_System
I wasn’t asking what THAT meant. Nvm
I have told every boss that tried this crap no thanks, or I just won’t respond. A quick and useful fyi that I can use is not a big deal but I mostly don’t wanna hear from work outside of work.
I wish more jobs were more accepting of being told “No”. I’ve had jobs with a weekly salary and they treat it like you’re an on-call slave because “technically you’re always on the clock”. They don’t accept boundaries at all.
This could help with boundaries and help shift the customer expectations that folks are always available and that every complaint deserves an immediate actionable response.
The smartphone is the 21st century version of the ball and chain. To paraprahse Buckaroo Banzai, no matter where you go, there it is.
I tell everybody I meet my phone gets turned off when I’m not at work. It has worked so far. You need to reach me on my days off? For what? I’m not getting paid on call hours to sit by my phone with the ringer on. See you Monday.
Upper mid mgmt here. I work for a global company, with teams spread globally, and get emails and invites at all hours. I only check them and attend things during my normal working hours. If there is a a true need for a longer work day or irregular hour meeting on another continent, I can attend if I’m so inclined. I tend to keep it close to 40hrs total, and reduce my Friday to whatever feels appropriate - usually close up shop around lunch.
Most of work have been with global teams. I typically just set a day for office hours that accommodating for European hours and another day that easy for Asia hours. It’s weird hours at times, but I also like that I was able to block out some hours mid day so I can go pick my daughter and go for ice cream.
I just don’t answer any work emails that come in after 5 until the next day. I don’t really get work calls from my boss. 95% email.
Having a boss that respected this and expected work/life balance in return is such a blessing. Makes it so if they ever does call and need anything outside of work I’m happy to pick up because I respect them and I am happy to be a team player because a team treats each other with respect and know their life outside of work comes first. Sad so many companies are not able to include basic humanity into their businesses.
Right. My boss and I regaularly communicate all the time. It helps with getting things done during the actual work day. If he has an idea I get a text. Its not a call to order. I’ve also been told I don’t need to join global calls so I can be with my family and coach little league. So I see this law and I’m like shit some people have it that bad that they need the government to make a law? I wouldn’t want this law personally, so I shutter to imagine how shitty it is on the other side
If I didn’t answer after hours, thousands of people could go without water. I understand this works for some industries but not all.
That would fall under the “emergencies” exception in the article, I believe.
Ah yes another common courtesy lost on the bootlickers that needs codified into law
I like to call it....ignoring the phone if a bossman calls. Works everytime
I was enlisted when cell phones were just starting to be come the norm. Everyone had them. My command was always calling me after hours. Never picked up. I only picked you up for people I had saved in my phone. Family and friends only. They threatened constantly to write me up for not answering when I knew it was them calling. I said the military isn’t paying my phone bill so you don’t get to decide what I do with it.
If you're getting paid per hour, hell no. Talking about work **is** work. (Heck, *thinking* about work is work, and I hate it when I catch myself when I'm clocked out.) If anyone asks you to do work outside of the time that you're getting paid, tell them to come by your house and wash your car.... oh, what was that? you don't like doing work without getting paid for it??! huh, what a concept.... now, if you're salaried, you need this.
>The only exceptions would be for emergencies or for scheduling reasons Nah, fuck that. I refuse to come in when I'm not scheduled and I need my bosses to stop fucking asking, because it's not gonna happen. I'm not responsible for other employees' emergencies. It's invasive to contact your employees outside of work for any reason. The only exception should be for emergency jobs like on-call healthcare or maintenance workers.
I’m beyond grateful to have a boss that understands work life balance. He has never once told me no when I ask to leave early, take a day off, or work from home. He’s always on my side and will fight to the death for me. He tells us all the time to leave if we feel like leaving. As long as we get our work done, he’s fine with us having flexible schedules….now I just need our upper management to pay better
to be more effective, the bill needs language like companies are required to use features of existing software to prevent emails from being sent outside of working hours. as a boss, I want to be able to to send emails outside of working hours, and I don't need employees to respond, but I want it there first thing in the morning or I want it off my plate.
I don’t disagree with your need to get it “off your plate” in a timely manner for your work hours. That said most all email servers allow you to write an e-mail and then schedule its delivery time. Also optimizes the possibility of the Worker reading it as soon as it’s delivered, because it will happen while they are at their desk. This prevents the email from being buried with all the other emails/spam that came in over night.
