
French workers win legal right to avoid checking work email out-of-hours - DLay
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/dec/31/french-workers-win-legal-right-to-avoid-checking-work-email-out-of-hours
======
yason
I've generally considered out-of-hours checks to emanate from employees. There
will always be employees who want to do a bit of extra, stay a bit longer,
answer emails at 10pm, to help make progress in their career and get
promotions.

Now, you obviously can't prevent these people from doing that without
disabling corporate accounts and door access between 5pm-9am. So there will be
people doing that, to appear in better light than others. The practice just
spreads to less ambitious employees as well, and then to less motivated ones.

While I support that you should be able to cut off work after the day is done
and switch to your free time I don't see how you could regulate something like
that.

To even try you would have to ban giving promotions to people who work some
extra for their employer (remove the incentive to do extra) or give some sort
of employment protection to people who do disconnect (pretty much like you
can't fire an employee who's pregnant or on parental leave because such is
collectively agreed to be worth some serious shitstorm).

In the end, the only enforcement I can think of is that each person needs to
make that decision themselves. If they value their free time and life outside
work then they must equally deprioritise work in their life, to the extent
where they might be fired because they will disconnect from work outside of
the hours agreed, and then find an employer who shares the same values. If
good employees do that, employers will have to realise that in order to retain
or get good employees they must give in and let the employees enjoy their free
time in peace. Now, the only problem is that there is always someone more
hungry for money than you, willing to sacrifice more than you. The remaining
question is that which people are the majority.

~~~
jknz
A sane and simple solution seems to be that any email sent after 8pm is
delayed by the company smtp server, and will actually be sent at 6am.

You can still check your emails and get stuff done. But stuff will not
accumulate after 8pm, you will not be bothered by other employees working at
night, until early morning.

This configuration of the smtp server can be billed $5/employee/month which is
a bargain to make sure your employees (1) have a sane life after 8pm and (2)
can still get stuff done if they want to!

~~~
tubs
8pm in which time zone?

~~~
paulryanrogers
Recepient's zone I imagine.

~~~
twic
I think it has to be the sender's time zone, to disincentivise working late.

Also, a mail can have multiple recipients, each in a different timezone, but
only one sender.

------
jaypaulynice
Agree with this. Best thing I ever did was remove all work related apps from
my phone. That way I only checked email if I'm on the laptop. More advantages
include: saving on your phone bills, storage on your phone, employers spying
on you, and of course your sanity. Doing this, I found that most "urgent"
emails were not really urgent.

Also if there is ever a lawsuit for whatever, the company has a right to seize
your phone if there is company content on it.

~~~
popotamonga
Same here, if it's really that urgent someone will eventually call.

~~~
agumonkey
I like how old tech limitations acted as a natural weighting. Now with
everything possible all the time we somehow loss an important source of
information.

~~~
ashark
I was just thinking about that the other day, as it relates to kids and TV.

You definitely _can_ still limit children's TV watching, but they're not dumb,
and it takes more effort now that they know you _could_ play an episode of
their favorite show on Netflix any time you please than when your hands were
tied by the broadcast schedule. "Sorry, you'll have to wait for next Saturday"
was an easier sell when it was impossible for you to do anything about it
(well, tape, but if you hadn't already recorded it there was nothing that
could be done after the fact).

~~~
agumonkey
I meant more about value attached to signals. Before if someone came to see
you it meant they made some effort compares to a SMS. Now that everything is
the same, lines are blurred and we feel overwhelmed.

------
hacknat
I barely check work email at work. One of the nice things about having slack,
at least at my company, is that no one seems to communicate outside of
business hours anymore.

~~~
nfriedly
My team has largely switched to slack as well. Initially I had it installed in
my phone, and so then I would look at it anytime I got a message, even outside
of work hours.

I wiped and reset my phone recently, and apparently IBM has upped the security
requirements to sign into Slack since I first set it up: now I can't sign in
on my phone for an undisclosed reason. (Probably because its rooted, I know
that's why I'm not allowed to have my work email on my phone.)

It's been kind of nice, honestly.

