I don't think it's always an explicit choice. I joined a company and despite asking many questions to try and avoid weird policies that could affect work-life balance, after joining I discovered they had certain types of code that had to be shipped outside of their client's business hours. Due to timezone differences, that meant extremely early or late hours for me.
I like the company but absolutely hate this. However I can't just leave because of this. Even if I wanted to, finding a new job is not an easy task and it's exhausting.
This is why laws are important. You don't have to figure this out for every company you interview. If they do it, it's illegal. You can change your default to a reasonable expectation.
> that meant extremely early or late hours for me.
Especially if you had asked deliberate questions to establish work-life-balance and they'd withheld this, I personally wouldn't have just agreed to doing it without discussion of extra remuneration. Despite it clearly being a big deal for you, if you don't provide at least some pushback, it won't even be on their radar as an issue that's causing you pain.
Maybe if it's very occasional, say once a month, it's not too bad to do it. If it's every week, it'll significantly impact your life. If it's every day, or worse several times per week but unpredictable, then your life is being severely disrupted without compensation of that fact.
I remember once, a company ordered us all to work a month of 12-hour days (which itself is a symptom of bad project management, but that's a different discussion). At the meeting when we were told this, lots of people who were worried about losing their jobs just looked unhappy but said nothing. I knew I could find another job easily enough, so I brought up overtime pay. The company really didn't like it - and in fact threatened me later, but there was nothing they could really do, as they weren't in a position to let people go. The manager's reply was that they didn't want to pay overtime because they were worried that people would game it for extra money. I very firmly told them in this meeting (this was still the same meeting) that people didn't actually want to be there any longer than necessary - they wanted to go home to their wives and kids, and fortunately a few of the previously silent people added things like "my wife always complains whenever I have to do overtime". The outcome was that we had another meeting the next day where we were told that the overtime was voluntary and we'd be paid our normal salary. Nobody volunteered. The day after, the offer was increased to 1.5x salary. A couple of people volunteered. Even at the final overtime rate of 2x salary, there were still a few people who said that their personal time with the family was more important than the extra money. The company finally understood that people's time is precious.
In your case, I would simply start a discussion about sharing the responsibility for the out of hours work. Say you can provide detailed instructions, and be available by phone for the first couple of times to provide verbal help if they have any difficulties. At first, they might try to unload it onto someone else who doesn't complain, but you should still push for it to be shared across the wider team, maybe on a rota if it's really essential and with a bonus each time. You might find you have someone who needs the money and volunteers to do extra. And if the managers themselves ever find themselves having to do the process, you can be sure they will hate it, and very quickly find a way of getting the work done at another time in the week instead.
Sometimes, you can rationalise it as part of the nature of the job. My last two jobs have been UK based but working with US teams, but even just working a time-shifted day of 10am-6:30pm still causes me to have to turn down lots of evening events with friends because I simply cannot get there in time for a 7pm start. I really hate this aspect of the job, but in this case I knew the situation coming into it, and my daily rate is high enough that I consider it to be worth it.
> Even if I wanted to, finding a new job is not an easy task and it's exhausting.
I know it's always easy to say, but you don't have to do anything you think is unreasonable. There may be repercussions to that, and I can understand the fear many people have for losing their job, but silently putting up with things that cause you stress or pain just means that the situation never gets addressed.
For most people, I'd suggest the single best thing you can possibly do in your life is to save enough money for a 3-6 month emergency buffer, so if you were to lose your job it's not such a big deal, as long as you can find another job in that timeframe. While this advice is typically given for unexpected layoffs, or dealing with house or car emergencies (all of which are great reasons in their own right), it has the side benefit that you can start to loosen the hold that your job has over your life - you can start to push back on the work-life balance, because the consequences of losing your job are so much less important.
I pretty much agree with everything you said, but I still feel like your take is a bit too absolutist. If you're not afraid of losing your job, all of these are 100% accurate. But if you are, some of this advice can get you fired.
In my personal situation I did pretty much what you said. I brought it up and I'm hoping it will be resolved at some point. The reality is that these kinds of problems can almost always be solved, it just costs resources so companies de-prioritize it constantly.
I definitely agree that some push-back is necessary and a lot of companies have this culture of suffering silently that is very hard to change. It takes a lot of social capital and a fair amount of risk, depending on the type of people in charge. I know that I wouldn't have brought it up if I didn't have a safety net of savings in case I lost my job.
People also forget that they are not alone. Our individualistic society promotes this kind of thinking that sometimes prevents solutions from being reached. As in your example, many folks were unhappy, but nobody wants to be the one that brings it up.
Overall I only really want to emphasize that it's really not always a choice. There's a very big power imbalance in employment relationships that can't be solved by individuals.
I like the company but absolutely hate this. However I can't just leave because of this. Even if I wanted to, finding a new job is not an easy task and it's exhausting.
This is why laws are important. You don't have to figure this out for every company you interview. If they do it, it's illegal. You can change your default to a reasonable expectation.