Does Constant Access Shatter the Home/Work Boundary?

StonyandCher has passed us a link to PCWorld.au, once again raising the tough topic of work/life separation. A department of the Australian government went ahead with a purchase of dozens of Blackberry communication devices, but is now delaying their deployment. The reason: "Staff expressed fears about BlackBerries contributing to a longer working day and felt it was going a step too far because mobile phones are adequate for out-of-office contact. Not everyone agreed, however, with some senior executives claiming a BlackBerry can contribute to work/life balance by facilitating telecommuting and more flexible schedules. " For the time being this issue is on hold for those staffers, but how does this issue fall for you? Is constant accessibility freeing or just another chain around your neck?

Comments

this is incumbent upon the employee

[yagu]

I know employers can apply pressure, but employees should try to establish early and firmly what extended accessibility means. Pagers have been around for millenia, Blackberrys simply give better message.

Arrange and agree to a schedule for which you consider yourself "on call", publish those times, and make it clear you aren't "on call" when you aren't.

Personally, I see the encroachment more often by those who have some tension with their personal life whereby this constant connectivity to their job elevates somehow their status, and provides instant and real-time reason/excuse to be unavailable in their personal lives. In other words, lots of those who "get connected" like this do so willingly, and with a certain sense of self-importance.

My other observation has been that those who are not to be bothered by work when they're not expected to be available off-hours simply don't carry their Blackberry, or turn it off.

I know there's always the exception, but I think most employer-employee relationships can and do strike equilibrium with minimal fuss. If your employer is that horrid in their insistence and demands, find another employer. I did.

Re:this is incumbent upon the employee

[phillips321]

It wont be long before people find the solution to this problem...
http://forumpix.co.uk/i.php?I=1197646911

Re:this is incumbent upon the employee

[MBCook]

I agree. It's the employee's fault. They're willing to put up with it. There was a time before cell phones when the same kind of thing was true. If you were a town doctor in the 1800s, you think you got to say "I'm only open 8-5, M-F"? People got sick when they got sick. Accountants didn't have to take their work home, but it was known that as a doctor you were on call all the time.

If you don't like it, push back, let your work know that when you aren't on call, you're not on call. This is just a boundaries issue. People don't want to set them (afraid of repercussions, don't know they have the option, like the "piece of mind" they get from being able to watch what's going on at work, whatever)... so they put up with this.

Blackberries are just a symptom/enabler. They make this problem easier to occur than during the '60s (when bringing your work home or to vacation meant hauling a bunch of papers and books and such).

People just need to learn to adapt to this change and handle it. Just like people are being forced to invent manners and limits for other things that weren't considered before (like cell phones). That's our transition that we're going through now.

Re:this is incumbent upon the employee

[somersault]

For some reason I got incredibly excited about the idea of being able to access company email remotely, mostly just because of the geek factor. I've had to setup a few blackberrys for some of my users and I hated them, but I like how Windows Mobile Direct PUSH synchronises directly with our Exchange server without any modifications (obviously because they're both microsoft products, but exchange is one of the few Microsoft products that is worth the money..). Anyway, after being excited about it for a couple of weeks, I quickly got fed up of the way that I ended up doing extra work in the evenings by replying to emails on my phone, and stopped. The facility is still there for emergencies though..

Sadly my IT assistant keeps his phone on all the time, and in fact was emailing/MSNing me about work matters this week even though he's on holiday. He's going to charge for overtime, but still, I find the very idea of doing work on holiday sickening, even if you're an MD or something (where it's more likely that you really do need to be connected). My uncle once spent what seemed like half of our family holiday in France on his mobile.. yuck.

Re:this is incumbent upon the employee

[trbofly]

Now, I imagine I make a little more than the likely (14$ per hour) average /. reader, however I have been on-call my entire career.

Since 19 I have carried a pager, cell phone, laptop, or some combination of the three with me where ever I go. Its in my car at all times or within 5 mins of where I am. (Except my private motorcycle times when the weather is warm)

My wife knew what she was getting into when she married me, so it hasnt been an issue of contention there. Aside from 1 CEO who abused my availability (SWH I am talking to you. Jerk), I have been able to balance the two.

What I am getting at is that I go into each negotiation knowing I will be on-call. I dont take a position unless I am making what I should, includding my afterhours time. I have been lucky enough that the coroporations want me badly and to date havent had an issue.

I sort of agree with the parent that on-call made me feel important in the beginning. I was young. I am well past that and see it as just another day in the office.

T

Re:this is incumbent upon the employee

[SetupWeasel]

If you don't like it, push back, let your work know that when you aren't on call, you're not on call. This is just a boundaries issue.

No, no. This is an employment issue. You could lose your job for "pushing back." Some people don't have that option.

Re:this is incumbent upon the employee

[MBCook]

If you don't want to be on call, don't take a job that expects you to be on call. If the job you took didn't including being on call and they want you to be, tell them no... that wasn't in the job description. You could negotiate for something ("You want me to start being on call, that's an expansion in my responsibilities, will my compensation go up as well?"). If you took a job where you were on call and don't like it too bad. That's the job you took and you signed up for it.

If everyone who had this problem actually stood up, they wouldn't fire people because there wouldn't be enough people left. You're not helpless.

Also, remember that some of these people don't have that responsibility. They just check their blackberry out of habit. They don't need to. It's all their choice. They aren't being forced into it, they are choosing it then complaining about it.

Work doesn't have to be fun. It's a means to an end: being able to take care of and feed yourself and your family. It's not your personal satisfaction center. That's nice if it is, but people used to understand that. A lot of this just sounds like whining to me.

Re:this is incumbent upon the employee

[SetupWeasel]

If everyone who had this problem actually stood up, they wouldn't fire people because there wouldn't be enough people left. You're not helpless.

Yes, but if you are the only one...

Also, remember that some of these people don't have that responsibility. They just check their blackberry out of habit. They don't need to. It's all their choice. They aren't being forced into it, they are choosing it then complaining about it.

