
Are laws like the French ban on emails after work saving us or burying our jobs? - agupta06
https://thetopline.co/2017/05/france-ban-emails-jobs-labor-laws/
======
HarryHirsch
_It can also impact IT professionals and others in fields where after-work
emergencies are frequent._

Come again, what now? For critical services you have an on-call roster, like
hospitals and utilities have always had. Why would anyone think that IT was
any different? If the company continuously flies by the seat of its pants and
needs to call in the sysadmin to put out unscheduled fires it's simply poorly
run, that's all.

~~~
noir_lord
Absolutely this.

I don't respond to email after work unless the building is literally on fire
unless I'm on rotation in which case that's either in my contract and I'm
compensated for it or it isn't and I don't respond.

Salary buys 40hrs of my time (on average, some weeks might be 45, some 35) and
that is it.

My time outside of that is my own and jealously guarded.

~~~
emmelaich
Absolutely. My work wanted after hours support but would never pony up with
the requested on-call rate. They'd still pester us and ask for Gentlemen's
Agreements to attend if we happened to be available.

All the while we used to get lectured about maintaining a good work-life
balance from HR.

------
maxxxxx
At some point we have to decide whether the purpose of society is to promote
the general welfare of all citizens or just to give capitalists the
opportunity to make as much money as they can. I don't see anything wrong with
worker protections. The capitalists have plenty of protections like patents
and copyrights.

~~~
chrisseaton
> I don't see anything wrong with worker protections

As long as people can opt-out then it's fine. Otherwise I think there is
something wrong with it: if two consenting adults want to send work emails to
each other after 5pm what business is that of yours?

~~~
obstinate
If people can opt out, then this gives the opportunity for the business owner
to make opting out a requirement to get the job. Then you may as well not have
the protection at all. You can't opt out of:

\- minimum wages

\- OSHA

\- discrimination protection

\- etc.

There's no special reason why you should be able to opt out of this work hour
regulation. Now if the regulation is overall a bad idea, that's a separate
question.

~~~
chrisseaton
Oh and you can opt out of OSHA and minimum wages - by joining the military
(Executive Order 12196).

~~~
DavidAdams
I suppose that it makes sense that the only employer in the country that needs
to be able to (legally) routinely put its "employees" in mortal peril would
have a carve-out from the health and safety regulations.

------
steego
Sometime allowing companies to maximally extract value from their employees
actually hurts the economy in the long run. If there's less incentive to
improve operations, it's just makes it easier for companies to crack the whip
rather than make capital investments in technologies that will benefit us all
in the long run.

One could argue these sorts of laws can act as accelerators toward automation.
One case study could be the French jet manufacturer Dassault. Part of the
reason for investing heavily into robotics was labor law constraints. It
wasn't the entire reason, but it did add a financial incentive.

In the long term, would you prefer we live in a world where people feel
compelled to answer emails at all hours, or would you prefer to live in a
world where companies have an incentive to invest in technologies and
processes that allow people to have a better quality of life?

Like anything, there needs to be a balance.

------
ams6110
It seems pretty simple. I do not check work email when I'm not at work.

~~~
weka
Lucky you. My work requires I check my work email every single day. Even if
I'm on vacation.

~~~
jyrkesh
Sorry if this is a little blunt, but why do you stay?

That sounds horrible. Unless there's other major benefits to the job, I'd be
looking around for new work as soon as I heard that I'd be required to check
mail on vacation.

~~~
wand3r
This isn't a criticism of specifically you per se; and I'm not the parent
post.

> why don't you leave?

I think there are 2 main answers that cover most people:

\- Difficulty transitioning to new job; e.g. can't afford to leave, actively
trying to leave, aren't in a competitive position.

As someone who is broke and actively trying to skill up; often frustrated when
people with better skills, resources or opportunities imply that it's easy and
critically that even if you ARE leaving it's a process not simply a decision.

\- People love their job; don't like this aspect. Couple mates work at SpaceX;
they are constantly dealing with email and work overflow. They complain about
it-- totally fair IMO; but ultimately they enjoy the work to much to leave.

