On-call requires you to more or less not plan anything other than being available for work. Sure most of the time nothing goes wrong--but that isn't the constraint, here. The whole point is that something might go wrong and that the person on call must respond within a given window of time (5-15 minutes, generally). That effectively makes even mundane things like going to the grocery store a potential trade-off in favor of work. I definitely consider every hour of the day I'm on call (all 24 of them) as a working hour, and so should every other engineer. Since tech companies get away with not paying for this service, I take off from normal working hours at a rate of 1.5 times the time I spend resolving an on-call alert. I'd rather be compensated with cash for it.
I was oncall for 3 years at Google on a tier 2 rotation for a service that had very mild alerts (we did have some very common ones but they were mostly just noise with almost 0 actionable thing to do).
Every time I was oncall during weekends or holidays (or outside work hours) it was just a normal day with the occasional "phone call". As long as I had my laptop with me and I had some kind of network coverage (which I did unless I went trekking in the non-existing mountains of Ireland, which I didn't during oncall days) it was fine.
My coworkers in search or ads were a bit more stressed out on that though, I agree, having to ask their secondary to cover just for the 5-10 minutes they wanted to take a shower because they could not miss a single alert, but for us on a secondary service that was not a problem. I've had days where I commuted by train (40 minutes ride) with spotty internet and 0 problems because having a 15-30 minutes response time meant that I had enough buffer to get off the train and find some place with wifi with plenty of time to spare.
> I definitely consider every hour of the day I'm on call (all 24 of them) as a working hour
You'd be incorrect. We also don't do 24 hours shifts.
I wouldn't be incorrect: it's not even a matter of opinion. It literally is the definition of labor: being available to work on you employer's products and systems. This isn't debatable.
And not every tech company has Google's on-call policy. The company I work for has team-defined shifts, generally these are one or two week rotations where the person on call is on call 24/7 during their rotation.
It’s maybe not technically labor, but it’s definitely work to be inconvenienced. Last time I was on call, I had to change my lifestyle pretty significantly so that I could drag around a laptop and maintain internet connectivity.
Hiking? Nope. Driving through dead zones? Nope. Going to the movies? Not really. Bike riding? Maybe, if you can hear your phone, haul around a heavy laptop, and stick to areas with phone reception.
Being on call is work. Call it labor or don’t, I don’t care about the semantics. Work is work.
That's why you are being paid for it. Just not your full/standard/normal rate because you are not fully working. You're just available to work in case of emergencies.
Does your salary normally go up in busy (non-overtime) periods during the day?
Or do you, maybe, get paid a general smoothened out curve based on the average for your work expectations over a certain period of time?
You get bonuses, raises, promotions based on how well you perform your job as your salary gets adjusted (ideally at least) according to that (+ end of year bonuses, stock/options, etc). This all also contributes to your total compensation including oncall (which is based on your normal work rates).
Usually how it worked in my team at least, if someone had a tougher-than-usual shift (lots of alerts, large scale incidents, etc) we'd get some extra "rest time" (unofficially) or we'd be told to just take some time off in lieu, etc (on top of your oncall pay already) at discretion of your manager. On the other hand if your team's oncall stats (pager alerts, SLOs metrics, etc) were bad over a long period of time with a lowering trend, you'd have to restructure the way you approach/monitor your system and deal with releases and change management practices because something clearly isn't working. This is all encoded in the principles[0] of what it means to be a good SRE and design good systems and is already taken in consideration as part of your stipend.
Look at it this way: if you’re on vacation but have to carry a pager, monitor it 24/7, and be able to respond in 5–15 min, are you really on vacation? No, you’re working.
Same as when I’m stuck on a bit of code and I’m looking through the window or taking a walk to think the problem through: I’m working and get paid for it.
Why should being on call and it’s mental + physical (being sober, within arm reach of your computer) burdens be any different?
This thread is about how Google's oncall policy is phenomenal. If you're complaining about other oncall policies, you're in the wrong place.
"being available" is not in any definition of labor I've ever read. Reading a piece of fiction on my couch is not labor under any reasonable definition, because I am not working.
Like if the trade off is Google's policy (2/3 time but freedom) or time and a half but you have to actually work the full weekend and you're expected to write code when not responding to incidents, which do you pick?
> "being available" is not in any definition of labor I've ever read.
If you're a firefighter, is it labor to be at the station playing cards, just because there aren't any calls coming in right now? If you're an ER physician, is it not labor to be waiting for patients on a quiet night?
> Reading a piece of fiction on my couch is not labor under any reasonable definition, because I am not working.
If it's a Saturday and being on-call is preventing you from buying groceries or going to the movies, then being on your couch reading a piece of fiction is labor. If it's the Fourth of July and being on-call is preventing you from having a beer at the barbecue, then that's labor.
"Labor" isn't just the activities for which you are actively producing value for somebody else. Labor is any time your allowed options are restricted as a result of your employer's decisions. Sometimes, those restrictions dictate only a single option of being on-site working on a specific task. Sometimes, those restrictions allow multiple options have some flexibility to them, but the existence of those restrictions at all means that it is still labor being required of you.
> "Labor" isn't just the activities for which you are actively producing value for somebody else. Labor is any time your allowed options are restricted as a result of your employer's decisions.
Like I said, this is an abnormal definition of labor. It would mean, for example, that I am laboring 24/7, because there are some thing that my employment agreement does not allow me to ever do.
If you'd like to work under that definition of labor, that's fine, but then you cannot square it with an hourly-wage based definition of compensation for labor, so "time and a half for additional hour beyond 40" makes no sense in such a context.
I fully support people being compensated for such inconvenience. I don't think it makes sense to expect a greater-than-normal-work-time compensation for a lesser-than-normal-work-time inconvenience.
What do you mean by lesser-than-normal-work-time inconvenience? Congratulations if you don't feel the inconvenience of pausing everything waiting for a call. For me that's more inconvenient than predictable 9to5 duties.
Are you genuinely asking what is the difference between having to occasionally fix an outage/alert from the comfort of your house vs having to consistently sit *in the office* dealing with all kinds of non-urgent task like answering emails, reporting bugs, writing code, attending meetings, responding to chat pings, etc with the expectation that you will be doing that for the entire 9 to 5 duration of your shift before you are allowed to go back home to your family?
I believe that the difference IS obvious, but it's the "absolute" difference.
The relative difference may very well not exist between the two scenarios. If I can't just go to the beach with my wife, if I can't go walk the dog in the farther-away park, if I can't play an online game that lasts over 40 minutes per match, if I can't schedule a music lesson - then if the above is my definition of free time, then it's going to be difficult to convince me that there's a difference between "you can't do this because you're working" and "you can't do this because you're on-call". All it takes is that I take "can't do it" seriously enough.
If your typical day-off is filled with "short" activities, if you being on-call doesn't affect plans of other people close to you, if you plan your month so that you do all the housework & chores on your on-call days, then you'll probably be OK and will testify to the huge difference between the two.
The perception of this difference will thus vary from person to person, from circumstances to circumstances, from lifestyle to lifestyle.
>it's going to be difficult to convince me that there's a difference between "you can't do this because you're working" and "you can't do this because you're on-call"
But there *is* a difference, and that difference is exactly why you're paid 2/3 of your normal rate instead of 100% (or 150% as some people are saying). You aren't working, but you aren't entirely free either, so you are compensated for that by being paid something that is not quite your full rate. *OR* (at least by Google guidelines) you can accrue enough time to be able to fully take a day off later to make up for that time lost.
By the way depending on the day, requirements, oncall shift, style, etc you can definitely relax, play games, go to the beach, etc. Just because you are oncall it doesn't mean you can't categorically do any of those activities (unlike if you were *actually* working), it just means that you need to have a laptop nearby with internet access and temporarily drop whatever you are doing to be able to deal with an outage if it happens. For this reason, the company pays you, but it's not a full rate.
Now we are discussing subjectivities and it makes no sense continuing the discussion IMHO.
At some point I also romaticized the idea of being on the beach enjoying myself when the pager goes off. So I jump into a terminal, get the adrenaline rush, fix the problem, save the day, and carry on. That narrative just doesn't work for me anymore.
> On-call requires you to more or less not plan anything other than being available for work.
No, it requires that you be able to stop whatever it is you're doing and be working on a problem within some latency tolerance (5m and 20m are cited upthread, for example). For most modern datacenter workloads, that can be as simple as "carry your laptop and stay within reliable coverage". While sure, that rules out a lot of activites, most of our lives are spent in that regime already.
> that can be as simple as "carry your laptop and stay within reliable coverage"
And be sober, and somewhere quiet enough you'll reliably hear/feel the notification, and be somewhere you can get that laptop out and type away at it for a while.
I get _much_ less enjoyment from many social activities when I'm on call. I enjoy gigs way less. I enjoy parties way less. I pretty much wont go to movies. I hate being "on call" while out at dinner with friends. I will not go on a date while on call (at least not with somebody I don't know well enough for them to understand the on call obligations).
> most of our lives are spent in that regime already
But not all hours in my life are of equal "value" to me. A lot of the "most valuable and enjoyable times" get disproportionally affected by being on call. I care way less about potentially being paged at 2:30am on a Tuesday morning than I do about having to curtail social events on a Friday evening or a weekend. You _will_ need to pay me handsomely to do that, and guarantee it only rarely becomes my responsibility. Been there, done that, am perfectly happy to turn down job offers that don't understand that (or to walk away from companies who try and spring that on me later I've accepted).
Technically this is not a requirement. I've definitely known people going oncall while tipsy or at the pub, as long as you're not shitfaced drunk and physically unable to answer the page. Not that it's something I'd ever do or recommend doing, but it's technically not forbidden.
The point is that for work you are required to be available to work at any given time during the shift, no different from being required to work during business hours in the office. It is work, period. Not free time. And it should be compensated accordingly (at least time and a half, when outside of normal business hours).
Do whatever you want that leaves you available to be interrupted is nothing like work during work hours and maybe steal a some minutes to do what you want.
There are plenty of things I do in my own time that can be interrupted: books, movies, HN, housework, etcetera.
> If you want to pay me for availability that's fine, my rate is 1.5x. If you don't, that's fine too.
While I agree with your sentiment, I don't think 1.5x for 48 hours for being on call over a weekend is a sensible or reasonable ask.
Personally I'd be happy to manage/curtail the occasional weekend's social activity for 2 days pay (or time in lieu), at least as long as it's not as frequent as every month. While almost 2 weeks pay for being on call (and potentially never actually paged) would be nice, it's a kind of insane ask that just sends the wrong message in my opinion. If you don't want to do on call, just say so. Don't risk being mis interpreted as being a money-grubbing mercenary by pretending you'd be happy to do it for a high enough price that it would be totally impractical for most businesses to pay.
(If you came to me with the demand for 72 hours pay for being on call over a weekend, I'd advertise your position with a "regular 1 web in 6 on call" in the job description explaining you get 2 days pay for being on call for a weekend, then PIP you out for being a jerk as soon as I could. You're looking a lot like either a money-grubbing mercenary, or a spectacularly bad communicator.)
> While I agree with your sentiment, I don't think 1.5x for 48 hours for being on call over a weekend is a sensible or reasonable ask
I don't think me being asked to work weekends is a very reasonable ask either so here we are. Pay me or find someone else. Pretty basic.
> Personally I'd be happy to ...
Personally I won't. That's my point..
> Don't risk being mis interpreted as being a money-grubbing mercenary by pretending you'd be happy to do it for a high enough price
That is exactly the situation though? I'm not working for you for feels. If you pay me enough I will work weekends on top of my normal 40, but it will cost you.
You might not think it's sensible, yet millions of people live the reality of 1.5x+ overtime rates for on call duties in other industries, unionized workplaces and first world countries with better labor laws.
Yes, we should all be working for free for the sheer pleasure of changing the world, making VCs and company owners richer, and for the privilege of working under you.
Come on, expecting to be paid for work shouldn’t be a fireable offense or a signal for you to look for a new chump that will accept a worse deal.
My point is that asking for 72 hours compensation for being on call over a weekend is unreasonable, and I will consider you unreasonable for asking that.
Saying "No, I was never asked and never agreed to doing on call when I started, and I'm not going to agree to it now." is way way less unreasonable, in fact it's a perfectly reasonable response.
Negotiating "more than free but less that 72 hours" is also perfectly reasonable, I'm not looking for "chumps" to do it for free.
But if you tell me "2 weeks pay for a weekend of on call or GTFO!" I'm going to encourage you to keep your end of that ultimatum.Being _that_ unreasonable is the thing that's very very close to "a fireable offence" in my opinion.
Quite where that line is drawn between "zero" and "72 hours" is certainly arguable, but I'd suggest its somewhat closer to zero than 72. Like I said, personally I've done it for 16 hours or 24 hours, and been happy enough with both. YMMV. I guess it also depends on your experience with how often your on call alerts go off, and how much time is typically spent actually doing anything while on call. For me, the worst I've ever had is for me to get paged once or twice on maybe 30% of my on call weekends, and typically spend less than 10 or 20 mins on the vast majority of those pages, with only very rare times when actual serious time is required, like maybe once or twice a year tops.
It's not clear to me why you think "I refuse to do the thing you're asking me to do" is _less_ reasonable than saying "I will only do the thing you're asking me if you pay me $large_amount"
To me, the latter response is perfectly reasonable. There are plenty of tasks that I wouldn't want to do as part of my regular work duties, that I would be happy to do in exchange for the right bonus check.
If a manager is looking for someone to perform the task, and they decided to _fire_ an employee because they said "I'd do it for $X" instead of saying "No I won't do it", I'd say that manager was either on a delusional ego trip or looking for another chump to exploit.
Being paid at 2/3 base is technically not "unpaid" and it's better than most other tech companies, but it's hardly laudable. They're basically saying your life (literally--the time you spend on-call is time you never get back) is worth less when you're working for them, but outside office hours.
I will probably never cease to be amazed at how naive software engineers can be. It's like the relatively high base salaries act as bedazzling enchantments that turn off parts of the rational brain.
No, they're saying the inconvenience of having to be (approximately) butt-in-desk doing your job is greater than the inconvenience of having to be near your home.
It depends how much you value your time outside of your 40. I value it at time and a half. If you want me to work those hours at time and a half or you want me to sit by a phone both is fine but that's how much it costs.
More than happy for the market to eat my lunch. I'll eat mine, uninterrupted.
If my boss tried to tell me I had to keep my phone on, carry it around everywhere, and carry a laptop around and couldn't leave cell range I'd ask how much he was paying me to do that and for a new contract that laid out my new time and a half rate.
Software developers aren't special, were not even operations staff. Just build stuff that fails gracefully and deal with it on Monday.
What I don't get is why would you ever do regular 8-hour work for normal pay if you think it's an option to lounge around with a good book in your living room for 150 % the pay?
At Google (in my experience), the tier-1 teams are not on-call 24 hours a day, they are on either 12 or 8 hour shifts. Being on a 24-hour on-call is ridiculous because as you say, there's no way you can actually do that.
Being on call varies tremendously depending on the environment. I've been on two different on-calls, and they couldn't have been more different.
On-call #1. Averaged one page every week or two. Pages typically resulted from a failed automated process, which was scheduled to avoid running in the wee hours of the night. Most pages could be handled remotely, in about 10-15 minutes. For issues that required going in, even if the root cause couldn't be determined, the system could be brought to a safe state with further troubleshooting done the next day. If there was an overnight issue, you were not expected in until the afternoon, and supervisors would actively tell you to go home and sleep if you were there in the morning.
On-call #2. Averaged 3-5 pages per day. Pages occurred at random times during the day or night, with little to no predictability. All pages could be handled remotely, but typically took 1-3 hours to resolve. Issues frequently required creative problem solving, which was expected regardless of time of day. If there was an overnight issue, you were still expected to be on-site for the daily 7:30 AM meeting.
There was a drastic different in quality of life between the two on-calls. The first was as you say, an on call with the expectation that most of the time nothing will go wrong. The second would be more accurately described as a "working nights and weekends rotation", rather than an "on call rotation"
Professional firefighters spend a lot of their "waiting" time training, writing reports, fixing the apparatus, sharpening shovels, cleaning chainsaws, etc. It isn't the same.
A 5 minute response time means to respond to the call out and start working on it. If you're on call, you should have a suitable WFH setup and it should be on standby, so 5 minutes is ample time. It doesn't means you have to have it resolved within 5 minutes of being called out, that would be absurd.
I understand that, my point is: you're still sitting at home when you could be out doing other things. It then should be paid as regular or OT hours, not 2/3 or 1/3 of regular pay or anything like that.
If your job is to sit at home for 95% of your working hours doing whatever you want, getting paid "regular or OT" developer salary, please let me know who your employer is. I'd like to bid on replacing you. I'll do that for 2/3 the price and I won't act entitled to it.
> A 5 minute response time means to respond to the call out and start working on it. If you're on call, you should have a suitable WFH setup and it should be on standby,
That pretty much implies you cannot leave your home while on call.
I've never _quite_ had that demanding an on call requirement. For me the only "5 min response time" requirement has been to acknowledge the notification (mostly so it doesn't get sent to the escalation on call staff), and the requirement to be "on tools" has never been shorter than 30mins. That means I can at least head to a nearby cafe for breakfast, or go do some grocery shopping, or even head out for lunch somewhere nearby with friends. I meant I couldn't do things like go to movies or concerts or events more than 20-ish minutes from home (unless they were events I could reasonably take a laptop to and assume there'd be somewhere quiet for me to disappear to for as long as it took.)
> That pretty much implies you cannot leave your home while on call.
This is why we have secondaries. If you need to leave your house and expect to not have internet access, you inform your secondary oncaller to cover for you for the time you're not available. You need to go to the store? You need to take a shower? You need to pick up your kid from school? You want to have a lunch break with friends? You want to go for a walk to mentally recover? You ping your secondary and ask them to cover you. That's literally what they are there for.
Secondaries are not your primaries. Secondaries are not supposed to be sitting there waiting for your call to cover them. That's not how escalation works.
I don't know about your company but that's how it is at Google at least. It's not escalating, it's asking for coverage. It's different. Escalation happens if you miss your pages or if there's a larger outage happening (in which case IRM principles apply and more people are called in to contribute, including your secondary/tertiary/rest of the team/other oncall teams).
Your secondary is someone who's not oncall but is available in case you need help or you become unable to acknowledge pages for a limited amount of time. You get into a car accident? You have a fever? You find yourself in a family emergency? Your secondary should be available to take over (it's not an escalation). I would regularly organize my commute time in the morning with my secondary because I'd have spotty internet (although later on we stopped doing that because my oncall response time was long enough for it to not be a problem), I'd tell them "hey I'll be unavailable between 9:30 and 10:00 am, can you cover me?" and they'd turn on their pager and take over the oncall duties while I commuted.
For people with stricter oncall response times (like google ads or google search SRE), you'd often communicate/coordinate with your secondary for everyday things like "going to the store" or "taking a shower". My friends in search-sre would just tell their secondary "Hey I'm planning to take a shower, can you cover me?" and they'd turn on their pager.
Maybe other companies do it differently, but that's how Google does it.
> Maybe other companies do it differently, but that's how Google does it.
Most of us work at places that don a lot of things differently to Google I suspect.
There's a _huge_ difference between how on-call works in a dozen or so person startup, and hundred or two person single timezone business, and a thousands of engineers across almost all timezones.
I _dream_ of working at a place that has follow-the-sun teams of SDEs and SRDs across 3 or 4 timezones. I have not yet worked at a place large enough to have on call secondaries, I've only worked places where the only on call escalation is that the on call person's manager gets paged (and angry) if the on call person hasn't responded within the SLA. (And I've been both the on call person and the manager in that scenario in several different organisations...)
In the EU Working Time Directive, it differentiates between the concept of "On Call Duty" and "Standby Duty," where the former is what this post is about, and the latter is generally reserved for when an employee is required to remain on the premises of their employer (e.g., being on-site overnight to immediately respond to emergencies). The primary difference is that On Call does not count as working time unless you get paged, whereas Standby Duty does count as working time, even if nothing happens. Within the EU, that means that Standby Duty counts against working hours allowed by the EU Working Time Directive and does not count as rest - e.g., the German Arbeitszeitgesetz limits workers to 10 hours per day (hard limit), and requires 11 hours between working periods (some exceptions that I don't believe are relevant here).
However, according to recent ECJ decisions[1][2][3], "Standby Duty" is not reserved exclusively for when the employee is required to remain on-premises, and it also depends on the degree to which the freedom of the employee is curtailed, specifically stating in one ruling[2]:
> ...
> 32 In the third place, and as regards more specifically periods of stand-by time, it is apparent from the case-law of the Court that a period during which no actual activity is carried out by the worker for the benefit of his or her employer does not necessarily constitute a ‘rest period’ for the application of Directive 2003/88.
> ...
> 36 Second, the Court has held that a period of stand-by time according to a stand-by system must also be classified, in its entirety, as ‘working time’ within the meaning of Directive 2003/88, even if a worker is not required to remain at his or her workplace, where, having regard to the impact, which is objective and very significant, that the constraints imposed on the worker have on the latter’s opportunities to pursue his or her personal and social interests, it differs from a period during which a worker is required simply to be at his or her employer’s disposal inasmuch as it must be possible for the employer to contact him or her (see, to that effect, judgment of 21 February 2018, Matzak, C‑518/15, EU:C:2018:82, paragraphs 63 to 66).
And while I'm very definitely not a lawyer, I think it's possible (likely, even) that having to be at a computer and working within 5 minutes of a page, even at 3AM, would constitute significant constraints on the worker and turn it from "On Call" to "Standby Duty", although the exact implications of that will vary from country to country.