I am a tutor. I have taken shit from my boss, because she couldn't reach me Wednesday night to change my schedule for Thursday. Changing my hours at will was not in the job description, and I don't even make enough at the job to sustain me. I look for more or other work. I've been looking for 4 months, and guess what? If I find a job that will be a dick about my free time, I have to take it.

Work doesn't have to be fun. It's a means to an end: being able to take care of and feed yourself and your family. It's not your personal satisfaction center. That's nice if it is, but people used to understand that. A lot of this just sounds like whining to me.

Spoken like management. There was a time when jobs offered benefits, job security, and respect for their employees.

Re:this is incumbent upon the employee

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Obviously a McDonald's burger flipper couldn't say this stuff if it applied to them, they would be replaced too easily.

A McDonald's burger flipper probably gets paid an hourly rate, and I bet they expect more pay if they work more hours. It's ironic that in "better" jobs like those in IT, a culture has developed among a certain type of employer that "It's a salaried position" is an acceptable euphemism for "We own your soul, 24/7".

As others have noted, the correct solution to this problem is for all the good people to collectively turn around and tell the over-demanding employers where to go. A competitive employment market works both ways, and good IT people are always worth far more to a business than their relative salary suggests. Except in the hardest of times (and usually only for a short while even then) these people will easily be able to find work with a more reasonable employer if they choose to look for it. Even the abusive employers know that, they just rely on people not bothering to look.

Re:this is incumbent upon the employee

[Firethorn]

Spoken like management. There was a time when jobs offered benefits, job security, and respect for their employees.

Hah! Obviously you haven't studied history much. That period was actually very unusual in history.

It used to be that if you got hurt at work you'd lose your job. Likely become unemployed, or have to find another career or become a beggar if the injury wasn't temporary. Safety equipment was rare. We're talking about the heyday of railroads and 'big oil'.

Unions, safety regulations, and some smart employers(Like Mr. Ford) combined with a labor crunch changed that, at least for a while.

Then hiring US citizens became too expensive and stuff was outsourced to other countries where the old conditions prevailed because it was cheaper.

I look for more or other work. I've been looking for 4 months, and guess what? If I find a job that will be a dick about my free time, I have to take it.

If you want to change things, realize that you might have to move, get training to go into a different career field, change your income expectations, etc...

Basically, you need to realize that it takes intelligent effort to get what you want.

You do what it takes to keep a roof over your family's head, food in their mouths, shoes on their feet. After that, then you can work towards personal satisfaction. That's just how it is(or at least should be). That's what my grandparents did. That's what my parents did. That's what I do.

Re:this is incumbent upon the employee

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Yes, but if you are the only one...

IME, if your point is reasonable, you will not be the only one.

A while ago, my (formerly small and privately owned) employer was bought out by a much larger corporation. One of the first things they did was try to change everyone's contract to their national standard boilerplate. Unfortunately, that boilerplate included clauses that affect life outside work. They required permission to get any additional paid work, even things like playing semi-pro musical gigs at your local bar for beer money, or tutoring a few kids for some extra cash. They claimed IP rights to everything you ever did, regardless of any connection to the employment. You get the idea.

I think they thought I was just a lone whinger when I objected to these terms, which were a far cry from our previous, reasonably balanced contracts. They were wrong. In fact, a substantial proportion of the staff stood by me, either because they felt strongly about some or all of my points themselves once I'd drawn attention to them, or simply because they thought I was being reasonable and were showing solidarity with fellow staff. I can't remember how many people got fired during the whole exercise, but let's just say they were all in HR and the offending contractual areas were changed back.

Now, if your point is unreasonable and you really are just being selfish given the job you signed up for, no-one will back you up. You'll have to put up or get out, and I doubt your employer will care because they'll find someone more reasonable to replace you. But if all you're asking is for a fair deal, you might be surprised about how many of your colleagues will stand with you when it comes to crunch time.

Re:this is incumbent upon the employee

[Anonymous Coward]

I only partially agree. I used to work for a large bank in their network security design group. The employer made it easy for us to be available 24x7 by providing us with laptops, paying for our cell phones and home broadband connectivity, and at least partially paying to furnish home office space. The downside was an expectation that you would be available 24x7, even when on "vacation." (It was not unusual for people to call each other about work matters even when the people being called were officially on vacation.) Towards the end of my time there I resisted this, and the amount of time I spent working dropped.

Did it drop enough? You tell me. For the last three months I was there, I averaged 55 hours/week... but that brought the group average down, so I got verbally counseled for it. The group (about 50 people or so) was averaging 80 hours/week, largely because of a couple of contractors who were logging about 100 hours/week . Trim the outliers (contractors at one end, me at the other) and you still wind up with some pretty long work weeks.

Yes, the employees contributed to the problem, by tolerating the conditions. However, they weren't the sole cause, as the employer made it no secret that they would just as soon shitcan you if you "whined" about working more than 50 hours/week, and the market made it difficult to find similar paying work elsewhere.

Re:this is incumbent upon the employee

[Omestes]

Your reason confuses me, and its sad I see it so much here on /.

It seems the average slashbot has decided regression equals progress. I don't see how increasing employer culpability, and the environment of the worker was an undesirable, nor do I see how the opposite is in any way a good thing (unless you some sociopath only concerned with the bottom line, and not the stuff that matters).

Yes we've had workers rights for a small period of time, but I don't see that as a reason for its desired transience. Most cultures, too, have only seen the abolition of slavery, suffrage, and the germ theory of disease for a short period of time too, would be be so apathetic about losing them too?

Re:this is incumbent upon the employee

[Firethorn]

Sigh...

I'm not talking about what employers should or should not be doing. I'm talking about what YOU should be doing to support your family. It's an acknowledgement of reality, not a statement of how things should be. Should employers be required to have a safe working enviroment, and be held liable if they don't? Yes, they should. But 'should' doesn't necessarily cut it in the real world. It can be far too late by the time the court system finishes going through the evidence.

It's along my beliefs about self reliance and prepardness. I believe that YOU are your own first and last line of defense against the harsh unfairness that is the world. This extends to your family; most importantly your children(1).

