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

  • +47

    I firmly believe people should give themselves permission not to be accessible at all times.

    Ignore that voicemail.

    Leave that message on read.

    Turn off your phone.

    Don't answer emails.

    Destroy your SIM card.

    Burn your house down.

    Disappear under mysterious circumstances.

    • +24

      That escalated slowly…

    • I get told off for working late hours lol

  • +22

    Some of us remember the bliss of life before mobile phones and the internet.

    • +2

      bosses still called landlines back in the day.

      • +5

        True, but on only worked if you were home, otherwise you;d get the answering machine after you got back.

        And then the mobile phones turned up and it was like "Now people can call me where ever I am. :) " and now it's like "Now people can call me wherever I am. :( "

        • unless your boss got you a pager/beeper… remember those bad boys?? You had no choice but to accept, because of how important it made you look!

          • @freekay: Yeah but, usually, back then they paid you to carry the beeper.

            • @try2bhelpful: I was young and naive…

              • +1

                @freekay: I was back in the 80s when IT people were a prized commodity. :)

                Yeah it was an ego thing to carry the beeper but mostly I was shit scared it would go off. Spent one Christmas Day trying to remotely debug a problem with a token ring router.

      • Of course, but there is no way it was as much an issue then as it is today.
        Some companies I've worked for in the past expect you to install corporate spyware on your phone and be contactable at all times.

        • Some companies I've worked for in the past expect you to install corporate spyware on your phone and be contactable at all times.

          Then they supply the phone. Leave in the fridge, go out.

    • +5

      remember when we used to say 'brb' in messenger?
      one day you logged out for the last time you and didnt even know it.
      this is our life now. always online.
      we living in a black mirror ep smh

  • i didn't even know this was a thing

    • +4

      i said hey boss did you hear about the right to disconnect?
      boss: no - get back to work (sent via my iphone_)
      aight

    • -2

      You starting to realise how the media shields the populace from the amazing work by Labor, huh?

      Did you hear about Closing the Loopholes bill? Same Job, Same Pay bill?

      • To be fair, the media shields the populace from any positive works being done by either side. They prefer the doom and gloom—it gets more clicks. The only time you'll see something "positive" being reported is if it has a large base against it as well, because then you have both sides generating engagement by screaming at one another, online.
        But, hey, colour me cynical.

        • -2

          To be fair, the media shields the populace from any positive works being done by either side.

          Simply untrue. There is just never anything positive to say about the LNP. They are a political party of zero substance.

          The "both sides" argument is one that the LNP love, though

          • +2

            @ThithLord: GST
            Getting guns away from the general population
            Marriage equality

            Pretty sure these all happened under LNP leadership.

            Btw, I'm not a rusted on supporter of either groups (but have enough nous to realise that these are the only two that will ever be in power), as it stands I can only vote for the "lesser of two evils"

            • +1

              @freekay:

              Getting guns away from the general population

              This was a no-brainer and was 28 years ago…..

              Marriage equality

              They literally had to take this to a Plebiscite. It was so blatantly obvious that it's ridiculous that they had to take it to a plebiscite

              • @ThithLord: Yes, but my points still stand.

                In my eyes, politicians are all the same—just looking out for themselves and their mates. Political parties are all the same—saying whatever it takes to get themselves in power, and staying there. We, the people, have the ignoble task of saying which flavour of crap is going to be served to us for the next 4 years. So it goes to stand that I'll choose the flavour that seems least crappy. And sometimes, just sometimes, they manage to do something that surprises all of us, because it actually benefitted more than just the pollies and their mates. But be damn-sure that it was done to keep that side in power.

                • -1

                  @freekay: You literally posted about the Right to Disconnect bill, I enlightened you about the Closing the Loopholes bill and the Same Job, Same pay bill. All three enacted just this term, yet you are both sides are the same'ing the two parties? Labor, having a track record of enabling legislation that is pro-workers each time they are in power, and the LNP - who you cannot even produce any barely-recent work they've done?