All of that to say that I think that 5 minutes is absolutely bonkers as an expected response time. If I were subject to that, I wouldn't be able to leave my apartment for the duration I was on call - it takes me a lot more than 5 minutes to get to and from the supermarket or even the coffee place just outside. Even taking out the trash could take > 5 minutes (and with no cell reception, due to being underground).
I’m oncall today for a 5m response SLO service. I went out for lunch and went shopping. I carried my work phone and laptop around with me.
I’m not expected to “pull” responsibilities from a chat room; pages are pushed to me. If someone needs to get ahold of me they are supposed to page me, not message me.
Edit: that being said, oncall outside of business hours does limit my activities, such as hiking, biking, camping, traveling, and I would of course appreciate 100% time or time and a half.
It’s not 5 seconds! There are definitely a few activities I do at my home that I can’t drop in a few minutes notice (extended toilet break?) but I I can think of a ton of things I can do that would still let me be able to start working on my pc with a few minutes heads up.
I have a kid, so sometimes I can't drop what I'm doing. If I am required to be on-call at 5min response, that means I'm hiring a nanny/babysitter. That's what you all don't get here, people have complex lives outside of work and workplaces should not be shortchanging you or I in order to scrimp and save on customer support.
If it is important for the application to be up 24/7, the company needs to pay for it at the usual rate!
A typical on-call setup would be to have 'calls' sent to a mobile device, that can be acknowledged directly from the mobile. Sitting at a desktop computer with a browser open during an entire on-call period would be extremely unusual.
I have many friends "in the trades." These are usually unionized, and the compensation can be jaw-dropping. Many of my friends deliberately try to get overtime, which can include "on-call."
But the work can be tough, and the salaries -although good- are usually less than most SWEs.
That's not the same as on call though, that's working extra hours.
With the pay structure described above I assume this is applied outside your normal working hours, where you're not doing anything other than being on call.
Disagree, as do others. If my movement and activities will be restricted then it is full employment/utilization, not some quasi-employment or utilization. I didn't pull this out of thin air.
Someone has conned you into accepting less. I'm sorry.
But why? Why do you think oncall should be paid the same as full work? Perhaps you have a different definition of oncall than me, where you expect to be paged once or twice a week, and spend maybe an hour or so fixing it each time?
Why would I not charge less for this than real work? It involves much less actual work.
I'm arguing that the "5 minute response" on-call should be at regular or OT rates. If your on-call rotation is like a 1 or 2 hour response time, then I could see it being less, but the problem is that I've been at a company where the on-call was previously "whenever you get around to it" and later they changed it to "within 30 minutes" and I was not compensated any further even though it killed my life anytime I was on-call.
Why I believe it should be at the full-rate: because I don't trust the company culture to stay the same over my tenure there. My expectations for a "shit company" have to be the same as my expectations for a "good company", because a good one can turn to shit quickly.
I've been doing on-call for more than a decade and I feel I need to offer my perspective here. I worked in teams in which I would never get paged and also teams in which I'd get 100 alerts per week.
> But why? Why do you think oncall should be paid the same as full work? Perhaps you have a different definition of oncall than me, where you expect to be paged once or twice a week, and spend maybe an hour or so fixing it each time?
When I'm oncall, I need to cancel all my social engagements for that week and delegate all my errands and such to my partner. Also not drink or take any mind altering substances. I must be 'ready' at any time of day or night. I (as well as others) sleep in the same bed with my partner. If my phone rings due to an alert, my partner is also woken up. So I need to sleep in the living room for a week. From the start, this affects my personal life to the extent that it would be unfair NOT to compensate me extra. It also affects my family way more than a regular desk job should.
You're mentioning the expectation to be paged once or twice a week. If those pages come at odd hours and you need to fix them on the spot, no exceptions, failure is not an option, etc.. it's still very disturbing to your personal life. Additionally, that's a parameter which is well outside of your control. I've seen oncall shifts which turned from '1-2 pages a week' to '5-10 pages a day' after the product finally got in the hands of regular users or after the team grows in size and code contributions grow suddenly. Or even better, when you're doing such a great job that your boss promotes you in the oncall tier and now you also get to do triage for alerts coming for the whole organization.
The volume of the alerts don't and shouldn't matter. If you're oncall, you're oncall, you have a responsibility to be available at all times, rain or snow, night or day. This deserves compensation. It's the same as with regular work. Do you get paid extra when you merge more PRs? Nope. You're paid relative to the value you add to the company. Even if you have weeks in which you barely do anything. You're paid for your 'availability' first, then your work.
