nick at ccl4.org
Tue May 8 16:19:08 BST 2007
On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 03:59:42PM +0100, David Cantrell wrote:
[what Dave says, for he is right]
> But being on-call is entirely different from the occasional emergency.
> On-call means you have to be available and capable. So no buggering off
> up a mountain, or going to the cinema, or getting pished. Considering
> that the only reason I work is so that I can do things like bugger off
> up mountains, buy books n beer, eat, have a roof over my head, I clearly
> want to minimise the amount of time that I waste for my employer. That
> means I am ... disinclined to do on-call. And certainly not for 40 quid
> a month of DSL.
I'm not sure that they are the only reasons I work, but...
My principle non-computing hobby seems to take place in an area of mobile
phone non-coverage. Were I to be "on call", and doing my job as diligently
as I feel I should be (which may be more than my employer expects), then it
is wrong for me to intentionally put myself out of contact.
So, if I'm the peon-on-call, I have to change my plans, even if I'm never
called. There's a heck of a lot of difference between "ensuring that you
*are* available" and "best effort". I don't really object to best effort.
But yes, I may well be uncontactable. Or contactable but unable to help.
More information about the london.pm