~~~
literallycancer
How do they know the phone is rooted if you are just getting emails? Or do you
mean they don't like it when you do, but have no way to really know?

~~~
cmdrfred
I don't know about rooted but Microsoft's Exchange App on Android demands that
it becomes a device admin so it can remotely delete everything on your phone
if your company desires. There is an app called MailWise[0] that will allow
you to get around that though. I did this as my company pays for my phone nor
my service yet demands I install their email on my personal device.

[0][http://support.mail-
wise.com/knowledgebase/articles/391797-w...](http://support.mail-
wise.com/knowledgebase/articles/391797-what-is-exchange-security-bypass-and-
how-to-use-it)

~~~
RHSeeger
My wife had a similar problem at work a while ago. Policies changed and the
company required the ability to wipe her phone in order to get email on it.
She basically told the company that, if they wanted her to have access to
email/calendar on her phone (given that requirement), they would need to
provide her with a company phone. She went for a couple months without access
to email/calendar (when not at the computer) and then they provided a company
phone.

Giving your company (or anyone) total access to your personal phone is insane.
Your phone, with access to your email, is effectively a master key to your
life. Through it, they have the ability to do almost anything to you (reset
your bank password and take all your money, etc).

------
grantlmiller
Making it harder to fire employees for another reason might protect the
existing jobs, but it lacks the foresight to understand that these practices
simply disincentivize employers from making future hires in the country. As a
result, this is another move by the French gov to protect the status quo. The
French labor market has already been regulated to the point of anti-
competitiveness. This immediately hurts younger workers who are willing to
work harder than their entrenched counterparts, but instead find themselves
unemployed at a rate nearing 25%. More business as usual for paternalistic
government lawmakers.

~~~
yjftsjthsd-h
But in this case the alternative is to punish workers for having work/life
balance. The "younger workers who are willing to work harder than their
entrenched counterparts" are an actively harmful influence, and all this does
is level the playing field.

~~~
smallnamespace
> The "younger workers who are willing to work harder than their entrenched
> counterparts" are an actively harmful influence

Even if that's true, the solution should not be to actively penalize young
workers, which this might do.

~~~
yjftsjthsd-h
Given that the rule is uniform, I'm curious how younger workers are penalized?
I'd expect everyone to benefit here.

------
ankitap
There is a discussion about this going on my company whatsapp group and all
are talking about how good it is to respond to emails at any time of day or
night. The company has a culture of pushing people to work more and more?
Think you have too much in your hands? Guess what, everyone else does as well
so it's no big deal. Sometimes I feel I am in the wrong type of company

------
benmarks
Will be interested to see studies of cultural effects as time goes on.

------
iagooar
To all fellow software engineers out there: STOP reading company emails after
work ALREADY! I don't care what your boss has told you or what your co-workers
do. Just don't do it.

Warning: this only applies to regular office workers, not management or
freelancers.

Are you getting paid for checking company emails after working hours? You are
not, right? How is offering your limited, private time FOR FREE to a company
worth it? Is your private life SO boring, you need to do something that many
of us do not even like doing during office hours? Are you afraid to be the
only one in your team to bring some sanity? Do you think your boss is going to
respect you less if you put clear boundaries between work and private life? Do
you think you might lose your job if you don't check emails at all hours?
Might be time to start looking for a new job...

I know, this post is a bit on the rough side, but I'm just trying to challenge
the status quo for some people. I have personally met a lot of good, nice
people who would think that they MUST do stuff for the company for free, after
hours. Without any good reason. Actually, I had this one colleague who would
check emails even very late at night, and if there was someone reporting a bug
would jump in and try to fix it. And guess what? Countless times his code was
really bad and it caused many more issues than it intended to solve in the
first place.

~~~
delroth
> Is your private life SO boring, you need to do something that many of us do
> not even like doing during office hours?

Yes. Or rather, what happens at work is so interesting that it usually beats
refreshing reddit for the 5th time in 10min while in the train.

~~~
iagooar
Why not start a little side-project? Try new things? Or maybe find a hobby
that is going to fill those boring hours with joy?

~~~
jasode
You write: _" fill those _boring_ hours"_

... in response to what the poster actually wrote: _" work is _so
interesting_"_

If you're _rewriting_ what the poster wrote into words of opposite meaning, it
doesn't seem like you're engaging in real discussion.

~~~
iagooar
What are you even talking about?