Some companies (some I've been lucky to work at) implement some sort of follow-the-sun oncall shift and you at least get to have your sleep and generally minimal impact on your personal life. That is great and does not deserve extra compensation, because your work hours aren't altered at all.
I'm sad that labor in the US don't consider paying extra for oncall a norm. But it's not surprising, considering we did have dedicated engineers at one time who were paid to watch and maintain the health of the livesite 24/7. But then we figured we'd make regular engineers fuck their sleep cycles by adding oncall to the list of responsibilities, because it would be cheaper this way. And everybody agreed, because 'full-service ownership' and we're already paid way more than in other fields. When the latter changes (and it will), we'll still not get paid oncall and I'd love to see the discussion when that happens.
It sounds like your oncall is far stricter and noisy than those I have experienced. It genuinely sounds like it is disrupting your life to a large extent.
"failure is not an option" is not something I recognise, in the same way that sometimes features cannot be implemented as quickly as wanted, and systems are not as bugfree as I would like. But I am expected to put in a professional level of effort.
In my experience of oncall, it means carrying my laptop to social events, not drinking, and apologising if my alarm goes off in the night. For that, I accept the deal that is offered, which is less than my normal hourly rate, but still substantial given the number of hours.
If the volume of pages increased, or the required response time was lowered, I would reconsider.
> From the start, this affects my personal life to the extent that it would be unfair NOT to compensate me extra.
I don't think anyone is arguing that people oncall shouldn't be compensated extra. It's obvious that you should be compensated for being oncall, it would be criminal not to do so in my opinion.
The difference is that it's not full time employment compensation, because you're not working your normal work expectations.
You're not working overtime because you are not working your expected 9to5 duties.
Overtime would be if you were actually sitting in front of your computer actively working on your project (coding, answering emails, bugs, feature requests, etc). Just being available counts as a remunerable activity but I don't think you'd be able to convince anyone that it counts as actual overtime duties like you would if you were actually overtime. It's "doing something" more than it is "doing nothing" but it's not as involved as actually "doing work" like you normally would. Hence, you are being paid for it, but it's not your full rate.
Because it chips away at one of the only valuable things you have: autonomy and peace during your leisure time. That exact thing the fruits of your labor actually are supposed to prop up and maintain.
Given two job offers where one is regular employment with 100% rate and a stand-by job with 80% rate, which one will you choose? In both cases you'll have to waste 8 hours a day on your employer's business.
On-call outside of working hours is simply a second job, so the above argument still applies.
Except you did. There are pretty specific legal definitions of "on call", what it means and when you get paid for it in almost every jurisidiction. I've never seen one that pays you time and a half for being "on call". This is not the same if you get called and actually work overtime; that's regular rules. How a company entices (or doesn't) for taking a shift is up to them.
Start a company, make this a policy and advertise. If engineers truly care about this, they’ll come to you. Perhaps they just care about total compensation And their RSUs more than this minutiae?
> If my movement and activities will be restricted then it is full employment/utilization, not some quasi-employment or utilization.
I feel like this is a very absolutist statement that does not look at the actual nuance of the situation. I could maybe agree that a 5min response time (like Google Search or Google Ads SREs go through) could be argued to be "work" (although I honestly don't think so), but I don't quite agree with the definition you are using to define "full employment/utilization".
Assuming I have to show up at the office every morning at 8am, this is basically saying that my employee is restricting my "movement and activities" outside work hours because if I can't get to the office in time by 8am then it means I am not free to do whatever I want off work. If I wanted to go to Hawaii the same morning as I'm expected to show up at work, and have no ability to get back to the office in time for my shift, does that mean that my employer is restricting my freedom of movement hence I should be compensated for it?
> if I can't get to the office in time by 8am then it means I am not free to do whatever I want off work.
Er, yes, that's exactly how it works? You can't take a vacation in the middle of the week and expect no reprimand. Thus the same should apply to oncall.
That makes no sense. What sane company would pay you 1.5x to be oncall instead of just paying someone 1x to do actual work as well as respond to pages when they happen?
That's exactly what the company should have done in the first place. The 1.5x is to disincentivize that. A lot of industries (mostly unionized tbf) have it.
Yes: there is no shortage of people who literally value their life so little that tech companies get away with exactly what you describe. They can because the vast majority of engineers don’t value their own lives. That’s what the time they’re trading is: precious seconds of their lives.
There is no point in a company paying someone 1x for 8 hours of work and another 3x for 16 hours of oncall when they can just hire 3 engineers and work 8 hour shifts. That way they only pay 3x (instead of 4x) AND have the engineers do engineering work 24 hours (instead of 8 hours + 16 hours of oncall).
