No need for these right to disconnect laws. When I’m not at work I’m not available at all. End of story. Especially when on unassigned days RDOs and Annual Leave. We all already have this right.

It wasn’t a right until last week to not face punishment from your employer for not taking calls outside work hours. This legislation changed that.

What was the punishment for not taking a call or responding to a text on your RDO or annual leave?

Some EAs have contact obligations and protections set in stone, others are vague, leaving them open to abuse. What this new legislation does is prevent adverse action against an employee for not being contactable outside of agreed hours.

The practical effect is that pilot workgroups that don’t have specific contact requirements written into their EAs will need them, which can only be a good thing.

So, again, what was the punishment for not taking a call or responding to a text on your RDO or annual leave?

Whatever sanction an unscrupulous boss chose to enact against an employee who didn’t respond outside of work hours.

I’ve been lucky to spend the majority of my working career under contracts with well defined contractibility protocols but not everyone is as lucky. Therefore this legislation will benefit a lot of workers.

Ah no I don't have to answer my phone to anyone. Even the Police.

Well, that’s great that you are financially secure enough or in a reasonable job so that you’re able to say that, so you’re really not who the laws are written for, and their introduction shouldn’t change anything at all for you. They’re aimed at protecting the office worker who is unreasonably expected to be constantly answering trivial emails while on annual leave and at night, or risk poor performance reviews as “not a dedicated employee”, or the casual retail worker who doesnt get any more shifts because they dont reply to text messages at any hour of the day or night. They’re not aimed at a pilot on reserve or eg an on-call emergency worker who is clearly expected to be contactable during certain periods, and who almost certainly has - or should have - an EBA that lists contactability provisions.

Ultimately these laws would protect you, though, because they prevent an unscrupulous manager from being allowed to punish you for not answering your phone on days off or outside reasonable times. They dont stop a manager from texting someone to say “there’s a shift available”, or legitimate emergency communications, they are aimed at stopping employees from being punished for not answering at all hours of the day or night, particularly those with a regular shifts eg, 9-5, Monday to Friday job who should reasonably expect their nights and weekends, or other days off, to be free.

Dutton already promising to remove the laws once in power.

De_Flieger,

it’s not about being financially secure. I doubt many of us including myself would consider that to be the case.

My point is it is not a crime to not answer your phone.
Never has been. During lockdown I didn’t answer my phone while on rest. Then I answered a call from a no caller id number and it was the Police checking self quarantine. I said I don’t normally answer no call id calls. I was told you have to answer we are the Police. I told them “no I f#cking don’t and how the hell am I supposed to know who you are before I do or don’t answer?” You want me? Come and knock on the door. Never heard from them again.

So if the Police can get f#cked then my company can too. Not available on RDO’s, Non Assigned days nor Annual Leave. You want me on standby? Roster it then! I have no problem with that.

You ****. The laws aren't designed for people like you. :ugh:

Then you’re completely missing the point of the new laws and why they’re being introduced. I never said it was a crime not to answer your phone. The laws aren’t aimed at people in your situation. They’re not aimed at people who are able to ignore calls from work on their RDOs or nights without any consequences. They’re aimed at managers or employers who take advantage of people who aren’t in that situation, people who are in precarious casual work or low-paid or vulnerable workers, or are being otherwise unreasonably treated.

I’m glad you’re in a position that you can ignore calls, these laws are for people who are mistreated by their employers and can’t ignore calls and emails because of that. The justification for having the laws is the same as a workplace safety law…good employers will do the right thing anyway, bad ones are the reasons we need the laws.

Well lucky for Australia’s workers the possibility of that happening is quite remote! I’m not sure how convincing people to vote for you with a “we want to make it legal for a boss to punish you for not answering calls on your day off” policy will work…….

We have a strong history of voting for leaders who want to take an axe to IR laws.
To say it is quite remote for him to be leader next election is naive. He is good at scare campaigns and distraction. Just look at the voice to parliament, the language he used about Albanese and tax changes or even this week with Barnaby falling over..

Yes, and facilitated by the CASA.

Perhaps it might be owing to the manner in which the media reported this matter however, I was somewhat flummoxed that any employee was required to respond to an employers request outside of their working hours. During the weekend, Jack & Jill, who don't work on the weekends, go camping on the top of the hill which does not have any communication services. When Jack returns to work on Monday he is subject to punitive measures because he failed to respond to a voicemail from the employer. By the media reports, it infers that Jack is required to be contactable by, and respond to the employer, over the weekends. I expected Jack's fundamental right would be the complete opposite of that.
Is it just a coincidence that situations like this are becoming more common along with declining living standards, low wages, poor working conditions and employer abuse, at a time when union membership is at it's lowest level since unions began? I don't, I think there is a direct relationship between the two..... I only hope the younger generation will see the truth and unite. When you look at the majority of impoverished countries around the world, there is a common element that exists amongst them and that is, no workers' unions.

I've heard (unverified) that in some European countries these "disconnect" laws include that an employer must not engage in any form of communication with an employee outside of their working hours e.g. irrespective of what the subject matter is, management can not send a work related email to Gertie's account outside of her working hours.

That was proposed in discussion on the Australian law but was watered down in the final form. Employers can contact you outside of work, you have to right to respond but the key is now an employer cannot take punitive action against you for not answering message or performing tasks outside of agreed work hours.

Maybe I should wait until 60 mins before my flight to read NOTAMs as if they were handed to me like the old days. CASA could mandate that they aren’t sent out electronically until sign on. I could see s… hitting the fan, hard! I get the laws, there is just more and more being expected without pay. It would be good if a union could lead the fight on this front.

Why are you currently reading them more than 60 mins prior to departure?

If your EA sign on obligation is -60, don’t sign on until -60. Your union has already got that in the EA.