While I like the EU's effort, I have to wonder how much of this is the responsibility of the individual.
> I have family that answer emails in vacation all the time, that get phone calls like its nothing.
We certainly all know people like this. But, at what point should employees outright refuse to be connected to work on personal time?
I get that people whom have families that depend on them have limited choice in how far they can rebel at work, but perhaps we need young people to be a part of a new culture of work-life balance where interacting with work during any unpaid hours is seen as optional. Only those who have little to lose can stand up to corporate and make a difference.
Personally, I wouldn't work for an employer that wants free time from me. If that means I don't make a lot of money, that's fine by me. Time has value.
Having regulation around this issue can help with professions like the legal profession where the real way up the ladder is by overworking in whatever way possible. For people such as myself, an engineer, where overwork and brown-nosing don't have a 1-to-1 relation with a bigger paycheck or greater job stability, they have more leverage over what their employer can or cannot do to them.
I agree that this should be an individual responsibility, but sadly it just won't work. If you're the only individual in your company who protects their private time, then you'll feel pressure to fall in line. Even if the boss doesn't give you any grief, your coworkers will: "I respond to emails after hours, so why doesn't he?"
The bosses will likely favor those who work more than they should. And often working longer is seen more favorably than working better. This is mainly because it's more visible.
I tend to think that salaried positions and unpaid overtime shouldn't exist. But I'm open to arguments in favor of them. I just have a hard time seeing how they help align incentives of the employer and the employee.
Because we are talking about an EU/US comparison, I'll nit pick this: salaried doesn't have to mean what it means in the US. I, like salaried workers in many (all?) European countries have a contract that says how many hours I have to work per week.
> For people such as myself, an engineer, where overwork and brown-nosing don't have a 1-to-1 relation with a bigger paycheck or greater job stability, they have more leverage over what their employer can or cannot do to them.
Cherish your current employer because they are the vast minority of employers.
> I have family that answer emails in vacation all the time, that get phone calls like its nothing.
We certainly all know people like this. But, at what point should employees outright refuse to be connected to work on personal time?
I get that people whom have families that depend on them have limited choice in how far they can rebel at work, but perhaps we need young people to be a part of a new culture of work-life balance where interacting with work during any unpaid hours is seen as optional. Only those who have little to lose can stand up to corporate and make a difference.
Personally, I wouldn't work for an employer that wants free time from me. If that means I don't make a lot of money, that's fine by me. Time has value.
Having regulation around this issue can help with professions like the legal profession where the real way up the ladder is by overworking in whatever way possible. For people such as myself, an engineer, where overwork and brown-nosing don't have a 1-to-1 relation with a bigger paycheck or greater job stability, they have more leverage over what their employer can or cannot do to them.