Companies need to stop squeezing by on free or under-compensated labour from their workers and instead hire sufficient numbers of people to cover the work they want to be done.
Because, and I can't stress this enough, if I am at home cooking dinner or reading or playing video games, I am not working, so 2/3 of my entire weekend is more than 3/2 of time worked unless I am working 9-5 all day Sunday responding to pages, which no one is.
Time and a half for hours worked is only > that 2/3 for time not worked if you're working 50% of the time, which you aren't, at least not regularly.
>Because, and I can't stress this enough, if I am at home cooking dinner or reading or playing video games, I am not working
Unless you happen to be on call, of course. Are you going to advocate for not paying people who work in call centers for the time between phone calls? Being on call is working, even if you've just been told to hurry up and wait.
I would not cook a risotto while on call, but most dinners are not "fucked" immediately if you have to walk away with a few minutes notice (esp if you have a partner/roommate, but even if not)
This is like the equivalent of saying dinner (or your day) is ruined if someone knocks on your front door unexpectedly. No it's not.
And yes, you're getting paid 2/3 of your (large) salary for the possibility of this inconvenience.
There are a million ways my day could be legitimately ruined by the wrong person knocking on my door. Hopefully it was nothing but if the knock at the door was the police and they're taking you away in handcuffs, it doesn't matter that it all gets cleared up as mistaken identity, your night is ruined and that not-risotto has burnt a hole in the pan hours ago.
Shedding the analogy, the pager went off, the whatever is down, and now the company is losing $X million a second. People who's experience is with systems where X is a large number are going to have different opinions than that of those where X is way below 1 and it's fine to take a few minutes to finish deboning the chicken.
I promise you I'm closer to the $million a second category than the <1 category, and if the SLA is 5 minutes, it's okay to finish deboning the chicken.
That's what the company decided was acceptable, you aren't required to go above and beyond that. You won't be rewarded for it. There's no need to be a hero.
If they actually want a 1- or 2- minute response, then sure in with you, you're functionally chained to your computer. But we're taking about situations where that isn't a requirement.
Butt also, systems that cause your employer to lose millions per second don't really exist, at least in the steady-state sense. The highest gross profit companies in the world are on the order of $1 million per minute, across all revenue streams.
Should be more if you ask me. I'm only going to get so many risottos in my life, but software will always be busted. If that's what employee lives are worth to Google, well, I guess that explains some things.
Yes, 65$ an hour for the (relatively low) possibility of a burnt rissoto is truly an injustice.
The alternative is that your company expects you to actually work full time for the weekend, since that's what they're paying you for. Is that really what you want?
> The alternative is that your company expects you to actually work full time for the weekend
That's a strawman. Surely there are more alternatives, so I question whether or not you're acting in good faith. There's some dissonance here bc I see you getting viciously defensive (is that really what you want?) over something you're presumably happy about?
No I mean economically speaking, of you are being paid your full time (or time and a half rate) the company is rationally going to expect you to actually work during that time. If the company is paying the (overtime) cost of full time work, why would they expect less?
Like unless you believe that there is truly no difference in the imposition of "normal" work and oncall situations, and you believe that no one else who is rational can see a difference, it follows that oncall will be compensated less, because it is a lesser imposition to the people who choose to do it.
If you believe there are other rational alternatives, present them. Don't deal in innuendo and then claim I'm acting in bad faith. Nor am I being defensive, lol. I absolutely, in good faith, do not believe you fully understand the effects of what you and others in this thread are suggesting. And given that you weren't able to present any alternatives, I still really don't think you do.
And the whole take is stupidly privileged, to boot. "I'm only going to get so many risottos in my life". Getting paid $65 an hour to not cook risotto is not an imposition to most people, or even most software engineers.
>Like unless you believe that there is truly no difference in the imposition of "normal" work and oncall situations, and you believe that no one else who is rational can see a difference
There is a difference—the on call shift is more of an imposition. During regular hours, I could just decide to go for a walk for twenty minutes and nobody cares. I can't do that if I need to be able to have a few minute response time.
The base salary is literally irrelevant to this discussion, which is about compensation for hours worked outside of normal business hours at whatever the rate is.
I really don't see how it makes much difference from the employee's perspective. you get paid x to do y over the course of a year. as long as x is reasonable compensation for y, why would you care exactly how it's calculated?
put a different way, no rational person would choose $100k + time and a half overtime over a flat $500k to do the same amount of work.
