Or some such?
It was helpful when I had a more structured on-call rotation and once we switched to 3 day shifts I was able to trade off shifts so I almost never was on-call Sunday morning.
Unfortunately I was also team lead on a temperamental system for a while which had many production issues, so despite the on-call rotation, things often escalated. It was not a fun year.
That said it only happened a few times that year, though the constant threat of it wears on you after a while, and it's precisely that issue which lies at the spirit of the Sabbath. It's not really a day off if you're worried about the pager going off all the time and constantly checking slack, even if nothing is happening.
Also apparently being paid > $100k a year is an exception
https://www.flsa.com/coverage.html
California in particular has stricter exception laws
https://www.worklawyers.com/exempt-vs-nonexempt-employees-ca...
Lots of companies have mis-understood this law, thought just claiming "salaried" was enough and were later found in violation.
I'm not sure how I feel about the $100k exemption. One the one hand I hate it. On the other hand I'm being paid $100k+. Seems like a trade off. Like would I rather have $99k + overtime pay or $150k. The advantage to $99 + overtime might be the company manages better since they don't want to pay overtime. On the other hand they could just budget $150k internally and still demand the overtime and maybe end up only spending $130k total or something.
Of course as a programmer I'm already exempt apparently which feels kind of BS, same with artists. But I should probably research any counter arguments.
I'm not making a general-purpose argument against regulating nominally consensual labor agreements, but this specific example is an awfully weird context to decide that people need to be protected from themselves. I've had jobs where the exact hours of oncall rotations weren't explicitly spelled out in the contract, and I made the decision that the oncall rotation was worth the fixed pay. Trading fixed amounts of money for probability distributions is all over the economy (this is what insurance is), and you're the first person I've ever heard suggest that it should be prohibited.
Would you mind elaborating on why you think this is so egregious that people need to be protecting from themselves so they don't engage in it?
People don’t need to be protected from themselves. They need to be protected from employers, who have more power than labor (through at will employment and a lack of collective bargaining). Simply because some are willing to work for free does not mean that technology professionals as a whole should accept such a poor arrangement, because it’s been normalized as such by employees who accept it.
European countries are moving in this direction (prohibiting email access outside of business hours), and I hope to see more progress on this front in the US over time.
So much so that a (US headquartered) multinational I worked for gave up trying to get their EU employees to do weekend on call, as the team didn't want to get treated that way.
I'm pretty sure if you are not an exempt salaried employee or you are hourly then you do in fact have to be paid for the time on call that you are actually working and if you are not that is in fact illegal and wage theft.
Anecdotally I have a friend who works in IT that is on call and does get paid for all the time on call that he is working.
as another response said on call can or can not be exploitative depending on how it's setup but that is a separate issue from whether it's wage theft.
That's actually very common, at least around here outside of the startup scene. There's usually a fixed amount for just being on call, plus an hourly rate (often higher than regular rate) for actually having to do anything.
Last time I managed a team of on-call staff, they all got paid for 2hrs at their regular rate for each weekday and 4hrs for each weekend day they were on call (whether they got called or not), plus time and a half for every hour they worked (rounded up to a minimum of 1hr per incident, so three 5 minute "quick fixes" counted at 3hrs at time and a half, which on a weekend meant 7hrs additional pay). We tried to make sure everyone by default got a rotation of a week of weekdays, a single two day weekend, then a whole week of just office hours. They were free to negotiate swaps amongst themselves as needed (it there was not required payroll adjustment), and to request schedule adjustments as needed (mostly for when the change would need payroll to be informed). We ended up averaging fewer than 10% of on-call shifts getting paged. Everybody was happy enough with that arrangement - it was about as good as any on-call arrangement I've ever been part of.
Taking the shifts was optional and had a similar pay structure.
The thing is, what if I claimed membership in a religion that only allowed me to work 3 days a week? ;)
Your church sometimes enforces its rules about what you do outside of church in a meaningful sense? How does that work?
http://www.pcahistory.org/pca/3-443.html
It mostly applies to leadership, but also members. Possible "censures" include:
- Admonition (ie calling someone out for their behavior) - Suspension from Office (you have to stop being a deacon) - Suspension from the Sacraments (you can't take communion anymore) - Excommunication (you can no longer be a member of the church)
In practice I have only ever seen it done publicly in 3 circumstances:
1) Someone in leadership committed adultery and has to step down 2) An elder was excommunicated after abandoning his wife and children, leaving the church, and pulling a "Leaving Las Vegas" to live a life of total debauchery 3) A church leader was suspended due to abuse of power
Leadership cases are kind of obvious, because the damage they do can be so bad. I mean it's bad enough in a workplace, but it can be devastating in a Church environment, which functions a lot more like a family. The Presbyterian process might seem a bit overblown or silly, but I appreciate the care with which they take these issues.
