Should holiday email be deleted?(bbc.co.uk)
bbc.co.uk
Should holiday email be deleted?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-28786117
73 comments
As a contractor at Daimler, and somebody who is technical works for a German company this trend is catching on in a lot of Germany, and frankly I'm tempted to try it myself.
It solves a lot of problems in a single blow, and most problems people have with it can be answered by:
You shouldn't use your work email for that
or the opposite
You shouldn't use your personal email for that
It solves a lot of problems in a single blow, and most problems people have with it can be answered by:
You shouldn't use your work email for that
or the opposite
You shouldn't use your personal email for that
It depends, I think there are probably a reasonable number of automated processes that could be messed up by something like this. For example, reminders that you need to do some sort of training or HR process could get black holed; creating a larger problem in the long run (e.g., instead of doing it at your leisure you have to do it in a big rush).
That isn't something that falls under your "you shouldn't use your work email for that", and it may be an acceptable trade-off; but it is certainly something that could cause pain. Probably not as much pain as the number of emails you'd wade through anyway, but something to consider.
That isn't something that falls under your "you shouldn't use your work email for that", and it may be an acceptable trade-off; but it is certainly something that could cause pain. Probably not as much pain as the number of emails you'd wade through anyway, but something to consider.
Most automated processes thats report to one and only maintainer who's currently on vacation sound like a problem. Responsibilities and event emails should shift accordingly with vacation.
Also HR department invitations that do not have a secondary reminder, or take place while an employee is on vacation sound like the issue of the HR department not that employee in particular.
Also HR department invitations that do not have a secondary reminder, or take place while an employee is on vacation sound like the issue of the HR department not that employee in particular.
This is a brilliant idea. A corporate email account gets lots of emails: people leaving, people joining, meeting requests, missing mobiles, cars parked wrong, fire drills, etc. Not to mention broken builds, etc.
Holiday email within work environment where there is someone else covering for you suould all be deleted. In the case of Dailmer, the out of office clearly explains that the email is going to be deleted.
Holiday email within work environment where there is someone else covering for you suould all be deleted. In the case of Dailmer, the out of office clearly explains that the email is going to be deleted.
I agree with deleting the emails. The US is woefully behind Europe in this regard. I would like to see a French-style work week, with the added goodness of France's recent email/phone call law forbidding employers from contacting employees after a certain time.
I would like, at the very least, to see a federal law forbidding more than 40 hours max. The world has really deteriorated in regard to family life since the 80s. When everything started becoming 24-7, that's when the decline began. I remember the sanity of the 80s whilst living in a couple of countries in western Europe at the time. The pace of life was better, more family time, the fun challenge of getting a popular restaurant reservation before they closed at a sane hour. It wasn't all about profit then like it is now.
I make it clear to my current employer that I don't do nights and weekends. When I leave the office at 1700, I'm unemployed. My wife and children come first.
I would like, at the very least, to see a federal law forbidding more than 40 hours max. The world has really deteriorated in regard to family life since the 80s. When everything started becoming 24-7, that's when the decline began. I remember the sanity of the 80s whilst living in a couple of countries in western Europe at the time. The pace of life was better, more family time, the fun challenge of getting a popular restaurant reservation before they closed at a sane hour. It wasn't all about profit then like it is now.
I make it clear to my current employer that I don't do nights and weekends. When I leave the office at 1700, I'm unemployed. My wife and children come first.
> I would like, at the very least, to see a federal law forbidding more than 40 hours max
This seems like a nice sentiment but it comes across and being out of touch with the general public.
Many, people need to work more than 40 hours, pretty much anyone who works for an hourly wage that is around the minimum wage level, a week just to make ends meet. If your law is enacted you've just doomed a non negligible portion of the population to poverty.
How would you even enforce your no more than 40 hours a week? What about anyone with a small business, or a lawyer who can bill $400/hour, should he be told he can't make any more money this week?
We just ran a new gas line in our house, the plumber doing it was doing side jobs to save up for a Harley. Your law of not permitting anyone to work more than 40 hours a week seems to make the world a worse place than it is now:(
To clarify, the op said 40 hours should be the most anyone is allowed to work, no exceptions, I'm fine with a law that says no one can be force to work more than 40 hours. But limiting people to 40 hours just seems like a really bad law.
As to the email deletion, I like the idea but it seems like a nightmare from a compliance perspective:)
The biggest down side I can see is that most services only send out one out of office email. What if someone is gone for more than a few days. I"m likely to forget that they are out, or now I have to add everyone's holiday schedule and all correspondence I want them to know about, to the list of things I need to keep in my head so I can resend emails when they come back. I'm scared already:(
This seems like a nice sentiment but it comes across and being out of touch with the general public.
Many, people need to work more than 40 hours, pretty much anyone who works for an hourly wage that is around the minimum wage level, a week just to make ends meet. If your law is enacted you've just doomed a non negligible portion of the population to poverty.
