Robin Turnbull
- Partner
Robin Turnbull
Insights | Employment
Is it time for UK staff to finally “switch off”?
19 November 2024
As the line between work and home continues to blur, the concept of a ‘right to switch off’ is gaining traction. The UK Government’s proposal aims to address an increasingly common issue: the expectation of constant availability.
This could reshape how people balance work and personal life, while also addressing burnout and mental health concerns. But how realistic is it to implement this change across various industries? Will it apply uniformly to all employers, particularly to small businesses?
During the pandemic, the shift to remote working saw homes transforming into round-the-clock offices. This blurred traditional work-life boundaries, leading to a surge in after-hours emails, meetings, and, at times, unrelenting work communication.
Statistics reflect the toll of this shift. According to Mental Health UK’s Burnout Report 2024, one in five workers took time off in the past year due to struggles with issues such as burnout and anxiety.
The right to switch off is part of the UK Government’s broader ‘New Deal for Working People’, which aims to counteract the negative impacts of constant connectivity. By empowering employees to set clearer boundaries around their working hours, the initiative addresses the root of burnout and promotes economic growth by fostering a healthier workforce. However, the potential impact of this right hinges on how extensively it applies across different employment contexts.
The issue is not new on the international stage. Countries like Belgium and Ireland have already implemented similar policies. In Belgium, for example, employers negotiate workplace agreements to define permissible contact hours and establish right-to-disconnect policies.
This type of approach could serve as a model for the UK, highlighting how legislation can actively support work-life balance. While the UK proposal is still in its early stages, it seems likely that it will draw inspiration from these models to create a similar statutory right for its workforce.
Can it be enforced?
It may not be enforceable across all employers. Small businesses, for example, could be exempt from strict enforcement, allowing flexibility for smaller teams. Variances across industries and business sizes will likely shape the implementation of the legislation, recognising that a one-size-fits-all approach may not suit the range of UK businesses.
This is one of the most pressing questions about the right to switch off; its enforceability. It may not be a standalone right in isolation; rather, it could be embedded within a broader code of practice. Such a code, while not legally binding, would still have an impact on workplace standards.
Employment tribunals could consider breaches of this code in cases of unfair dismissal or discrimination, and indirectly influence employer behaviour. While this may not guarantee immediate change, it could gradually prompt companies to recognise the benefits of healthier work-life boundaries.
The situation draws parallels with existing employment codes, such as the Acas Code of Practice. Although noncompliance with the Acas Code doesn’t directly lead to legal claims, it can affect the outcome of compensation awards, making it influential in guiding employer practices.
Similarly, even without direct enforceability, the right to switch off could bring about a cultural shift, creating a framework that helps employees and employers establish healthier boundaries.
How should employers prepare?
If the right to switch off is introduced, how should employers prepare? Proactive measures can ensure smooth adaptation to potential changes. Introducing a clear policy that outlines work hours, after-hours contact expectations, and response times is a good starting point. Employers should also review existing policies on flexible and home working to reflect an emphasis on balanced expectations.
Conducting a ‘culture audit’ through employee surveys can help employers assess their current environment, identify potential stressors, and understand how staff feel about communication expectations. These insights can guide adjustments to workload and work-life balance, ensuring that the organisation’s culture supports wellbeing.
Investing in mental health training, setting clear boundaries, and fostering an open communication environment can further support this cultural shift. For example, providing managers with training on managing remote work expectations or encouraging employees to take regular breaks can promote a healthier, more engaged workforce.
Indirect legal risks
For SMEs, adapting to the right to switch off may present unique challenges. Although the right may not be strictly enforceable, noncompliance could expose businesses to indirect legal risks.
For example, if an employee experiences undue stress due to excessive after-hours contact, they may resign and pursue a constructive dismissal claim or a claim related to health and safety, potentially resulting in costly disputes.
Ignoring a widely recognised code could also damage an SME’s reputation, especially in a competitive hiring market. For smaller businesses, maintaining a positive image as a respectful, well-balanced workplace can be a key differentiator, helping to attract and retain talent.
The policy may also improve employee loyalty and reduce turnover rates, as workers are more likely to stay with employers who prioritise wellbeing. In this way, the right to disconnect serves both an ethical purpose and a practical one, enhancing the workplace culture while positively impacting the bottom line.
For now, businesses have an opportunity to get ahead by adopting policies that respect work-life boundaries—not only to comply with possible future legislation but to create a healthier and more productive workforce. Embracing this change early on could position companies to retain talent and foster a positive workplace culture.
This article is featured in Insider.
You might also be interested in these articles: