Right to Disconnect Passes Senate - What Are Your Thoughts?

Hey all, kind of resurrecting this old thread. But since we've now introduced this regulation in Australia, what does it mean to you? Personally, I'm all for it. I work hours that suit me, so I often find myself working later into the night. I often email (never call, because rude) or send IMs to people with requests, feedback, etc, but I never expect them to respond until they're back at work. The converse is true too—I'll get emails/IMs when I'm not on the clock, and there's no expectation for me to respond. Sometimes I respond, but that's only if I have time/can be bothered.

My wife used to have an on-call phone for her work, which meant she had to take calls whenever it rang, regardless of time. But it was a rostered system and she was paid extra for any days that she was rostered for on-call. Which is fair, IMO.

End of the day, it provides security to workers that they won't be penalised for prioritising their own wellbeing. And that has to be a good thing, right?

Poll Options

  • 27
    I'm a Boomer and I support the legislation
  • 4
    I'm a Boomer and I DO NOT support the legislation
  • 88
    I'm a Gen X and I support the legislation
  • 8
    I'm a Gen X and I DO NOT support the legislation
  • 153
    I'm a Millennial and I support the legislation
  • 11
    I'm a Millennial and I DO NOT support the legislation
  • 12
    I'm a Gen Z and whatever, lols

Comments

          • +3

            @freekay: What he might’ve been useful for is money and bringing in the armed forces. Things tend to happen quicker if the PM steps up and says “do it”. However, given the incumbent at that time, you are probably still correct.

            • +1

              @try2bhelpful: He should be pilloried for a great many actions (and inactions) taken in his Prime Ministership, but this was one that was overblown. If we took this down to a CEO of a company, the equivalent could be a cyber-attack on one of the divisions. As CEO, he should have stayed to see the situation resolved. But the real players would have been service desk, engineers, CTIR, CISO, etc. And if a C-level decision was needed, well Barnsy-boy the COO, was given appropriate authority. The decision to leave mid-emergency was bad, optics-wise. But it really made no difference. It just made the whole company mad at him.

              But had the situation been a little bit different: e.g. he was already on holidays, then he could have spun it like "The right to disconnect - leading by example".

              • @freekay: It can be neatly summed up by the man himself - So where the bloody hell are you?

            • @try2bhelpful: “What he might’ve been useful for is money and bringing in the armed forces”

              Wrong about the armed forces. Without a request from a State Govt it’s illegal for troops to be deployed within the country (except in war).

              • +1

                @Ugly: PM talking to Premiers might carry more weight.

  • Who would be brave enough to even mention this to their boss unless they are prepared to be let go from their job or managed out?

    When someone calls me after hours, i just ignore the call and then call them back hours later hoping its inconvenient for them. Usually it is and they do not answer. Cant have been too important hey….

    • +3

      Yes, but what if you were let go for simply not answering the call to begin with?
      As for the brave-enough, it depends on the workplace. Psychological safety is taking off in many corporates—it still has lightyears to go, but at least we're getting there. Imagine: being able to tell your superior that they stuffed up and them taking as an opportunity to improve, instead of a threat to their career??

  • +3

    Before I retired my view was I preferred someone rang me to discuss things than come into a huge mess. However, the contact was a short phone call or an email. If it couldn’t be answered quickly and easily it could wait.

    A lot of our installs were overnight and on weekends. Originally we got overtime then it became one for one time in lieu and they expected us to provide an additional 8 hours a week before we got that. I kept pushing back until they made me redundant. I retired with a golden egg.

    Absolutely people have a right to not be contactable. The boundaries can be blurred but that requires give and take on both sides. You want to talk to someone outside hours they have a right to nip off to do things during business hours. Overnight should only be for absolute emergencies.

    I wonder how many of the “must be done now” stuff is quietly shelved because it was a middle of the night boss brain fart to start with?

  • Has always been the policy where I have been. If they want me out of hours, they can pay me out of hours.

    A call about the place on fire and not to come in, ok, fine, but want me to run over what I did or will do tomorrow or any work related shit, better bet that I'm punching the clock on that chat.

    This is why I have 2 phones. I have a dedicated work phone number that I give out and it's connected to an dumb phone that doesn't support email or apps. Turns off at home and on at work. No way do I give my personal number to employers.

  • +5

    Am I still allowed to call the boss’s wife after hours?

  • +1

    I think employees need keep in mind how flexible their employer is. E.g. working from home, time off to go to appointments etc.