How would you even enforce your no more than 40 hours a week? What about anyone with a small business, or a lawyer who can bill $400/hour, should he be told he can't make any more money this week?
We just ran a new gas line in our house, the plumber doing it was doing side jobs to save up for a Harley. Your law of not permitting anyone to work more than 40 hours a week seems to make the world a worse place than it is now:(
To clarify, the op said 40 hours should be the most anyone is allowed to work, no exceptions, I'm fine with a law that says no one can be force to work more than 40 hours. But limiting people to 40 hours just seems like a really bad law.
As to the email deletion, I like the idea but it seems like a nightmare from a compliance perspective:)
The biggest down side I can see is that most services only send out one out of office email. What if someone is gone for more than a few days. I"m likely to forget that they are out, or now I have to add everyone's holiday schedule and all correspondence I want them to know about, to the list of things I need to keep in my head so I can resend emails when they come back. I'm scared already:(
> Many, people need to work more than 40 hours, pretty much anyone who works for an hourly wage that is around the minimum wage level, a week just to make ends meet. If your law is enacted you've just doomed a non negligible portion of the population to poverty.
As a European what that says to me is that the minimum wage is too low and should be increased.
And equally there are people today who have to desperately hope that they get assigned enough hours this month to get out of poverty. Restrictions on maximum weekly working time would help those people.
> What about anyone with a small business
Less than 5 employees or a meaningful ownership stake and you're probably exempt, as with most of these kind of regulations.
> a lawyer who can bill $400/hour, should he be told he can't make any more money this week?
Uh, yes?
> To clarify, the op said 40 hours should be the most anyone is allowed to work, no exceptions, I'm fine with a law that says no one can be force to work more than 40 hours. But limiting people to 40 hours just seems like a really bad law.
Economic reality is that that distinction kind of disappears. If unpleasant practice X makes employers more money, and you can volunteer for unpleasant practice X, pretty soon the only way to get a job is if you "volunteer" for X, at least on the low end.
As a European what that says to me is that the minimum wage is too low and should be increased.
And equally there are people today who have to desperately hope that they get assigned enough hours this month to get out of poverty. Restrictions on maximum weekly working time would help those people.
> What about anyone with a small business
Less than 5 employees or a meaningful ownership stake and you're probably exempt, as with most of these kind of regulations.
> a lawyer who can bill $400/hour, should he be told he can't make any more money this week?
Uh, yes?
> To clarify, the op said 40 hours should be the most anyone is allowed to work, no exceptions, I'm fine with a law that says no one can be force to work more than 40 hours. But limiting people to 40 hours just seems like a really bad law.
Economic reality is that that distinction kind of disappears. If unpleasant practice X makes employers more money, and you can volunteer for unpleasant practice X, pretty soon the only way to get a job is if you "volunteer" for X, at least on the low end.
Alas, this isn't a logic problem, it's a values problem.
* I've been trained by my fascist, FOX news, libertarian upbringing that business comes first, even if it subjects 99.99% of the population to utter misery, sickness and death.
* I've been trained by my socialist, marxist, tree-hugger upbringing that people come first^H^H^H^H second (after seals and endangered fungi), even if everyone goes bankrupt and starves and our enemies overthrow and kill us.
Yeah, the "other guy's" values look pretty stupid, don't they? (pick which ever "other guy" suits your fancy)
Even if the other guy's values aren't a caricature, it's still hard to agree on what should be the outcome.
* I've been trained by my fascist, FOX news, libertarian upbringing that business comes first, even if it subjects 99.99% of the population to utter misery, sickness and death.
* I've been trained by my socialist, marxist, tree-hugger upbringing that people come first^H^H^H^H second (after seals and endangered fungi), even if everyone goes bankrupt and starves and our enemies overthrow and kill us.
Yeah, the "other guy's" values look pretty stupid, don't they? (pick which ever "other guy" suits your fancy)
Even if the other guy's values aren't a caricature, it's still hard to agree on what should be the outcome.
I'm referring to employers requiring more than 40 hours, not valid personal choice. I'm all for you "choosing" to work extra, with the caveat of double time on the paycheck.
I might be wrong, UK law is different than the rest of the EU (you can opt out of the working time directive here).
That said, isn't it a 40 hour max on contracted hours? Otherwise it is completely un-policeable. The idea is that you can't lose your job for refusing to work past 40 hours (i.e. refusing to take overtime). But you are allowed to work the overtime if you so please.
That said, isn't it a 40 hour max on contracted hours? Otherwise it is completely un-policeable. The idea is that you can't lose your job for refusing to work past 40 hours (i.e. refusing to take overtime). But you are allowed to work the overtime if you so please.
40 hours/week is maximum your contract in the UK can oblige you to work. Having said that, when I got my job in the games industry I had to sign a statement stating that I voluntarily decide to work over that limit(but I am not required to). And no, overtime is not paid.
48 hours. http://www.hse.gov.uk/contact/faqs/workingtimedirective.htm
It is not legal to make you sign the opt out.