                  • +1

                    @ThithLord: I think you're just mad that I'm not a rusted-on Labor person. But I digress. Yes, I am aware of all 3 bills, and yes I think they go a long way to helping workers. Labor's policies have traditionally (at least for the past 40ish years) favoured worker's rights. No arguments there.

                    Now, your first mention was the fact that the media was covering up all the good work (not specifying worker's rights) that Labor have done. I simply said media likes to focus on doom and gloom and gloss over good works, regardless of party. I went further to say media only care about what gets views.

                    You countered that my point is simply incorrect because LNP have never had a good policy in their existence (not specifically worker's rights). I gave you some notable examples of LNP policies enacted under their leadership.

                    You nitpicked and said these aren't recent, to which my response is, so what? I'm not a LNP crony trying to discredit ALP (or vice-versa). I don't know how many times I need to say this: I'm not beholden to either parties. In fact, I dislike them equally. Stop trying to tell me why Labor is better than LNP—I simply don't care.

                    My original point in all of this is that Media are self-interested and will only present stories that get eyeballs. And bad news almost always gets more views than good news.

                    • -1

                      @freekay: The gun laws was almost 30 years ago, and done purely because he had to due to optics, and the Same Sex legislation was only completed because of a plebiscite.

                      Labor enacts pro-worker legislation every time they are in power, off their own back against great resistance from business and lobby groups.

                      The LNP never, ever does this - yet you label them "the same".

                      You are simply far outside your political depth.

                      • -1

                        @ThithLord: Your ability to miss the point is incredible.

                      • @ThithLord: oh dude you are just not getting his point. I'm with @freekay on this. Politics and political parties are THE SAME. If you can't see this you are the one who is blind and exactly the type of person any party would love to have in their member base.

                • @freekay: I like the cut of your jib.

                  • @brendanm: What's a jib?

                    • @freekay: “In the 17th century the shape of the jib sail often identified a vessel's nationality, and hence whether it was hostile or friendly.”

            • @freekay: To Howard's credit, he stood up to the National party and the state governments, and basically handed them a poison pill.
              Accept what I am proposing, or I'll hold a referendum giving the commonwealth the power to regulate guns.
              The actual enforcement mechanism was done by the states, since the commonwealth still doesn't have the power to regulate firearms (except for the importation of them, sort of).

              You'll never guess which state government was opposed to the NFA and the subsequent buyback. That's right, it was Victoria.

              No, it was Queensland. Obviously it was Queensland, Howard could have announced a policy of free hugs and immortality and Queensland would have opposed it. The NFA was also opposed by Tasmania, but I think it was a bit weaker of an opposition - given Greens and Labor had the balance of power in the lower house.
              Both of these were Liberal/National governments.

              GST was initially proposed seriously by Keating. The reason Howard went with it (and implemented it) was because the High Court basically ruled that most of the state-based sales taxes were unconstitutional, which meant that pretty much all of the states were broke. He had actually opposed it in the election which got him elected (and in the leadup to the election before he implemented it)… but so did the Democrats, who helped him pass it in the senate (remember how they were there to keep the bastards honest?).

  • +6

    i remembered i got fired because on my day off i went to a cinema, in duration of the movie, the boss was struggling trying to call in because the others were sick. and he fired me. LOL - i was so naive and young to understand my rights.

  • +8

    I think the takeaway message should be, on call? pay on call fees for the time on call and overtime fees when called. This should be discussed prior to arrangement being in place

    • cries in salary type pay

      • +4

        nothing stopping them from paying allowances for salaried

      • +6

        I think that is part of the point of this legislation. Just because you're salaried doesn't mean you're always on call - you still have designated work hours.

      • +6

        Salary pays for your time, does not buy a slave.

      • +2

        Thoughts and prayers, salaries are terrible.

    • What if the on-call rates are terrible and on-call is mandatory?

  • +4

    My team usually banter on chat apps over the weekend, but no work related stuff. More like lols. Would be a shame if the laws prevented this. But at the same time, not having Sir-Richard company ass kissers calling you on the weekend because they can't meet their own KPIs without effing you around would be great.

