On-Call - some advice needed.

[Boring_Chris]

I work in IT and I'm paid to be 'on-call' should anything go wrong.

I've been the only engineer on the rota for near four years. It makes up a substantial part of my take-home pay. I don't mind doing it and, obviously, enjoy the money!

Somewhat out of the blue, the big boss decided that the rota should be spit. He's drafted in someone who's not really suitable to cover the on-call responsibilities. Obviously this will reduce my earnings.

Aside from the obvious arguments, where do I stand here? The on-call isn't part of my original contract. It was an addition. Do I have any real basis to argue against the changes? (again, other than 'this new guy isn't suitable' etc etc)

[Sir Bagalot]

Have you tried asking your boss?

The very fact it was all done without asking you for your opinions should tell you everything you need to know

[Boring_Chris]

Sir Bagalot said:

Have you tried asking your boss?

The very fact it was all done without asking you for your opinions should tell you everything you need to know

She's just been removed from the contract, effectively sacked (without consultation)

That I wasn't included is more a reflection of the working practice of upper management, than the situation at hand. But I understand your point.

Edit; for clarity - my boss has just been removed, with a replacement yet to be defined. The 'big boss' is someone I have very little contact with.

[rog007]

What are the terms for being on-call?

Unusual to only have one individual fulfilling the task as assume it limits your activities (travel/out of mobile contact/drinking etc)?

In terms of the effect on you; practice & precedent does have some impact on your position.

Notwithstanding the cash; might it be more helpful to have 2 in the pool from a resilience perspective?

[Boring_Chris]

The terms are basically; answer your phone within 15 minutes, logged in within the hour.

I've never had an issue fulfilling the on-call duties. I've pretty much taken my laptop everywhere! As much as I'd like a little freedom, I like the money more.

'Practice and Precedent' seems to cover what I was thinking of. But looks like I'd have to take them to court to have anything enforced?

[joshleb]

Look forward to having some nights where you can switch your phone off and not worry about anything!

[randlemarcus]

Boring_Chris said:

The terms are basically; answer your phone within 15 minutes, logged in within the hour.

I've never had an issue fulfilling the on-call duties. I've pretty much taken my laptop everywhere! As much as I'd like a little freedom, I like the money more.

'Practice and Precedent' seems to cover what I was thinking of. But looks like I'd have to take them to court to have anything enforced?

Option A: Argue for you to keep the sole on-call status, and the money. Not hugely sensible from a business perspective.
Option B: Job market, and include the on-call money as part of your base salary. Same money, less on-call, small risk, but probably some fun too.
Option C: withdraw on-call service, take the money hit, and see if they change their minds with no viable on-call resource.

All good fun.

[Boring_Chris]

randlemarcus said:

Option A: Argue for you to keep the sole on-call status, and the money. Not hugely sensible from a business perspective.
Option B: Job market, and include the on-call money as part of your base salary. Same money, less on-call, small risk, but probably some fun too.
Option C: withdraw on-call service, take the money hit, and see if they change their minds with no viable on-call resource.

All good fun.

Yeah this is pretty much what I thought, but was kind of hoping there'd be some legal-speak magic words that might make Option A easier.

[randlemarcus]

IANAL. Others are, and may or may not see this. I think you are referring to Custom and Practice: https://www.crunch.co.uk/blog/small-business-advic...

Some folks are professionals at this, but you paying them money means they give you insured advice. Depending on the level of money, it may be worth it.

Again, IANAL, so the link above may be horseapples.

[PurpleTurtle]

I was in the same position as you OP, did on-call on a rota basis for 10+years, not stipulated in my original contract, just something that came along and was asked if I would do it, on a 1 week in 4 rota. It equated to a gross of around £10k PA for me, so not to be sniffed at.

It went out the window when my Client Co outsourced a lot of its operations, I had to suck it up at the time, but did get a rise on my next renewal - it didn't cover the on call money, but did mean I was never on call.

The bit that leaps out of your post to me is He's drafted in someone who's not really suitable to cover the on-call responsibilities. If that is the case surely you just need to wait for the first major FUBAR then watch this person make a mess of it? Then, when they ask you to sort it out, tell them you'll only do it if you reinstate your on-call allowance.

However, your big boss has probably spotted that one person doing all the on call is a risk - it is. If you leave or get hit by a bus then it leaves them highly exposed in this area. With respect, in that kind of role a person only gets better at it by firefighting on-call events as they happen - we were all pretty clueless at it when we started out - you hogging the full on-call schedule won't allow anyone else to get better at it,

Edited by PurpleTurtle on Monday 24th July 17:08

[zeDuffMan]

I would let it fall apart and reap the rewards later on when the new guy makes a hash of it all.

