It's a bit disingenious I think. I like working at flexible time. I'm not like the French sitting down for dinner with the family at 6pm, in fact I don't even have a family.
If there's something urgent at 11pm I'm totally fine handling it and I'll sleep in the next day to compensate. Forcing me to have a 9-5 life is not the solution.
FTA: Haney thinks the bill is already being misconstrued and said that it would only require that companies be transparent about their expectations for working hours. Employers would still have the freedom to dictate their policy, which could include that employees be available around-the-clock, he said.
France and Germany's laws don't mandate a 9-5 life. Germany's isn't actually even a law at all - it's a self-regulated model which encourages agreements between employers and employees. France's is an actual law, but again it's about negotiating an agreement - it doesn't mandate specific hours.
This makes sense - workplaces differ enough that the it's best to negotiate these things based on the work situation.
In your case given that your work has flexible hours then you could negotiate to be contactable during your "on" hours and not when you're "off". This could be as simple as "you can call me on Slack when I'm logged on there".
We had the voluntary option for employees to use their own phones. Until in Germany their "workers council" decided that as a company we should supply the tools for the job, and they wanted it to be blocked for employees to use their own phones. This caused so much anger with the employees because even though we already give everybody a company phone, a lot of people hate carrying 2 of them and simply stuff the work sim into their second slot and enroll it in the company MDM. On Android in particular the work environment is completely separate.
But for some reason this "workers council" is a total deity there. Even though the employees are represented the people on there are these overzealous crusaders that want everything done their way. We have this phenomenon in Holland too (called "Ondernemingsraad") but they don't tend to heavily-handed force things like this.
But whatever, the Germans can have their rules and regulations, I'm just glad I don't live there. I hate being told what I can and can't do.
> But for some reason this "workers council" is a total deity there
Yes, because otherwise companies would get away with everything. Companies have a representation of themselves, this way the employees are represented as well. It's a good system.
I'm sure it will cut down on some of this, but the most notorious of offenders probably won't change their ways. And I doubt many employees will report on their bosses for fear of getting fired, or retaliated against in more subtle ways. Regardless of any anti-retaliation provisions.
I do agree with the quote in the article about how it could reduce flexibility. If employers have to develop a company-wide policy defining work hours, that means employees can't really shift their schedules earlier or later. (Well, they can, but employers might be uncomfortable with a situation where an employee is working from noon until 8pm, but they're not allowed to contact them after 5pm.)
Or companies will just say "our work hours are 7am to 10pm, take it or leave it", with it understood that employees will generally only be working for 8 (or whatever) hours of that, but bosses can contact workers anywhere in that time range.
The legislation runs off of what the employee's normal hours are. It doesn't forbid schedule shifting at the employee's discretion, and declaring 7am-10pm hours would not be recognized as legitimate unless the employee actually normally performs work during those entire hours.
If this passes and California aggressively enforces it (and they normally do), employers will not be able to weasel out of it by using blatant bad faith rectus. Some will try at first and regret it when CA hangs them out to make an example of.
> And I doubt many employees will report on their bosses for fear of getting fired, or retaliated against in more subtle ways. Regardless of any anti-retaliation provisions.
Precisely. The people this would (but doesn't) protect are those who don't have a strong position or one would describe as meek. Most often it is the latter or both. Those in a strong position, who had no problem ignoring work messages when it wasn't convenient or telling their manager to shove it if necessary didn't have the problem this tries to solve.
The only time these employers really change their behavior is when they are so afraid of the legal repercussions, they make it a point to adhere to the regulations and then some.
It doesn't help that this is fighting culture (weak separation of work and life).
Sure, and bosses can promote and give better raises to the employees who do answer messages after hours, while letting the careers of the ignorers languish.
That's true today, of course, but unfortunately I don't think laws can really fix that.
Of course there will always be sociopaths in management and it will never be perfect. But the law is better than nothing.
The employer would be forced to make the after hours policy explicit in the contract. If the employer violates the contract then they risk being sued. If there is any form of retribution (skipped promotion) then they could be sued. The bosses own boss would probably tell him to comply with the policy and stop fucking around. Not worth the risk. But there will always be some criminal managers who ignore the risk.
At my current position, company policy says we're not supposed to answer work calls after hours. We also have flexible schedules, but we have to notify supervisors of the hours, preferably ahead of time. They use those hours to decide whether or not to contact us.
They make it clear that if we are off work, we don't have to answer any calls or respond to texts. Luckily, my supervisors are all about the policy and don't contact us during non-working hours.
