Work Reform

10055 readers

146 users here now

A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.

Our Philosophies:

All workers must be paid a living wage for their labor.
Income inequality is the main cause of lower living standards.
Workers must join together and fight back for what is rightfully theirs.
We must not be divided and conquered. Workers gain the most when they focus on unifying issues.

Our Goals

Higher wages for underpaid workers.
Better worker representation, including but not limited to unions.
Better and fewer working hours.
Stimulating a massive wave of worker organizing in the United States and beyond.
Organizing and supporting political causes and campaigns that put workers first.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

349

‘Who dreams this crap up?’: Kevin O'Leary slams new rule that allows employees to ignore their bosses after hours (finance.yahoo.com)

submitted 3 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

62 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 21 points 2 months ago

It’s called being on call. It requires an hourly wage for the duration. That said, call pay is usually garbage (like $4/hr). I would posit that call pay should be minimum wage, or more.

This is no different that being required to pay out a lunch break if and when you’re required to remain available during said lunch break, can’t leave campus, or have to carry a live walkie/radio while “on break”. Federal definition of a lunch break defines it as “uninterrupted”.

My on call works with garbage pay but if I’m called in it’s automatically OT, even if that’s my one shift that week. Ofc, I’m Union. Even so, the stand at the starting line, available pay, should be at least minimum wage.