    If its within reason i don't see an issue with it. If you only work 2 days a week and the boss needs to know where something you worked on is then making them wait a week until you get back is not reasonable.

    Its a matter of give and take, you take a call for 5-10min every now and then while you're not at work and you go for an appointment in work hours for 30 min once in a while. I would not agree if it's taken advantage of and there is no give back flexibility in return.

  • I've blocked works email and phone number.
    Has been three years now! And nothing has been said.
    I chuckle to myself every time I get asked "did you get that email/text" I just reply with "nope".
    I don't work in an office or with computers though. There really is ZERO reason to ever call or email me. If they got something to say they can do it when I'm at work.

  • +2

    We need to go further and introduce EU style Right to Disappear laws too.

    Our entire privacy law system is antiquated

  • Im on call 24/7 💪🏿

    • +6

      You must be a mum. Too bad this legislation doesn't include you, as you unfortunately have to also pay your "boss," not to mention keeping them alive.

  • I'm a Gen Z and whatever, lols

    ?????

    Gen Z dont care ?? you OOYM

    • Haha. Don't take that option seriously—I'm just an old, out-of-touch Millennial, who doesn't know what Gen Zs think, say, or do.

      • +3

        Just playing to stereotypes.

        The two Boomer options should’ve been

        “I’m not working so the next generation of slaves should always be available”
        “I’m in bed by seven so you can have the night off”.

        • -1

          And the Gen X option would have been "I like whatever my boss tells me to like"

  • +2

    I thought this thread was about euthanasia at first.

    • -1

      For some Gen-Zs, disconnecting is, like, literal euthanasia to them.

    • +2

      So now I need to worry about being euthanised if I don't respond outside of work hours?

  • +2

    If it's not between 8am and 5pm on a work day, I ignore all SMS and email.

    As an aside, I don't identify as a millennial, that's a slur created by the media to belittle Gen Y. Maybe change your poll options.

    • +1

      Yeah, what's the OP trying to get at by lumping "age" and "attitude towards employment law" into one poll?
      Doesn't make any sense.

    • For a really long time I happily believed Millennials were a different generation to Gen Y - the horror when I discovered all the trash talk was aimed at me! I definitely have never identified as a Millennial, I can do Xennial

  • +1

    On the flip side, when my boss goes on holiday, I actually have to call him to seek guidance on various issues that I have been delegated with.

    • +2

      Maybe you are not the right person to be delegated too
      .

  • I don't work in a job that allows for a disconnect. 24 hours a day there is multiple parts of the operation in motion. This is not a secret when you apply to work here. And I enjoy it, and wouldn't change it for the world.

    To think now that someone can refuse to pick up the phone on a Saturday during a crisis, that has to be fixed there an then (usually at the request of a government regulator) is insane.

    The devil will be in the detail here if it can be contracted out or making part of the salary for after hours contact.

    Also being in WA the amount of times we get calls from the east coast before 7am is astonishing. I answer them because that is the job.

  • +1

    I do not identify as any of these generations, so did not answer your poll.

    • +1

      Not the Silent Generation, I see

  • +1

    The workplaces need to acknowledge that if you expect people to respond, it's not a proper break.
    That acknowledgement could be in the form of additional pay, etc etc, but it needs to be acknowledged and people need to be able to take a proper break.
    If someone works shifts, the break needs to account for the additional time people tend to need for recovery.

    Burnout is a thing for a reason.

  • I haven't read the legislation, but from what I gather it gives employees the right to ignore their boss after hours. If that's the case and how it's been legislated then I think there are some shortcomings.

    Why? Favouritism, because it doesn't actually stop employees from responding to their bosses after hours. A boss, being a human, will likely favour employees who choose to respond to messages after hours compared to those who choose to ignore them, and that's where the problem lies in this legislation. If the legislation blocked bosses from contacting their employees (except for exceptional circumstances like objectively tight deadlines or whatever) then I think that would've given more power to the workers. This legislation keeps the ball in the employer's court and is like a game of prisoner's (i.e. workers) dilemma.

    Like most legislation, it's been dressed up to favour the working class but in reality it's there to actually screw you over.

    • Is there anything stopping a business from simply adding into all employment contracts that you 'must be contactable outside of work hours'? If not, then that's exactly what all employers will do.

      • True that, I hope there is but I'm sure employers will find a way around it.

