Does Constant Access Shatter the Home/Work Boundary? 321
StonyandCher has passed us a link to PCWorld.au, once again raising the tough topic of work/life separation. A department of the Australian government went ahead with a purchase of dozens of Blackberry communication devices, but is now delaying their deployment. The reason: "Staff expressed fears about BlackBerries contributing to a longer working day and felt it was going a step too far because mobile phones are adequate for out-of-office contact. Not everyone agreed, however, with some senior executives claiming a BlackBerry can contribute to work/life balance by facilitating telecommuting and more flexible schedules. " For the time being this issue is on hold for those staffers, but how does this issue fall for you? Is constant accessibility freeing or just another chain around your neck?
Just turn it off (Score:2, Insightful)
Just going out on a limb here, but couldn't they switch it off when they don't want to be working?
Yes. (Score:5, Insightful)
I've heard people say... (Score:5, Insightful)
It depends on when it is used. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, but I waste more time on the clock (Score:5, Insightful)
It's easier for me to justify randomly screwing around on the internet or working on personal coding/whatever at work because I wind up checking email and working over weekends to get things done. I think it's fair. They steal some of my free time, I waste some of their paid time.
saves the travel (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Just turn it off (Score:4, Insightful)
Ditto what he said. (Score:5, Insightful)
You negotiate beforehand what happens when the pager goes off - either you get 'overtime', comp-time off, or your salary begins large enough to compensate you for the projected time spent on pager-duty. Not much different w/ a Crackberry...
If you get one issued to you, demand compensation for the added work that's sure to come with it - either through more flexible scheduling, more money, more comp/vacation time, or something substantial.
I have a decent setup where I'm at now - if I get a call, then the time spent gets deducted the next day or day after, or they pay me overtime based on 1.5x my salary broken down to an hourly rate (based on a typical 40hr week). Pretty simple after that.
Now, if you're adamant about delineated time-off vs. time-on, then simply state as much before you start.
But, like the parent said... most employers are perfectly okay with this, and it's only a minimum of haggle. Any employer who isn't needs to be dropped for one who is.
Re:this is incumbent upon the employee (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree. It's the employee's fault. They're willing to put up with it. There was a time before cell phones when the same kind of thing was true. If you were a town doctor in the 1800s, you think you got to say "I'm only open 8-5, M-F"? People got sick when they got sick. Accountants didn't have to take their work home, but it was known that as a doctor you were on call all the time.
If you don't like it, push back, let your work know that when you aren't on call, you're not on call. This is just a boundaries issue. People don't want to set them (afraid of repercussions, don't know they have the option, like the "piece of mind" they get from being able to watch what's going on at work, whatever)... so they put up with this.
Blackberries are just a symptom/enabler. They make this problem easier to occur than during the '60s (when bringing your work home or to vacation meant hauling a bunch of papers and books and such).
People just need to learn to adapt to this change and handle it. Just like people are being forced to invent manners and limits for other things that weren't considered before (like cell phones). That's our transition that we're going through now.
Re:Yes, but I waste more time on the clock (Score:5, Insightful)
Qui bono (Score:5, Insightful)
More flexible for whom? Where I work, that seems to be a one way flexibility. Senior executives are making (SWAG alert) 3x - 10x what I am making. They have made the choice to have a large stake in how the company performs. While I have a stake, of course, it's just not as large or worth my personal/family life. It seems like despite being more accessible, people's work hours never get shorter. And that's what it's about in the end, isn't it? Getting more done in less time? But in rality, it just seems that it's about getting more done in more time. No good. I am glad I have no blackberry.
depends on your responsibilities (Score:3, Insightful)
To me the blackberry is a blessing, because it helps me find out about things sooner. If I didn't find out about some things on the blackberry, then I'd only find out about them when I next get to the office, except more time would have elapsed and the urgency would be higher. So for me a little bit of intrusiveness (urgent email when I'm on my way home) is more than offset by reducing the stress of getting to work and finding shit happened last night and I wasn't aware).
However I do establish limits on the intrusiveness of the blackberry. Mine never buzzes for email and is switched off entirely from about mid-evening to around breakfast the next day. During that off period people can contact me on my cellphone if they really need me.
If there isn't that time critical element to a persons responsibilities then I can imagine it being not worth it.
I'm available when available, (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously people, if you don't want to be bothered at home, make it clear. My company had no problem with that. Turn off the company phone/blackberry/whatever or at least stand your ground. Granted I don't work in IT so I don't know what common policies are like=, but I am on call, during certain hours. If they call outside of those hours, they will get a polite no (they have never tried).
Auto-on/off setting actually works (Score:1, Insightful)
Then I found the "auto-off / on" setting and had it turn off at 6pm and back on at 7am. Done.
A few years later, the new Blue-Berry model came out and I was part of a trial to determine if 14K upgrades were needed. Nope. Only the Mobitext network change forced that a few years later. However, I quickly set my auto-on/off settings to 6p/7a and didn't have **any** non-important email forwarded to it. I like to read and handle email only once since I was getting 300+ messages a day. Seeing them more than once is a waste of my time. After a while, everyone got used to me not responding immediately to emails (I was a technical architect, not some Project Manager or operations or other job where I can make up answers without double checking them first), including my chain of command. Managing expectations.
Fortunately, my managers never seems to have an issue with those settings because I almost never left something hanging that needed to be handled that day when I left. About 3 times in the last 8 years did I keep the pager on overnight, but I always KNEW that something could happen that would need my attention on a project. I routinely worked 20-50 projects each year from adding 2 disks to installing 60 fairly large HP servers across 15 locations ($24M budget) with redundant DS3 networking between them all.
I retired about a month ago at 41 yrs old. Nice work if you can get it. I turned in my laptop, SecurID, and BlackBerry 8200. I honestly don't miss them. I do miss the people, however. In fact, I'm meeting an old work friend for lunch today.
Blackberry's are a tool. Use them as such, don't let them, or your boss abuse you.
Re:this is incumbent upon the employee (Score:3, Insightful)
No, no. This is an employment issue. You could lose your job for "pushing back." Some people don't have that option.
Re:this is incumbent upon the employee (Score:4, Insightful)
If you don't want to be on call, don't take a job that expects you to be on call. If the job you took didn't including being on call and they want you to be, tell them no... that wasn't in the job description. You could negotiate for something ("You want me to start being on call, that's an expansion in my responsibilities, will my compensation go up as well?"). If you took a job where you were on call and don't like it too bad. That's the job you took and you signed up for it.
If everyone who had this problem actually stood up, they wouldn't fire people because there wouldn't be enough people left. You're not helpless.
Also, remember that some of these people don't have that responsibility. They just check their blackberry out of habit. They don't need to. It's all their choice. They aren't being forced into it, they are choosing it then complaining about it.
Work doesn't have to be fun. It's a means to an end: being able to take care of and feed yourself and your family. It's not your personal satisfaction center. That's nice if it is, but people used to understand that. A lot of this just sounds like whining to me.
Telling work when you're available... (Score:5, Insightful)
It must be nice to be able to set the terms on which you'll work for the company. You must have a lot of leverage there. A lot of us are not so lucky.
From a VPN point of view (Score:2, Insightful)
Bizzare telecommuting tale.. (Score:5, Insightful)
This ended when a director level person walked through our area one day and didn't see enough butts in seats for their liking. Now they wonder why they have so much trouble getting people to answer the cel phones and work those long/extra hours from home.
Re:I've heard people say... (Score:2, Insightful)
In other words: you might have an abusive employer but it might not ever show.
Differing Viewpoints (Score:3, Insightful)
Did anyone notice the stark contrast between the view of the Executives and the workabees?
The Executives believe that the Blackberries can facilitate telecommuting and a balance between life and work. The grunts fear this is just a way to ensure longer workdays.
Why do you think that might be?
Could it be that relative to the workers, the execs don't really have that much work to balance with their life?
I think there is at least one other very important aspect here relative to telecommuting. Telecommuting really only works when there are a few key ingredients:
-
Trust. The manager needs to trust the worker.
-
A way to measure work. I find the managers the most comfortable with telecommuting, flex-time, etc., were those in situations where counting widgets was easy. If there is no clear way to measure output, this becomes a bit more of a challenge.
-
Good management, including proper escalation. My current management has clearly expressed that they expect routine escalation since we're understaffed. We're all comfortable about it since it then becomes the manager's job to prioritize. A bad manager simply attempts to appease everyone and twist the arms of employees to get them to do everything despite burnout.
