Will American workers have the 'right to disconnect'? Not in 2024

Most employees know firsthand that work doesn't typically end right at 5 p.m. With the rise of remote work technologies, workers are often expected to interact with their jobs from anywhere, at any time.

One state unsuccessfully tried to put an end to just that — California proposed a bill that would completely forbid employers from sending work-related communication after established work hours. However, the bill did not make it past the California State Assembly Committee on Appropriations this week and has been shelved for the rest of 2024. The bill had been criticized for being too broad, with employers of all sizes required to comply and both salaried and hourly employees receiving protection. Notably, other countries like France, Australia and Mexico have passed similar bills in an effort to fight burnout and promote work-life balance.

"The bill aimed to give California workers more personal time by establishing a boundary between work communication and personal lives," says Aditya Sachdeva, a researcher with financial consulting company Clarify Capital. "With remote working becoming more prevalent, there's a blurred line between when it's time to work and when it's time for yourself. And we know there's more stress, burnout and health problems due to overworking."

Read more: The FTC's new non-compete ban is a wake-up call for employers

Clarify Capital surveyed 800 employees and 200 business executives on the California bill and unsurprisingly found that 83% of employees support it. In fact, 75% of executives also favored the bill, hinting at employer awareness of burnout in their own industries.  

Still, big business groups like the California Chamber of Commerce and Society for Human Resource Management opposed the bill, criticizing it as a setback for flexibility in the workplace.  

"From a business perspective, their reasoning to be against this bill likely lies in concerns around productivity," says Sachdeva. "They are worried about flexibility and responsiveness, especially in fast-paced industries."

Read more: To successfully recruit, reject RTO and rethink family-friendly benefits

The bill did make exceptions for emergency correspondence, such as a scheduling change within 24 hours or an unexpected event that disrupts operations. On the other hand, employers could be punished for allowing leaders to message employees or schedule meetings after hours — something that could be especially hard for employers to manage with a global remote workforce whose hours could widely vary. 

While the bill ultimately may have been viewed as unrealistic, it's likely this isn't the last employers will hear of it. New York City and Washington State proposed similar bills as far back as 2018, and while they didn't pass, the idea may gain more traction now that many workforces are hybrid and can't escape work notifications. 

Read more: It's vacation season — here's how to deal with mass PTO requests

"Especially in a time where we have layoffs happening left and right, employees feel the pressure to always respond," says Sachdeva. "A bill like this has the potential to enhance work-life balance and give you control over your work hours without worrying about the ramifications of being fired."

According to Clarify Capital, three in five employees feel obligated to respond to work-related communications after work hours, and two in five employees make themselves available for work-related communication for nine or more hours a day. Regardless of legislation, Sachdeva advises employers to set boundaries for the sake of their own work culture and employee happiness. This starts with executives and managers enforcing boundaries on their own communications.

"If leaders act like it's all about work all the time, employees may feel like that's how they have to act," says Sachdeva. "It trickles down."