The protection of 'on call' (in any type) equated to a type of work. Maybe not paid at full rate, but still compensated for as personal activities must be interrupt-able and other work cannot be sought.
Also the protection of a regular and predictable schedule with long lead times.
If the answer is yes, I politely say "thanks, but no thanks."
Salaried positions are not supposed to be 40 hours minimum. They should be measuring your output, not your hours worked. That's the entire point of not being an hourly worker.
I've mentioned that I'm exempt and still have to track time and most people just respond "you're not exempt, you don't know what it means".
I've never worked a job where I didn't have to track my time, though. Four different companies, employed as full time staff, I've always had to justify where my time went each week.
To be fair, from her point of view your hours playing Civilization might not balance out her having dinner alone.
All joking aside, it is certainly a downside to the job I do, but she understands. "Upset" is kind of a hyperbolic word to use, she fully supports the work I do as it affords us a lot of freedoms we might not have otherwise. I can't say how often we've turned a business trip into a vacation just by switching the credit card on file with the hotel to my personal card, or left for vacation in the middle of the work day as long as I bring my phone and take my calls from the passenger seat. Not to mention she doesn't have to work full time, so she can pursue her own dreams and hobbies.
Not that any of that matters to you, I just didn't want anyone thinking I was being selfish or insensitive to my wife's feelings.
I'm salaried, and I had several weeks earlier this year where I struggled to put in more than 5-10 hours a week of actual work because business was slow. I still got paid the same amount, though, and was still "on the clock". So it looks like I have less free time than my hourly friends because I'm still at work while they're at home playing video games.