If you are in a situation where the environment isn't already very comfortable with flex-time, telecommuting, etc., picking up a device which may lead others to expect immediate responses to email at all hours of the day may be a rather horrible idea.Re:this is incumbent upon the employee (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, but if you are the only one...
Also, remember that some of these people don't have that responsibility. They just check their blackberry out of habit. They don't need to. It's all their choice. They aren't being forced into it, they are choosing it then complaining about it.
I am a tutor. I have taken shit from my boss, because she couldn't reach me Wednesday night to change my schedule for Thursday. Changing my hours at will was not in the job description, and I don't even make enough at the job to sustain me. I look for more or other work. I've been looking for 4 months, and guess what? If I find a job that will be a dick about my free time, I have to take it.
Work doesn't have to be fun. It's a means to an end: being able to take care of and feed yourself and your family. It's not your personal satisfaction center. That's nice if it is, but people used to understand that. A lot of this just sounds like whining to me.
Spoken like management. There was a time when jobs offered benefits, job security, and respect for their employees.
I like on-line access (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:this is incumbent upon the employee (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm not management. I'm a 24 year old programmer. I'm not anyone's superior. A job is just a job. You think people loved working in coal mines? They did/do it because they have to. It puts food on the table. Some may like it, but they know it's hard work and has to be done. Good jobs offered benefits, security, and such. Mine does. But not all do. Pizza delivery people never got perks or job security.
You're in a people business, and in those kind of jobs being able to be reached for things like scheduling changes are more important. My post was more aimed at people in corporate cultures who feel invaded by blackberries and such. Your position needs someone to do that. It could be a central secretary managing 15 people, or it can be you. Service jobs are different from white collar jobs.
There are mitigating factors. The higher your salary/importance, the more this applies. Obviously a McDonald's burger flipper couldn't say this stuff if it applied to them, they would be replaced too easily.
Re:this is incumbent upon the employee (Score:3, Insightful)
Obviously a McDonald's burger flipper couldn't say this stuff if it applied to them, they would be replaced too easily.
A McDonald's burger flipper probably gets paid an hourly rate, and I bet they expect more pay if they work more hours. It's ironic that in "better" jobs like those in IT, a culture has developed among a certain type of employer that "It's a salaried position" is an acceptable euphemism for "We own your soul, 24/7".
As others have noted, the correct solution to this problem is for all the good people to collectively turn around and tell the over-demanding employers where to go. A competitive employment market works both ways, and good IT people are always worth far more to a business than their relative salary suggests. Except in the hardest of times (and usually only for a short while even then) these people will easily be able to find work with a more reasonable employer if they choose to look for it. Even the abusive employers know that, they just rely on people not bothering to look.
Re:this is incumbent upon the employee (Score:4, Insightful)
Hah! Obviously you haven't studied history much. That period was actually very unusual in history.
It used to be that if you got hurt at work you'd lose your job. Likely become unemployed, or have to find another career or become a beggar if the injury wasn't temporary. Safety equipment was rare. We're talking about the heyday of railroads and 'big oil'.
Unions, safety regulations, and some smart employers(Like Mr. Ford) combined with a labor crunch changed that, at least for a while.
Then hiring US citizens became too expensive and stuff was outsourced to other countries where the old conditions prevailed because it was cheaper.
I look for more or other work. I've been looking for 4 months, and guess what? If I find a job that will be a dick about my free time, I have to take it.
If you want to change things, realize that you might have to move, get training to go into a different career field, change your income expectations, etc...
Basically, you need to realize that it takes intelligent effort to get what you want.
You do what it takes to keep a roof over your family's head, food in their mouths, shoes on their feet. After that, then you can work towards personal satisfaction. That's just how it is(or at least should be). That's what my grandparents did. That's what my parents did. That's what I do.