You're your own first line of defense because you're always there. When the incident occurs, emergency response units like the police, fire department, EMTs can be only minutes away when seconds matter. Better yet, if your defense(2) succeeds, the emergency responders are free to help somebody else. This can result in a save for somebody who's first line fails.

You're your own last line of defense for a different reason: You're the one with the most to lose if you fail. Your own life, sanity, health, etc...

Yes we've had workers rights for a small period of time, but I don't see that as a reason for its desired transience. Most cultures, too, have only seen the abolition of slavery, suffrage, and the germ theory of disease for a short period of time too, would be be so apathetic about losing them too?

There's worker's rights, and then there's worker's rights. Personally, I think that employee and employer relations should mostly be contract based. For example, in France you actually get demonstrations occasionally where employees are protesting to be allowed to work more.

Personally, I'd expect workcenters to be as safe as reasonably possible(3). Working hours to be agreed upon before hand, and if on-call status is required for unexpected work, that that be worked out before hand. Benefits agreed upon, etc...

40 hour work week? Fairly recent innovation, and France has a 30 hour one. Some people are willing to work longer hours than others, especially for more money. Why should they be forced to circumvent some restriction by working two or more jobs, frequently for less money?

Living wage? How do you define a 'living wage'? Would you rather be unemployed than working for a sub-living wage, if no employer determines that your work is worth what you consider a living wage?
Healthcare? Personally, I'd rather be paid to obtain my own healthcare that I can keep if I move jobs. Or even a single-payer system like Canada. Anything but our current boondoggle.

(1)Though even then the kid's his own first and last, but being incapable(especially in the case of a baby), you're up next. It's part of the tragedy that is parental abuse.
(2)I'm being very generic here.
(3) Racing, for example, will never be 100% safe. But drivers know the risks rather well. Same with fishing, flying, etc...

Re:this is incumbent upon the employee

[cayenne8]

"A McDonald's burger flipper probably gets paid an hourly rate, and I bet they expect more pay if they work more hours. It's ironic that in "better" jobs like those in IT, a culture has developed among a certain type of employer that "It's a salaried position" is an acceptable euphemism for "We own your soul, 24/7".

This is wrong thinking IMHO. Why NOT be an hourly worker for IT? Do like I did, incorporate yourself (I did an "S" corp), and the do corp-to-corp contracting. It need not be a few months here and there too, you can land longer term gigs. It involves a little more paperwork on your side (managing your own 'salary', SE taxes, etc), but, it is worth it in the long run. You can set up HSA's, sock money away in some IRA's, write off your mileage to/from jobsite from your home office ($0.485/mi for 2007)...etc.

In the long run, you make and save MUCH more money, and you don't have to put up with the political crap at work either. And really....you have all these benefits, and yet STILL retain pretty much the same relationship you had as a direct employee, in that there still is NO job security, NO loyalty by employer, etc.

You're not losing anything by doing this, the days of the job forever are gone...so, you might as well bargain on a corp-to-corp level (more equal), and spell out exactly what you will and won't do, and make good money for your efforts.

My motto since doing this..."I do NOT work for free".

Re:this is incumbent upon the employee

[Firethorn]

The combination of trade treaties and telecommunications has made it easy for employers/companies to shop around for a jurisdiction. Somehow, we in North America have been convinced that the destruction of our manufacturing sector in exchange for cheap chinese-manufactured goods at wal-mart is a good deal.

Technically, it is. Our employment figures are still rather high, after all. There are some losers, but not everybody lost.

Now, China is currently the big winner right now, the outsourcing of labor is helping them raise their population out of 3rd world status.

One consequence is the stagnation of US wages though, I'm somewhat surprised that they're not falling behind more than they are. I figure I can only hope that we remain merely stagnant until China and India start running short on labor, expenses go up, and outsourcing is no longer profitable.

Re:this is incumbent upon the employee

[cayenne8]

"But I have a lot of sympathy for your views. The only reason I haven't already gone the contractor/consultant route is hesitation about getting the first few safe jobs on the books. Everyone who's been there seems to advise doing this before giving up the day job, but it seems quite difficult to know where to start until you've got the time from giving up the day job to invest in client-hunting. :-("

You can start half way. 1st thing...look into incorporating yourself, it doesn't cost much. A friend of mine did it mostly himself for a few $$, I paid a lawyer about $250 or so, gave him a company name, and in 2 weeks I was a company. I went the "S" corp route, many will advise the LLC, but, do some research see which fits best for you. I like the S since I only have to pay SE taxes (SS and medicare) on the portion of my money that I make that I pay myself as a 'reasonable' W2 salary. Saves money that way.

But, in the meantime...look at job shops...you can start at some that will employ you as a contract employee...they get a big cut, but, it will easy you into the mkt....they find the jobs for you, etc. You can even start with places like this as a W2 employee of them, with full benefits...but, I'd not go that far, too close to being an employee.

Anyway, save up some $$....do a little research, and then, look for a contract employment co...and let them find your work for you till you get comfy with doing it yourself.

If you're a US citizen, look into places that do govt. work....those can be long term and you might can get on as a sub on a project.

Take a look here for good info LINK . Click the link for the 'original site', and read that if the main stuff is still under construction....

Good luck...the only thing scary about it is...that it is different, and you do take on a bit more responsibility for yourself...but,think of it, most people in the early days of the US did much the same thing, just in a more primitive time.

Re:this is incumbent upon the employee

[Naturalis Philosopho]

I'm very sad for you if you really only work for the paycheck. If you don't understand that sadness now, then I doubt you ever will, especially given your example of an abusive relationship. How bad is your job?

Re:this is incumbent upon the employee

[Firethorn]

Rather than clever, I find that logic completely backwards. While you're busy trying to dry up a massive labour market, your own country's market languishes and suffers. Great for the employer in the short term. They pay less as they've just increased supply by orders of magnitude. Meanwhile you've not even made a dent fixing their economy..

Look at China. Look at India. I wouldn't call those dents. And yes, it's great for the employer in the short term. In the long term it works out for everybody as the economy of the world as a whole increases.

The only way to do it is to legislate that work done for an employer in a particular company (directly or otherwise) is to be paid above a certain minimum wage. Competition should be above that minimum wage. Unfortunately the directly or otherwise part is notoriously difficult to police.

