Why isn't it like that? If my company decided to follow a new rule that nobody can be oncall after hours, wouldn't they have to force at least 2 engineers from each oncall rotation into the new shifts? Even if I escape being one of those 2, shouldn't I expect to have 66% fewer day shift opportunities in the future?
Once again the lack of worker rights come into play here. Companies should never be able to change an employee's working hours like that. I'm guessing in the US they can, because they have almost no worker's rights. Where I live this would be illegal.
As for new opportunities, well, maybe? The theory would say these weird hour shifts would cost more and companies would have to think harder about their operations and decide if the extra cost really makes sense. Employees would also ask for more money to work under these hours.
I believe it would simply remove the inherent expectation that every tech product is guaranteed to be online 24/7 without any extra cost to the companies, only to the employees lives. That's a great outcome in my view.
Sure, but this is one of the things people are talking about when they worry a regulation might make companies less competitive. Online 24/7 is table stakes for any company that aspires to have a global presence - nobody in Europe or the US would buy Atlassian products if they were only guaranteed to be available during business hours in Sydney. If Australia successfully shifted the culture on this, Australian software would struggle heavily to find success on the global markets.
