Following in the footsteps of about a dozen countries around the world, California is considering enacting a "right to disconnect" law. As written, the bill would give people "the right to ignore communications from the employer during nonworking hours," except for emergencies or scheduling. It would also authorize employees "to file a complaint of a pattern of violation," and a penalty for businesses.
As chief people officer at Wellhub (formerly known as Gympass), I'm a major proponent of encouraging employees to have healthy lives outside of work. So I understand where the support for this kind of measure comes from. But I also know that it's not the solution, and could even cause problems that it's meant to solve.
To the extent possible given the type of work, businesses should maximize flexibility for staff. Overseeing a remote and global workforce, I encourage team members to get their work done wherever and whenever works best for them, aside from meetings that they know they'll need to participate in live. I've found consistently that giving them this freedom leads them to become more satisfied, engaged, and committed to staying with the company.
It also means that they can take part in physical activities and other wellness-boosting activities at hours that work best for them. As our report The State of Work-Life Wellness 2024 showed, greater employee well-being is proven to increase productivity, decrease health care costs, and deliver talent management savings.
To emphasize the importance of flexibility, I include this line in my email signature: "I am sending this email at a time that is convenient for me. Please read and respond at a time that is convenient for you and that fosters wellbeing and balance for you."
Ironically, the California bill could make it tougher for employers to provide this kind of flexibility. The bill says it "would require nonworking hours to be established by written agreement between an employer and employee." So suddenly, a business like mine might have to create a schedule rather than allowing the employee to figure out what's best for them on any given day. Life can be tumultuous, and schedules change—whether due to caregiving responsibilities, unexpected emergencies, or anything else. Letting an employee choose when to work is much better than creating a rigid schedule.
Employees also sometimes travel for the company. When they're in a different time zone, would their employer suddenly have to set new nonworking hours for them?
For that matter, workforces are increasingly global. If one evening, a manager in San Francisco needs to send a message to employees in Los Angeles, London, and Tokyo, does the manager need to leave the LA staff off the message out of concern that those employees might feel that they need to respond immediately? Months later, if one of those LA employees gets a demerit for something entirely separate, can they claim that it's secretly a punishment for not having replied to an email during off hours?
The key to all of this is culture. Businesses should make sure that employees know they are not expected to be available 24/7. In fact, if a business suspects that an employee might be overworking, it should help the employee learn to disconnect.
At Wellhub, we tell people not to keep checking their emails or chat messages during their off hours. And we explain that if there's an emergency, someone will call. We do this sparingly if ever.
I apply this same rule to myself. I don't receive email or chat notifications from work during my off hours. If my phone rings with a call from work, it means I'm needed for something right away. Knowing that they can reach me this way helps me relax more, trusting that the burden to check is not on me.
There certainly are employers who fail to establish fair boundaries, and may tell or imply to staff that they're expected to follow and respond to all communications at all hours. In a tight labor market, those employers will likely lose employees. And under existing laws, hourly workers who have set schedules can already file a complaint saying that they are being forced to do additional work without pay.
One-size-fits-all solutions like right to disconnect laws may come from the best of intentions. But they reflect an effort to create a single system for widely disparate types of businesses. What works for a company like mine is different from what works for an investment firm, hospital, or factory.
Ultimately, it's up to businesses to genuinely value employees' overall well-being. If they don't, they'll lose top talent—paying an exponentially bigger price than a penalty this law would enact.
Lívia de Bastos Martini is chief people officer at Wellhub, formerly known as Gympass.
The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
Uncommon Knowledge
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
About the writer
To read how Newsweek uses AI as a newsroom tool, Click here.