~~~
thesuitonym
>As someone who is broke and actively trying to skill up; often frustrated
when people with better skills, resources or opportunities imply that it's
easy and critically that even if you ARE leaving it's a process not simply a
decision.

When you have a job that pays well, it's actually very easy to find a new job,
because even if you hate where you're currently at, you have the benefit of
time. Nobody is implying that the parent comment should just strap on their
job helmet and squeeze down into a job cannon and fire off into job land. But
if you're able to sit for a year watching job boards, contacting recruiters,
etc, you will eventually find something.

------
GuiA
_> Technology often creates unrealistic demands on workers’ time – this is not
controversial. However, it also plays an important role in providing flexible
working hours. Some of us may be willing to work late evenings as it gives us
time off in the day to tend to family or household chores. Some like to use
their daily commute time to catch up on work. Besides, more and more people
are working remotely these days or with colleagues in other time zones. For
them to switch off at a particular time of the day may not be practically
feasible._

Ultimately, it boils down to clear communication, expectation, and boundaries.

I work in what I believe to be a very healthy team (I know that because I have
also worked in very unhealthy teams). If I am not in the office, there is no
expectation of me being available in any way - responding to emails off hours
is a bonus, something I do becaue I enjoy my work. This also means that I am
aware that if I email a coworker on a Saturday night because I feel like it, I
have no expectation for them to get back to me until Monday morning. In fact,
I might hold back from sending that email on Saturday night because I know
that they're nice and might feel compelled to reply right away if they see it
- and who am I to steal 30 minutes of their Saturday night?

If we have an important deadline coming soon, or something that requires more
sustained attention, then we put things in place to deal with that (eg an on
call system) - but again making expectations and boundaries clear. If you are
on call for database monitoring from 9p-1am, it doesn't mean you are free for
reviewing patches during that time.

It took many jobs before I found one as healthy and sustainable as my current
one - I think it's pretty damn rare. One passive aggressive manager or
insecure PM can lead to everyone scrambling to prove themselves, have a
culture of "everything is always on fire and always at the highest priority",
and so on.

I don't think laws targeting directly the symptoms of a dysfunctional
employer/employee relationship are going to be very effective. Who enforces
them? Peer pressure is a terrible thing - if a new employee joins a company
where everyone is expected to reply to emails at any time of the day or week,
what are they to do? Lawsuits are expensive and draining, and employees are
rarely the ones to hold the power in the employment relationship.

The hopes I have revolve more around general, universal social support - think
universal health insurance, basic income, etc. Ideally, these would let
employees be much more flexible and free in how they can deal with abusive
managers and dysfunctional cultures - namely by voting with their feet because
paying for rent and diapers is not a concern.

------
hamstercat
Personally I don't check my emails after work/on weekends/on vacation, and I
wouldn't want a job where I would have to do it. It's actually one of my own
criteria when looking at a job offer. Of course I have no problem when it's an
emergency, but anything not urgent can wait for me to come back.

I have no problem with companies requiring or allowing this, so long as the
pay reflects this. From my limited experience though, most of friends who are
more of the 24/7 type self-impose that discipline and don't get paid nearly
enough for the amount of effort poured in. It's like a race to the bottom
where the only winner is the company.

------
TheAceOfHearts
I don't understand why this is such a contentious topic. You shouldn't have to
check your email after work. However, I don't think it's unreasonable to
contact an employee if there's an emergency or something very urgent, as long
as it's an infrequent one-off exception. Surely we can evaluate these on a
case-by-case basis? It probably depends on the company size, its field, and
the potential impact.

------
vladletter
This law is really not applied in France. As experienced already, companies
don't have at all the pressure. So there is no experience for now.

~~~
fiatjaf
Do you need "experience" for EVERYTHING? Does that mean you can't say a dime
about the sun rising tomorrow because you have no experience of the sun rising
tomorrow?

~~~
lovich
If the sun rising was a new development, and I had never seen it before, then
yea I would feel uncomfortable saying it would ride tomorrow based on my lack
of experience

------
mancerayder
A huge percentage of you are developers, and off-hours coverage and email-
checking expectations vary. But as a DevOps/SA/SRE/etc. I have spent my entire
bloody career (almost 15 years at this point) suffering on-call and trying to
run from it. Note, I don't mind on-call as much if I get paid overtime. But no
one does, not in the US. Thus I applaud mechanisms to dissuade workers from
accepting that expectation from companies, that they own you since you're
salaried. Guess what happens with opt-in, your coworkers (or you) experience a
compulsion to work out of fear of bonus or job loss, and the protection
doesn't exist anymore.