    • +2

      I haven't pored over the details, but I think you can still attempt contact after hours, but you can't get salty if the other person doesn't want to play. And yes, I'm pretty sure that's how the legislation was worded.

    • +6

      yes the law will prevent people from making friends at work and chatting outside of work
      if you see them on the street run
      driving on the road and they are crossing, run them over and runnnnnn
      if you are married to your boss, dont even dare talk at home

      how was your da…
      BOOM fair work
      jail time for you mate!

      • I like this law. How do we get this one passed?

        • +1

          if i get enough likes, its an indication i should run for government and then push this legislation forward!
          disconnect party

          VOTE 1 for disconnect party, 2057!

  • -3

    for myself is good but i understand stand there are some businesses that this would completely f—k them

    the idea that we all work 9-5 is outdated in 2024 - if this was a LNP government pushing this i think the moaners and lefties would be outraged

    • +4

      Agree "9-5 for any and all workers" is outdated. But surely you're not online 24/7 or expected to be available all the time, right? So, I guess the bosses and employees need to come to an agreement of what constitutes "out-of-hours" and this may be different for each person.

    • +11

      I find it hard to imagine a universe where a LNP government would be pushing for workers to have the right to disconnect. Or, indeed, for workers to have the right to do anything other than shut the **** up and take whatever crumbs their glorious overlords deigned to allow fall from their table.

      It's not a question of whether we all work 9-5. It's a question of whether we work 24/7.

      • -1

        I find it hard to imagine a universe where a LNP government would be pushing for workers to have the right to disconnect.

        if you think the ALP is for 'workers' then im sorry you're stuck in the 80s-90s because they havent been for workers for almost 3 decades

        I agree the liberals wouldnt care with but the Nationals mostly repersent regionals farmers and miners which are the 'exact' peoples that dont do a tradition 9-5

        the issue i have with lefties moaning is they think everyone is a city working blue collar worker when in reality that is probably only a medium size fraction of the Australian workforce.

        i once again am a city working blue collar worker so it benefits me but if i had a farm, or a business that didnt sit in the regular 9-5 or 8-4 slot i'd probably be looking at future employes a bit differently - i know for a fair few that already are

        believe it or not this legislation will probably hurt workers more then help as most businesses will stick to temp/contractor work and move away from the permeate full time part time - structure

        this is why you're not getting loads of liberal push back as it is more of a reason for business to not give permeate jobs - the issue i have when ALP/Greens are in power is their hard core voters seem to just nod their head and accept any they do without questioning thus why i made the remark about lefties

        • +3

          But it's no different than when the LNP are in power and their hard core voters do the same thing?

        • +3

          There has already been legislation that went through within the last twelve months that limit the length of time that you can hire a contract worker, so seems rather unlikely they will be able to go down that path.

          • -3

            @ginormousgiraffe: There is no point debating with closed minded people i have already said i support the change but there is a lack of debate on it

            If you refuse to acknowledge that then i cant help you

        • +3

          if you think the ALP is for 'workers' then im sorry you're stuck in the 80s-90s because they havent been for workers for almost 3 decades

          Same Job, Same Pay legislation
          Closing the Loopholes legislation
          Right to Disconnect legislation

          You are seriously cooked, and you're lazy as f

        • +1

          It doesn't say the shifts have to be between a certain time.
          Its if I am rostered 9-5 and decided, no I want some quiet time outside those hours I am legally not allowed to be punished for not answering my phone/email.
          Similarly if I do a graveyard shift and want to ignore work from 6am to 3pm, which isn't crazy, I can do that too.

    • +8

      lol at the "both sides!". The day the LNP starts looking after people maybe the moaners and lefties will stop moaning.

      If it (profanity) them that they can't have staff on call 24/7 then that is a problem with their business model, not the laws. People deserve time away from work to relax, the idea that emails and calls and quick questions don't count as work is outdated in 2024 as well.

      I regularly work 12 hour days (and am salaried, so not really an issue), but I set all my emails to send at 8am instead of sending them straight away. It's simply polite.

