• Hideakikarate@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      One would hope that a message THAT tone deaf wouldn’t have even made it to the keyboard before realizing what a catastrophically bad idea it was.

      • Ragnarok314159@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        After meeting many a middle manager, I can say with absolute certainty that they would write something like this.

    • You999@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      This is incorrect in most states.

      Employers can require an employee to be “on-call” and available to work on an emergency or as-needed basis. Employers are generally not required to pay employees who are “on-call,” unless the employee is actually called to duty. However, if an employer places significant restrictions on how an employee spends their time while on-call, this time may need to be compensated as hours worked.

      The tenth circuit of appeals came up with this test to determine if the employers restriction constitutes on call hours as hours worked.

      Where the employee is not required to remain on the employer’s premises, the critical inquiry is whether the employee is able to use the time effectively for his or her own purposes. Here, the report requirement necessarily entailed that the employee could not drink alcohol, must be able to dress in uniform, and must be able to travel to the airport, park, and pass through security within one hour of a call. She was not able to make or attend doctors’ appointments for herself or her children, do her weekly shopping, nor go on field trips with her children. The court compared these circumstances with many FLSA cases presenting similar, or even more restrictive, circumstances involving availability by pager, inability to drink alcohol, and ability to report within 30 minutes or one hour. In the FLSA cases, it was determined that the employees’ activities were not so curtailed as to require the on-call time to be considered compensable working time. The court followed this precedent.

  • bufalo1973@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    The appropriate answer to that is the full staff making a chorus and singing to the bosses “FUCK YOUUUUUUUUUUU! WE’RE LEEEEAVING!”

  • LoamImprovement@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    Sounds like the company needs to increase its bus factor. Luckily, I can help the company by not doing any of this nonsense, to pressure execs into hiring more staff so that the team is robust enough to weather a catastrophe.

  • Technus@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    Pour one out this Memorial day for anyone stuck working for such a massive powertripping cunt as the one that wrote this.

    I bet they’re also the type to loudly exclaim “no one wants to work anymore” when no one answers their calls at 4 in the morning.

  • littletranspunk@lemmus.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    On call rules AND on call pay, or STFU. Your staffing problem isn’t my problem and I can contact legal authorities if you do write me up for having my phone off or just not coming in.