Australia recently introduced a ‘right to disconnect’ law, allowing employees to ignore work-related communications outside of their official working hours. This legislation, which came into effect on August 26, aligns Australia with other countries like France, Spain, and Belgium that have already implemented similar measures. 

The law aims to ensure that personal time remains personal, freeing employees from the pressure to respond to texts, emails, or calls from their bosses once they’ve clocked off. While many workers in Australia have welcomed this development as a long-overdue step toward better work-life balance, not everyone is on board.

One of the most vocal critics of the new law is Kevin O’Leary, the well-known Shark Tank personality and investor. In a recent interview with Fox News, O’Leary didn’t mince words, expressing his frustration and disbelief over the legislation. 

“This kind of stuff just makes me crazy. It’s so dumb. Who dreams this crap up is my question. And why would anybody propose such a stupid idea?” O’Leary’s strong reaction reflects the concerns of many business leaders who see the law as a potential threat to the seamless operation of businesses, especially during urgent situations.

As an investor and entrepreneur, O’Leary places great importance on the uninterrupted operation of a business, even outside regular working hours. His primary concern is the potential difficulty employers may face in reaching their employees during emergencies or critical moments. 

“What happens if you have an event in the office and it’s closed? Or you have an emergency somewhere, and you have to get a hold of them at two in the morning because it affects the job they’re working on?” O’Leary questioned, highlighting what he sees as a significant flaw in the legislation.

The fear is that if employees start ignoring their boss’s calls, texts, and emails outside of work hours, urgent matters might have to wait until the next business day. This delay could have serious consequences for businesses that rely on quick responses and real-time problem-solving. 

For O’Leary, the idea that employees could simply disconnect after hours is unacceptable. He emphasised his stance by stating, “The next moment is — I just fire them,” when asked whether he ever encounters employees who silence their phones outside of work.

While O’Leary’s criticism is rooted in the risk of not being able to contact staff during critical moments, proponents of the “right to disconnect” argue that such laws are essential for establishing clear boundaries between professional duties and personal well-being. 

In today’s world, where technology has blurred the lines between work and personal life, many workers feel pressured to stay connected to emails and calls even after their workday is over. The new Australian law is seen as a way to push back against this expectation and protect employees from the demands of unpaid overtime.

Australia’s Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Murray Watt, issued a statement in support of the legislation, emphasising the importance of preserving personal time. 

“Clocking off used to mean something in this country. It meant time with your kids, time with your friends, or just time to yourself to relax,” Watt said. He added that it should not be controversial to assert that workers shouldn’t be required to do unpaid overtime, and that the “right to disconnect” is a necessary step to ensure that employees can truly leave work behind at the end of the day.

The “right to disconnect” is not new, and Australia is not alone in recognising the need for such legislation. Countries like France, Spain, and Belgium have already passed similar laws, and the idea has been gaining traction globally. 

In these countries, the laws are designed to protect employees from the encroachment of work into their personal lives, ensuring that they can enjoy their free time without the pressure to remain constantly available.

In the United States, however, the concept has yet to gain widespread legal support. While there is no federal law granting workers the right to disconnect, there have been efforts at the state level to introduce such legislation. California, for instance, saw the introduction of Assembly Bill 2751, spearheaded by Assembly Member Matt Haney. The bill aimed to establish a “right to disconnect” for employees across the Golden State, requiring employers to implement policies that allow workers to step away from work communications during non-working hours.

Despite the potential impact of the legislation, it did not advance. The bill was shelved for the 2024 legislative session, putting a temporary halt to the push for a formal “right to disconnect” in California. This setback illustrates the challenges faced by advocates of the movement in the U.S., where the culture of always being available is deeply ingrained in many workplaces.

The introduction of Australia’s right to disconnect law has sparked a heated debate between those who prioritise business continuity and those who advocate for better work-life balance. On one hand, critics like Kevin O’Leary argue that the law could hinder the ability of businesses to function effectively, especially during emergencies. They fear that disconnecting after hours could lead to delays in addressing critical issues, potentially harming the company’s operations and bottom line.

On the other hand, supporters of the legislation argue that it is a necessary measure to protect employees from burnout and ensure that they can enjoy their personal time without the constant intrusion of work-related communications. They believe that the law is a step towards creating a healthier and more sustainable work environment, where employees are not expected to be available 24/7.