It is not legal to make you sign the opt out.
Ok 48 hours. And yes, I was told I don't have to sign it, but it's one of these situations when not signing it is ill advised. And in the games industry if I was working more than 48 hours per week it would be because I want to,not because I have to.
I think the comment was geared more towards corporate America where salaried employees are often expected to work 60+ hours per week with no overtime pay or added benefits for the extra effort. At least I'd hope their idea for the law wouldn't limit hourly employees who need to work multiple jobs just to get by.
Your company giving you the option to auto-delete holiday emails and the government enforcing a 40 hour work week are very different things. The Daimler approach gives a socially-acceptable option for people who want absolute downtime, which most people seem to agree is a good thing; your proposed law would remove people's opportunity to work harder and in a more concentrated fashion to give themselves other options.
Your valuable time may be evenings and weekends with your family, mine may be being able to take a year out to travel or (although many European countries certainly don't seem to appreciate this), I may actually enjoy my job! In those instances, working a 70 hour work week may actually be what I want to do.
There's nothing stopping you having a corporate culture that encourages 40 hour working weeks, and if that's what works for you then by all means, find an employer who will respect that, but you can't expect everybody to be forced to follow that lifestyle, and you can't expect an employer not to take it into consideration when they decide who they want to hire.
Your valuable time may be evenings and weekends with your family, mine may be being able to take a year out to travel or (although many European countries certainly don't seem to appreciate this), I may actually enjoy my job! In those instances, working a 70 hour work week may actually be what I want to do.
There's nothing stopping you having a corporate culture that encourages 40 hour working weeks, and if that's what works for you then by all means, find an employer who will respect that, but you can't expect everybody to be forced to follow that lifestyle, and you can't expect an employer not to take it into consideration when they decide who they want to hire.
> The world has really deteriorated in regard to family life since the 80s.
How much of that is due to both parents working, rather than the wife staying home and managing the family?
How much of that is due to both parents working, rather than the wife staying home and managing the family?
That is likely part of the perceived problem, but seems lacking. When the wife stayed home to manage the family, we had the husband working 40 hour weeks. Now, the gender equalization is not taking the form of the 40 hours being shared between the spouses, but rather the 80 hours shared between them.
There is overhead on jobs. Unless performing the most simple mind numbing factory assembly line work, 2 x 20hrs << 1 x 40 hrs. There's also double the time wasted on commutes.
Then there coordination overhead in the family - even if the two parents work 20 hours each, it's unlikely that it's exactly divided so one is always home. Child care costs a lot of money. Eating out costs money.
But the most important reason: People still want careers and a career on half the working time takes in extremely simple terms at least twice as long.
Then there coordination overhead in the family - even if the two parents work 20 hours each, it's unlikely that it's exactly divided so one is always home. Child care costs a lot of money. Eating out costs money.
But the most important reason: People still want careers and a career on half the working time takes in extremely simple terms at least twice as long.
My wife and I worked out a plan: we moved very close to her parents who agreed to watch our children for three days a week. I work M-F days only, no nights, no weekends. My wife works Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. Together we make enough to pays the bills, save a little, and have a bit of fun. The children are taken care of first and foremost.
Sometimes you have to sacrifice to make do for your family by moving, whatever. It's always better to sacrifice money than time from your children. As long as you are making it and saving a little and have a bit for holidays, nothing else really matters. Getting rich should never be the goal.
Sometimes you have to sacrifice to make do for your family by moving, whatever. It's always better to sacrifice money than time from your children. As long as you are making it and saving a little and have a bit for holidays, nothing else really matters. Getting rich should never be the goal.
This strikes me as a justification for your lifestyle rather than a solid argument that can convince other people. There's nothing wrong with you living your life the way you want, but saying "Getting rich should never be the goal." is just plain wrong for some people.
Your tone seems to me like you once wanted to be rich, but have since given up and are now trying to convince others that they should just give up too.
Your tone seems to me like you once wanted to be rich, but have since given up and are now trying to convince others that they should just give up too.
[deleted]
To be honest, I've never desired to be well off. I'm a minimalist by nature and the less I have to worry about, the better. I make enough to do what I need and want to do. I'm content with what I have. I am fortunate enough to have marries a woman with the same sentiments, so we neither want nor need much beyond the basics -- and decent espresso and interesting travel.
I don't think laws are the answer. Can anyone say spending time with family and friends are top priorities all day, everyday? I wouldn't want laws telling me they have to be. Sometimes making money to support your family is more important than spending time with them. Some people don't have a family to spend time with. Some people don't like their family or have any friends. Some people like their work and that's where they want to be more often than not.
And some people have family and friends, but work 12 hours a day because everyone else is. I am very happy that in the EU there are hard limits on how much you can work in certain professions, when overworking is actually dangerous to other people - like truck drivers. You can only drive for 8 hours max before having to take a mandatory 12 hour stop - and then there is another 24 hour stop that you have to take once per week. If you get caught driving longer than limited by law the fines are heavy so everyone sticks to them, and people breaking the limits cause outrage in media as creating unsafe situations on the road. Of course you can drive your own personal car for as long as you want, it's only commercial drivers who have this limitation.
