Workers' Right to Disconnect Won't Matter If Such a Right Isn't Properly Enforced
Today I wondered aloud about "on-call" duties in the UK. I wondered about it after I had done so for nearly 12 years; I was always "on-call" and my main role or function was being "on-call" in case of incidents (I possess the relevant technical skills to resolve many issues without escalation). The issue came back to mind after someone I know said he could relate to something I wrote about last month (as did disguised.work [1, 2]). People occasionally have a fair question: is it OK for an employer to phone a worker at home (outside working hours)?
With the notorious zero-hour contracts, which aren't just a UK thing (anymore), workers need to be "on-call" constantly (to know when they work). Is that legal and, if so, what circumstances permit this to happen? The laws vary between countries, but the common denominator in Western capitalist societies is that when workers 'clock out' (physically or metaphorically) they ought not be contacted about work.
A friend whom I asked about it cited the Workers' Right to Disconnect in the EU - a subject that EPSU wrote about. (I previously cited similar laws in the UK and mentioned Japan)
Some people may remember EPSU for its support of EPO examiners in the face of abuse, even as recently as a few months ago.
"I'm sure there might be exceptions," my friend said, "with appropriate agreement in advance and compensation, but the short answer is no." (It's not OK to do this)
"Generally there would be some indication whether one was 'on call' in some way or another and, if so, there was compensation. And all that would be decided in advance, not made up on the fly."
I am no longer "on-call", which means that I can sleep a lot better and sometimes produce a lot of articles, videos (without eye bags) and so on...
In the next article we'll speak about further erosion of people's rights, partly in relation to this latest video. █