In recent years digital communication has meant that employees can stay connected with work 24/7, add this to trend of increased working from home and many people have found it difficult to separate where work ends and home life begins. In response, many countries and organisations have, or are considering implementing, a “right to disconnect” – a right that would allow employees to disengage from work outside of their contracted hours without facing repercussions.
This concept is nothing new and has already come into legislation in several countries around the world, with others, including the UK, now considering such legislation. There have been a number of methodologies used in different countries such as:
France
Introduced legislation in January 2017 to legally require employers to negotiate agreements with unions.
Italy
Later in 2017 legislation that states that remote workers have the right to disconnect from technological devices and from online platforms without suffering any consequences. In addition, there are also sectoral and company collective agreements.
Spain
In 2018 Spanish workers, in both the private and public sectors, were given the right to disconnect to maintain their work life balance.
Belgium
Legislation making it compulsory for employers, with more than fifty employees, to discuss the issue of disconnection and the use of digital communications with their workplace health and safety committee. In 2022, civil servants became legally allowed to switch off work emails, texts and phone calls received out of hours.
Ireland
Rather than full legislation, in 2021 a new code of practice was announced in Ireland that meant all employees officially had the right to disconnect from work. Employees gained the right to effectively switch off from work outside of normal working hours.
Portugal
Also in 2021, Portugal introduced a new right to privacy which stipulates employers must refrain from contacting employees during their rest period, except in case of force majeure, with a significant fine if they do so.
Australia
Most recently in February 2024, the Australian Government passed the Fair Work Legislation Amendment which included a right to disconnect. Since Monday 26th August this has enshrined the right of employees “to ignore work-related communications outside of normal work hours, provided their refusal to engage is not unreasonable.”
The UK Government has recently proposed, in the King’s speech, the introduction of such a right as part of its broader “Plan to Make Work Pay.” The plan also proposed other measures such as the banning of exploitative zero-hours contracts, outlawing the concept of ‘fire and rehire,’ and making the right to request flexible working and sick pay available from day one of employment.
As details become clearer we will no doubt examine some of these other changes, but for the moment we will concentrate on the right to disconnect. Keir Starmer’s spokesperson impressed that it was about ensuring people have time to rest, stay productive and motivated whilst at work and move away from the culture of presenteeism, but let us examine the pros and cons in more detail.
No doubt the intention of the concept is the promotion of a healthier work-life balance. With the proliferation of communication tools, it has become common for some employees to feel pressured to respond to contact from work even outside normal working hours. The proposal could give workers the legal backing to set boundaries, helping them maintain their personal time and focus on family, hobbies, and rest.
Excess work and the inability to switch off from it are intricately linked to burnout, anxiety, and other mental health issues. The right to disconnect could lead to reduced stress levels and better overall well-being for employees. By encouraging breaks and preventing excessive work-related contact during off-hours, organisations could see healthier and more motivated employees who perform better during contractual working hours.
Further emphasising the previous point, and although it might seem counterintuitive, having designated times when employees are not thinking about work related matters, genuinely off-duty, can lead to increased productivity. When given the chance to fully recharge, employees may be more focused and efficient during working hours, shifting the emphasis from "being constantly available" to "delivering quality work during work hours." The UK Government has stated that they see this as the key to productivity, and it could boost the UK’s economic growth.
From what we know about the Government’s proposals they could establish clear expectations around after-hours communication. In some workplaces, there’s an ambiguity about when a worker is expected to be available, and this could lead to undue pressure. A formal right to disconnect could help clarify these boundaries, ensuring that employees and managers are on the same page regarding work availability.
While the right to disconnect aims to protect employees from overwork and ensure good work-life balance, there is the possibility it could potentially conflict with flexible work arrangements, that many workers value for their similar aims. Working from different locations, whether at home or peripatetic, all add complications to this issue and would have to be understood and dealt with properly. Flexible shift patterns may add further hurdles in defining what are non-working hours. Will we have the right to inform people of changes to shift requirements whilst they are away from work? This may be caused by unforeseen sickness absence, for example. This might not be a requirement for all, but may be essential for other workplaces. Some employees may prefer to have very flexible arrangements that mean working unconventional hours to accommodate personal commitments or preferences. A rigid right-to-disconnect policy could inadvertently limit this flexibility.
In industries that operate around the clock or have global teams in different time zones a hard definition of work hours and outside work hours could be problematic. Defining what constitutes “essential” after-hours communication versus what should be restricted could lead to legal and operational grey areas. A quick non-pressurised call asking operational details to the previous shift manager could be massively beneficial to productivity, but is it “essential”? Defining this in law may be difficult even if the principle of non-contact outside hours is a good aspiration.
Whilst large organisations may have the resources to manage this, smaller enterprises could find it more challenging. With fewer staff and lean teams, with often limited numbers with specific expertise, after-hours communication may sometimes be unavoidable. Regulation could be impossible to manage at worst or impose extra administrative burdens at best!
Very dependent on the area of business where people are engaged, but flashes of inspiration may happen outside of traditional working hours. A strict right to disconnect could limit spontaneous discussions, brainstorming sessions, or quick problem-solving interactions that might occur in these instances. If employees are restricted from engaging when inspiration strikes, it could slow down innovation and hinder teamwork. This could lead to detrimental effects and poor motivation.
The proposal to introduce “the right to disconnect” is rooted in a genuine concern for employee welfare in an increasingly demanding work culture. However, for it to be effective, a balanced approach is needed. Although the full details are not available yet, the election manifesto, said the "right to switch off" would give workers and employers to chance to have "constructive conversations and work together on bespoke workplace policies or contractual terms that benefit both parties".
There are many rumours around at the moment, one such saying that the Government has backed away from making this a legal right in favour of making it part of a code of practice, following Ireland’s approach, for companies above a certain size. Another saying that there may be a possibility that employees could take their bosses to a tribunal if an employer consistently contacts an employee after agreed working hours with the possibility of large compensation pay-outs. We’ll have to wait to find out the full details in due course.
So, whatever is implemented, any rights should provide employees with the protection they need while allowing enough flexibility for different working styles, industries, and business sizes. This could lead to a solution of industry-specific guidelines or exemptions for businesses that require continuous operations. It may be as simple as encouragement, or the code of practice, for businesses to adopt policies that foster a culture of disconnecting, without relying on legal mandates. This would require educating employers and employees about healthy boundaries, offering mental health resources, and encouraging managers to respect off-hours, and ensuring that leadership’s behaviours also follow these policies.
Shortly after being elected, Keir Starmer was widely criticised by opponents after he said that he tries not to work past 6pm on a Friday so he could spend time with his family, so it looks like the clear division of work and life is a firm belief of the government. However, since then he has said that it is difficult because “the demands of being prime minister are unique”, and he has cancelled his family holiday to deal with the far-right riots! Clearly proving generalised universal legislation is not realistic. In more normal working environments there still will be such instances.
As with many aspects of working time in our complicated world of work it is essential that people be able to recognise work attendance and time off commitments. Without this, alongside today’s mobile communications, any perception of where these boundaries lie becomes an impossibility.
