Those sound like exactly the same issues as working from home, all-remote teams, flex hours, etc., all of which are becoming fairly popular with employers. If companies are OK with having half my team on a different continent, they should be able to deal with me being offline in the afternoons.

I feel like there's a difference between being available 5 days a week 9-5 and actually working those hours, and it seems like you would value the former.

It feels like there could be some sort of compromise between the two, where employees are contactable during full-time hours, but only to organise actual work hours, which are limited and flexible.

Of course, this would be less convenient for managers than simply having full-time hours, but it would save money spent on wages/salaries and result in more productive happy workers. I also feel there should be some way to reduce the administration burden, perhaps a combination of allowing employees to arrange working hours directly with each other and technology to facilitate this.

This is called being on call. Sysadmims and doctors do it.

Yeah sort of - although I kind of meant less about being available to drop everything and work on something immediately vs. just being around to answer questions perhaps that may or may not be urgent.

That's still on call, though. If I'm expected to answer the phone and answer work questions, I can't be hiking in an area with bad cell coverage. I can't be drunk. I can't be in a theater. Perhaps I can't be on a bike ride if I need to have a laptop nearby. On and on - if it's a restriction on my life during non work hours, it's on call.

i think it's still different. being on call means i must be able to work during that time.

being reachable means that you can pass on your problem, and i'll acknowledge it so that we can together decide what the best next step. sometimes we can solve the problem, sometimes we can find someone else who can also help, and sometimes we need to delay working on the problem and reschedule it for another time. but at least then it's scheduled. on a few occasions i am not reachable at all. but that doesn't happen often.

in other words being on call means always to solve the problem immideately, whereas being reachable means i have the option to say no.

That is still work, and an intrusion on what should be free time but no longer is.

but it's different from being on-call. i understand that in many places, on-call requires the same payment as regular work hours for the whole period, not just for the hours worked.

and i don't feel it's an intrusion if being available is optional and not required.

it's essentially how every freelancer works. they are available during business hours. but they don't get paid if they don't get called for work by a client.

If it's after hours then you're on call and you should be paid to be on call.

when i am coding and i am in the zone you are not going get an answer out of me until the day is over either. so i don't think that's the issue here. if everyone needs to be available for quick questions then maybe there is an issue with how the work is structured, and how knowledge is shared.

What sort of questions do you find your self wishing the part timers were around to answer?

When there is a separation of responsibilities and not enough knowledge overlap or documentation, then people are more likely to feel stranded when their colleagues go offline.

That team has created something with a dangerously low bus factor (especially the poor docs), and is lucky to be getting a warning early enough to resolve it. Turnover does happen sooner or later.

I work with offshore developers and the general idea is that you're reachable by phone/slack/email off-hours -- both them and myself. Obviously with delay.. but for simple questions/statuses it's not concerning.

But if it was actually blackout, it'd be untenable.