If one person works late then other people have to match them. So you end up with a tragedy of the commons/race to the bottom. Which is exactly the situation that calls for laws.
That's a really interesting problem, but falling back on laws to protect you from it seems to be accepting a sub-par solution without having fully explored the issue. This is something that ought to be solved by measurement and corporate culture - if you can properly measure your output, this time-based race to the bottom shouldn't be an issue, it becomes an output-based race to the top, and there's nothing wrong with that, you just bow out of the race when you reach your work-life balance.
Quoting PG on HN is perhaps a bit like preaching to the choir but this is very appropriate: http://www.paulgraham.com/wealth.html
Quoting PG on HN is perhaps a bit like preaching to the choir but this is very appropriate: http://www.paulgraham.com/wealth.html
> if you can properly measure your output, this time-based race to the bottom shouldn't be an issue, it becomes an output-based race to the top, and there's nothing wrong with that, you just bow out of the race when you reach your work-life balance.
True, but the assumption is false. As an industry we're terrible at measuring outputs, and sadly this causes management to fall back on measuring inputs.
And even that, you don't get a free choice of. Working 75% as long as the rest of your team doesn't get you 75% of the salary, it gets you fired.
True, but the assumption is false. As an industry we're terrible at measuring outputs, and sadly this causes management to fall back on measuring inputs.
And even that, you don't get a free choice of. Working 75% as long as the rest of your team doesn't get you 75% of the salary, it gets you fired.
I in fact do work 75% time for 75% salary, and somehow I managed to work it out as a mutually voluntary arrangement with my employer without using the coercive power of the State.
Good for you, but that requires an unusually enlightened employer. There were some people who managed to arrange safe jobs in the pre-OHSA days. Doesn't mean government intervention wasn't necessary.
Government intervention is only required when "The People" want something, but won't stand up for themselves to get it.
So instead they get their bully friend to force others to comply with their wishes.
So instead they get their bully friend to force others to comply with their wishes.
The "government" doesn't exist independently of the people (even when it fails to represent them equally, either through unequal interest or unequal capacity to exert influence.) It is a mechanism through which the people "stand up for themselves to get" things that they want.
Any kind of government is a beast that feeds on the fears of the weak and the abilities of the strong. Pretending that it is simply a machine that produces an output based on the input signal of the voters is disingenuous.
> If one person works late then other people have to match them
or risk being seen as working less hard as that person.
You missed a pretty important bit.
or risk being seen as working less hard as that person.
You missed a pretty important bit.
Doesn't this assume that people actually read the out-of-office message?
Just this summer, I had a request with a very specific deadline from a client. I was about to go on vacation, and the deadline was for about a week after I was going to be back. I communicated to the client when I would take care of her request (basically the day after I was going to be back in the office,) but didn't mention that I would be out of the office for the next week.
While I was out of the office, she panicked and decided she needed us to complete her request immediately. If she had updated her original ticket, or opened a new one, it would have been sent to whoever was covering my work while I was out of town. She also didn't bother trying to call our office, which would have resulted in the same thing. Instead she decided her best bet was to email me directly, not once, not twice, but three times, and apparently was blind to my out of office replies all three times.
She finally called our office and yelled at one of the other people here because I wasn't replying to her emails. My coworker told her I was out of town, and she insisted she never received my out of office replies. My coworker ended up sending me test emails from both internal and external email addresses to verify my account was sending the out of office replies, which it was.
While I was out of the office, she panicked and decided she needed us to complete her request immediately. If she had updated her original ticket, or opened a new one, it would have been sent to whoever was covering my work while I was out of town. She also didn't bother trying to call our office, which would have resulted in the same thing. Instead she decided her best bet was to email me directly, not once, not twice, but three times, and apparently was blind to my out of office replies all three times.
She finally called our office and yelled at one of the other people here because I wasn't replying to her emails. My coworker told her I was out of town, and she insisted she never received my out of office replies. My coworker ended up sending me test emails from both internal and external email addresses to verify my account was sending the out of office replies, which it was.
If i see Out of Office in the title I just delete it.
If you send a mail and don't even read the response, why the hell did you send the mail?
As mentioned elsewhere, most people just read the title that says "out of office" and take action based on that. If it's low priority, they'll just let it wait until the person returns. They certainly wouldn't expect it to be deleted.