This is just protectionalism again - If you mandate a high wage, the jobs don't move, and the peasant who'd gladly take that 'sweatshop' job rather than work in the fields like his ancestors have done for thousands of years.

Please note that when I'm talking about 'sweatshop' stuff I'm talking about stuff that pays wages that outrage americans. But when you dig into them, you find out that the people working in the factory or whatever are actually making multiples of what they were previously - normally subsidence farmers. As a result of the increased pay and moves away from farming, additional services end up appearing - taking even more farmers out of the fields. Frequently the farmers end up being able to sell their products for more, allowing them to automate to increase production even more. It ends up being a positive circle.

If you accept slave labour (as you have above)

No, I haven't. Where did I talk about forcing people to work, trading and selling them?

A slippery slope argument. If you accept this you must also accept that the vast majority of the world's people will end up earning slave wages within the next few decades. As you introduce sweatshop wages to replace those worse conditions, the rest of the world has to compete with those sweatshop wages. Pretty soon only sweat shop wages are competitive. I don't accept this. If you have children, nieces, nephews or just kids you care about neither should you.

Sigh... Even as there's a downward pressure on wages in well paid areas like the USA there's an upward pressure on wages in the low wage areas. Once development takes hold, wages tend to increase there as the job/population ratio increases. In addition, higher economy allows for higher education - increasing wages more.

Your approach would see us move towards the past as people make less and less money and instead of having to sacrifice perks and luxury items they have to sacrifice decent food, education and medical care

Again, it's not my 'approach'. It's reality. There is downward pressure on US wages due to outsourcing to China/India. The outsourcing has also resulting in upward pressure in those areas, though it's more evident in India than China. China still has a good amount of former subsidence farmers for cheap labor.

We completely agree that your needs and those of your family if you have one should come way above playstations and booze.

Thank you.

Yes, it's a problem

[s.d.]

Aside from the fact that my manager sometimes asks me to take my BlackBerry with me when I go on vacation (which I refuse to do), it's really easy to just look at it in the evenings or on weekends to see if there's any mail and check on things. I have taken to setting the automatic power down/power on setting, so I am not tempted to sneak a peak when I walk past it when I'm at home. I never check work mail on the computer in my free time, but the BlackBerry makes it so easy, it doesn't feel like I'm working until I've sunk 2 hours into something that could have waited until the morning.

Just turn it off

[Hanners1979]

Staff expressed fears about BlackBerries contributing to a longer working day

Just going out on a limb here, but couldn't they switch it off when they don't want to be working?

Re:Just turn it off

[DeeQ]

The problem with just turning them off is the company will frown upon that. They didn't purchase these for their employees to not use them. No matter how you look at it weather it be only 5 extra min or 2 hours of extra work being accessible via Email at any time. People want to go home after a long days work and not have to deal with all the problems of them. I can see why they would be fearing having them, but turning them off could arise problems with staff.

Yes.

[TheRealFixer]

At least, I know it does for me. There are plenty of times now I wish we had never gotten these stupid Blackberries. Once your management knows that they can get a hold of you via email any time, any place, they suddenly expect that to be the norm. With plain old cell phones, it requires a personal interaction that feels much more intrusive. When you shoot off an email, it doesn't feel the same. You don't feel bad about it, like you do when you call someone and interrupt their dinner. Which makes people much more likely to do it.

I've heard people say...

[Loibisch]

I've heard people say "thank god I'm not eligible [meaning high enough in the food chain] to get one of those" over where I work. So I'd say people definitely fear the intrusion of work into privacy and I understand totally. There's got to be a time where you have to be able to say "I'm sorry, but I was out and couldn't check company mail".

Re:I've heard people say...

[Loibisch]

All is good in theory. Yes, you might have an abusive employer...but without having a blackberry and the need to decide what to do about it in your free time forced on you there wouldn't be a problem in the first place.

In other words: you might have an abusive employer but it might not ever show.

Re:I've heard people say...

[nine-times]

What I find funny about the Blackberry thing is that, in a couple places that I've worked, they were being used pretty much exclusively for middle-management. The lowly helpdesk techs supposedly weren't important enough to get one, in spite of the fact that it would be really useful for them to receive e-mail when they were away from their desks "in the field". Then a bunch of managers who were at their desks all day anyway had them. But then, oddly, the executive team didn't have Blackberries.

I once asked one of the VPs about it, and he basically said, "We let the managers get them because it makes them feel important and they aren't that expensive. But I sure as hell don't want to be on-call 24 hours a day." I felt like I learned something right there. The trappings of power are usually most appreciated by those who don't really have any. Those guys who spend a lot of time trying to show you who's boss are specifically those who aren't "the boss". The people who are really in charge don't necessarily feel the need to prove it to you.

It depends on when it is used.

[JerryLove]

I would think this rather obvious: using a black-berry to receive emails when you are out in the field during your business day is enabling remoteness, while using it to return emails at dinner is removing the work/home distinction. I don't generally see a black-berry as offering a distinct advantage over a cellphone with text messaging in the case of those "get everyone on the phone, the server is down" emergencies... and if you are doing routine emails during your off-hours then they are not off-hours.

Two-sided

[Billosaur]

On the one hand, I enjoy the flexibility of having my laptop come home with me, so that if something happens and I can't get to my office, I can still work. On the other hand, I get obsessive with problems I can't solve, so there's the pitfall of going home, logging in, and continuing to work. It's up to the individual to control their use. Now, if your supervisor begins pressuring you to work more... that's a whole different ballgame, but still, you have to push back when work bleeds into your home life to the point that it interferes too much.

Yes, but I waste more time on the clock

[Reality Master 201]

The consequence is that I also don't work that hard when I'm actually at work.

It's easier for me to justify randomly screwing around on the internet or working on personal coding/whatever at work because I wind up checking email and working over weekends to get things done. I think it's fair. They steal some of my free time, I waste some of their paid time.

