Your points are valid.  Stronger than that, I stand more to your view than the parents.  Although I certainly understand the desire of the parent, I&#x27;ve been on both the Ops and Dev side of that fence, and on call REALLY SUCKS (I almost feel dirty in this post agreeing with a statement of &quot;I should be on call&quot; but it is what it is :) ) but it sucks worse if as you say it&#x27;s entirely on the backs of the ops who are also handling sysadmin style work, and are kept more isolated from dev as is typical in &quot;throw it over the wall&quot; shops.  (In writing this I realize I want to clarify that I have other thoughts entirely about having ops specialists instead of suggesting a merge to totally unified devops, but that&#x27;s an entirely other discussion).  Also as you say, ownership&#x2F;responsibility&#x2F;etc is also an ancillary benefit.<p>What I actually wanted to say from all this however, is that despite the truth of your argument, I&#x27;d take a third angle.  No on call is bad, but similarly, _unpaid_ OT is bad.  The common rhetoric from this soapbox is that if employers are accountable for this time, it&#x27;ll incentivise them to have processes and hold values that don&#x27;t abuse an expensive resource.  If something is on fire; the on call employee still _will be there to handle it_, but the fact that it&#x27;s become a pro-bono assumed part of many of our jobs in the tech sector is the part I take issue with more than doing the task itself.