[iH1wMOhE]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


Right. But there's no law; it sounds like it's a private contract. That's right, and they negotiated what they negotiated.

That said, I wouldn't agree to any "On call" situation unless some form of compensation were attached; the form of the compensation dosen't really matter, could be a higher salary or hourly rate, overtime, or a fee schedule . Most "On call" jobs have extra compensation built in, whether it's expressly noted or not.

[Qutlsilh]

Originally posted by Az
I've been thinking about this myself a couple of days ago, when a friend of mine was 'on call' for a shift as a bartender.

Yes, we were sitting around watching TV. yes, we were free, but only to an extent. We didn't travel to a different city, though there was a great party waiting for us. I am not sure i'd consider those both to be the same. I've worked in restaurants, and 'on call' there means they aren't sure if they'll need you or not so they tell you to check in at a certain point, and you're doing it because you want the extra money. I've never seen anyone have difficulty being taken off of 'on call' in that environment before... while for a doctor or somesuch (or in the OP's case), it's a requirement for keeping the job. Perhaps bars work differently where you are, though...

[Gypejeva]

Labor laws don't work that way, however - there is no consideration of the 'savings' (or the 'earnings') - employers must pay employees regardless of earnings, regardless of the actual contribution the employee is making. That would simply end up with employees not being put on call most of the time.

IMO, if it's 'mandatory on call' it should be paid; if it's 'voluntary on call' (ie, waitress is available to be called in to work, but is not required to be on call, she does it because she wants the extra money - even if she is required to decide ahead of time) it should not be paid.

[forotis]

Originally posted by snoopy369
Labor laws don't work that way, however - there is no consideration of the 'savings' (or the 'earnings') - employers must pay employees regardless of earnings, regardless of the actual contribution the employee is making. That would simply end up with employees not being put on call most of the time.

IMO, if it's 'mandatory on call' it should be paid; if it's 'voluntary on call' (ie, waitress is available to be called in to work, but is not required to be on call, she does it because she wants the extra money - even if she is required to decide ahead of time) it should not be paid. I was speaking morally, not legally.

The OP sets out the situation here in California where, even if its mandatory "on call," it doesn't have to be compensated.

I started this post because I wanted to see how people around the world felt about this issue and how they handle things where they are. The concensus (insofar as there is one) seems to be that, when the employee is required to be on call, he should be paid albeit at a lesser rate than normal.

[popillio]

If somebody wants me to be 'on call', I am definitely providing them a service. So they'll have to pay me for that.

The situation as described in the OP certainly restricts the people in their abilty to perform other labour, for which they certainly should be compensated.

[stuntduood]

Originally posted by Lancer
Zkrib, pics should come tomorrow. Teresa is busy with church stuff today.

[golozhopik]

when my dad is on call for the weekend, we can't go places. it's kinda sucky sometimes. workers should get something.