Editorial
Australia’s recently passed "Right to Disconnect" legislation aims to set — and enforce — boundaries in an era where the line between professional and personal life has become virtually nonexistent. The law means Australian workers now have the right to not respond to work communication outside of traditional work hours without fear of reprisal.
Similar legislation could be coming to a country near you — but the question is, should it? The answer is, it depends.
Defining Boundaries in an Always-On World
We’ve become tethered to an "always-on" 24/7 work culture in our pursuit of unparalleled flexibility. And let’s be honest, as Chris Herbert, director of talent acquisition at PrimeTime Recruiting Services, observed, “Many people talk about work/life balance; however, they are not doing anything significant to improve it.”
There are benefits to being always-on, including perceived increased productivity and a more responsive business model. But this brand of “overwork” has become marred by the increasingly glaring downsides: heightened stress, less personal time and the ugly rise of burnout as an occupational phenomenon.
While some jobs come with an “outside of business hours” requirement, “there should be clear transparent expectations in the hiring process and in the offer itself,” Herbert said. And it should be something that makes sense for the job.
Justin Gonzalez, global director of customer empowerment at Square, agreed. “We need to look at the reasons people are being contacted during these nonwork times in terms of urgency and importance,” he shared. “A team responsible for reputation management might need to come online outside of what might be considered normal working hours.”
But for the majority of roles within a company, Gonzalez said, this type of contact should be minimal to non-existent.
Still, there’s a growing number of corporate entities adopting social justice platforms (the new term for corporate responsibility), and that adds more time, more attention to every single detail of communications planning, noted Stephanie Johnson, chief communications and kulture officer at the Kulur Group.
“New DEI business units and ERGs ensure the company strikes the right tone about the bevy of issues happening in the world right now,” she said. And when your company is participating on a global scale in sensitive issues, rapid responses can build or break a brand.
Maybe that’s part of the problem. “It really feels like we’ve been in a constant state of crisis since the COVID-19 pandemic and ongoing social unrest,” Johnson said. “And if you cannot find balance amidst constant breaking news, it can break you.”
So maybe legislation is the answer?
Related Article: Always On, Too Many Meetings: Is This the Future of Hybrid?
Will Legislation Solve the Complexities of Disconnecting?
The introduction of legislation isn't without its challenges. The rigidity that might come with compliance, the complexities of enforcing such rules in a global market with different time zones, and the potential to stifle the dynamic nature of certain businesses raise questions.
Will these laws genuinely alleviate the pressure on employees, or will they introduce a new set of bureaucratic hurdles that employers must jump through, potentially impacting productivity and business agility?
“This type of legislation will be a rude awakening for lazy leaders and toxic, overworked cultures,” said Gonzalez. “This new legislation puts power in the employee’s hands, and I believe it will only hurt those business leaders who are already taking advantage of their employees and perpetuating toxic and overworked cultures.”
Beyond the emergency scenarios necessitating immediate response, Johnson agrees: “I also applaud those trying to course-correct what has clearly been a spiraling issue for several years. With some reconfiguring of teams and rotating hours, it could work. It’s definitely a huge win for reducing burnout.”
But Herbert isn’t sure if legislation is the answer. “In Canada and even more so in the U.S., if the employee feels slighted or taken advantage of, they will get a lawyer,” he said. “And ultimately, the decision should be up to the employee. If someone wants to work 60, 70 or 85 hours a week for $300K-$400K or 40 hours a week and spend more time with family, that should be their choice.”
Maybe that’s where everyone can agree: that there needs to be more choice and respect for whatever those choices may be. Can that be mandated? Should it? And how do organizations prevent the unfairness of rewarding those who “choose” to be always-on vs. those who choose a different work/life balance? Can companies get ahead of it all by being proactive and setting realistic, mindful boundaries?
Related Article: Is Burnout Getting Better or Worse? Survey Says: It’s Complicated
Proactive Best Practices for Balance
To find the right balance, establishing clear policies on communication during off-hours, encouraging time off and fostering an organizational culture that values downtime as much as productivity are good starting points. Implementing "email-free" days or setting "communication blackout" periods can also be effective.
Companies should aim to reevaluate the expectations set on employees and provide training and resources to help manage workload efficiently within working hours, all while promoting a culture that actively prevents burnout.
This is all easier said than done, though — so here are some tips:
Conference
Sep
16
HR Tech Conference Las Vegas 2025
Register
Conference
Oct
27
Gartner HR Symposium/Xpo Orlando 2025
Register
“As the lead of a global organization, I made a point to clearly communicate urgency and importance based on the channel,” shared Gonzalez. “For example, non-urgent requests will come through email and 1:1s; timely asks through Teams/Slack; and urgent questions via text or a phone call reserved only for extreme circumstances.”
Gonzalez regularly communicated expectations about working a flexible schedule and revisited those expectations regularly, seeking feedback to ensure alignment and understanding.
For her part, Johnson encourages companies to relinquish the top-down approach. She infuses regular rounding into work culture, supporting affinity groups to sort out “what we can do better for moms, dads, single parents, younger employees, older employees, LGBTQ, transgender, etc. We all have different things that motivate us and or impact our work productivity.”
And maybe that understanding is the missing piece that could clear up the work/life blur.
“It seems to be slowly improving,” observed Herbert. “I do know several companies that have hired a chief wellness officer. One can hope that will make a difference.”
Let’s hope so because without intervention, either through legislation or a collective corporate conscience, work could consume the valuable restorative time needed for a balanced life. And if the trajectory toward a seamless work/life integration continues unchecked, the future might hold a workforce incapable of disconnecting, leading to a host of mental health issues.
Can the system self-correct through a natural pushback from the workforce, or will legislation be necessary to protect our right to unplug? The clock is ticking on sorting this one out.
Learn how you can join our contributor community.