Re:Yes, but I waste more time on the clock

[ookabooka]

Hardly sounds like a long term solution though, eventually you'll just go to work and not do anything, only to come home and then start working. . .? In your case I think it's more important to keep work and pleasure separate rather than trying to keep them balanced. Otherwise you end up spending all your time "working" but accomplishing little.

Re:Yes, but I waste more time on the clock

[MBCook]

A man gets a Bill from his lawyer.

Jim,

I was walking down the street the other day and I thought I saw you. I called
out your name and crossed the street to say "Hi", but it wasn't you after all.

15 minutes of my time - $200

That is an excellent solution to the problem, but I doubt many people would have the guts to go through with it.

Re:Yes, but I waste more time on the clock

[Hatta]

Careful. Time spent slacking off at work is more visible and obvious to your boss and coworkers than time spent working after hours. You may actually be putting in your fair share (or more) of time, yet it won't appear that way to a casual observer. Depending on your boss, that might reflect rather negatively on you.

saves the travel

[jeffreyMartin]

I'd rather have the crackberry (or mobile phone, or notebook) available if I *need* to do something, than have to run to the office on a saturday because of one forgotten task or reply. And yes, you can turn it off!

Im constantly monitoring not necessarily available

[penfold69]

I have a blackberry 8800, which revolutionised how I work.

I have several email addresses routed to it, which each have different notification tones. If I receive a Nagios alert to my "Oh Crap" email address, the notification is loud and insistent. If I receive personal mail, it's subtle. Business mail is also fairly quiet and subtle but different to personal mail.

Outside of "working hours", I can choose to ignore it easily enough. Only if our monitoring system picks up something alert-worthy do I have to actually bother actioning something immediately.

When I was first offered the blackberry, I made it clear to the MD that this would not intrude upon my personal life unnecessarily. If I *choose* to read my business emails outside of working hours, then all fine. I balance that with *choosing* to read my personal mail during work hours :)

P.

Meh

[djasbestos]

I have one, and I almost never get called ever since I stopped pushing software updates on Friday.

Then again, you make me do work stuff at home, I'm gonna do more home stuff at work. Yay internet.

Ditto what he said.

[Penguinisto]

Seriously - Those of us who are SysAdmins have dealt with this for ages...

You negotiate beforehand what happens when the pager goes off - either you get 'overtime', comp-time off, or your salary begins large enough to compensate you for the projected time spent on pager-duty. Not much different w/ a Crackberry...

If you get one issued to you, demand compensation for the added work that's sure to come with it - either through more flexible scheduling, more money, more comp/vacation time, or something substantial.

I have a decent setup where I'm at now - if I get a call, then the time spent gets deducted the next day or day after, or they pay me overtime based on 1.5x my salary broken down to an hourly rate (based on a typical 40hr week). Pretty simple after that.

Now, if you're adamant about delineated time-off vs. time-on, then simply state as much before you start.

But, like the parent said... most employers are perfectly okay with this, and it's only a minimum of haggle. Any employer who isn't needs to be dropped for one who is.

/P

Re:Ditto what he said.

[afidel]

For a sysadmin continuous access can actually enhance the balance. I don't have to drive in for every little problem because I have integrated lights out on all my servers so only a true hardware failure requires a trip into the office on off hours. Having a smartphone makes it even better because now instead of having to have a laptop with me or doing it from my home workstation I can now do many non-complicated tasks from anywhere (such as at the bar).

Re:Ditto what he said.

[racermd]

The issue of whether constant connectivity is a benefit or not greatly depends on the individual.

For example, as an IT worker myself, I think having that 24x7 accessibility to my work can be a benefit, but it's also the greatest source of my frustration. As a result, I've stopped carrying such devices for business use.

I've been much happier carrying only a cell phone - that I pay for - that I can turn off when I'm out of the office. I've made it a point to separate work and home. Since I started doing that a few years ago, I'm much less stressed and can focus more. Work stuff stays at work and my personal life can stay out of the office.

When it's mandated that I be available 24x7 for a period of time (such as an on-call rotation or a major project), I still weigh my choices and, if it's too demanding, I'll decline. Yes, even if it's career-limiting decision. Usually, it's not a problem and, in fact, some managers have gained respect for such a decision (even if they didn't think so at the time they asked).

Obviously, others will have differing points of view. However, it's important to keep a balance. That balance will differ from person to person.

Qui bono

[hobo sapiens]

From TFS: "senior executives claiming a BlackBerry can contribute to work/life balance by facilitating telecommuting and more flexible schedules. "

More flexible for whom? Where I work, that seems to be a one way flexibility. Senior executives are making (SWAG alert) 3x - 10x what I am making. They have made the choice to have a large stake in how the company performs. While I have a stake, of course, it's just not as large or worth my personal/family life. It seems like despite being more accessible, people's work hours never get shorter. And that's what it's about in the end, isn't it? Getting more done in less time? But in rality, it just seems that it's about getting more done in more time. No good. I am glad I have no blackberry.

depends on your responsibilities

[mihalis]

To me the blackberry is a blessing, because it helps me find out about things sooner. If I didn't find out about some things on the blackberry, then I'd only find out about them when I next get to the office, except more time would have elapsed and the urgency would be higher. So for me a little bit of intrusiveness (urgent email when I'm on my way home) is more than offset by reducing the stress of getting to work and finding shit happened last night and I wasn't aware).

However I do establish limits on the intrusiveness of the blackberry. Mine never buzzes for email and is switched off entirely from about mid-evening to around breakfast the next day. During that off period people can contact me on my cellphone if they really need me.

If there isn't that time critical element to a persons responsibilities then I can imagine it being not worth it.

I'm available when available,

[schnikies79]

I'm not when I'm not.

Seriously people, if you don't want to be bothered at home, make it clear. My company had no problem with that. Turn off the company phone/blackberry/whatever or at least stand your ground. Granted I don't work in IT so I don't know what common policies are like=, but I am on call, during certain hours. If they call outside of those hours, they will get a polite no (they have never tried).

Executive toys perhaps?

[TechnoBunny]

Do the executives wnat them for the reasons stated, or do they want them as a status symbol when they're on the golf course?

Re:Not sure about Blackberries...

[hobo sapiens]

It may be trite to say it, but...