Why would they do that? I've only read the article, and not the bill itself, but I don't see anywhere where this law would mandate that sort of arrangement.
Q: What about teams which aren't all conveniently located in the same time zone, or even the same continent?
My OH is currently working with two unrelated groups of people, the first group is based in Sydney (GMT+11), the second group is mostly in the US with members from Boston (GMT-4) all the way to San Diego (GMT-7).
Funny, that's what people have said about most of California's nation-leading (though sadly far from world-leading) worker protections for decades, and yet our economy is still pretty strong.
I suspect the strength of CA's economy is more due to those worker protections than in spite of them.
Really?! You dont think its because of hollywood, silicon valley, massive population and natural resource reserves? Beautiful climate and tourism? EDIT: and phenomenal state universities!
Worker protection laws are the seriously the driver in your mind?
> Worker protection laws are the seriously the driver in your mind?
Sure. For example I've always rejected outright any role considerations from states that allow non-competes. I freely hop from big companies to startups back and forth over the decades, while having my own projects on the side, because California doesn't allow [enforcement of] non-competes.
I live in a state where noncompetes are allowed and have never once had an issue with moving between $bigcorp and $startup and contract work. Im on my 7th FTE job within my 9 year career. Look at the recent population decline, exodus of corporations, and exploding state deficit. Look at the COL crisis in the state.
In no way am I celebrating the possibility of economic decline for the state of CA. That would be terrible for the nation! Im not saying the apocalypse is coming but I sincerely hope California can course-correct (out of self interest)
> I live in a state where noncompetes are allowed and have never once had an issue
Sure, I believe that. It's one of those things that is a non-issue until it suddenly is. Statistically probably might never happen to you but it happens to people in such states.
When suddenly one day your company claims ownership of your side project, or threatens a startup with a lawsuit if they hire you, it's a bit too late then.
Let me put it another way. If Oklahoma adopted the exact same worker protections they would still not be able to replicate Californias economic success. Do you disagree?
I dont ENJOY noncompetes but I mean come on give your state a little credit and be grateful for the massive advantages the state enjoys.
> Who are the main libertarian voices in America these days?
Hopefully realizing that most of what they say requires an idealized world with perfect actors, perfect information, and perfect balance to actually be workable. And that of course we don't live in that world.
> Surely human autonomy and culture can "enforce" this idea over time.
Sure, just like the rest of the country doesn't have anti-compete agreements because "human autonomy" somehow overcame the inherent employer-employee power imbalance. Or just like "human autonomy" stopped exploitative child labor.
Our corporate policy is that any company communication received outside normal working hours can safely be ignored until the next working day. I encourage employees to turn off their email and phones outside of work. I do require a personal contact information in case of genuine emergencies but this is rarely (if ever) used. Regular downtime is important for mental health. The way I view it, if an employer needs to contact people outside of work hours, it’s a failure of management and proper planning.
Nonetheless, this is an extraordinarily stupid bill. If passed, I hope the exodus of companies drives the California economy into the ground.
> Nonetheless, this is an extraordinarily stupid bill.
Wow, that escalated quickly.
So you think that a law that is supposed to enforce an idea that you and your company already practice (but sadly many, many do not)... is stupid? What a bizarre take.
> If passed, I hope the exodus of companies drives the California economy into the ground.
I think CA's experience enacting many of the best worker protections in the US suggests this won't harm our economy in the slightest.
This is the law in many parts of the world, and their economies seem to have not collapsed.
Haney thinks the bill is already being misconstrued and said that it would only require that companies be transparent about their expectations for working hours. Employers would still have the freedom to dictate their policy, which could include that employees be available around-the-clock, he said.
If that clause is true, then there is no point. All an employer has to do is insert a boilerplate phrase in the offer letter to the effect that the employer reserves the right to contact salaried employees outside normal working hours. Done deal. This bill is totally for show.
Certainly some prospective employees won't have the freedom to pick and choose, but at least then it's there up front, and I can decline to work for such places.
I mean, really. Like, I would be annoyed at -- but sympathetic toward -- a company that has a reasonable work-hours policy but isn't 100% perfect at adhering to it. But a company that -- by stated policy -- says "all your time is ours and you get none for yourself"? No thanks, would never work for you.
It's a bit disingenious I think. I like working at flexible time. I'm not like the French sitting down for dinner with the family at 6pm, in fact I don't even have a family.
If there's something urgent at 11pm I'm totally fine handling it and I'll sleep in the next day to compensate. Forcing me to have a 9-5 life is not the solution.