This clause pretty much invalidates the rest of the rule. Why should an employee need to justify their inability (or unwillingness) to respond? I can understand the "jobs with irregular hours", but otherwise shouldn't it be a best effort thing, without any obligation?
I think a lot of people are going to be disappointed to learn that situations impacting business-critical operations would be considered emergencies.
The assumption that Australia just outlawed the concept of having an on-call rotation is not supported by the article.
The article says requiring an employee to be on-call 24/7 for general purposes would indeed be illegal.
There was another example that someone could not be required to come in for a surprise shift with only a few hours of notice overnight.
But completely eliminating planned on-call rotations is not part of the goal.
It certainly should be. You want your app supported 24x7 then pay for three shifts.
If the government won’t make it a law then IT workers can make it a demand when they unionize.
It would be in the contract you'd sign when you accept the job. It's not like your current workplace will suddenly change the policy and force you to work at night. The world is already full of places with night shift jobs, and you are not currently working at one of those places.
As for new opportunities, well, maybe? The theory would say these weird hour shifts would cost more and companies would have to think harder about their operations and decide if the extra cost really makes sense. Employees would also ask for more money to work under these hours.
I believe it would simply remove the inherent expectation that every tech product is guaranteed to be online 24/7 without any extra cost to the companies, only to the employees lives. That's a great outcome in my view.
I'm absolutely fine if companies "become less competitive" because they can't exploit their employees as much.
Following this train thought would paint China's 996 policy as a great idea.
Someone in another country providing remote support doesn't work for a whole range of industries, particularly where security clearance is in play.
I know I like it like that. And I get that not everyone does! But IME, the out-of-hours rota is usually voluntary, so you can choose.
The capitalism dream right?
To run 3 shifts would mean splitting our already smallish team into 3 cells that never worked at the same time. It would actually be cheaper for the org, assuming they could convince the current staff to do it. But it would be a terrible for the team, and for the individuals on the late shift (shift work is notoriously unhealthy).
I’m far happier with the “call me and If I’m able to I’ll answer” approach. I’ve had 2 call outs in 4 years, at a 4 hour cost a piece, both sorted with in 20 minutes.
By charging that 4 hour fee it means the person making the call has to justify it.
If I’m in an offical “on call” situation that limits me - can’t go to cinema, can’t go underground or on a plane, can’t got to the country, because I have a contractual agreement to be on call. Forget that.
24/7 is typically covered with 5 shifts (3 weekday and 2 weekend).
Mon Tue Fri Sat Sun Wed Thu on earlies
Then repeated on lates
Then a week of nights Monday through Sunday
Then a week off
I believe it’s changed now as they don’t like 7x12 hour night shifts in a row. Personally I preferred to deal with the “jet lag” once every 6 weeks and be done with it.
Those shifts tended to be fairly quiet with about 4-5 hours of breaks (unless something went really wrong)
You can staff a 24/7 shift with 5 people, but you really need 6 once you factor in holiday, illness, training etc.
What does this even mean? I didn't think employees had an obligation to respond at all? Presumably it's actually "whose right to refuse contact is only protected by law where it is reasonable for it to be so."