A San Francisco lawmaker is seeking to ban bosses from calling staff after hours with new legislation that could fine them if they break rules three times.
Matt Haney, a Democrat representing San Francisco, has introduced a proposal aimed at addressing the problem of constant work-related communication after hours.
If passed, California would become the first state in the country to give employees the right to hit their bosses with “do not disturb.”
Inspired by Australia’s upcoming “right to disconnect” law, Haney’s legislation would give California employees the legal right to ignore calls, emails and texts from their bosses outside of work hours.
“People are now always on and never off,” Haney told the New York Times. “There is an increase in availability that has spread to many people’s lives, and I think it is not a positive thing for people’s happiness, for their well-being or even for work productivity.”
Matt Haney, a Democrat representing San Francisco, has introduced a proposal aimed at addressing the problem of constant work-related communication after hours.
Inspired by Australia’s upcoming “right to disconnect” law, Haney’s legislation would give California employees the legal right to ignore calls, emails and texts from their bosses outside of work hours.
If passed, California would become the first state in the country to give employees the right to hit their bosses with “do not disturb.”
Haney highlighted the challenges posed by remote work, which were exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, blurring the lines between work and personal time.
He emphasized the negative impact of this “increased availability” on the well-being and productivity of individuals.
While California already has generous workplace rights compared to many other states, including a higher minimum wage and broad worker protections, Haney’s bill seeks to codify employees’ right to disconnect.
Under the proposed legislation, employers would be required to establish policies that allow workers to ignore communications outside of work hours, except in emergencies or imminent schedule changes.
“This is not to say that people can’t work long hours or have an agreement for an on-call contract, but it should be made clear,” Haney told the New York Times. “The problem we have now is the gray area, where an employee is expected to respond all the time when on paper he works 9 to 5.”
Employers and employees would need to define work hours through written agreements.
If an employer repeatedly violates this agreement, employees could report the matter to the state labor commissioner, which could result in fines starting at $100.
However, the proposal recognizes collective bargaining agreements, ensuring that unionized workers are governed by the terms outlined in their contracts regarding off-duty communication.
Rodney Fong, director of the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, said many employees have already achieved a better work-life balance thanks to remote work arrangements.
He emphasized the importance of personal boundaries and suggested that employees use features such as “do not disturb” settings on their phones to manage communication outside of work hours.
“Most phones have a do not disturb feature,” Fong told the New York Times. “Just because it rings doesn’t mean you have to pick it up.”
Haney’s bill is expected to be considered by a legislative committee this spring.
Earlier this month, Senator Bernie Sanders introduced a bill with a four-day work week. The ‘Thirty-Two Hour Workweek Act’ would reduce the standard workweek from 40 to 32 hours without loss of pay
Earlier this month, Senator Bernie Sanders introduced a bill with a four-day work week.
The Vermont progressive and self-proclaimed “democratic socialist” proclaimed his “Thirty-Two Hour Workweek Act” during a hearing of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee.
His plan would reduce the standard workweek from 40 to 32 hours with no loss of pay for employees. The bill would also reduce the maximum number of hours required for overtime pay for non-exempt employees.
Sanders has said the bill is “not a radical idea,” but the top Republican on the HELP committee, Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., warns that workers will be the real losers if it is signed into law.
“For the government to impose a 32-hour work week and force companies to raise wages by at least an additional 25 percent per hour would, frankly, destroy some employers,” Cassidy said at Thursday’s hearing.
“If this policy is implemented, it would threaten millions of small businesses that operate on a very narrow margin because they cannot find enough workers.”
It’s free money, so to speak. There is no loss of salary, but much less work is done.’
Cassidy said the proposal “would be napalm on the fire of inflation.”
The bill also contains provisions that would require overtime pay, time and a half, for employees who work more than eight hours a day.
The top Republican on the Senate RELIEF Committee, Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., said the measure could threaten millions of small businesses, forcing them to pay more for less.
It also requires workers to receive double their normal salary if they work more than 12 hours a day.
Still, Sanders maintains that workers today are more efficient than in 1940, when the standard 40-hour workweek was established.
“Today, American workers are more than 400 percent more productive than they were in the 1940s,” Sanders said in a news release announcing the bill.
“And yet, millions of Americans work longer hours for lower wages than they did decades ago.”
“It’s time to reduce the level of stress in our country and allow Americans to enjoy a better quality of life.”