I think this is misguided and would seem to reinforce bad practices, poor etiquette and bad culture.
bad practices, i.e. if you want work life balance, don't check your email when you aren't in the office. Manage your co-workers expectations that you won't be replying when you aren't on the clock, don't work for a boss that has the expectation that you are functionally on-call at times when you should be with your family and friends.
bad etiquette, i.e. stop sending so much email yourself and stop responding to email that doesn't merit a response. OOO messages and other auto-responders are vile and just add to the mess - calendar requests, project updates, FYIs, CC"s, etc. Most of this messaging traffic is just unnecessary and only adds to the weight of one's inbox without making much of a contribution. Deal with your messaging in your app - turn off the notifications and update options and actually log into your calendar once or twice a day to view requests. Same goes for the rest of your web apps (I'm thinking of project and task tools like Asana, et al).
bad culture, i.e. be part of the solution, tell people when their email practices are dysfunctional. We have this thing at our office where staff will send out an email to 10 people asking "when is a good time to get together?" which triggers an avalanche of 25 messages all with conflicting instructions and requests about what might be the best time. I actively ask people to use my calendar and ignore the rest of the email on the subject. People are slowly starting to use my calendar for this sort of thing. Same goes for after-hours email. If you don't want people to think you'll respond after-hours, don't send email after hours! In the most extreme cases, if you can't change culture, then find a better place to work. Life is too short.
Corporate policy along the lines of "delete email while you are on vacation" just serve to reinforce all of these other bad practices. Email can be a force for good, you just have to use it that way.
bad practices, i.e. if you want work life balance, don't check your email when you aren't in the office. Manage your co-workers expectations that you won't be replying when you aren't on the clock, don't work for a boss that has the expectation that you are functionally on-call at times when you should be with your family and friends.
bad etiquette, i.e. stop sending so much email yourself and stop responding to email that doesn't merit a response. OOO messages and other auto-responders are vile and just add to the mess - calendar requests, project updates, FYIs, CC"s, etc. Most of this messaging traffic is just unnecessary and only adds to the weight of one's inbox without making much of a contribution. Deal with your messaging in your app - turn off the notifications and update options and actually log into your calendar once or twice a day to view requests. Same goes for the rest of your web apps (I'm thinking of project and task tools like Asana, et al).
bad culture, i.e. be part of the solution, tell people when their email practices are dysfunctional. We have this thing at our office where staff will send out an email to 10 people asking "when is a good time to get together?" which triggers an avalanche of 25 messages all with conflicting instructions and requests about what might be the best time. I actively ask people to use my calendar and ignore the rest of the email on the subject. People are slowly starting to use my calendar for this sort of thing. Same goes for after-hours email. If you don't want people to think you'll respond after-hours, don't send email after hours! In the most extreme cases, if you can't change culture, then find a better place to work. Life is too short.
Corporate policy along the lines of "delete email while you are on vacation" just serve to reinforce all of these other bad practices. Email can be a force for good, you just have to use it that way.
>> bad practices, i.e. if you want work life balance, don't check your email when you aren't in the office. Manage your co-workers expectations that you won't be replying when you aren't on the clock, don't work for a boss that has the expectation that you are functionally on-call at times when you should be with your family and friends.
>> Corporate policy along the lines of "delete email while you are on vacation"...
This doesn't seem to be anything to do with the article..?
It's not about whether or not you should check email outside of office hours (NO!) or keep your inbox empty, it's about auto-filing ALL email to the trash when on vacation. You know the situation - you come back from vacation to find several hundred emails in a backlog that you then have to sort through. Most are no longer relevant after a week or two away, and if they are important people can follow up now you're back.
>> Corporate policy along the lines of "delete email while you are on vacation"...
This doesn't seem to be anything to do with the article..?
It's not about whether or not you should check email outside of office hours (NO!) or keep your inbox empty, it's about auto-filing ALL email to the trash when on vacation. You know the situation - you come back from vacation to find several hundred emails in a backlog that you then have to sort through. Most are no longer relevant after a week or two away, and if they are important people can follow up now you're back.
No, we're on the same page. My point is that you should never receive most of those email in the first place. If they don't get sent (because there is a functional email culture in the workplace) then there's no need for dysfunctional policy to remedy the issue.
Fair enough, and yes there is a lot of unnecessary email sent.
However I do think there are perfectly legit emails, particularly in a large organisation, that have a very limited shelf-life and qualify for both should-be-sent and should-be-auto-trashed.
Examples - "Are you still heading up that project?" "Hey, I have this tech issue, can you help?". In both of these cases a quick reply would be useful, but in a week's time it's likely the issue has gone away or the person is now so stuck they'll remind you about it.
I guess you could argue that email is not the appropriate comms method for those questions...
However I do think there are perfectly legit emails, particularly in a large organisation, that have a very limited shelf-life and qualify for both should-be-sent and should-be-auto-trashed.
Examples - "Are you still heading up that project?" "Hey, I have this tech issue, can you help?". In both of these cases a quick reply would be useful, but in a week's time it's likely the issue has gone away or the person is now so stuck they'll remind you about it.
I guess you could argue that email is not the appropriate comms method for those questions...
I think what many people fail to realize, in a corporate setting, is that email is asynchronous communication. Email is not chat, and we need to approach it differently. When I send an email, I expect an answer when you get time--if it's something I need within 24-48 hours, I will call, visit, or IM you if you're online.
