Australia’s recently enacted right-to-disconnect law is designed to give employees the ability to opt out of work communications outside of their regular hours. This move aligns with a growing global trend aimed at protecting workers’ time away from work.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese championed the law, emphasizing, “We’re simply asserting that employees who aren’t on the clock shouldn’t be penalized for not being available 24/7.” This legislation is intended to address the blurred boundaries between work and personal life that have become increasingly common.
However, not everyone is on board. Andrew McKellar of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry has expressed skepticism, calling the legislation a “triumph of stupidity over common sense” in an interview with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.
The law does not prevent employers from initiating contact but provides employees the right to refuse such interactions unless deemed unreasonable. Factors determining what is unreasonable include the employee’s role, their personal circumstances, the nature of the contact, the extent of disruption caused, and compensation for being available outside standard hours.
Internationally, right-to-disconnect laws vary widely:
Spain: Employees can disconnect from digital devices outside work hours, including during leave and holidays.
Italy: Workers under “smart working” agreements are assessed based on goal achievement rather than set hours.
Portugal: Employers are prohibited from contacting employees outside their scheduled working hours.
France: The El Khomri labor laws allow workers to ignore work communications outside their hours, with specifics negotiated between unions and employers.
Similar laws exist in Belgium and Germany, with discussions underway in the U.K. and Kenya. Critics argue that some laws, like France’s, are too vague to be effective, and Ontario’s legislation, which requires companies with 25 or more employees to implement a right-to-disconnect policy, has been criticized as lacking enforcement.
Experts suggest that the effectiveness of these laws often depends on how clearly companies articulate work-life balance policies and the mechanisms in place for reporting violations. Ope Akanbi, an assistant professor at Toronto Metropolitan University, notes that while these laws aim to prevent overwork, their actual impact may be limited.
“These laws are designed to give people space to disconnect and focus on life outside of work,” Akanbi explains. She points out that countries with high rates of workplace stress and related issues, such as Japan and the U.S., are particularly in need of such regulations. However, Akanbi acknowledges that enforcement challenges can undermine their effectiveness.
“The right to disconnect is not a traditional right,” she says. “In some cases, it serves more as a starting point for discussions about work expectations rather than offering a concrete solution.”
Daniel Lublin, an employment lawyer based in Toronto, echoes these concerns about policy effectiveness. He describes Ontario’s right-to-disconnect policy as more of a “right to have a policy” rather than an actual entitlement to disconnect. Lublin emphasizes that without strong enforcement mechanisms, policies are often drafted in a way that minimally complies with legal requirements while still favoring employers.
Akanbi also highlights the role of national culture in shaping the effectiveness of these laws. In countries with a strong work identity, like North America, achieving significant change may be more challenging compared to Europe, where work-life balance is more culturally ingrained.
“France’s work culture doesn’t lend itself to overwork, but in places where work is closely tied to personal identity, enforcing the right to disconnect is much harder,” she says.
Ultimately, the effectiveness of Australia’s new law will likely hinge on how well it is implemented and enforced, and whether it can genuinely reshape work culture to prioritize employees’ well-being.