        • +1

          I have read the Text of bill on this: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislat… (I was going to go, this is too much if it was ridiculously long, it was just a paragraph).

          It looks like they are going to go, if you are being paid to be able to contacted (an availability allowance), this doesn't apply. I wonder how they are going to reinforce the employers to not just pay like $1 per hour or something for this.

  • The only difference between labor and the tories is labor PRETEND to care

  • +1

    I'm a Boomer
    I'm a Gen X
    I'm a Millennial
    I'm a Gen Z

    None of the above and wishing to know who is who … in an articulate, precise manner.

  • -2

    If you honestly don't have the wherewithal to assert yourself in an interview and say "I'm only available during these hours" then you should probably look for another job which is more flexible.

    How much money did the wonderful politicians waste debating this and then patted themselves on the back with bottles of Moët?

  • +1

    To those who don't agree, why? Also, please reply with your job position.

  • +1

    I am a Xennial and support the legislation.

  • +1

    Dutton just bloated that he will get elected by wowing to scrap it!

    • +2

      Dr No.

      It depends what the polling numbers are. Prepare for the backflip if it is perceived as popular.

  • I think this needs more context, just saying you have the right to disconnect is very situational.

    If there is an emergency and you are being paid accordingly I would expect said employee to step up to the plate and do their task.

    For example; if you were a leading Dr at a hospital and something happened where you were required to come in and save someones life, I would assume, as that's the role you signed up to do, you would answer your phone and do what needs to be done.

    If you want a disconnect job, maybe consider something that suits that life style you are after?

    Unfortunately the age we are living in has alot of roles where its hard to disconnect, emails on your phone is a big one - and if you are one of those people who do things out of hours you are probably going to go further than those who disconnect as soon as it hits 5pm.

    Putting this in place will probably just give those harder workers more of an edge, and those less inclined can 'do their job' and nothing else, but i wouldn't expect the latter to be given the same rewards.

    In short - don't punish those who will dedicate additional time to their job, if they choose to work more, let them. If you want to 'disconnect' consider jobs that let you do this, or have a clear conversation with your employer about yours and their expectations, if they don't match consider another job. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

    Having a blanket rule for this might not be the way forward.

    • +1

      It isn’t a blanket rule. The default is that you won’t be available unless negotiated between management and the employee, as needed. People should be rewarded for their “value” not if they are available at all hours. Employees should not have to make up for a disorganised boss. Currently the having your cake and eating it too does apply to the bosses. They expect people to come into work and also be available, unpaid, at their whim. They cut the number of employees to the bone because they overwork their current employees. People need time to switch off and relax.

      I’m sick of the “hard workers” analogies. Give me someone who can take the input and provide me with the required outputs, and does have a balanced life rather than the psychophants who think that sucking up to the boss is more important than what they deliver. What is the point of getting an answer at midnight if it the wrong answer. Society is too much reaction and not enough careful thought.

      Do you really want a doctor diagnosing you that has been on duty for 30 hours straight? I don’t. Do you want someone called back from out drinking with his friends? I don’t

      • So I guess employers will just employee people who will fit the job criteria, not a bad thing to have the expectations out in the open, but don't stop employers/employees from having an independent agreement where both are aware of the expectations.

        "Value" would be defined by the employer, your definition might not match the employers or a politician's.

        But no I wouldn't want a doctor who is over worked to diagnose me, but if its a life or death and nobody else is available and they are willing to do the job, what can you do? Alternative is to die waiting for a fresh dr to come in after being 'disconnected'.

        You could say that this is a band aid fix for a much larger problem, that we need more trained professionals in health care so that people can comfortably take away.

        • +1

          The point of the legislation is that people have the right to say no. There isn’t an expectation that people will be available, it is negotiated. They must be willing to do the job without being pressured to do it.

          There will be no incentive to change the current system if we just keep overworking the existing personnel.

          • @try2bhelpful: Long as the negotiations are open, but I feel like all these policies shut down negotiations and force peoples hands.

            • @m0tyrider: The legislation is about negotiation. It is about setting reasonable expectations. It is about discussing things beforehand It is about the boss thinking “ do I really need an answer now or can it wait until morning”? It is about being proactive rather than reactive. It is about valuing everybody’s time. It is being able to turn off the phone outside hours without feeling guilty.

              We’ve all encountered difficult people in our jobs. Hopefully things like this will make companies more careful in the interview process as well. The problem child isn’t just shafted onto the employees.

Login or Join to leave a comment