If you were to die tomorrow, this would affect your family for the rest of their lives. You are irreplaceable. Your company would fill your position within days and except for your immediate co-workers, nobody would even care.

Telling work when you're available...

[bskin]

To everyone saying they've told work when they'll be available on their Blackberry...

It must be nice to be able to set the terms on which you'll work for the company. You must have a lot of leverage there. A lot of us are not so lucky.

Re:Telling work when you're available...

[dalguard]

For everyone saying they have no choice, I wonder if you've actually tried. My company offers to pay your cell phone bill if you'll be available during off hours. One day the CFO/CIO said "by the way, I notice we don't pay for your phone" and I said "no, I don't want calls at home." He said he respected my decision and that I was the only one on his staff to have made it. The cell phone costs me $40 a month. That's what they're getting paid to take calls at home. Whatever, their choice.

Try just not looking or not answering. Return the call during working hours. If they ask didn't you get my message, say no, I don't check messages off hours. Wait until they threaten to fire you.

From a VPN point of view

[NaleagDeco]

I don't have a Blackberry but I was finally given access to our corporate VPN ... which is the greatest thing ever as far as I'm concerned. It means I can leave the office, relax in different surroundings (the house or the coffee-shop) and hack away in a change of scenery. Better yet, if something strikes me at ten p.m. I can log in instead of trying to hold onto an idea until the morning. I find, however, that when I leave work I'm very conscious of having spent my eight hours sitting in front of a screen ... I'm aware that this is my downtime (i.e. more expendable but more treasured) and I try to enforce that. As such, I've never found myself lost in work at home.

Bizzare telecommuting tale..

[Churla]

My company has cel phone (not blueberries) on all the people in my group. We're the top end of problem solvers in the support side of the organization. They also encouraged us to work from home one day a week to help make up for the occasional weekend day or late night we were pulling.

This ended when a director level person walked through our area one day and didn't see enough butts in seats for their liking. Now they wonder why they have so much trouble getting people to answer the cel phones and work those long/extra hours from home.

Differing Viewpoints

[ChromaticDragon]

Did anyone notice the stark contrast between the view of the Executives and the workabees?

The Executives believe that the Blackberries can facilitate telecommuting and a balance between life and work. The grunts fear this is just a way to ensure longer workdays.

Why do you think that might be?

Could it be that relative to the workers, the execs don't really have that much work to balance with their life?

I think there is at least one other very important aspect here relative to telecommuting. Telecommuting really only works when there are a few key ingredients:

• Trust. The manager needs to trust the worker.
• A way to measure work. I find the managers the most comfortable with telecommuting, flex-time, etc., were those in situations where counting widgets was easy. If there is no clear way to measure output, this becomes a bit more of a challenge.
• Good management, including proper escalation. My current management has clearly expressed that they expect routine escalation since we're understaffed. We're all comfortable about it since it then becomes the manager's job to prioritize. A bad manager simply attempts to appease everyone and twist the arms of employees to get them to do everything despite burnout.

If you are in a situation where the environment isn't already very comfortable with flex-time, telecommuting, etc., picking up a device which may lead others to expect immediate responses to email at all hours of the day may be a rather horrible idea.

I like on-line access

[R3d Jack]

It means that I don't have to be in the office to take care of matters, which means more at-home time for me. As far as constantly checking my e-mail, I generally don't. Even if I do, that doesn't mean I have to respond. I also like knowing what to expect before I arrive at work. Bottom line, I'd rather be able to satisfy an overly demanding boss from home, rather than spending my evenings and Saturdays in the cube.

Just how many channels do we need?

[ChromaticDragon]

I find it rather hilarious how many mechanisms we have for communication these days.

But what is very interesting is the inconsistency of it all.

I use the following means to communicate to my peers at work:

1. Internet Messaging
2. Work Telephone Number
3. Mobile Telephone Number
4. Email
5. Home Telephone Number
6. Pager

Due to cost reduction efforts, many workers no longer have work cell phones nor pagers. But some do. Furthermore, many of us permit others to call us on our personal mobile phones but don't publish these numbers in the official directories.

Next, for a variety of reasons different individuals seem to prefer one channel over another. I often go very long periods without even bothering to check voice-mail (which when coupled with extensive telecommuting renders futile attempts to contact me via that channel). Some in my group simply won't use Internet Messaging. Some aren't as responsive to email.

A lot of this has to do with various coping mechanisms or frustrations. Some who do use IM get rather frustrated when half-a-dozen of us in a virtual meeting all conclude we need to involve them. Simultaneously they'll get half-a-dozen IMs asking questions or inviting them to join the meeting. Others of us cascade avenues of contact to minimize extra work. Those that need to know (i.e. management or close peers) do know how to reach us but all others are kept at arm's length so as to be able to prioritize work and avoid getting buried.

When I here the complaints of these workers regarding Blackberries, it seems as if they're rather afraid of the expectation of fast response to email. At the moment they likely have any old excuse for not responding to email promptly. That'll vanish overnight.

Union, Yes!

[Animats]

Here's how it's done in a union shop. This is an Animation Guild contract.

Time worked on the employee's sixth (6th) workday of the workweek shall be paid at one and one-half (1 1/2) times the hourly rate provided herein for such employee's classification. Time worked on the employee's seventh (7th) workday of the workweek shall be paid at two (2) times the hourly rate provided herein for such employee's classification.

Minimum call for the sixth (6th) and seventh (7th) days shall be four (4) hours. In the event the actual time worked by such employee exceeds the four (4) hour minimum, s/he shall be paid for all time actually worked in 1/10th -hour increments.

All time worked in excess of fourteen (14) consecutive hours (including meal periods) from the time of reporting to work shall be Golden Hours and shall be paid at two (2) times the applicable hourly rate provided herein for such employee's classification.

Now that's the way it's supposed to work. There may be crunches when hours are long, but pay goes up, which discourages employers from overdoing it.

Note the "minimum call" provision. Calling someone at home to do work outside of normal hours triggers that, and costs the employer at least 4 hours pay. Again, emergencies are provided for, but they're billable, so employers don't overdo it.