I think a culture of discipline is generally useful in a Church, at least when it comes to admonition and encouragement. Adultery, drunkenness, gossip, greed, anger, ... all of these things affect others, and church discipline is attempting to admit to that problem rather than simply ignoring it. When it's done in a loving, winsome way, it can be a good thing. I screw up all the time, sometimes without even realizing it, and being called out for it can help me do better.
Though I also recognize disciple can be, and often is abused. It can really turn cultic fast, and I've seen that a little in some communities, especially when it focuses on minor, tangential issues (like the music you listen too, the way you dress, your politics, etc...)
So to recap, in the PCA, I've only really seen it with leadership. In the OPC church I briefly attended, it was suggested that if you were unwilling to baptize your children, or made a habit of working on Sunday, you may not be able to join the church, since that was a clear and important teaching of the church and you would clearly be violating it, hence, discipline.
Missing church every Sunday would be particularly visible, especially in a very small church, so a pastor might want to have a conversation about it.
I suppose most other issues would come about from other members... in the most extreme cases the church should hand the individual over to the civil authorities (a husband beating his wife, a leader molesting children, etc) Sadly that sometimes doesn't happen.
But there are a lot of edge cases and wisdom issues, so generally if there's not a clear teaching, the church will leave it as a matter of conscience.
1) reasons http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2...
Actually, I'm not very good speaking english. It's not my first language, if anything, it's the last one. :P
Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath.
As I said, what I don’t know about the daily practice of Christianity could fill volumes, but outside of some obvious cherry picking of Leviticus it seems that they have their own thing going. Certainly a whole host of laws from keeping kosher to keeping the sabbath seem to be on a pick and choose basis, which has always made me a little cynical about the choice to pay lip service to Leviticus only where homosexuality is concerned.
As for homosexuality that is actually specificity mentioned several times in the New Testament. It is one of the very few Levitical laws expressly mentioned as still in force in the New Testament. However, in fairness those same passages also call out those who are adulterous, slanderous, greedy, and drunkards with equal force.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (NIV) 9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
Them having tradition AND scripture as foundations for doctrine, have no trouble reconciling their practices with their sources. And I think they're consistent on this point.
What I think is a big problem with doctrine in all protestant denominations is claiming they follow the Bible as they know it, and accepting without a secound thought this legacy of the church they separated from.
One can make up all sorts of fables about why Sabbath is Sunday now (such as that Jesus resurrected on Sunday) to justify it, but the plain truth is that the change originates with the Catholic church.
(I don't understand why the downvotes to my comment above. I'm just pointing out some interesting things, not trying to say someone "You're not going to heaven")
whoa there, you are saying that the actual bible doesn't just harp on homosexuals, and that their might be a more balanced moral view of sex/sexuality than what is attacked as a straw man on Saturday Night Lies and the Ellen Degenerate show?
sheesh. i don't know what you are smoking, but I certainly want some.
random fact: saturday is subbota and sunday is 'resurrection' day in russian.
christian practice of treating sunday 'as the sabbath' doesn't mean that the sabbath itself has changed.. true christians should fast/rest on saturday in preparation for sunday (the '8th day' of the 'new age' of christ)
do the jewish people stone adulterers where you live? how about homosexuals? soothsayers/crypto-pagans/fortune tellers? stay out of the synagogue when you have ejaculated until taking a ritual purity bath?
etc, etc, etc.
not to harp or seem anti-jewish, but picking and choosing happens everywhere - it's the broader context and totality of being pure/godly/etc that is important, which is (kind of) Jesus' whole point.. (see also healing on sabbath, etc)
but yes, christians are not concerned generally with fulfilling the law of moses as a whole.. that said there is tradition and rationale around what guides christian morality/ethical code, though various groups do/do not pay attention to this accordingly..
Me? No, but I make “lapsed” seem observant. Plenty of Jews do all of what you describe though, it’s why you’ll find a mikveh in most communities for example. Jewish orthodoxy is sort of famous for being extremely into all of the rules, right down to mixing certain fabrics. Still I take your overall point, and certainly it doesn’t seem to be anti-Jewish or anything of the sort.
> VII. As it is the law of nature, that, in general, a due proportion of time be set apart for the worship of God; so, in his Word, by a positive, moral, and perpetual commandment binding all men in all ages, he has particularly appointed one day in seven, for a Sabbath, to be kept holy unto him:[34] which, from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ, was the last day of the week: and, from the resurrection of Christ, was changed into the first day of the week, which, in Scripture, is called the Lord's Day, and is to be continued to the end of the world, as the Christian Sabbath.