~~~
jasode
"interesting" != "boring"

When the poster writes a response, one can either honestly try to understand
his position, and then ask followup questions that are relevant to what he
_actually_ wrote.

It seems like you didn't do that. Instead, you distorted his choice to read
work email as "boring" and therefore, your followup questions (side projects?
hobby?) had the tone of "lecturing" about his habit.

In reading all of your replies to everyone, the gap in your worldview is that
_some non-managers like their work_ such that reading email outside of office
hours is a natural response. However, that doesn't mean everyone should do it.
For workers that feel strongly that reading email after-hours is wrong,
telling others not to do so isn't going to work.

If some people have different viewpoint about after-hours email, are you
interested in thoughtful discussion about it? Or do you prefer to lecture
people regardless of what they say?

------
muninn_
You don't have to do it in the United States, it's just that your coworkers
will.

In reality it has never made a difference for me. I can quickly scan my email
inbox and if anything is urgent and important it's known that you should
either call or speak to me in person.

------
aminok
Ridiculous. You have a moral right to refuse to enter into an employment
contract that obligates you to respond to emails out-of-hours. You do not have
a moral right to prohibit business owners from offering employment terms that
include an obligation to respond to emails out of regular work hours.

Once again, demagoguery wins over human rights. And people wonder why Europe's
economic growth rate has steadily stagnated over the last forty years. The
answer is social (demagogic) democracy.

~~~
mnm1
I think what's more ridiculous is unpaid overtime and letting employers, who
naturally have the upper hand in any employment negotiation, set the rules for
all employees in the exploitive manner the US does.

~~~
aminok
People have every right to refuse to enter into an employment contract that
imposes such obligations.

What they don't have a right to do is deny employers the right to offer any
terms they want. You're promoting authoritarian infringements on the right of
consenting adults to engage in voluntary interactions.

~~~
franzen
Yes indeed, and it's also a disgrace that children lack the freedom to work!
Many children want to work in factories, why let the state interfere? Absolute
bollocks.

~~~
aminok
Children are not "consenting adults", but in any case, child labour was
essential for survival in the 19th century, because productivity was much
lower than it is today.

If you were to invade Myanmar today, and impose a social democratic government
that bans child labour, the result would be an increase in mortality.

Child labour only became unnecessary as a result of economic development
increasing the average level of wealth in society.

Going back to the article, it's telling that you're trying to justify the
authoritarian prohibition by comparing adults to children. Your ideology sees
ordinary people as effectively children, and the state as their parent.

~~~
franzen
Then how are workers supposed to win better terms from their capitalist
employers, outside of collective bargaining or state intervention? Is a
football player being infantilized when he joins a union -- because he ought
to be able to negotiate contracts by himself? When a union helps him extract a
more equitable share of the profits, is he being infantilized, or is he being
smart?

You're free to frame this argument in terms of individual rights or "economic
competitiveness" or state paternalism. Unfortunately it amounts to little more
than economic handwaving. At worst it's a disingenuous ploy to undermine the
interests of the labour class, deluding workers into thinking you're giving
them economic rights and freedoms ("you should be able to choose when you
work!") when really you're just justifying your extraction of an even bigger
share of their labour.

The common labourer has no economic power. The state, the firm, and (to a
diminishing extent) unions do. I hate paternalistic states (and unions) as
much as you do, but when you place no limit on firms' ability to extract
labour from their workers, you end up in twisted situations where people are
being paid sub-livable wages and expected to be on call 24 hours. Not because
it's an economic "inevitability" (child labour inevitable? You seriously
believe that?), but because it's the most amenable socioeconomic arrangement
for the capitalist class.

~~~
aminok
>Then how are workers supposed to win better terms from their capitalist
employers, outside of collective bargaining or state intervention?

I recommend you study a bit of economics.

Start with Adam Smith:

>It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that
we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.

Then read this:

[http://nyti.ms/2cfMjs4](http://nyti.ms/2cfMjs4)

This isn't free market dogma. This is what 400 years+ of economic history
shows us, and what any economist would confirm.

