California is considering a law that if passed would allow employees the “right to disconnect” as in not answer calls and emails while enjoying nonworking hours. While I am all for this for non-exempt employees, as FLSA says non-exempt must be compensated for time worked outside working hours, my concern for this is exempt employees.
Why should it not cover exempt employees?
Exempt employees take on the higher responsibilities, being on-call for emergencies, and more. Even in HR directors, managers and others have to be available. For example, if there is a manager that handles injuries and someone works late nights get injured, there is a chance the manager over worker’s compensation get called about handling it. They knew when they accepted the position, presumably getting higher pay and such as that.
Getting the work done
I had an interview recently when this subject came up, although it was not referred to as the right to disconnect. First, it came up when a peer assured me that the supervisor makes sure everyone leaves on time. Second, it came up as being mentioned that we do work outside the office, sometimes on weekends when the need is required. As this was for an exempt position, I take that responsibility and should be compensated accordingly if accepting that role. I know I have discussed things to consider when accepting a position before, but this is also one of the things I look at. If I am potentially going to be spending less time with my family, I want to be compensated for it. During the interview, I was reassured that family is and should be my first priority. I feel like they were sincere about it too. For those who are exempt, I do feel that they should not be disturbed when they are on vacation, bereavement, or something along those lines. I do not include sick time, because that is not always predictable and sometimes you are needed to share information to help other covering you.
Defining “Right to disconnect”
My understanding is that if this is passed, public and private entities would have to create a policy to address this. Here is my concern about it, Organization A has strict rules about communicating with employees off the clock, while Company C has something written, but it defines it as:
Company should not communicate with employees off the clock except in emergencies, scheculing or discussing important work details.
Example company policy
In my example there are numerous things wrong with this policy. I am not a lawyer, but here are the loopholes I see coming from this example:
- “except in emergencies, scheduling… important work details”
This allows the manager or company the ability to decide this things without being specific resulting in no real effect other than having a policy. - “Company should not…”
“Should” is a tough word to enforce, it does not give strength to the statement. It might as well be “We wish our company would not but we know we are going to contact employees off the clock.”
It will very interesting to see how this plays out if passed and if will more states would adopt similar things.