Re:Ditto what he said. (Score:5, Insightful)
A couple things (Score:4, Insightful)
Second, on a more personal note, when I'm out of the office, I'm not working. Period. I'm not being paid hourly, and I don't feel the need to give away freebies. I don't have to go on-call at my current job, and unless I get scheduled for a downtime window, my work will still be there the next morning when I get back to the office. A few years ago, I realized that work is not everything. The paycheck is important, but there's much more to life than doing work. I have a lot of hobbies which I like doing infinitely more than working, and they occupy my time and interest just fine, thanks. I like visiting friends and traveling to new places, and I don't want to be interrupted while I'm doing either. If my boss and/or company require the level of fealty that a lot of companies seem to require these days, I'm working at the wrong place.
Back when I was going on-call, I would do my on-call duties when it was my turn, and when it wasn't, I was not very nice about calls I received. I never slept well when I was on-call. I had my Christmas morning of opening gifts with my family interrupted by the on-call phone ringing one year. I used to carry a blackberry, and never read emails on it. The volume of what I got was so high, it quickly (like over the course of the first day or two I had it) turned into the boy-who-cried-wolf device; 99.9%+ of the mails didn't need a response, and the rest could have simply been replaced by an SMS or a phone call of "hey, we need help".
It works both ways... (Score:2, Insightful)
New toy factor creates precedence (Score:4, Insightful)
I think for many, the problem is that when you first get it, you create a precedence. 2 years ago I got my first crackberry. It was purely for off-hours support only when I was on call.
First couple weeks I'm thinking, oh hey fun, I can send work emails while bored on the crapper on a Thursday evening. People see the emails, and think I'm "working" all the time. Of course the email could've waited until Friday morning. But after you do that a few times, people are expecting responses.
Learned my lesson, got a smartphone for off-hours stuff at my current employer, but I refuse to answer emails unless I'm scheduled on call for production support. If its important enough, and I'm not on call, they'll actually just call me. Which, of course, I let go to voicemail and only do anything if its a real emergencyIt's dependent upon the individual (Score:4, Insightful)
Admittedly, it could be a problem if management is pushing you to be on call without being 'on call', but there are ways around that too, depending on how devious you want to be (though I'm guessing you can only use the old 'my battery died' excuse a few times before they'll start to cotton on ;) ).
Re:meaning of the word millenia (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe, possibly. Or maybe you aren't familiar with, or are unable to recognize hyperbole.
;-)
Re:Respectfully Disagree (Score:5, Insightful)
- Calls from this number are emergency, always ring.
- Between 5pm and 9am, and all day weekends, defer this group to voicemail
- When in 'meeting' mode send everyone to voicemail except for my boss, who gets a vibrate alert but not a ring.
On andy device (Can you do those with Blackberry privacy profiles?). Perhaps also with some form of short range 'hinting' available for certain types of places, for example cinemas can suggest to your phone that they enter a discreet mode (Nothing except for your 'emergency' numbers for example), or for hospitals to suggest to phones that they enter a limited usage mode (Intensive care wards, A&E, theatres etc force phones to airplane mode)
Re:Yes, but I waste more time on the clock (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:this is incumbent upon the employee (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems the average slashbot has decided regression equals progress. I don't see how increasing employer culpability, and the environment of the worker was an undesirable, nor do I see how the opposite is in any way a good thing (unless you some sociopath only concerned with the bottom line, and not the stuff that matters).
Yes we've had workers rights for a small period of time, but I don't see that as a reason for its desired transience. Most cultures, too, have only seen the abolition of slavery, suffrage, and the germ theory of disease for a short period of time too, would be be so apathetic about losing them too?
Re:this is incumbent upon the employee (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not talking about what employers should or should not be doing. I'm talking about what YOU should be doing to support your family. It's an acknowledgement of reality, not a statement of how things should be. Should employers be required to have a safe working enviroment, and be held liable if they don't? Yes, they should. But 'should' doesn't necessarily cut it in the real world. It can be far too late by the time the court system finishes going through the evidence.
It's along my beliefs about self reliance and prepardness. I believe that YOU are your own first and last line of defense against the harsh unfairness that is the world. This extends to your family; most importantly your children(1).
You're your own first line of defense because you're always there. When the incident occurs, emergency response units like the police, fire department, EMTs can be only minutes away when seconds matter. Better yet, if your defense(2) succeeds, the emergency responders are free to help somebody else. This can result in a save for somebody who's first line fails.
You're your own last line of defense for a different reason: You're the one with the most to lose if you fail. Your own life, sanity, health, etc...