Wages and benefits improve as the wealth of society increases, and wealth
increases as a part of the normal course of history, particularly when market
institutions are strongly in place. Wage growth slowed as a result of the
institution of economic-growth-destroying socialist laws and programs in the
US and Europe.

And putting all of this aside, you have no moral right to violate another
person's right to freely contract to increase your own wages. So even if
economies didn't work as they do, such authoritarian prohibitions would be
unjustiable.

~~~
franzen
And I recommend you read some Dickens. Good night.

~~~
aminok
I can't stress enough that the conditions found in Dickens's time had nothing
to do with a lack of prohibitions limiting contracting rights, and everything
to do with people being poor and technology being less advanced.

That is what all the statistical evidence suggests.

Anecdotally, I've spent a fair bit of time in the developing world, and to me
at least, it's obvious that the root source of the difference in working and
living conditions between the developing world and the developed world is the
comparatively lower levels of capital (tools, equipment, machinery, social
capital, skills, knowledge) in the developing world.

------
rahrahrah
France as usual leading in workers' rights.

~~~
chimeracoder
More like France catching up to the US. This is already the law in the US for
hourly employees, which is what the new law in France is scoped to.

~~~
mhurron
That's funny. Most people who are working in a place where they would be
pressured to continue doing work after hours are not paid hourly.

And then there is those long term contractors that are hourly but basically on
a fixed number of hours per week who still are 'encouraged' to do what little
extra is needed to get this project done so their contract can be renewed for
the next one once they've shown they can be counted on.

~~~
chimeracoder
> That's funny. Most people who are working in a place where they would be
> pressured to continue doing work after hours are not paid hourly

Whether or not they are paid hourly, as long as they are not classified as
exempt, they are entitled to overtime pay. (Tech workers are classified as
exempt in California, which is indeed a problem and IMHO a mistake, but that's
a much smaller issue)

> And then there is those long term contractors that are hourly but basically
> on a fixed number of hours per week...

Well, that's a bad way to write a contract, but even so, that's a totally
different situation because they're not even an employee. And the French law
referenced in the original article wouldn't apply in that situation either.

------
draw_down
Same shit, different toilet.

~~~
dang
Please don't post unsubstantive comments.

We detached this comment from
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13291386](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13291386)
and marked it off-topic.

------
ptaipale
I'm not exactly sure this is "winning a right". It's something that makes it
more difficult to serve customers.

~~~
ghostDancer
Out of hours? So you should check email at 03.00 just in case some insomniac
customer needs something that you can't probably fix/send/prepare till next
day. That's called slavery even if it's volunteer.

~~~
minipci1321
> 'insomniac customer' ...

Many companies these days have branches in all parts of the world. 1) Out of
hours for oneself could be perfectly office hours for the customer. 2) you
might be the only person knowing this part of the product or tech, and all is
required could be just a quick yes/no answer.

I am not advocating for either side, but please -- the world is more complex
than it seems.

~~~
ghostDancer
Then my boss should contract some people that can service that customer during
their work hours and the rest I'll answer the customer in my work hours,
that's what i'm paid for, if my boss wants me 24 hour service he/she should
pay me for it, otherwise it's voluntary slavery. They pay me to do my work
during my hours not to be at his/her wishes.

~~~
minipci1321
> Then my boss should contract some people that can service that customer
> during their work hours...

See my pt 2.

> if my boss wants me 24 hour service he/she should pay me for it...

I think your boss wants result from you, not any random metrics like 24 h/on
the job. If you consider that you are underpaid for the result you have been
delivering -- have you demanded a raise?

~~~
ryanbrunner
Re: point 2 - having a sole member of the team be the only person who can
answer an urgent question is a failing, and a fairly obvious and large one, of
the company, for reasons beyond just working overtime.

Think about it - were you in the managers shoes in this position, you're
forcing someone who is the only holder of critical knowledge of your business
to work extra without compensation, and against his will - don't you think
there's a pretty big risk there?

Regarding metrics, I think any manager who has even a tiny bit of empathy for
his employees would realize that "time spent at work" (or more accurately -
time spent _not_ at work) is an _incredibly_ critical metric for his
employees' well being, and any discussion should look at what's important for
the business as well as the employee.