I'd go further. If its urgent, I'll chat or text. If its complex, I'll call.
I'd scatterplot all these forms of communication against latency and fidelity. Phone is lowest-latency and highest-fidelity (except for in-person of course). Email is high latency and high-fidelity. All the chat/text/twitter stuff is lower latency and spread across the fidelity spectrum.
They all have their place. I hate it when someone mis-uses them, for instance calling me and leaving a message. Phone is low-latency and high-fidelity; a voice message is the opposite corner (no ability to go back-and-forth; I won't see it for hours/days if at all). Voice mail is the worst possible fallback for a phone call.
I'd scatterplot all these forms of communication against latency and fidelity. Phone is lowest-latency and highest-fidelity (except for in-person of course). Email is high latency and high-fidelity. All the chat/text/twitter stuff is lower latency and spread across the fidelity spectrum.
They all have their place. I hate it when someone mis-uses them, for instance calling me and leaving a message. Phone is low-latency and high-fidelity; a voice message is the opposite corner (no ability to go back-and-forth; I won't see it for hours/days if at all). Voice mail is the worst possible fallback for a phone call.
Totally! this is exactly right. I work with one small group of people that outside of our weekly status meeting, shares a ton of chatty one-liners via email several times a day. It drives me crazy that I can't get them to adopt Slack for these types of interactions but sometimes it is impossible to teach a dog new tricks ;-)
In my experience, people understand that. What they are not good at, however, is having the perspective to know when asynchronous communication is more appropriate. (You have a question which requires a lot of explanation, and I'm doing you a favor by answering it? Email.)
While an idea like this sounds appealing it seems to assume all emails you get are a bother (either because they're irrelevant or because they're asking you to do something).
I get useful emails all the time (or at least, emails that I should see) and quite a few of these are from automated systems which don't give a damn whether I'm there or not. If a third-party support desk sends me an automated "Ticket Closed" email for a call I've had open for months then I need to be aware of that, and deleting the email doesn't really help anyone (except them maybe).
I get useful emails all the time (or at least, emails that I should see) and quite a few of these are from automated systems which don't give a damn whether I'm there or not. If a third-party support desk sends me an automated "Ticket Closed" email for a call I've had open for months then I need to be aware of that, and deleting the email doesn't really help anyone (except them maybe).
"Sorry I didn't get your message. I must have been on vacation and it got deleted."
Also what kind of holes does it create in email threads for conversations that happen before and after the vacation?
Also what kind of holes does it create in email threads for conversations that happen before and after the vacation?
I knew of one VP who got away with trashing his inbox while on vacation because he was the boss, but understandable that his email box was full all of the time with stuff that he didn't need to know.
The logic is simple though: If your email is really important then it's important enough to resend.
The logic is simple though: If your email is really important then it's important enough to resend.
I know there are things at my job that only I can do, even if they are documented. If certain things will need urgent attention while I'm out, I'll arrange to have someone cover for me.
I can understand not reading it, and setting the expectation with your employer and coworkers that you're on vacation and you won't be reading emails. That's very reasonable.
But just deleting emails? That sounds kind of nuts. I handle my email when I get back. And I send emails to other people with the expectation that they'll handle theirs when they get back.
If I have a question for a coworker, I'll email it to them. I don't expect a response if they're on vacation. The question is now theirs to deal with, in due time. By auto-deleting it, it reverts to being my problem. I'm sending that email for the purpose of getting work done. In that sense, auto-deleting it is preventing me from doing my work. And then I just have to send it again once they're back.
Setting proper boundaries and expectations is the solution. If you're getting so much email that it's an insurmountable task once you get back from vacation, maybe your company needs to reexamine its email culture and practices.
I can understand not reading it, and setting the expectation with your employer and coworkers that you're on vacation and you won't be reading emails. That's very reasonable.
But just deleting emails? That sounds kind of nuts. I handle my email when I get back. And I send emails to other people with the expectation that they'll handle theirs when they get back.
If I have a question for a coworker, I'll email it to them. I don't expect a response if they're on vacation. The question is now theirs to deal with, in due time. By auto-deleting it, it reverts to being my problem. I'm sending that email for the purpose of getting work done. In that sense, auto-deleting it is preventing me from doing my work. And then I just have to send it again once they're back.
Setting proper boundaries and expectations is the solution. If you're getting so much email that it's an insurmountable task once you get back from vacation, maybe your company needs to reexamine its email culture and practices.
>> If I have a question for a coworker, I'll email it to them. I don't expect a response if they're on vacation. The question is now theirs to deal with, in due time. By auto-deleting it, it reverts to being my problem. In that sense, auto-deleting it is preventing me from doing my work. And then I just have to send it again once they're back.
Yes, it's still your problem when the other person is on vacation.
Think about it the other way, you go away for two weeks. You come back to hundreds of emails, many of which are questions. Most of the questions probably got answered by someone else, or are no longer relevant at all. If a question does still need answering, hell yes it's the asker's responsibility to communicate to you that it's still important.