Yes we've had workers rights for a small period of time, but I don't see that as a reason for its desired transience. Most cultures, too, have only seen the abolition of slavery, suffrage, and the germ theory of disease for a short period of time too, would be be so apathetic about losing them too?
There's worker's rights, and then there's worker's rights. Personally, I think that employee and employer relations should mostly be contract based. For example, in France you actually get demonstrations occasionally where employees are protesting to be allowed to work more.
Personally, I'd expect workcenters to be as safe as reasonably possible(3). Working hours to be agreed upon before hand, and if on-call status is required for unexpected work, that that be worked out before hand. Benefits agreed upon, etc...
40 hour work week? Fairly recent innovation, and France has a 30 hour one. Some people are willing to work longer hours than others, especially for more money. Why should they be forced to circumvent some restriction by working two or more jobs, frequently for less money?
Living wage? How do you define a 'living wage'? Would you rather be unemployed than working for a sub-living wage, if no employer determines that your work is worth what you consider a living wage?
Healthcare? Personally, I'd rather be paid to obtain my own healthcare that I can keep if I move jobs. Or even a single-payer system like Canada. Anything but our current boondoggle.
(1)Though even then the kid's his own first and last, but being incapable(especially in the case of a baby), you're up next. It's part of the tragedy that is parental abuse.
(2)I'm being very generic here.
(3) Racing, for example, will never be 100% safe. But drivers know the risks rather well. Same with fishing, flying, etc...
Re:Not sure about Blackberries... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:this is incumbent upon the employee (Score:3, Insightful)
Technically, it is. Our employment figures are still rather high, after all. There are some losers, but not everybody lost.
Now, China is currently the big winner right now, the outsourcing of labor is helping them raise their population out of 3rd world status.
One consequence is the stagnation of US wages though, I'm somewhat surprised that they're not falling behind more than they are. I figure I can only hope that we remain merely stagnant until China and India start running short on labor, expenses go up, and outsourcing is no longer profitable.
Re:this is incumbent upon the employee (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:this is incumbent upon the employee (Score:3, Insightful)
Look at China. Look at India. I wouldn't call those dents. And yes, it's great for the employer in the short term. In the long term it works out for everybody as the economy of the world as a whole increases.
The only way to do it is to legislate that work done for an employer in a particular company (directly or otherwise) is to be paid above a certain minimum wage. Competition should be above that minimum wage. Unfortunately the directly or otherwise part is notoriously difficult to police.
This is just protectionalism again - If you mandate a high wage, the jobs don't move, and the peasant who'd gladly take that 'sweatshop' job rather than work in the fields like his ancestors have done for thousands of years.
Please note that when I'm talking about 'sweatshop' stuff I'm talking about stuff that pays wages that outrage americans. But when you dig into them, you find out that the people working in the factory or whatever are actually making multiples of what they were previously - normally subsidence farmers. As a result of the increased pay and moves away from farming, additional services end up appearing - taking even more farmers out of the fields. Frequently the farmers end up being able to sell their products for more, allowing them to automate to increase production even more. It ends up being a positive circle.
If you accept slave labour (as you have above)
No, I haven't. Where did I talk about forcing people to work, trading and selling them?
A slippery slope argument. If you accept this you must also accept that the vast majority of the world's people will end up earning slave wages within the next few decades. As you introduce sweatshop wages to replace those worse conditions, the rest of the world has to compete with those sweatshop wages. Pretty soon only sweat shop wages are competitive. I don't accept this. If you have children, nieces, nephews or just kids you care about neither should you.
Sigh... Even as there's a downward pressure on wages in well paid areas like the USA there's an upward pressure on wages in the low wage areas. Once development takes hold, wages tend to increase there as the job/population ratio increases. In addition, higher economy allows for higher education - increasing wages more.
Your approach would see us move towards the past as people make less and less money and instead of having to sacrifice perks and luxury items they have to sacrifice decent food, education and medical care
Again, it's not my 'approach'. It's reality. There is downward pressure on US wages due to outsourcing to China/India. The outsourcing has also resulting in upward pressure in those areas, though it's more evident in India than China. China still has a good amount of former subsidence farmers for cheap labor.
We completely agree that your needs and those of your family if you have one should come way above playstations and booze.
Thank you.