"In cybersecurity, for example, the dreaded weekend-ruining Friday evening ransomware attack is a constant fear and the idea of protecting a right to switch off won't be as easy as it would be in other fields."

This is a poor example of the underlying problem. There's nothing wrong with them asking me to stay late on Friday night and to come in on a weekend as long as the hours and pay rates are clearly defined in a contract which I was happy to sign. The problem this legislation needs to deal with is the assumption that because you pay my 9-5 wages you can email or call me any time of day or night, even if I'm on holiday, and expect an answer by return - all without paying me an extra penny.

Another important aspect is reciprocity, if someone is asked to come in out of hours for an emergency they should be offered ample time off elsewhere to compensate, not just added to the 9-5 expectation.

Also employees can work shifts that are something other than Monday-Friday 9-5, as long as they have the right to switch off as well.

Agreed it's a poor example, for other reasons also.

Most places I've worked recently have an emergency contact via SMS to my personal phone for emergencies. It's used for things like floods, bomb scares and DR invocations.

That contact route is via HR and following a declared emergency (from the goverment or the management team). I don't mind being contacted for a Ransomware attack, if I can help contain it.

What I don't deal with are ad-hoc emails or calls in the absence of that declared emergency. Just because it's critical to them doesn't mean it's critical to anyone else and if they're not willing to escalate to top management and engage HR then it probably isn't.

Absolutely. Cybersecurity is nothing special. Not even slightly.

If a train suffers a major derailment on a Friday evening, phones will start ringing past the duty teams to the on-call crews and then onto other workers to clear the mess up and get the track reopened. Those workers will get paid overtime. If you're not on-duty and you're not being paid to be on-call, then this is out-of-contract work (sort of. Any sane contract will make allowance for it, which includes allowance for remuneration - not just "we can call you in if needs be"!)

To loop back to cybersecurity, this is very simple:

* Incidents are handled by the duty team.

* If the company is too small to have 24/7 coverage or it is a major incident, then you wake up the on-call bods.

* If the incident is big enough that you are calling in people who are NOT rostered as on-call, then you pay them overtime, or they get time in lieu for the additional work they have done.

If we're into the latter case, then - as one AC has noted - this is a declared emergency and HR will be receiving board-level authority to get in whoever they need (at whatever cost).

At no point should an off-duty, off-call employee be expected to incur costs in order to come back into the office (e.g. letting go of their booked, un-refundable weekend away, theatre tickets, etc). The business can buy them out of course (in an emegency). But if you've specifically made plans that fit around your on-call schedule, then that's the business' problem. Not yours.

Hang on, people don't ignore messages from their boss outside working hours??? Fakkkk....

I got given a company phone but wouldn't you know I just never get round to installing Outlook or Teams on the thing. If it's important, they'll call me.

My experience (I'm not in an IT-support type of role) is that it's gradual. You're working on an important bid that's massive for the company with a very tight deadline and the boss might need to contact you after work to clarify things cos there's a partner in a different time zone that he has to deal with. That's not unreasonable given that it's it's a crucial job, my future is sort of tied up in it and the deadline's a week away so I can live with the odd phone call for a few days. Problem is, after the bid goes in and things should have settled back to normal the boss is still calling and before long everything, from project problems to people issues and the company barbecue, has been raised to the level of an urgent win-or-die bid with a 24/7 expectation of an answer.

Tight deadline is typically a management f-up.

It's too embedded into our culture that if somebody tries to contact you via any channel you must respond, and respond quickly.

What really needs changing here is to remove any assumptions about what a, for instance, 9 - 5 contract actually means. In my view it means you must be available between those hours and are being paid to do so. Anything which falls outside of those hours isn't covered by the contract.

The question always arises - ok what if you started dealing with a problem at 4:50pm and it will take 2 hours to resolve? A lot of companies don't feel they have to pay overtime because "it occured during work hours". But you can guarantee if you said, "ah well I'm not being paid so will leave it until tomorrow" the employer would find any excuse to tell you otherwise. Some contracts I've seen even have a BS clause to the effect of if it's exceptional circumstances then you should actually work whenever we see fit. Avoid those employers like the plague.

But none of this will actually get any better until people simply say "no" to doing anything which is outside the hours for which they have been contracted. Being paid overtime is all well and good but not everybody wants that. A lot of people do not want to be doing anything work related in their free time and rightly so.

I think there's a huge element of it depends. The main thing for me would be "is there give and take on both sides" If I have to leave 2 hours early or take a 4 hour lunch break cos of personal stuff is the company going to say yes as quickly as they would expect me to agree to stay late to attend a telecon with a client in the US? If the answer to that is an easy "yes" then I don't really have a problem with helping out if it's necessary and 7pm clocking off doesn't become the norm. If it's no then they they can do one. A lot of UK contracts for non-hourly staff have nominal working hours with a "hours and location as reasonably required" type clauses. As with almost anything in life, I don't mind until they start taking the piss. I left my last full-time job to go freelance because, in spite of paying me very well, they took the piss far too much and my life wasn't my own.

