▲ | joshuamorton 2 days ago | ||||||||||||||||
This is "companies do on-call badly". For the purposes of this exercise presume that our theoretical on-call process is no worse than Google's SRE structure: You are on-call for a 12 hour shift that is more or less aligned with your waking hours, and you are compensated extra for the time you are on-call outside of normal working hours, whether or not you are called in. You are on-call at most one week per month, on average, and usually less. | |||||||||||||||||
▲ | tharkun__ 2 days ago | parent [-] | ||||||||||||||||
I suppose if you're Google they can theoretically make it so it's more aligned with your waking hours? Do they do it? Most companies don't or can't. I.e. it's _less_ aligned.
How much? Way too many on-call processes in which this is nothing but a few dollars to be able to say "see, we do pay for this, even when you're not called!". As in, way not enough for the number being on-call does to how you go about your day. Always on edge, always awaiting that call / alert that requires you to drop whatever you are currently doing. Preventing you from actually doing/starting certain things.You haven't even mentioned the expected reaction and resolution time and that alone can make a huge difference.
Great, only one week out of four /s That's crazy if you ask me. Going back to preventing you from going about your day in a normal way. There's no "doing on-call well" in how you describe it. | |||||||||||||||||
|