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.
