Over 70% of cybersecurity professionals often have to work weekends to address security concerns at their organization, according to a new report by Bitdefender.

This intense workload appears to correlate strongly with job dissatisfaction, with around two-thirds (64%) of the 1200 cyber professionals surveyed stating that they are planning on looking for a new job in the next 12 months.

The issue of burnout and job dissatisfaction was particularly profound among UK respondents, with 81% often working weekends and 71% looking for a new job.

  • umbrella
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    106
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    8 days ago

    yeah fuck that, i don’t want 24/7 work just because they can theoretically reach my almost dead carcass 24/7.

    we need unions asap 🧅

      • umbrella
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        edit-2
        8 days ago

        i got that, the stress is not worth it. the previous generation didnt need to work 24/7 every week to earn what i did with all the commissions included.

        get people to rotate out with me. i’d rather get less pay (provided its sufficient for living) than the chronic stress.

        • jol@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          7 days ago

          I mean yeah, in a rotation. And when I wake up in the night I’m still entitled to 12 hours of rest before I start working the next day.

          • umbrella
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            7 days ago

            i wish! 12 hour rest after a shift would have been awesome.

    • BearOfaTime@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 days ago

      Change Windows. You can’t take shit down during the work day.

      Everywhere I’ve worked (many very large companies, banks, telecom, outsourced IT, etc) teams have coverage schedules, so I suspect this article is misleading.

      Someone has to mind things 24/7, this is done via scheduling.

      And the more critical you are, the more on-call you are. I had one role where I was on call 24/7. Things rarely broke enough for me to be called, but I never once resented when I was called. I’d rather get woken up at 2am because my help is needed than have the risk that our systems aren’t ready for the day.

      • IphtashuFitz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 days ago

        Not to mention that lots of malicious attacks occur late at night or on weekends in an attempt to delay getting noticed. My company has rotating on-call schedules for our security, devops, and even engineering teams. I’ve had to hop on late at night or on weekends to help mitigate attacks. Luckily my employer is really good about letting folks take a day or two off after such events.

      • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        8 days ago

        And the more critical you are, the more on-call you are.

        This shows a really low Bus Factor which should be remedied. If you’re on call 24/7 because you’re the only person who can fix things then your employer is running the risk of you being unavailable due to injury or disease and then they’re up shit creek sans paddle.

        • AdamEatsAss@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          8 days ago

          There are no bad employees only bad managers, or some karate kid nonsense like that. I had a job where I was “on call” 24/7 with no one else as alternates. I kept getting in trouble for not being available on the weekend when they called me. Most of the other employees I worked with in similar positions admitted to drinking every night that way they couldn’t get called in after hours. I quit that job quick.

      • umbrella
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        8 days ago

        that is if they actually allow you to make the changes so the systems are reliable.

        theres always some boss that doesn’t want to swallow his pride and you pay the price for it.

    • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      8 days ago

      While I nominally agree, there are some situations and contexts in which an on-call rotation is not only appropriate, but the responsible thing to do.

      That said, on-call people should get special compensation/rewards/perks, because being on call sucks.

      • umbrella
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        8 days ago

        on-call people should get a rotation so they aren’t on call every single week. which is what usually happens ime.

      • kingthrillgore
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 days ago

        At the very least, we need to codify comp time as policy, overtime as law.

    • jdeath@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      8 days ago

      unions would probably make sure all juniors have to work weekends. kinda like airline unions make juniors work 10x unpaid labor hours than the seniors

      • umbrella
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        4 days ago

        you are probably thinking of a terrible union. ive been in those, don’t bother with them.

        • jdeath@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 days ago

          how would you know ahead of time? mostly (in USA at least) you don’t get a choice. when you join a job if they have a union you have to join, even if its corrupt. how can you prevent them from becoming corrupt?

          • umbrella
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            8 days ago

            in my country you don’t have to join it. i generally take a look at what they do and its real apparent when they suck up to bosses.

            most unions are like this nowadays over here, but there are good ones.

            • jdeath@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              7 days ago

              ah, thanks for explaining that. if there is an option to join or not join, then the unions would have some incentive to do a good job. but in the usa, that isn’t an option, so every union eventually turns corrupt.

              I’m sure that was done intentionally, to render unions (worse than) useless.