Right to disconnect unnecessary for New Zealand’s work culture: EMA
The Employers and Manufacturers Association (EMA) has expressed strong opposition to the introduction of a right to disconnect law in New Zealand, following its recent implementation in Australia. The EMA argues that New Zealand’s existing legislation already adequately addresses concerns related to out-of-hours work communication, making additional regulations redundant.
Alan McDonald, the EMA’s Head of Advocacy and Strategy, voiced his skepticism about the necessity of the proposed law during an interview on Morning Report. He questioned the need for another layer of workplace legislation, stating, “Do we really need another piece of workplace legislation? We’ve got legislation that already covers these sorts of situations.”
The Australian government recently enacted a right to disconnect law, which grants employees the right to refuse work-related communications outside of standard working hours unless such refusal is deemed unreasonable. This move is part of a broader global trend toward ensuring work-life balance and protecting employees from undue work-related stress after hours.
However, McDonald contends that New Zealand already has sufficient legal frameworks to address these issues. “And the sort of behaviour you’re talking about, a law on a bit of paper is not going to change that,” he remarked. According to McDonald, existing laws in New Zealand adequately cover work-related communications and employee rights without the need for additional legislation.
Instead of new laws, McDonald suggests practical measures that both employers and employees can adopt to manage work-life balance. “Just get your 12-year-old to program your phone for you or your laptop so that it will send [emails] at 8am instead of 3am,” he recommended, emphasizing that simple technological solutions could effectively address the problem of out-of-hours communication. “You don’t need another law; if you want to disconnect, turn this thing off. Turn your email off, you can do that.”
McDonald’s stance reflects a broader sentiment among some employers who view additional legislation as unnecessary or burdensome. This perspective is not unique to New Zealand; similar opposition has been voiced by employers in Australia regarding the new right to disconnect law. Critics argue that such regulations may be overly prescriptive and that existing practices and workplace cultures should be sufficient to manage out-of-hours communications.
In contrast, proponents of the right to disconnect laws argue that they are essential for protecting employees' well-being and ensuring a healthy work-life balance. They believe that formal regulations are necessary to provide clear boundaries and enforceable rights that go beyond what voluntary practices or technological solutions can offer.
As the debate continues, the focus remains on balancing the need for effective legal protections with practical solutions that can be implemented without creating unnecessary complexity. The EMA’s position highlights the ongoing discussion about the role of legislation in regulating workplace practices and the extent to which new laws are required to address modern work-related challenges.