I decided to stop waiting for capitalism to throw me a bone. In fact, in New
York, it only seems to be getting worse: the entitlement that companies feel
to control your unpaid life is unprecedented thanks to PagerDuty, phones and
so forth.

Hence I'm a consultant. I'll do off-hours, no problem, but both of us know
what we're getting into, the company and I, thanks to contract wording.

It's more honest that way.

------
fiatjaf
Burying our jobs, that's obvious.

Culture change can happen by various means. Government laws that create
unemployment and reduce wages are the worst.

------
throwaway2048
An approach where labour gives in to the demands of capital is going to be
self defeating in the long run. With the increase in automation, the ability
of businesses to treat people as a disposal resource is only going to increase
massively. We need to fight that power, because its going to grow to a point
where it controls every aspect of our lives.

------
throw2bit
I expect to see American IT engineer's comment "yeah I don't respond to work
email or issues after work". Its because they have Indian H1Bs working round
the clock. Any greedy American corp has Indian IT engineers standing by 24x7.
Don't believe me ? Visit Amex dev center in Phoenix, Walmart in Bentonville,
Visa in Kansas. Take a count of how many Americans are scheduled for
production support. None ! .So when American IT engineers says they dont reply
or respond to work related issues after work. Its at the cost of exploiting
H1B employees, the very group that everyone puts the blame on for losing their
jobs to and to get votes.

------
grillvogel
recently my employer started requiring 2 factor authentication to check work
mail outside of work, which means i am now two times less likely to check my
email outside work.

------
pikzen
This article is both wrong on many points and awfully biased.

>Will this law help maintain work-life balance or is it an assault on freedom?

...The actual assault on freedom is employers sending mails after work hours
and expecting you to read them on your free time, considering the uneven
relationship between employer and employee. If anything, it levels the playing
field.

It then goes on as if a definition of working hours was enshrined in the law,
and how it can prevent flexible working hours. No. If your working hours are
3AM to 12AM, then mails are okay at this time. If you have spotty days with an
hour here and an hour there, those will be your working hours If you're a
"cadre", then your working hours are basically anything that is not your rest
time (a consecutive 11 hours after you left work). And, like said, there are
no penalties defined. Do you know why? Because a) companies were already being
condemned for sanctioning their employees for not checking mails outside of
working hours and b) It doesn't forbid the employees to check their mail after
work, it allows them not to. You want to check those messages at 3AM ? Is it
of your own volition? Are you not being pressured by your employer because <x>
is needed quickly? Sure, go ahead, you're free to do it. Even if you are being
pressured, you are free to do it. However, if you sue, your employer will be
found guilty of breaking this law.

>For them to switch off at a particular time of the day may not be practically
feasible.

No defined hours in the law aside from your own.

>what about the ambitious workers among us who seek to climb the corporate
ladder as quickly as possible?

A) You're a bit of an idiot if you think this will ever be good for you

B) Good thing, you're still free to do it.

>For them, perhaps, overtime hours could be an opportunity to learn faster.

Overtime hours means that you're still working. And being paid to. Why would
you not be able to check those _work_ mails when you're _working_ ?

>But despite these examples, most remain skeptical of such a law being passed
in other countries, especially the U.S., where long workweeks and foregone
vacation time are the norm

On the other hand, american working hours have been a running gag for every
european country so... Maybe eventually the problem does not lay in Europe.

Ultimately, the text of this "law" is a mere few lines
([https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexteArticle.do;jsessio...](https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexteArticle.do;jsessionid=B586440ACBE8F266F012720C43421185.tpdila08v_1?idArticle=JORFARTI000032984268&cidTexte=JORFTEXT000032983213&dateTexte=29990101&categorieLien=id)),
and is only part of a massive change. There's much more in the full text that
destroys things that people fought and died for.

