Right to disconnect protects family time

Opinion

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 29/10/2021 (1418 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

The COVID-19 pandemic appears to have ushered in a new era of working from home for many Canadians. According to Statistics Canada, 30 per cent of employees from April 2020 to June 2021 who worked during their Labour Force Survey reference week were doing most of their work at home. Compare this to 2016, when only four per cent did so.

Further, few Canadians are eager to return to their old work routine once the pandemic is well and truly behind us. A recent survey conducted by Angus Reid found 22 per cent of Canadians would prefer to work from home full time, whereas a full 39 per cent hoped to adopt a hybrid model in which they could split their time between home and the workplace.

The rationale for this, according to the survey, is that avoiding a lengthy commute gives Canadians more time to prepare healthy meals and exercise. In other words, Canadians are seeking a healthier work/life balance after the pandemic.

Crucially, 89 per cent of Canadians agreed that one benefit of work-from-home or hybrid arrangements was that employed parents would have more time to spend with their kids at home. Rather than dropping their kids off at daycare early and picking them up late to accommodate a long commute and a full day at the office, almost nine out of 10 parents are seeking work accommodation that will allow them to squeeze more hours with their kids out of each day.

And Canadians are serious about this: 29 per cent surveyed said they would look for another job if these work-from-home or hybrid arrangements weren’t possible. It’s clear that if employers want to hold on to their best workers, they’ll need to consider the possibility of alternative work arrangements in the future.

So far, so good — but, as always, there’s a catch. Going to your place of employment to work is a useful way to create a boundary between work life and family life. Working at home blurs that distinction. With work-from-home arrangements, there are greater temptations to put in longer hours and to work in the evening.

This can’t all be blamed on work-from-home arrangements. We are all more connected than ever. If you have a phone in your pocket, then your boss and co-workers have a convenient 24-7 way to contact you and keep you connected to your work, often expecting an immediate response. It’s easier than ever for managers to expect more from their employees around the clock, and harder than ever for people to effectively claim time for both themselves and their families.

Parents might get more time with their kids, but that’s not worth much if their bosses are hectoring them via their phones late into the evening.

It was exactly this problem that was addressed by Ontario’s Minister of Labour, Training and Skills Development, Monte McNaughton, in new legislation introduced last week. “This is an issue that’s been really highlighted because of the pandemic,” McNaughton argued. “The lines between family time and work time have been blurred.” In response, the minister introduced new “Right-to-disconnect” rules that would require employers to develop policies to ensure the home and family time of employees would be respected.

This might include policies regarding, for example, expected response times for emails received outside regular work hours, or the use of out-of-office notifications while not on the job.

This follows similar right-to-disconnect legislation introduced in France in 2016 that gives workers the right to not take phone calls or answer emails outside regular work hours. And the Ontario legislation has spurred the federal government to act on these concerns: the government now promises similar right-to-disconnect rules to protect the family time of federal employees.

These rules are part of a wider package of reforms introduced by McNaughton which are seen to favour employees and workers in Ontario, including the banning of non-compete clauses in employment contracts. The use of these clauses in contracts in which they serve little purposes other than to intimidate workers has proliferated in recent years, and McNaughton is right to ban them.

The fact it’s McNaughton — a Conservative minister who serves under Premier Rob Ford — who is introducing these reforms has been cause for some skepticism. This is understandable, given the Ford government’s callously worker-unfriendly actions at the outset of the pandemic.

But in fact, McNaughton’s reforms are in line with one side of a growing debate in conservative circles in Canada. People on this side of the debate argue government power should be used to support workers — including unionized workers — through economic nationalist policies and provide direct support, both financial and otherwise, for families and children. This contrasts with other “conservatives” who hope to lower taxes, reduce the capacity of government and do away with regulations that are there to protect workers.

Royce Koop is a professor of political studies at the University of Manitoba and academic director of the Centre for Social Science Research and Policy.