I suppose you could try it on and claim that as you've done the job singlehandedly for so long and it's an essential role for the business, you would be due some way of pay protection to make up for the fact you will be losing a significant amount of pay. I wouldn't expect that to sit well though.

To be on call for four years continuously is pretty crazy though. It must be hell having to live with your phone so much.

[fat80b]

PurpleTurtle said:

However, your big boss has probably spotted that one person doing all the on call is a risk - it is. If you leave or get hit by a bus then it leaves them highly exposed in this area. With respect, in that kind of role a person only gets better at it by firefighting on-call events as they happen - we were all pretty clueless at it when we started out - you hogging the full on-call schedule won't allow anyone else to get better at it,

This was the way I read it. Big boss man is just doing the "right thing" for the business and needs to have a backup plan to the current single point of failure should you choose to leave etc.

I would have thought that you should sit down with the big boss - having no relationship with him is fine. Arrange a meeting where you can discuss your concerns.

I would however be careful putting down the new support person though as if management have decided that 2 people doing this role is better than 1, they won't want to hear any negatives.

I'd phrase it as something like "It's great to have x on board assisting me with the on call role but...." and try and suggest that they give you a salary bump to fix the difference.

After all, if the reasoning behind the change is that they want to have a backup, the last thing they actually want is for you to leave as they would then be in a far worse position.

You could end up here with the money and fewer hours on call - win-win........

Bob

[Countdown]

Boring_Chris said:

I work in IT and I'm paid to be 'on-call' should anything go wrong.

I've been the only engineer on the rota for near four years. It makes up a substantial part of my take-home pay. I don't mind doing it and, obviously, enjoy the money!

Somewhat out of the blue, the big boss decided that the rota should be spit. He's drafted in someone who's not really suitable to cover the on-call responsibilities. Obviously this will reduce my earnings.

Aside from the obvious arguments, where do I stand here? The on-call isn't part of my original contract. It was an addition. Do I have any real basis to argue against the changes? (again, other than 'this new guy isn't suitable' etc etc)

What makes you think the other guy isn't suitable?

[Boring_Chris]

Countdown said:

What makes you think the other guy isn't suitable?

Lack of knowledge and experience. The last time he was tasked with an out of hours call (scheduled overtime), he ended up calling me for advice. He's also too far removed from the local offices to offer any more than telephone support.

[Boring_Chris]

Appreciate the responses (read them all - thank you!)

I also appreciate that nobody has said 'stop being greedy', which is essentially what I'm being (but who'd just give up extra money?!)

I'll just outline the pros and cons as best I can, and play the long game if (when) my initial arguments are dismissed (big boss has ignored my first email - which was expected. He can't lose if he doesn't play! Ha)

[Countdown]

Boring_Chris said:

Countdown said:

What makes you think the other guy isn't suitable?

Lack of knowledge and experience. The last time he was tasked with an out of hours call (scheduled overtime), he ended up calling me for advice. He's also too far removed from the local offices to offer any more than telephone support.

Fair enough. I would suggest that the best way for "The Boss" to understand that is for the other guy to demonstrate his lack of competence. If the Boss sees it with his won eyes, and has to deal with the consequences, he's more likely to review the situation IYSWIM.

Unfortunately anything you say will come across as being motivated out of self-interest

[abzmike]

OP - So you are basically on call 24x7x365? Seems crazy to me, and probably illegal if there is any penalty of you not being able to login for what ever reason.

[GT03ROB]

This is going to be of no help to the OP...... but it just goes to show how bosses sometimes cannot win.

I swear I've seen posts here asking for advice when somebody has been asked to be the sole on-call support person & how that was unfair as they now always had to be available with their phone !!

[Boring_Chris]

abzmike said:

OP - So you are basically on call 24x7x365? Seems crazy to me, and probably illegal if there is any penalty of you not being able to login for what ever reason.

Actually when the on-call was first brought about it was mentioned that 'disciplinary action' may be taken should you be unable to field a call. I asked for clarification (who'd not when the term 'disciplinary' is included?!) but was largely laughed out the office.

So, the penalties are probably too vague to realistically enforce (maybe that's why I was laughed out? I may have missed the glaring hole in the contract that everyone else could see very clearly!)

With regards to being 'on' 24x7x365... I just really love money. Ha.

(actually I juts quite like my job as is - I've done it for years and it's nice to have the responsibility. The 'work' (ie. maintenance and repair) is the least taxing part of the job (the most being the human beings involved)

[Boring_Chris]

GT03ROB said:

This is going to be of no help to the OP...... but it just goes to show how bosses sometimes cannot win.

I swear I've seen posts here asking for advice when somebody has been asked to be the sole on-call support person & how that was unfair as they now always had to be available with their phone !!

Send them my way - I'll do it! ; )