Do not disturb: how more staff are disconnecting from work after hours
The push to give employees the right to completely disconnect from work is gaining traction across Europe
January 16, 2019 at 02:30 AM
6 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Corporate Counsel
For a corporate lawyer immersed in an always-on tech world, it must have seemed odd, at least at first, when California-based LegalZoom general counsel Chas Rampenthal emailed a business contact in the UK, where the working day had ended, and received an automatic notification that the recipient was off the clock and would be available during regular hours.
"In our business, when we have a problem, it could be a server issue or a website glitch… those calls are sometimes coming in at 2am and there's a team of people whose responsibilities are to take care of that," he said.
But the 'Do Not Disturb' movement – the idea that employees should be allowed to disconnect from work after clocking out – is gaining traction, most notably in Europe, where for the last decade or so there has been a gradual and growing push to separate personal life from business.
In Germany, carmaker Daimler allows its employees to use software that not only blocks work emails sent to them during vacations but also automatically deletes the notes and notifies the senders about what has happened: Imagine taking a real holiday, free from the looming spectre of a clogged inbox.
"This is what people are doing for the health and safety of their workforce," Rampenthal said. "It's part of this idea that we can't disconnect on our own. That our brains just can't do it."
Other German companies, including Volkswagen and BMW, have long had policies against contacting employees after hours. Now, the country's lawmakers are considering making those policies law by following France's lead and enacting so-called 'right to disconnect' rules. The disconnect trend also has reportedly spread to Italy and the Philippines.
Canada has been eyeing similar measures since last year, when the movement also reached the US. The New York City Council considered a proposal last March that would give private employees the right to ignore electronic work communications after hours and fine employers $250 every time they violated that right.
Cultural change within the workplace
Several players in the world of workplace communication software, including Slack, have begun offering 'Do Not Disturb' features for employers and employees. After ensuring that we're connected all the time, it seems that tech companies are now finding ways to help us disconnect.
"Technology is always about creating new solutions that create new problems that require the creation of new solutions that will inevitably have new problems," said Odessa O'Dell, an employment lawyer at Canadian firm Borden Ladner Gervais.
That the tech industry – the architect of our always-connected culture – is now coming up with ways to unplug "signals an important cultural change within the workplace", according to Patrick van der Mijl, the Amsterdam-based co-founder of workplace chat platform Speakap. His company, which is headquartered in New York and caters primarily to retailers with remote employees, recently announced that it had released a 'Do Not Disturb' feature for its users.
Speakap, according to what van der Mijl has observed, has joined a growing list of technology platforms that are "building features that encourage companies to empower their employees to switch off when they're not working and create a sense of digital wellbeing".
Erik Syvertsen, general counsel for AngelList, a recruitment website for startups, said he views the Do Not Disturb feature as "essential for a productivity tool such as Speakap".
"Being able to focus and minimise context switching is necessary to make consistent progress on impactful legal projects, whether in the legal department or elsewhere," added Syvertsen, who encourages employees to activate Do Not Disturb mode on their laptops and phones for personal and "work focus time".
Back at Speakap, van der Mijl said the "core values" and "personal beliefs" of his company's team drove their decision to develop the Do Not Disturb feature. But he acknowledged that "there's a legal element that also needs to be addressed" as right-to-disconnect and anti-stress laws catch on in more jurisdictions.
Could new laws become 'gotchas'?
LegalZoom GC Rampenthal views those laws warily – because he's uncertain about how murky language in the rules will be interpreted. For instance, the New York proposal includes an exception that allows employers to contact employees after hours for emergencies. But Rampenthal wondered how the courts might define an emergency for the purposes of the law.
"Some of these rules are proffered with really good reason, but I am worried that the legal system will turn them into an abomination and they will be used as gotchas for people who were not trying to mess over their employees," he said. "I'm concerned by them."
Implementing right-to-disconnect policies could also be tricky for companies with workers in different timezones or employees who work from home, said O'Dell.
"We're a global world now," she added. "We're also in an environment where people want flexibility in their work arrangements and it's going to be hard to monitor."
Employees themselves present another complication. Many might not be able to tune out work, either because they're afraid of missing something and not getting ahead or simply because checking emails during every spare moment has become a habit.
"Even if an employer does its best efforts to put limitations in place, we all compulsively pick up and check our phones. It's hard to turn off," O'Dell said. "There are a lot of factors pushing us against disconnecting. It's the age-old tango we've always had between that work and life balance."
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All‘Are You Not Profiting From Postmasters’ Misery?’—Politicians Grill HSF, Dentons on Post Office Conduct
'Not a Good Look'—FCA Fines Barclays £40M But Accused of Incompetence
Gibson Dunn Sued by Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
Australian Corporations More Concerned About Class Actions Risk, HSF Report Finds
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Trump and Latin America: Lawyers Brace for US's Hardline Approach to Region
- 2Weil Advances 18 to Partner, Largest Class Since 2021
- 3People and Purpose: AbbVie's GC on Leading With Impact and Inspiring Change
- 4Beef Between Two South Florida Law Firms Deepens With Suit Over Defamation
- 5Judge Skips Over Sanctions in Talc Bankruptcy: 'That’s A No'
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250