Right-to-Disconnect Bill Defeated

California’s right-to-disconnect bill, which SHRM opposed, has been shelved. The legislation has been “held under suspense” by the California State Assembly Committee on Appropriations, meaning that the bill has effectively been defeated for the remainder of the 2023-2024 California legislative session.

Under the bill, employers would have had to create policies that allowed workers to ignore communications sent by their employers during their off hours.

In an April 4 letter of opposition to Democratic state Assemblymember Matt Haney, the bill’s sponsor, SHRM and the California State Council of SHRM (CalSHRM) said they were “deeply concerned about the negative impact AB 2751 would have on California businesses and workers alike. The bill’s one-size-fits-all approach limits the autonomy employers and HR professionals need to establish effective workplace cultures. An effective solution to this issue requires a collaborative approach that promotes a focus on clear communication and encourages employers to set transparent expectations for after-hours work at the outset of employment and for specific projects. Instead of overly broad government mandates that penalize routine, legitimate business practices, we call for solutions that prioritize culture and empower workers.”

We’ve gathered articles on the news from SHRM Online and other outlets.

What Bill Would Have Required

California Assembly Bill 2751 would have required employers to establish workplace policies that provide employees with the right to disconnect from communications from the employer during nonworking hours, said Chris Micheli, a founding partner of Snodgrass & Micheli in Sacramento, Calif. The bill would have granted a right for employees to ignore communications outside of work hours except for in an emergency or for scheduling. 

“There is little doubt that there are situations in which a limited number of employers abuse their ability to contact employees during nonworking time, but this legislation attempts to address the issue in a manner that would unnecessarily tie employers’ hands and adversely affect business in California,” said Joe Beachboard, an attorney with Beachboard Consulting Group in Palos Verdes, Calif.

(SHRM Online)

SHRM Opposition at Hearing

SHRM and CalSHRM strongly opposed AB 2751 due to its overly broad approach to addressing a workplace challenge, testified Michael Kalt, government affairs director for CalSHRM, at an April 17 hearing before the California State Assembly Committee on Labor and Employment.

“Businesses need to respond quickly to operational demands, and this sometimes requires after-hours communication, which is compensated. Eliminating this common business practice could jeopardize the competitiveness of Californian businesses at home and abroad,” Kalt said.

AB 2751 also raised significant concerns about enforceability and administrative burdens on employers, he added. 

(SHRM Online)

Cost Concerns

Backers argued that the bill would help maintain boundaries between work and personal life, which many professionals have found to be increasingly blurred amid the rise of the smartphone and remote work. Opponents argued the bill would impose rigid work schedules, amount to a step backward for flexibility in the workplace, and run counter to the work culture of Silicon Valley.

A $44.9 billion deficit has loomed over the California State Assembly Committee on Appropriations’ work. State officials estimated the bill would have created costs for government agencies that would have needed to establish right-to-disconnect policies for employees. Lawmakers have already agreed to slash spending in several areas, but the state still faces a $27.6 billion shortfall.

(Bloomberg)