USA 
United Kingdom
By the time I finished my first full-time job, it’s fair to say my mental health had never been worse.
I was anxious to the point of physical symptoms like shakiness; I drifted in and out of depression without knowing what I was suffering from; I had stopped exercising and doing many of the activities I love.
Yes, there were extenuating factors, namely a lack of support network thanks to the Pandemic and feeling stuck in a career that I knew wasn’t my life’s calling. But the big, inescapable elephant in the room was that I was working at a company where I had no freedom to disconnect—I was utterly burned out.
I was recruiting Cloud Engineers for start-ups and big corporates across America while working out of London, requiring me to work the unusual hours of 12pm to 9pm. For a short period, the extra lie-ins and rush-hour dodging were a welcome novelty. But before too long, a practice introduced by the company’s CEO meant I was expected to keep an eye on my work phone until gone midnight, in case a client had a request or question that needed answering urgently.
Quickly my evenings spiraled into constantly checking Slack groups for messages, dreading any vibration or notification ping and whether it meant a “crisis” needed addressing. Calls after midnight became commonplace.
In hindsight, I’m sure if any of those companies knew what was going on, they’d have been happy to wait a few hours for a reply the next day. But at that point, my ability to disconnect had been stripped away, and I was suffering because of it.
Australia introduces ‘right to disconnect’ law – will the US follow suit?
The ‘right to disconnect’ has become a hot topic following legislation introduced in Australia at the end of August and with a similar proposal on the cards over in the UK, it’s become somewhat of a hot topic drawing strong opinions from those supporting and opposing the legislation.
One critic is SharkTank’s Kevin O’Leary, a Canadian entrepreneur who has some strong feelings on the matter. “Who dreams this crap up is my question?” he asked. “Why would anyone propose such a stupid idea? What happens if you have an event in the office and it’s closed? Or you have an emergency somewhere and you have to get a hold of them at two in the morning because it affects the job they’re working on?”
In practice, ‘right to disconnect’ laws like those enacted in Australia and proposed in the UK include some provision that employees only have the right to disconnect in “reasonable” circumstances. In the case given by O’Leary, for example, likely any employee who needs to respond to emergencies as a part of their job description would still need to be contactable.
Statements like O’Leary’s are rarely helpful to engage with, though, and often do little more than whip up controversy rather than get to the heart of an issue and the best practices for businesses. So, in the interest of practical advice for employers, then, the impact of the ‘right to disconnect’ law all depends on how it is written and upheld. This begs the question: Should HR professionals in America be prepared for ‘right to disconnect’ legislation?
Robert Bird, Professor of Business Law and Eversource Energy Chair in Business Ethics at the University of Connecticut suggests that while not every state will adopt a ‘right to disconnect’ law, some states may lead the charge.
“A few states, such as California, act as leaders in legislating new employment rights. Other states then tend to follow California's lead,” he explains. “I would not be surprised to see some states, though by no means all, adopting a right to disconnect law in the foreseeable future.”
Lily Zheng, Senior Director of Employment, Product, and Commercial Legal at Remote, echoes this prediction: “While the adoption of a federal 'right to disconnect' law in the US seems unlikely in the near future, we may see movement at the state level,” she says.
With the scope and impact of any such law likely to vary greatly in substance, or indeed its very existence, from state to state, it’s tricky for employers to know exactly how to prepare.
Zheng suggests that US-centric laws may be more nuanced, “potentially focusing on preventing retaliation against employees who don't respond outside work hours rather than imposing blanket restrictions on after-hours communication.”
Don’t wait for laws – create a culture that respects employee time & wellbeing today
As any ‘right to disconnect’ laws take shape, HR teams should continue to seek legal consultation and guidance to determine what any legislation means in practice. But employers genuinely invested in the wellbeing of staff and who wish to see long-term benefits on engagement, motivation, and productivity should consider creating a culture where employees are encouraged to disconnect from work.
“Creating a culture that respects employees' time outside of work is crucial for several reasons,” Zheng explains. “Constant connectivity can lead to burnout, stress, and mental health issues. And contrary to what some might think, employees who are always online are not necessarily more productive. Regular disconnection allows for rest and rejuvenation, leading to increased focus and efficiency during work hours.”
Alison Stevens, Senior Director of HR Services at Paychex, agree the culture of an organization is paramount to setting the tone on the decision to disconnect.
“By creating a culture of comfort and showing how and why it is "okay to unplug," this not only promotes wellbeing but creates a more productive and collaborative workforce,” Stevens asserts.
“Further, it may also enable development opportunities for an employee or team to stretch beyond their current role to cover the work when necessary.”
This in turn helps drive retention, creativity, and innovation, as well as protecting health and safety by providing a clear duty of care to staff.
Productivity & retention: How HR can create a culture where employees feel psychologically safe to disconnect
There are steps HR can take to limit unnecessary out-of-hours communication and prioritize employee wellbeing. Firstly, a clearly communicated policy on out-of-hours engagement can help employees get a clear idea of what is expected of them, giving staff the opportunity to raise potential concerns after-hours communications and avoiding any unnecessary outreach particularly from managers or leaders to their subordinates.
Leadership plays a crucial role in establishing these communications and modelling them within the business.
“A talented leader who fails to disconnect by contacting team members during non-working (and working) hours can impact employee engagement, which can impact an organization’s ability to attract and retain their employees,” explains Stevens. “Actions may include creating a blueprint for how to establish a communication and coverage plan that mitigates any negative impact to business operations, establishing a clear communication pathway to cover escalations or other matters, to name a few,” she suggests.
“Encourage leadership to model good behavior by not sending non-urgent communications outside of work hours,” Zheng recommends. “Provide training on the importance of disconnecting and how to manage workloads effectively within work hours, and conduct surveys and one-on-ones to understand employee experiences and address any issues related to work-life balance.”
Secondly, other practical solutions could include flexible work arrangements freeing up employees to define their own schedules, and using technology like scheduling features on emails or message-based communication outside of hours.
A culture based on these principles would have spared me from absolute burnout. It could also have made me more productive and ensured I loved – or at least tolerated – my work, rather than resenting it.
Granted, ‘right to disconnect’ laws are not perfect, and wherever they are implemented there are conversations to have about their intended versus their true impact on the workforce and employers alike.
But if HR teams are interested in driving greater employee wellbeing (and the benefits this brings on productivity, team morale, and retention) – one imagines they are – then creating a culture where employees feel psychologically safe should not wait until legislation mandates it.