    • +6

      the idea that we all work 9-5 is outdated in 2024 - if this was a LNP government pushing this i think the moaners and lefties would be outraged

      If the LNP were pushing this categorically pro-worker legislation, the moaners and lefties would be outraged you are not the brightest of sparks, are you?

      • -6

        If the LNP were pushing this categorically pro-worker legislation, the moaners and lefties would be outraged you are not the brightest of sparks, are you?

        Anti-business is not pro-worker - perhaps dont throw insults if you dont understand legislation - as i said im not against the principle but there has been no debate on the issue as this probably will benefit big businesses more than people think but at the same time hurting smaller ones

        • +5

          NPC comment

          • @ThithLord: Fellow meat sac, anti-tech corp is not pro-meat sac worker. Perhaps you should check your language model and then reparse the legislation.
            As you can parse from my previous messages sent via a keyboard, from what I have parsed there has been no exchange of messaging on this issue as it will help large tech corp and hurt small tech-corp.
            I too need to consume the crumbs I earn from regular meat sac things.

    • +3

      You don’t seem to understand this legislation. It doesn’t operate solely for 9-5 workers

      • -2

        It doesn’t operate for 9-5 workers

        lmao learn to read what my point is

        • +10

          Your comment is nonsense. It doesn’t matter what time you work, once you have completed yours hours, you shouldn’t have to be on call if not paid for it

    • +8

      the idea that we all work 9-5 is outdated in 2024

      This legislation has nothing to do with "9-5"?

      if this was a LNP government pushing this i think the moaners and lefties would be outraged

      That's just pure projection, mate.

    • Those businesses just need to pay their workers extra to be on call for an additional 8 hours a day if 8 hours a day while on shift isn't enough.

    • +1

      Nah, if they want people to deal with work outside work hours, they can pay them. I don't work for free, and no one else should either.

  • +3

    I've had some restaurant owners complain to me about it, but I think they just like to complain about industrial relations reform in general. IT's not like their line cooks can do their jobs over the phone. But it will mean if one of them leaves an oven on when they close up that they can't be called on the phone to tell them off, will need to wait until the next day. I think if it were an emergency, like they bagged up the til and forgot to put it in the safe, then calling them would be acceptable to ask where did they leave the money, that's the kind of thing that can't wait until their next shift. And calling them to offer them a shift or ask if they want to come in early and stuff is fine too.

    • +6

      Yeh, understandable. But I don't think the legislation is meant to stop people getting in touch in the event of a genuine emergency—it's to protect workers from being unjustly punished for switching off outside of their work-hours.

    • +7

      Those restaurant owners need to go actually read what the laws are.

      And yes, waiting until someone is at work to tell them off about a work related issue is completely normal.

  • +19

    I read in the news about some guy was holidaying with the family in Hawaii. They got a call to say that there was a crisis and wanted him to return to work. He eventually returned reluctantly; however, it damaged his career.

    Is this fair? It's not like he holds a hose or anything.

    • +1

      :D

      Look, I don't like the guy (quite the opposite). But you have a point in your satirical response. It's not like he was much use to begin with, so what good would it have brought if he was in the country, fronting the media as opposed to Barnsey-boy?

    • +10

      I read in the news about some guy was holidaying with the family in Hawaii. They got a call to say that there was a crisis and wanted him to return to work. He eventually returned reluctantly; however, it damaged his career.

      You forgot the part where he, and his office, insisted that he was definitely, no-way, absolutely not on holidays!

      • +7

        He did like his little secrets, didn’t he? A secret Minister in five different portfolios. Apparently he’s finally found another job he can go fail at.

      • +5

        Also that there was already a massive crisis going on before he chose to leave the country for his holiday.

        It wasn't like something just cropped up.

        • woke nonsense!!11!

        • +1

          Apart from being a figurehead (which, ironically, is literally his job), what actual usefulness would he bring? Would fires have gone out faster just because he sat in a war-room somewhere?

          What I'm saying is, dude is useless. He should have been in the country, but it makes no difference other than to shoot himself in the foot, politically speaking.

          I think him getting out of the way, so that real experts could handle the situation, was the best course of action. Terrible optics. But best course.

Login or Join to leave a comment