I left my last full-time job ... they took the piss far too much and my life wasn't my own.

That was my point. Unfortunately there are more people who won't vote with their feet. It's a cycle that continues because enough people will just accept it as "normal". That's why this right to switch off won't fix anything because the problem is too engrained into cultural norms that if you're asked to do something (irrespective of whether it's an employer taking the piss) people just do it anyway.

Depends on the company.

I worked in one where answering an email after 5pm would warrant disciplinary meeting.

It's too embedded into our culture that if somebody tries to contact you via any channel you must respond, and respond quickly.

Couldn't agree more. I'm sure there's some other reason why young people loath the idea of using their phone to... call people these days, but in some respects it's rather healthy.

I'm increasingly sceptical of the bell in my office which can be rung from anywhere in the world and requires me to drop everything and attend to another person - for urgent or non-urgent business, regardless of what I was doing before. Frankly, I feel bad about imposing that on anyone else (that isn't a call centre, because you're supposed to call them - and then I feel bad for myself because something has gone sufficiently wrong that I have to deal with a call centre).

Moving back to text-based messaging (per letters) which can be handled and responded to at the recipient's leisure seems far more civilised. And this can apply to "instant" messaging as well as email. A little red circle in the corner of the whatsapp icon places you under no obligation to actually read or reply to that message until it is convenient for you to do so.

It's perfectly acceptable to attend to your correspondence weekly.

"However, a 'one-size-fits-all' approach to this could expose organizations to potentially damaging situations where workers are unable to respond to important and unexpected issues that arise outside of working hours."

Sounds almost like people offering to work and people offering work negotiating what the work consists of. Not really a central government interference thing

While the idea of leaving the right-to-switch-off negotiation to be between employers and employees, which aligns with free market utopianism, it fails to address the significant power imbalances and associated risks of exploitation which may have much broader societal impact.

Government regulation in this area would ensures fair, consistent, and humane working conditions, which benefits both employees and the economy at large.

@AC

"Government regulation in this area would ensures fair, consistent, and humane working conditions, which benefits both employees and the economy at large."

Yes, a one size fits all and pleases nobody approach. One where they must come up with loopholes which will still be a cost to and consideration by employers when looking for workers and something not really needed for the worker. At no point does this sound productivity boosting.

Firstly, why must the company find loopholes?

Secondly, if the worker's private life can be invaded by management at any time, yes it is something really needed by the worker.

Thirdly, having a workforce which can rest is a more productive workforce. If they can be called at any time and can't do anything because they may be called at any time then productivity will nosedive.

@AC

"Firstly, why must the company find loopholes?"

Its the government who must make the loopholes. Its even written in the article and I also quoted in my first comment.

"Secondly, if the worker's private life can be invaded by management at any time, yes it is something really needed by the worker."

If you have a disrespectful boss (and yes they exist) get another job.

"Thirdly, having a workforce which can rest is a more productive workforce. If they can be called at any time and can't do anything because they may be called at any time then productivity will nosedive."

And if this is the case the market would balance around such.

Its the government who must make the loopholes. Its even written in the article and I also quoted in my first comment.

The article does not contain the word "loophole".

If you have a disrespectful boss (and yes they exist) get another job.

It's that easy, isn't it?

And if this is the case the market would balance around such.

The market would balance around low productivity? What a brilliant solution.

@AC

"The article does not contain the word "loophole"."

Well done, you can word search. Now try reading, for example-

"It sounds like a similar implementation to what's already happening in France, where companies with 50 staff or more are compelled to find an agreement "

So do you hire that 50th person and have to mess with this stupidity or stick to 49? As I quoted from the article-

"However, a 'one-size-fits-all' approach to this could expose organizations to potentially damaging situations where workers are unable to respond to important and unexpected issues that arise outside of working hours."

That would obviously require some sort of 'fix' to fix the problems of implementing this government idea. Or maybe its just a stupid idea and not enforced-

"How it's enforced will be under close inspection, as will the criticisms of other countries such as France and Italy, neither of which have direct punishments for non-compliance."

Which is then a useless law.

"It's that easy, isn't it?"

Yes. Well done.

"The market would balance around low productivity? What a brilliant solution."

Eh? Why would the market balance around low productivity? What are you smoking?

At no point does this sound productivity boosting.

You don't work in a team, do you.

But it's not constant negotiation about what the work consists of. If the company offers something-aaS then work consists of keeping all production environment(s) up and working, that's non-negotiable.

So all that's up for debate is how this is done. Do managers do some basic shift and on-call management or do they have the right to burn employees out until they leave or have a nervous breakdown? If you're arguing for the second outcome, please tell me where you work so I can avoid working there.

@AC

"If the company offers something-aaS then work consists of keeping all production environment(s) up and working, that's non-negotiable."

And so they offer work on certain terms for certain reward. The worker accepts or rejects it or maybe the terms can be adjusted. That is negotiation.