Yes, it's still your problem when the other person is on vacation.
Think about it the other way, you go away for two weeks. You come back to hundreds of emails, many of which are questions. Most of the questions probably got answered by someone else, or are no longer relevant at all. If a question does still need answering, hell yes it's the asker's responsibility to communicate to you that it's still important.
Yes, it's still your problem when the other person is on vacation.
That is just naive. Many problems can wait until the person gets back. Yeah, sure, if it's something that needs to be dealt with before the person gets back from vacation, it's my problem. Otherwise, it is NOT my problem.
That is just naive. Many problems can wait until the person gets back. Yeah, sure, if it's something that needs to be dealt with before the person gets back from vacation, it's my problem. Otherwise, it is NOT my problem.
>> Many problems can wait until the person gets back.
And many have gone away when the person gets back, then the first thing the person has to do is trawl through a backlog and send out a bunch of "is this still needed?" emails. Putting the onus back on the person that needs it is a positive.
>> Yeah, sure, if it's something that needs to be dealt with before the person gets back from vacation, it's my problem. Otherwise, it is NOT my problem.
It's your problem because you need input from the other person, so it's your responsibility to chase it up no? Even with the backlog system there's a greater than average chance that your email will be missed in amongst noise.
And many have gone away when the person gets back, then the first thing the person has to do is trawl through a backlog and send out a bunch of "is this still needed?" emails. Putting the onus back on the person that needs it is a positive.
>> Yeah, sure, if it's something that needs to be dealt with before the person gets back from vacation, it's my problem. Otherwise, it is NOT my problem.
It's your problem because you need input from the other person, so it's your responsibility to chase it up no? Even with the backlog system there's a greater than average chance that your email will be missed in amongst noise.
You keep replying to the really, really unlikely case. I can't remember the last time I got an "is this still needed?" email.
Why is this unlikely?
Last time I worked a traditional job I would get back after a couple of weeks away to find hundreds of emails. Many were corporate spam, sure, but the majority of the rest were time-sensitive requests for my input which you may as well file straight to trash, if you can figure out which ones are now irrelevant.
Far better to have an auto-trasher and a notice to say 'ask me again in two weeks if this is important'
Last time I worked a traditional job I would get back after a couple of weeks away to find hundreds of emails. Many were corporate spam, sure, but the majority of the rest were time-sensitive requests for my input which you may as well file straight to trash, if you can figure out which ones are now irrelevant.
Far better to have an auto-trasher and a notice to say 'ask me again in two weeks if this is important'
> If I have a question for a coworker, I'll email it to them. I don't expect a response if they're on vacation. The question is now theirs to deal with, in due time. By auto-deleting it, it reverts to being my problem. I'm sending that email for the purpose of getting work done. In that sense, auto-deleting it is preventing me from doing my work. And then I just have to send it again once they're back.
Here's the deal, and this is the point I think the (maybe unnecessarily heavy-handed) policy is meant to drive: You're not free to task your colleagues with work while they're away on holiday just be cause you can. If you rely on someone who's not there to get your job done then you can't do you job. That may or may be be your fault, but the organisation needs to be able to keep functioning while members are on holiday.
Sure, there exists cases where you only need a reply eventually, and only from that one exact individual, but in most cases, someone is actually covering and can handle the request as part of the normal workload, and in most of those cases, everybody is better off if you actually re-route the request to that person immediately.
And here's the bit I think is slightly heavy handed: Coming back from holidays, I like spending an afternoon skimming over emails for situational awareness. Deleting email would deprive me of the option to passively catch up rather than depending on having everything explained to me by colleagues. Skimming a few thousand emails is easy, making sure you've caught everything single thing you might be expected to respond to is stressful.
Here's the deal, and this is the point I think the (maybe unnecessarily heavy-handed) policy is meant to drive: You're not free to task your colleagues with work while they're away on holiday just be cause you can. If you rely on someone who's not there to get your job done then you can't do you job. That may or may be be your fault, but the organisation needs to be able to keep functioning while members are on holiday.
Sure, there exists cases where you only need a reply eventually, and only from that one exact individual, but in most cases, someone is actually covering and can handle the request as part of the normal workload, and in most of those cases, everybody is better off if you actually re-route the request to that person immediately.
And here's the bit I think is slightly heavy handed: Coming back from holidays, I like spending an afternoon skimming over emails for situational awareness. Deleting email would deprive me of the option to passively catch up rather than depending on having everything explained to me by colleagues. Skimming a few thousand emails is easy, making sure you've caught everything single thing you might be expected to respond to is stressful.
I agree with Nursie; it is still your problem. If it's the sort of thing that only that person can handle, then such things are more appropriately tracked in a separate system which is not lossy. (Think bug-tracking software.)
Maybe a solution to this could be the mail client/system sending an automated email to the sender on your return (as a reminder).
"Two weeks ago, you sent me an email, however my mail client automatically deleted it. If it is something I can still help you with, please reply back with the original email.