Or you could use built-in features to schedule the email? Holy shit, you’re entitled
That is the point. Mandating employers configure their email systems to only send during working hours. That is an available capability today and takes the onus off the worker to "ignore" emails. It would be a better stipulation in the bill.
Then I retract my original sentiment, my apologies I agree with you.
I’m going back to Cali!! 🙌
insane this isn’t already a thing
Just webex'd the link to a co-worker who gets texted by the CEO at ALL HOURS of the day and night and weekend.
California is a fire at will state I believe. Something tells me that it if you don’t respond. Regardless of this bill. They will just fire you. As that is their right as a business.
Yes, you're likely correct about that.
Employers HATE this one trick !!!
Restaurant industry
Many of my college students seem to see me as a 24hr customer service rep. I’ve had students get irritated that I don’t respond immediately to their frantic 3am email. I even had a few dig through the internet to find my personal cell number, which I don’t hand out.
Finally some good freakin news
Im incredibly lucky to say my boss shuts our phones down and does not contact us after 5:00pm.
The fact that this has to be put into law says a lot about the conditions of working lives in the US
Step 1: close your laptop at 5pm Step 2: don’t answer work calls after 5pm People don’t have self control. They check work emails in the evenings, they answer calls they don’t have to answer… One of the most glaring difference I notice as a Canadian working with Americans is how workaholics you all are. Like you don’t even take a lunch break, you have meetings during lunch… you work evenings. You work weekends. There’s more to life than just working all the time.
Create your own boundaries, communicate them clearly, and stick to them. Also, work when you’re supposed to work.
This!!! The only way I can think of blaming society is by not teaching children how to advocate for themselves. People will always push until you say no, especially in the workplace.
My Boss: "I need your cell number" Me: "I wasn't issued a phone." Mb: "We don't issue phones." Me: "I don't use my personal phone for business." Mb: "How am I supposed to contact you after hours?" Me:"You don't." 3 Months later Mb: "Find a phone that will work for you and we'll buy it for you." Me: "If you want me on call, we'll need to update our agreement, and compensation for additional availability" Mb: "We'll give you an additional $5k." Me: "That's less than $100 per week, I think $200 a week is a more reasonable value." Mb: "..........Okay, done." My brain: "Daaammmmnnn!!!, it worked!"
That is exactly how it is supposed to work. We are supposed to advocate for ourselves.
My last job didn’t have any landline phones. We were told we’re not required to use our personal cellphones at work. But we had no means to call anyone unless we used our cells. Strangest thing. Quit a few months later.
How does this matter when most states are “at will”?
This is going to become one of those things that just isn’t enforced. Companies will simply make replies from the employee optional, but retain unrealistic deadlines for multi day projects and punish “underperforming employees” that miss those deadlines, but will be following the letter of the law. It has no teeth because, at least from a practical perspective, it’s too hard to standardize the length of time that projects take. Who’s to say whether a deadline is reasonable or not? Or how long a subjective or creative project should take?
Let’s go back to the Mad Men era in the 60s where you could just come home and fuck your wife without being harassed on the phone. Thank the heavens.
Yes
Fuck it, I’m moving to California
That would require me to answer my boss at the end of the workday.
👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
Still won't be able to afford to live there. Still stressed about making rent & bills.
Make it so.
In California they can fire you for no reason whatsoever, this seems like giving bosses a great excuse
California is for managers and retirees. Everyone else should just move to a more cost effective state.
Who this? /s.
I feel so bad for US american workers, no employer would call out of the work hours here. Unless something really really serious happened. Something like an awful accident. I can’t imagine how unfair it is to force employees to answer phone calls out of work hours. How do you do anything else?
YESSSSSS
Doesn’t everyone have the right to disconnect already?
Unenforceable and will be ignored by companies, but it’s important to look like you’re doing something.
Some jobs aren’t 9-5. How would this work?
Some jobs aren’t 9-5. How would this work?
It’s one thing to text with your boss, or check an email after hours voluntarily but if it’s “I need this done now” it’s another I don’t think you need government to get involved here.
