this post was submitted on 03 Sep 2024
598 points (98.2% liked)

Antiwork

8253 readers
2 users here now

  1. We're trying to improving working conditions and pay.

  2. We're trying to reduce the numbers of hours a person has to work.

  3. We talk about the end of paid work being mandatory for survival.

Partnerships:

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] MapleEngineer@lemmy.ca 163 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (4 children)

If employees start ignoring their boss’s calls, texts, and emails outside of work hours, an after-hours emergency might have to wait until the next business day, which O’Leary finds unacceptable.

Did this fucking fascist consider hiring more staff and going 24/7? How is it the problem of salaried workers that their boss is too fucking cheap to hire enough people to get the level of support that he wants?

[–] assembly@lemmy.world 93 points 2 months ago

If your service needs to operate 24/7, then it needs to be staffed 24/7. If it doesn’t need to operate 24/7, then staff will resolve the issue during normal work hours. Most businesses have IT teams stagger their start time so that someone comes in early and can deal with issues that may have risen the night before and prior to other employees arriving.

[–] MelodiousFunk@slrpnk.net 44 points 2 months ago

I made this a few years ago, about 6 months before walking out on a job I'd had for 11 years.

Fuck all these sociopaths. Right in the ear. With a rusty spoon.

[–] jonne@infosec.pub 30 points 2 months ago

And all these laws have carveouts for emergencies. Although I have a feeling Mr O'Leary would probably count having to do a presentation on Monday morning for some guy he met golfing over the weekend an emergency.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Why would he do that when he could just work the to the bone, then fire them and hire more people?