-- this is an automatically generated email --"
"Two weeks ago, you sent me an email, however my mail client automatically deleted it. If it is something I can still help you with, please reply back with the original email.
-- this is an automatically generated email --"
Vacation deletion of emails could be workable IF the only things that came across your work email were work-related requests from real people. However, for most people, the separation of work and personal (or pseudo personal) in email is not so complete, and many emails are notifications from automated (no-reply) systems. Deleting messages in these cases may cause more headaches upon return than it's worth.
Being resolute about putting aside work and email while on vacation is a personal responsibility, not an email robot's function. Put up a reasonable out-of-office message and put down the technology if you're on vacation.
Being resolute about putting aside work and email while on vacation is a personal responsibility, not an email robot's function. Put up a reasonable out-of-office message and put down the technology if you're on vacation.
Related: Daimler has a PGP policy. Whoever works on their email likes to get things done.
Last year I emailed a car dealer who worked for Mercedes Benz USA, and I got an auto-reply from Daimler that my signature was unacceptable because the expiration date on my key was too far in the future, and they wouldn't deliver my message at all, unless I fixed it.
I know the salesperson had no idea what was going on with this - but as soon as a contacted him with a signed message and a shorter-term subkey I generated just for them, his outgoing messages started being signed too.
Then, a month ago, I got a notice from Daimler that my key was expiring and I needed to get a new one on file with them.
I've been signing emails as a policy for awhile, and it's the only experience of this sort I've had.
Last year I emailed a car dealer who worked for Mercedes Benz USA, and I got an auto-reply from Daimler that my signature was unacceptable because the expiration date on my key was too far in the future, and they wouldn't deliver my message at all, unless I fixed it.
I know the salesperson had no idea what was going on with this - but as soon as a contacted him with a signed message and a shorter-term subkey I generated just for them, his outgoing messages started being signed too.
Then, a month ago, I got a notice from Daimler that my key was expiring and I needed to get a new one on file with them.
I've been signing emails as a policy for awhile, and it's the only experience of this sort I've had.
Seems that this defeats the purpose of email. You can send someone an email and they can handle it when it fits their schedule. The auto reply is nice, giving the names of others that can help them is nice, but telling them the message will be deleted and that they will have to send it again doesn't serve a purpose. Maybe this differs across cultures.
Questions and problems have a habit of answering themselves or becoming less important when a week has passed. Should I spend hours going through 'stale' email when I get back, when 90% of it probably isn't important any more? The first action for each one being to check that?
I had an old manager who didn't go quite so far as to delete it, but he didn't go through his backlog after a vacation because "if it's important they'll ask again". I quite agree with this.
I had an old manager who didn't go quite so far as to delete it, but he didn't go through his backlog after a vacation because "if it's important they'll ask again". I quite agree with this.
I don't just receive email on major holidays (let alone vacation), I receive code reviews! Code reviews still roll in while the office is closed for major US holidays.
How does this work when, say, someone from outside the company emails you? I've been badgering the shit out of a bunch of different companies to try to get a solution for a very specific and complex problem. I need to have good relationships with their application engineers. Auto-responses telling them I'm deleting their emails seems like the sort of thing that might make them decide that my business isn't worth their time. Would outside emails be exempt from this policy?
This seems like a solution looking for a problem. The proposed "problem" of trawling through hundreds of emails doesn't seem like a problem to me.
I just go through and flag actionable items, instead of trying to answer anything right away. I start with the newest messages first, so I can ignore the thread of messages that lead up to the latest.
I've never spent more than an hour narrowing hundreds of emails down to a few that still require my attention. A small price to pay to keep things from falling through the cracks, because guess who is going to get blamed when someone forgets to resend an important message to me?
I just go through and flag actionable items, instead of trying to answer anything right away. I start with the newest messages first, so I can ignore the thread of messages that lead up to the latest.
I've never spent more than an hour narrowing hundreds of emails down to a few that still require my attention. A small price to pay to keep things from falling through the cracks, because guess who is going to get blamed when someone forgets to resend an important message to me?
If I deleted all my holiday email on the day I returned, then I would actually have to work that day. I much prefer the current system of, "Sorry, I'm still working my way through my emails" while I get back up to speed.
This sort of rules usually result in double standards. HR drones and other departments have great work-life balance. While software devs are chained to their desks, and can only take holidays when it suits company.
Despite the few odd drawbacks to this approach mentioned elsewhere here, I think I speak for most of us who have worked in a corporate office when I say...
FxxK YEAH!!!
Give the surplus email the "FAX machine" treatment! ("Office Space" reference)
FxxK YEAH!!!
Give the surplus email the "FAX machine" treatment! ("Office Space" reference)
we had a joke..if they can't get someone to take over you while you're on vacation then the problem is not big enough..
If I need a response within a short timeframe, I'd email the details AND use a synchronse communications platform, like a telephone.
Use the right tool for the job, whats next the post office offering out of house replies to people that post something to you?