"Do managers do some basic shift and on-call management or do they have the right to burn employees out until they leave or have a nervous breakdown?"

If your business is burning people out like that they will run out of employees to make anything work. The ones that dont burn out the employees will succeed.

If your business is burning people out like that they will run out of employees to make anything work. The ones that dont burn out the employees will succeed.

What happens if it's not possible to switch jobs in your free-market utopia because the jobs market doesn't allow it, are you proposing no other solution other than the employee just having to suck it up?

@AC

"What happens if it's not possible to switch jobs in your free-market utopia because the jobs market doesn't allow it"

How does the market not allow it? You might have to look for another job, possibly get some other skills, it is the same thing people do all the time.

I forgot I was debating with someone who would seriously argue that ending up in a job flipping burgers because management has the right to make constant out-of-work-hours demands and drive employees to leave a company is perfectly acceptable.

@AC

"I forgot I was debating"

What nonsense are you trolling?

Oh, come off it - it's got nothing to do with the "market". A whole chunk of exploitative employment practices depend on people finding it difficult to move jobs. Kids settled in school, partners with jobs and a big mortgage, stamp duty and costs of moving house, and so on. I've worked at companies where the annual pay and bonus discussions started with identifying the people who wouldn't leave when they got a below average pay rise, no matter how good they were or how much the company depended on them. If you'd just had a baby, just bought a house or your kids were in their O-level or A-level year then you could kiss a decent pay rise goodbye cos the odds of you leaving were pretty slim.

@AC

Thank you for a whole comment clearly stating the market allows people to change jobs. If people choose not to use that freedom it is their freedom to choose

> If your business is burning people out like that they will run out of employees to make anything work. The ones that don't burn out the employees will succeed.

Hm. Amazon doesn't look like it's running out of their disposable employees any time soon...

@Gene Cash

"Hm. Amazon doesn't look like it's running out of their disposable employees any time soon..."

Erm... https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/jun/22/amazon-workers-shortage-leaked-memo-warehouse

> Sounds almost like people offering to work and people offering work negotiating what the work consists of. Not really a central government interference thing

But the possibility of workers to vote for a worker-friendly central government is part of those negotiations.

Free-market advocates seem to love to say that everyone in the negotiation is free to agree to anything... as long as it's not politics. Unfortunately, that particular arbitrary exception cannot be adopted, sorry. If it's a free negotiation, then all weapons are on the table, and that includes politics. Deal with it. Going waah-waah-government-punched-me isn't going to help.

@Filippo

"But the possibility of workers to vote for a worker-friendly central government is part of those negotiations."

Absolutely. Various socialist countries have looked after the workers and brought everyone down to the same level of impoverishment (all except the chosen ones that is).

Tax the rich, close loopholes allowing parliamentarians to soak up free shit and walk into speaking engagements where they’re paid small fortunes. Anybody should be able to do an MPs job, they should be replaceable, not us workers.

Increasing tax on rentals year on year, so if you want to rent out your second home while you and your new spouse are consolidating your lives, great, but companies should not be profiting off basic human needs. It shouldn’t be a business model to hold on to property and rent it, get it back on the market so we can buy a fucking home.

While we’re here, break up the monopolies, stop allowing 3 fucking companies to own every product in a supermarket, oh wow there are 10 shops to choose from… all the products come from umbrella companies…. That is crazy

Have I just strayed into the comments for a different article?

Hi @doc.

We get almost all of our vegetables from Riverford. Fully organic.

Coat because it’s green.

I've generally accepted that as a senior manager in a global company, but with a very small IT department, I will respond to urgent out of hours requests and will accept meetings scheduled at odd times - ultimately if I can't avoid a discussion with New Zealand one of us is going to be outside of office hours. The huge BUT in this though is that I choose what I respond to, if it can wait until the next day it generally does. I also have a degree of flexibility in my working time to accommodate the out of hours work.

Having just read the new Australian proposals for the same rights as suggested here much hinges on the word, "unreasonable", so for example in an emergency (e.g. a ransomware attack where you're the only person who can help) your refusal to respond may be seen as unreasonable unless personal circumstances are such that you can't respond.

This is rather virtue signalling than actual fix.

What Labour should have done is ban on unpaid overtime.

When employer sends an email at 7pm and you read it, that should be a billable hour for you and 50%+ more than contracted hourly rate within normal working hours.

Why did you read that email at 7pm though?

It's about choice, if I choose to work until 8pm to get something finished then I get a pat on the back and no quibbles a week or so later when I tell my boss I need to take time to drop my car in for a service. If it's pre-arranged then I will get paid for my time.

I have a work phone, unless I am on-call it gets turned off when I finish work (usually between 5pm & 6pm). My boss has my personal mobile number but knows it is only for those "oh shit" moments when throwing bodies at the problem is needed.

What this (hopefully) will do is make it so that your manager cannot insist you are available out of normal hours.