The modern work force is driven by round-the-clock and often round-the-globe connectivity. The trade-off for flexibility is that workers are expected to be on all the time.Reuters
Gus Carlson is a U.S.-based columnist for The Globe and Mail.
At first blush, Australia’s new law protecting workers from being punished for not answering texts, e-mails and phone calls from their managers outside of work hours seems like a novel way to address an occasional but annoying workplace problem: horrible bosses.
On closer examination, however, the new “right to disconnect” law, which came into force last week, is another naive government stroll through policy fantasyland that reflects breathtaking tone-deafness to the way modern business works, especially at the national and global levels.
It’s also a reminder to never underestimate government’s ability to microregulate trivial things. Ignoring a manager’s outreach without consequence may work in the mañana mentality of bureaucrats but it doesn’t fly in a commercial enterprise, where accountability and performance are imperatives, not concepts.
While the new law applies to all workers in Australia, it will likely have a wide impact on office workers who, because of technology-driven flexibility, are increasingly expected to be available to do their work any time, anywhere – ways that many service or manufacturing workers who toil in specific bricks-and-mortar workspaces are not. Companies found by a government watchdog panel to have violated the law face stiff fines.
Proponents of the law, which is based on similar regulations in several European and Latin American countries, suggest it is pushback against the invasion of work into people’s personal lives, which became more acute during the COVID-19 pandemic as remote work-from-home became widespread.
“Before we had digital technology there was no encroachment, people would go home at the end of a shift and there would be no contact until they returned the following day,” John Hopkins, an associate professor at Swinburne University of Technology in Melbourne, Australia, told Reuters this week. “Now, globally it’s the norm to have e-mails, SMS, phone calls outside those hours, even when on holiday.”
Mr. Hopkins is right, but it’s been decades since generations of Ward Cleavers came home from offices every day at 5 p.m., and a call from the boss after hours was a rare and big deal – and was usually accompanied by an apology for the intrusion into family time.
The blurring of work and personal life spawned by technology since those days has brought with it new expectations and challenges. This new flexibility comes with a compromise: In exchange for personal freedom, companies expect workers to make themselves more available – perhaps not always “on,” but willing to respond within a reasonable amount of time.
If you work for a company that does business across time zones – from coast to coast domestically or around the world – or is in an industry where commercial activity goes on outside the traditional 9-to-5 time frame, you know that ignoring calls from the office is not a best practice.
Take the news business, for example. It’s rare to be called in the middle of the night, but everyone has a story about disrupting their personal time to cover a breaking story. If you don’t like the prospect, then you might consider a different way to make a living. Ignoring such a call, whether you are protected by law or not, is not a reasonable expectation of the business – in fact, it should be a firing offence.
To be sure, the spectre of bosses who overstep their authority and seem to delight in making underlings miserable is as old as the workplace itself. We’ve all had them, and no one should be expected to put up with those who abuse their stations, company policy and common sense.
At the same time, work forces are filled with chronic complainers, professional victims who spend more time looking for ways to shirk responsibility and cry foul about unfair policies and practices than they do on their work. New rules like the right-to-disconnect law will give the complainers one more reason to do what they do best.
Regardless, in the modern work force driven by round-the-clock and often round-the-globe connectivity, the trade-off for flexibility is that workers are expected to be on all the time.
The reality is this: If you choose to ignore an outreach from your manager during off hours, you may be protected from retribution by the laws of the land. But don’t expect the laws of human nature to be as forgiving.
The next time there’s a choice assignment or an opportunity for advancement, don’t be surprised if your supervisors don’t rush to put your name at the top of the list. That may not be fair or just or kind. But it is business.
Governments eager to replicate the Australian legislation should be careful. This sort of regulation may help win a few votes, but it’s not good for business.