Life on the West Island - Not connected

Last week, peak West Island business groups warned, not for the first time, of the end of life as we know it on our island continent. They clutched at their pearls and gasped for air at the prospect of a new law giving workers a “right to disconnect” after work hours.

The Business Council of Australia, which represents the country’s largest employers, slammed the law, saying it was rushed and lacked proper consultation. Its chief executive Bran Black commented that everyone deserves to be able to switch off at home, though it’s really important to get the balance right here given people are now wanting more flexibility and to work different hours in different ways. He added that the law was an enormous threat to Australian employers and employees due to confusion that will only hurt productivity and only make employers more reluctant to give people a job.

Innes Willox of the Australian Industry Group said that the law would shatter the existing consensus on flexibility in the workplace; adding that employers could react by ending casual work arrangements such as letting staff leave early to pick up children or to see a doctor. Flexibility cuts both ways and if employees want to play hardball, they can expect their employer to react accordingly.

Economist Jim Stanford of the Centre for Future Work took a rather more balanced stance:

This measure will prevent workers from being penalised for failing to respond to unreasonable phone calls, emails, texts or other messages from employers outside of work hours. Basic protections will be written into modern awards. If workers are contacted too frequently, the Fair Work Commission could bar their employer from out-of-hours contact not essential to the job. Employers could be penalised for breaching such orders, or for punishing workers who do not answer out of hours. This provision is a partial step toward reducing the problem of unpaid out-of-hours work.

Research indicates the average Australian worker performs 280 hours of unpaid overtime per year, equating to more than $130 billion across the labour market. The new legislation’s ‘reasonableness’ test still grants employers great scope to contact workers out of hours when it is genuinely necessary.

Nevertheless, merely affirming that workers don’t need to be on call 24-7, and should be allowed to turn off their devices after work, has sparked loud complaints from old-school guardians of work attitudes. Some said it’s not the “spirit with which we built our great nation”. Others lambasted Gen-Z’s for not appreciating the realities of work.

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton argued that the law would weaken Australia’s productivity, and vowed to repeal the provision in a future Coalition government. But his critique revealed both questionable political judgment and flawed economic logic. Politically, no opposition leader wants to be on the wrong side of public opinion, but that’s exactly where Mr Dutton has placed himself on this issue. Surveys indicate a strong majority of Australians think a right to disconnect is fair: A Centre for Future Work report shows 84 per cent of employed Australians expressed support or strong support for a federally mandated right to disconnect.

In response to the Opposition Leader, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said what Peter Dutton wants is lower wages, more taxes on low and middle-income Australians and to continue to wind back any reforms that are made in the interests of working people. Someone who’s not being paid 24 hours a day shouldn’t be penalised if they’re not online to their employer 24 hours a day.

The Centre for Future Work also disputed whether the new right to disconnect would damage labour productivity, arguing instead that for three reasons productivity would be very likely to improve under the new arrangements:

Firstly, a right to disconnect would reduce and concentrate the number of hours workers are ‘on the job,’ to better conform with official working hours. Disorganised bosses are bad at planning work flows; they perpetually scramble to meet last-minute deadlines. So they ask workers to stay late or work on weekends – all too often in their own homes, and usually without compensation. Total output is no different; it is just spread inefficiently over a greater number of total hours. Even though those hours were not compensated, they were still worked. Properly measured, labour productivity falls.

Second, once they know they can’t fall back on unpaid overtime, bosses will be pushed to organise work more efficiently in order to get the most out of workers’ regular hours. They can no longer message staff on the weekend to finish an uncompleted job for free. With better planning, output per hour during regular hours grows. On the other hand, if overtime remains ‘free’ to employers, they have no incentive to avoid it.

Third and most important, ample research shows that workers who are rested, balanced, and healthy are more productive in their jobs when they are there.

Senior economist Kristine Ziwica bristled at the suggestion that employers would retaliate against workers seeking a right to disconnect after working hours by slashing workplace flexibility: employer organisations’ childish tantrums sadly threaten to roll back progress on other fronts, in particular flexible work arrangements that have benefited women and helped narrow the gender pay gap.

West Island public opinion seems to be strongly supportive of workers’ rights to enjoy time after work free from the constant tyranny of electronic and phone demands from employers, unless they are compensated in their terms of employment for being available 24 hours a day. Time will tell whether this in fact improves labour relations and productivity. Meanwhile, they will have a right to be disconnected from work after hours. Will that bring about the end of life as we know it? Not likely…