A couple things

[wilhelm]

Chief executives think that it enhances flexibility for everybody. In my experience, those executives spend more time not in the office than basically everybody else - they're the king, and they can do whatever strikes their fancy. They give presentations to big clients, or go to see about buying other companies, or even just go golfing. Sure, it enhances their flexibility; they can still get their mails when they're (inevitably) elsewhere. For the rest of the suckers, they've gotta be in the office 8 hours a day anyway. So how does that enhance flexibility, when the people are already there?

Second, on a more personal note, when I'm out of the office, I'm not working. Period. I'm not being paid hourly, and I don't feel the need to give away freebies. I don't have to go on-call at my current job, and unless I get scheduled for a downtime window, my work will still be there the next morning when I get back to the office. A few years ago, I realized that work is not everything. The paycheck is important, but there's much more to life than doing work. I have a lot of hobbies which I like doing infinitely more than working, and they occupy my time and interest just fine, thanks. I like visiting friends and traveling to new places, and I don't want to be interrupted while I'm doing either. If my boss and/or company require the level of fealty that a lot of companies seem to require these days, I'm working at the wrong place.

Back when I was going on-call, I would do my on-call duties when it was my turn, and when it wasn't, I was not very nice about calls I received. I never slept well when I was on-call. I had my Christmas morning of opening gifts with my family interrupted by the on-call phone ringing one year. I used to carry a blackberry, and never read emails on it. The volume of what I got was so high, it quickly (like over the course of the first day or two I had it) turned into the boy-who-cried-wolf device; 99.9%+ of the mails didn't need a response, and the rest could have simply been replaced by an SMS or a phone call of "hey, we need help".

It works both ways...

[Awful Truth]

Since your boss can reach you, you're not tethered to your desk. I find I am able to leave my office earlier, now that I am confident that I can address any critical issues that arise during my commute. I take a little bit of my office with me, but I get home much earlier, and more regularly.

New toy factor creates precedence

[fizzer82]

I think for many, the problem is that when you first get it, you create a precedence. 2 years ago I got my first crackberry. It was purely for off-hours support only when I was on call.

First couple weeks I'm thinking, oh hey fun, I can send work emails while bored on the crapper on a Thursday evening. People see the emails, and think I'm "working" all the time. Of course the email could've waited until Friday morning. But after you do that a few times, people are expecting responses.

Learned my lesson, got a smartphone for off-hours stuff at my current employer, but I refuse to answer emails unless I'm scheduled on call for production support. If its important enough, and I'm not on call, they'll actually just call me. Which, of course, I let go to voicemail and only do anything if its a real emergency ;)

It's dependent upon the individual

[Alicat1194]

Surely it's more of a personality thing - either you're going to obsessively check your email, or you aren't.

Admittedly, it could be a problem if management is pushing you to be on call without being 'on call', but there are ways around that too, depending on how devious you want to be (though I'm guessing you can only use the old 'my battery died' excuse a few times before they'll start to cotton on ;) ).

Re:meaning of the word millenia

[yagu]

I don't think you know what the word millenia means.

Maybe, possibly. Or maybe you aren't familiar with, or are unable to recognize hyperbole.

;-)

Re:Respectfully Disagree

[jacksonj04]

I've often wondered about why 'privacy' and 'silent' options on phones are so poor. What I'd like is the ability to set up rules similar to these:
- Calls from this number are emergency, always ring.
- Between 5pm and 9am, and all day weekends, defer this group to voicemail
- When in 'meeting' mode send everyone to voicemail except for my boss, who gets a vibrate alert but not a ring.
On andy device (Can you do those with Blackberry privacy profiles?). Perhaps also with some form of short range 'hinting' available for certain types of places, for example cinemas can suggest to your phone that they enter a discreet mode (Nothing except for your 'emergency' numbers for example), or for hospitals to suggest to phones that they enter a limited usage mode (Intensive care wards, A&E, theatres etc force phones to airplane mode)

Blackberries creep the crap out of me

[BASICman]

About 9 months ago I was about to be a college grad and was looking for work. I went down to CitiGroup in Manhattan to interview with one of their IT programs. While some of the work there sounded interesting, what really frightened me were the Blackberries.

That is, we all were taken out to lunch. And while we're eating, our guides (CitiGroup employees already in the program) kept on checking their Blackberries. It was about then that I decided that any situation where my personal time was expected to be preempted by work without notice was not a situation I wanted to be in.

Boundaries are artificial

[mardukvmbc]

Work/life boundaries are artificial, anyway. I love my blackberry, and I only work 35-45 hours any given work week.

Many, many people give me a hard time when they see me using/wearing it. Frequent comments are that I'm chained to it, that I can never leave work, etc. These couldn't be further from the truth: it's a liberation.

It's just a tool. Like any other tool, the secret is in how you use it. Here's some benefits/advice:

      1. Forward your desk phone to it. Answer all email and phone calls using it. This way, everyone learns to expect a response from you using your blackberry. Now nobody knows where you are. You could be in a meeting, in your office, at the pub, or on the bus home. You now operate in stealth mode and have great freedom of movement and schedule.
      2. Days off become less stressful. If you're in a similar position than I am, taking time off is problematic. I frequently come back to more chaos and work after I take a day off, and it's very stressful worrying about what goes wrong when you're not there. No more. A glance at the 'berry and you can head problems off at the pass. I'd rather spend 30 seconds emailing a corrective note off than 4 hours fixing a problem that's reached upper management the next day.
      3. You can blend work and home life. Many people don't like this, but I do. Sometimes I come in late or leave early, if this means I have to spend a couple of hours on the weekend firing off a few emails when I have a clear head, so be it.
      4. Typically, you can use it for personal use, as long as you don't get out of hand. This means that you don't need to pay for a personal cell phone.
      5. It forces brevity. You don't want to write multiple page emails or have long conversations on the 'berry. Get you message crafted and out there in a short period of time.
      6. Google maps rock on a blackberry. Especially with the "location" feature, which doesn't need GPS.

Re:Not sure about Blackberries...