Citing:
> [35] GEN 2:2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. 3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made. 1CO 16:1 Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye. 2 Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come. ACT 20:7 And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.
(though Seventh Day adventists believe it should still be on Saturday)
There are a range of views regarding the Sabbath in the Christian tradition, as well as the rest of the original law. A common view amongst the reformed is that the law is divided in 3 parts: the civil law, the ceremonial law and the moral law. On this view the ceremonial law was fulfilled in Christ, the civil law can stand as a guide for how we structure government (but not necessarily a requirement), and the moral law is still binding for Christians.
Somewhat related to the three uses of the law:
1. The usus politicus sive civilis, the political or civil use, is a restraint on sin and stands apart from the work of salvation. It is part of God's general revelation or common grace for unbelievers as well as believers. 2. The usus elenchticus sive paedagogicus, the elenctical or pedagogical use which confronts sin and points us to Christ. 3. The usus didacticus sive normativus, the didactic use, which is solely for believers, teaching the way of righteousness.
Some view the Sabbath as part of the ceremonial law, and others that it is part of the moral law. For a longer-form discussion on this issue consider Michael Horton's "Are we Required to Attend Church on Sunday": https://www.whitehorseinn.org/2011/12/are-we-required-to-att...
> As I said, what I don’t know about the daily practice of Christianity could fill volumes, but outside of some obvious cherry picking of Leviticus it seems that they have their own thing going.
I wouldn't entirely disagree with this, Christians often ignore the Old Testament... but there's a very rich tradition of Old Testament commentary related to Biblical Theology. Consider Peter Leithart, interpreting the Old Testament in light of the New: https://youtu.be/vr1oH4hpl5Q?t=358
> Thomas can spin off sanctuary typologies with the imaginative verve of an Origen or a Bede. According to Thomas, “the figurative reason” for the specific features of the tabernacle and its furnishings “may be taken from the relation of the tabernacle to Christ, who was foreshadowed therein.” Christ is typified by the “propitiatory” or mercy seat, which, in Thomas’s understanding, was borne aloft above the cherubim, figuring the angels who exalt Jesus. Jesus is the new ark: “As the ark is made of setim-wood, so is Christ’s body composed of most pure members,” and as the ark is overlaid with gold, so “Christ was full of wisdom and charity, which are betokened by gold.” The golden pot inside the ark represents Christ’s “holy soul” and is full of manna because “all the fullness of the God” dwells in Him. Since Jesus possesses priestly power, He is fittingly represented by the rod of Aaron; since He is a lawgiver, He is foreshadowed in the tables of Torah. That “Christ is signified by the candlestick” is evident from John 8 (“I am the light of the world”), and the seven lamps on the stand represent the seven Spirits of God that come from the Lamb in Revelation. Jesus is the table of showbread, since He says “I am the living bread.” Christ is figured by the two altars of the tabernacle, since all our works are offered to God through Him. In Christ we offer our afflictions to God on the altar of holocausts, and perfected Christians offer their spiritual desires to God in Christ “on the altar of incense.” Nearly every detail of the tabernacle serves as a type of the incarnate Son in His Person and His work of propitiation and intercession.
In particular his commentary on 1 and 2 Kings is fantastic.
My religious tradition (reformed evangelical christian) takes the sabbath pretty seriously, as stated in the Westminster Confession of Faith:
> VIII. This Sabbath is to be kept holy unto the Lord when men, after a due preparing of their hearts, and ordering of their common affairs beforehand, do not only observe an holy rest all the day from their own works, words, and thoughts about their worldly employments and recreations, but also are taken up the whole time in the public and private exercises of his worship, and in the duties of necessity and mercy.
Notice the last statement makes an allowance for acts of mercy and duties of necessity, which would certainly include things like being a Doctor or a Policeman, but I've always considered my duties as a Software Engineer being on-call to be borderline on whether or not they meet that standard. Certainly my employer(s) have thought they were necessary... But who are we kidding. Most of this stuff isn't life or death and waiting till Monday to get it fixed probably wouldn't be that big of a deal.
(I should probably mention that although these are the standards of the Church I attend they're rarely enforced in any meaningful sense - being treated more as a matter of personal conscience than of discipline... and particularly when it comes to the Sabbath)
Still I wrestle with it... not having a firm enough conviction to quit a job where I've had to do it, though if it were an every week thing, particularly if I had to regularly miss the Sunday service, I almost certainly would.
If I could make one plea, it would be for tolerance and compromise. I realize religious beliefs can be pretty weird in this day and age, but they're often sincerely held, and there's usually a solution available if the company is willing to consider it. (for example I'm just fine being on-call any other day of the week, and a surprising oddity of the reformed tradition, we don't really have religious holidays: https://heidelblog.net/2017/03/the-westminster-divines-on-ho...)