this has to be satire
there’s a lot of stupid, ignorant assholes running small businesses all over the place that think they own their employees and can boss them 24/7. this could totally be a legit posting somewhere.
if you want me answering my phone 24/7, you’re paying me 24/7–and providing the phone you want me to answer.
I’ve seen shit like this working in an understaffed restaurant. It was understaffed because the management decided to drug test and most of the staff was let go. Then whined the entire time about people unable to cover shifts and pulled shit like this. I promptly left after coming back from being sick.
Yes, of course there are plenty of workplaces this bad, but they still wouldn’t write “voluntary mandatory”
After meeting many a middle manager, I can say with absolute certainty that they would write something like this.
I hope this is just one of those fake rage bait signs
Required to be by the phone = on the clock. This will be a lot of overtime for everyone.
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.
Depending on the country/state that could obligate the company to pay for devices if they’re going to require they have them.
Not to mention possible “on call” pay could apply as well.
I wonder if people who make these things (if real) even think of throwing them by HR or some professional who could help them avoid the legal implications of these kinds of things.
Come on guys, you’re all falling for obvious bait.
It’s basically all of the content on r/antiwork after that community decided to throw itself off the golden gate bridge over an awkward interview that didn’t even fucking matter, on Fox “news” of all places
People are still bleating about that interview like it was death of all. Talk about writing the enemy’s propaganda for them…
Yeah, I still can’t believe after all this time that people haven’t gained some perspective on that. Like, Fox News viewers were never going to respect an antiwork community regardless.
I can’t help but think that part of it is based on subconscious transphobia about the mod who gave the interview, especially considering all the blatant misgendering and disproportionate rage directed at them by the community.
It was a really disturbing outcome, and the interview itself was insignificant compared to the behavior of the users. I’ve never seen such a large community implode over something so small. That was one moment I realized that … maybe I shouldn’t really be on reddit.
Totally. Pretty sure it would be illegal of an employer to ask this here in the UK, probably the US too.