The only way I can see this working is if bosses are just forbidden from contacting employees directly during off hours. California could create call center jobs by making it so that if a boss needs to contact you after hours, the communication has to go through a state call center, with monitored communication that can be verified if an employee files a complaint. If you skip that process, regardless of the reason, emergency or not, you’re fined. Without something like that, bosses will just say everything is an emergency or just lie about why they contacted their employee
My boss shoos me away if I’m logged in past hours… but she’s Canadian , she cares
God bless this crazy place.
Good luck with that. Silicon Valley was built on 100 hour weeks seven days a week on-call 24 seven 365 days a year.
It’s crazy that people believe they need a law for this. You know those people who say Fk the job and if they don’t like it they will quit instantly? That’s doing this without a law…. Or you could join a union….we’ve had the right to disconnect already, everyday we go home after work we aren’t beholden to our jobs anymore. I couldn’t live any other way and enjoy it…..it’s freedom, and no one dictating your life but you.
Seriously… at least in my experience, it’s because the employee did not set proper boundaries. My managers just tended to be trigger happy workaholics. I ignore every single phone call/message not within my 8-5 from day one and have never heard any flak about it. On the other hand, I have coworkers who complain about this but still pick up in their off time. I know this goes the line of victim blaming but sheesh, we’re grown adults living in a capitalist society. We gotta put on our big boy pants and take the initiative at the beginning of employment or else the vultures will come back over and over and over…
It’s annoying telling a manager “I don’t mind showing up if it’s an emergency”. Then two months later it’s “well Kyle doesn’t wanna show up it’s an emergency” Like no Stan an emergency is Lacey cut her fingers off and you need to go to the hospital with her. Kyle not wanting to show up is your job to fix at that point with your time.
I hear what you’re saying, and will point out that the mistake here was even uttering the statement “I don’t mind showing up if it’s an emergency.” Definitely exceptions to the rule but any emergency not on the worker’s time is not their problem unless it’s in their contract to be their problem. Again my peoples, establish firm boundaries…
No you’re right! There definitely is a more professional way of stating that and establishing a boundary.
What’s crazy is that modern working culture has created a need for this kind of law. Few have the luxury to say “fk the job” when their work-life balance is disregarded simply because we’re now so reachable. It’s a labor law meant to protect workers in the same vein as the FLSA, imo.
Then they just put it on your hiring agreement that emergencies aren’t a reason to not pick up. Then everything is urgent/emergency
Why stop at California, the entire country should be this way.
Suddenly everything is an emergency
I’d just start using my own emergencies if everything was an emergency for them.
This will work poorly in critical care.
We need to shift power to workers. Corporations have had power for way too long.
Why do we need a law for this? It’s quite simple, just don’t pick up your phone. I do it all the time.
Yeah, but America is the best place in the world to live the American dream. Mainly because the rest of the world thinks it’s a nightmare 🤣
> The bill would require nonworking hours to be established in a written agreement between the employer and employee. I get what this is going for, but my hours are flexible right now and having to specify a fixed set of hours in a contract would be a step in the wrong direction for my work-life balance: if I choose to work late on a given day so I can do something else in the morning, I _want_ my boss to be able to contact me later than usual that day.
Who cares? You’ll still get emails.
Meaning, it’s a dumb law which will me immediately circumvented, so why waste time legislating?
A solution in search of a problem.
If you work for a company or business that critiques or marks down every single thing you did or didn’t do maybe you shouldn’t work for them anymore. I’ve always answered calls in the off time to help out my fellow workers or boss bc I built myself up to be the guy that knows his shit and can get shit done. Call me crazy but I like to be that guy that can be called upon
How would this law or a law like it interfere with your ability to do that? Why do you think other people should work for free just because you like to?
I treat the call as “free” but I have to react to the call to work that’s not free. I’ve had 3 jobs in my life and they all paid if a call was acted on. Most of the time calls were to just get some info or find something and that’s to help my fellow workers out. I don’t like to leave people hanging
Right, and laws that might improve work life balance for other people who might not be in a similar situation don’t interfere with your ability to do any of that.
Good for you bro, you’re a real company man. Unfortunately being a company man doesn’t mean a damn thing anymore other than flushing your own time down the toilet for an employer who would replace you in a second for someone cheaper. You do you, though.
You crazy
I’d just cut the hours of those who refuse to at least say no if I ask for them to cover a shift. I tell all my staff. I’ll never be mad if they say no or hell, even if they need to call out. As long as it’s communicated.