[egomaniac]

If you were to die tomorrow, this would affect your family for the rest of their lives. You are irreplaceable. Your company would fill your position within days and except for your immediate co-workers, nobody would even care.

Not always the case. I got very tired of the working conditions at $VERY_LARGE_COMPANY and was vaguely entertaining the notion of leaving. Another company that was familiar with my work contacted me out of the blue and asked me for a resume. A week later I had a job offer in hand and gave notice.

$VERY_LARGE_COMPANY panicked. They had three different managers call me and try to convince me to stay, offered me a raise, more stock, better working conditions, etc. I told them that they should have done that before I got so fed up that I decided to quit, but that I would be more than happy to answer emails if they needed help with anything after I left.

I talked to a couple of my former coworkers recently. Turns out that a few months after I left, they gave up on finding a replacement, disbanded my old team and moved further development for the product I had been working on (which is used by millions of people and has at least one book written about it) to Bangalore, where it is languishing. And it's not like it was a crufty mess, either -- it was clean, very thoroughly documented and there were several developers who were very familiar with it. Unfortunately, they were also very junior, and apparently judged unfit to be in charge of it.

The moral of the story? Don't assume that just because you work at $VERY_LARGE_COMPANY that you're just a faceless drone and they'd be able to replace you at the drop of a hat. And conversely, if you're a manager at $VERY_LARGE_COMPANY, make sure you give your employees appropriate treatment before they're ready to walk out the door.

The Sergeants Run the Army

[natoochtoniket]

I am the original techie (architect/engineer/developer/programmer/administrator/etc) in the company. Over 20+ years, the business has grown and gone public, and my systems have become the mission-critical part of the business. There really are some problems for which I am the only person in the world who knows the systems well enough to solve them. And, some of those problems are extremely expensive (per-minute) until they are solved. They pay me well enough that I don't mind a few extra hours occasionally, and a lot of extra hours very occasionally.

A typical "emergency" ends up being most of a night to put the systems back online and stable, followed by a few days of follow up to fix the underlying issue, communicate what happened, and to coordinate who is going to do what to make the fix permanent. We had a bad month last September -- I ended up working 100+ hours/week for several weeks straight. That doesn't happen very often.

To balance, I feel free to take some under-time, whenever I need it, or I judge it to be appropriate. My usual office schedule is probably about 35 hours a week, and much of that time is spent "walking around" (mentoring, tutoring, and a lot of listening).

A few times over the years, a "senior management" type has fussed at me about my hours or schedules. None of those people work here any more. It's amazing how that happens. Some people think they can just issue orders. Others understand that they need to cooperate with the people who can actually make things happen. It doesn't take long to see the difference.

The wise lieutenant understands that the senior sergeants actually run the army, do what they recommend, and don't piss them off. The life expectancy of a foolish lieutenant on the battleground is just a few days.

Re:Not sure about Blackberries...

[bmccartney]

I agree, senior developers are very hard to replace. I actually left my job for a few months. They wouldn't trust/couldn't find a replacement, and bought me back. I now work 20 hours a week for more than twice the pay -- along with a good piece of the action...

Everyone's an Employee, Everyone's a Manager

[severoon]

This is clearly an intractable problem that cannot be solved any other way. Blame the technology!

Seriously, no piece of technology can be blamed for poor time management. Neither can one blame one's manager for allowing that person to manage your time poorly for you.

This is an issue of ownership. Own your job, own your time, and take responsibility for yourself. If everyone's doing what they should be doing, then this discussion is moot. If everyone's not doing what they should be doing, then how about having that discussion instead of some hypothetical potential abuse you fear by those above you?

My attitude toward my managers is this: if you're a good manager, then you're going to remove the obstacles I tell you are blocking me from doing my job. If you're not going to behave that way, then you're irrelevant to my core duties, and I'm going to invert our relationship. In other words, now I'm your manager, in the sense that I have to manage you as yet one more obstacle in my path to completing my tasks. If I do my job as your manager correctly, you'll trundle along happily and never know that I think of you as essentially a child out of your depth. If you become too much of a problem, I'll take me and my record of success somewhere else where I can work with adults.

Re:Not sure about Blackberries...

[hobo sapiens]

Absolutely right, what I mean is this: the large corporation needs your skills. Your skill set / experience may be very costly or difficult to replace. But your loved ones care about *you*. They couldn't find someone else with your same skill sets to replace you, because to them you are irreplaceable. I was just trying to show the absurdity of people misplacing their priorities. Killing yourself for a corporation is crazy. That's all I meant.

Re:employee benefits good; laws of eccon. better

[darth_theta]

One very well establish law of economics is the law of supply and demand. If there is a demand, there will be a supply. If supply exceeds demand, prices will fall. If demand exceeds supply, prices will rise.

Markets are generally efficient in allocating resources and maximizing 'the size of the pie', especially under fantasy conditions (perfect information/competition), but when things get bad enough the supply may have no interest in observing the social conventions (property rights for example) that make the system possible. Unlike the market for most goods, the supply of labor consists of agents capable of starving, dying, stealing, waging war, etc. Thus market forces themselves can result in economic collapse and gross inefficiencies.

Weasel words: 'can contribute'

[darkonc]

This is fine for a sysadmin who is coming in and negotiating a new contract.

It's different for salaried staff who are on an existing contract. They can get the worst of both worlds:

On one hand, they get handed the crackberry and expected to respond to it on lunch, breaks and after hours.

on the other hand, it can be 2-4 years before the next round of contract talks which would deal with this change -- and, even then, the crackberry issue (if it's only one, small department affected) could just fall off the negotiating table due to time constraints, or whatever.

I'd say that it's fine for senior management who are expected to work overtime, handle issues when home or even on vacation and then factor that in to things like the time that they take off.

On the other hand, it really does need to be properly negotiated, beforehand, for middle and lower tiers who don't have the kinds of freedom that upper management have.

As the exec said: it can lead to things like telecomuting, etc. etc. etc. ... but it can also lead to extended hours with no payback. I have no access to the department in question, but I'm going to assume that, if the workers raised enough of a fuss about it to have the project shelved, they probably have some fear that they were going to end up in something more akin to the latter situation.