Dr. Gleb Tsipursky – The Office Whisperer
Nirit Cohen – WorkFutures
Angela Howard – Culture Expert
Drew Jones – Design & Innovation
Jonathan Price – CRE & Flex Expert
There was a time when the separation between work and personal life was so ingrained we barely gave it a second thought. Commuting bracketed the workday. Office wardrobes signaled a shift from home mode to professional mode. Clocking out at 5 p.m. wasn’t just routine — it symbolized a return to our personal selves.
In many ways, it was the original “right to disconnect,” built into the fabric of traditional work.
Then, work went mobile. Eventually, it moved entirely into our homes. The signals that once defined the workday faded. Without them, detaching from work became harder.
Shutting the laptop didn’t mean the day was done; it meant answering emails on the couch, wrapping up tasks after dinner, and revisiting Slack threads late into the night. Microsoft’s data confirms this: the workday has become boundless, bleeding into evenings and weekends with no clear off-ramp.
Some see the answer in reestablishing external boundaries. Many companies now require employees to return to the office a few days per week. Meanwhile, governments have begun passing “right to disconnect” laws, aiming to give employees the legal right to ignore work communications after hours without facing repercussions.
The Momentum Behind Disconnect Policies
France was a pioneer, introducing its disconnect law in 2017 for companies with over 50 employees, mandating respect for after-hours boundaries unless an agreement stated otherwise. Italy and Spain followed suit, and by 2024, at least 18 countries had enacted similar laws — among them Belgium, Greece, Luxembourg, Mexico, Australia, and Ontario in Canada.
These laws vary: some apply only to hybrid or remote teams, others cover all workers; some include fines or mandate contractual stipulations, while others are more advisory in nature. Effectiveness often hinges on how comprehensive and enforceable the laws are — broad, clearly defined laws tend to yield stronger results.
Until recently, debates around these laws focused on whether they might hurt economic competitiveness or simply help reduce burnout. A new large-scale study by Yuye Ding, Mark Ma, and Zhuoying Niu brings clarity.
Analyzing OECD countries over a ten-year span, the researchers found that such laws not only enhance employees’ sense of work-life balance, but also contribute to company profitability.
For example, after Ontario enacted its policy in 2021, employee satisfaction with work-life balance noticeably increased. Companies, in turn, saw gains in productivity.
The research underscores that these policies can be beneficial — but they also expose the limitations of regulation alone.
Why Laws Can’t Go the Distance
Work today transcends offices, time zones, and standard schedules. Somewhere it’s always the start of the workday, and somewhere else it’s winding down. That reality clashes with legislation that assumes a singular, static concept of “working hours.”
More stories for you
Flexibility is, in fact, one of the most appealing aspects of remote and hybrid work. Some people are most creative in the quiet hours of the night, while others thrive in the early morning. A blanket ban on sending or receiving messages outside a fixed schedule may actually undermine the autonomy that flexible work is supposed to provide.
For instance, someone who wants to begin their day at 6 a.m. might only have that freedom if a teammate was allowed to work the night before.
That’s why purely legal solutions can fall short. If legislation limits when one person can work, it may unintentionally limit another’s productivity. That’s the paradox of our always-on culture: we need boundaries, but not everyone needs the same ones. Flexibility isn’t the issue. The bigger challenge — and the opportunity — is rewriting outdated work norms to ensure flexibility doesn’t morph into an unspoken expectation to always be available.
This is the deeper takeaway from the recent research. The true power of these laws is less about regulating hours and more about shifting culture: to make it clear that flexible work shouldn’t equate to being perpetually online. Right to disconnect laws give employees the legitimacy to step away from work.
Still, these policies can only go so far. They grant permission, not implementation.
In a digital, global workplace, boundaries can’t be legislated into daily habits. They need to be actively designed. That puts the onus on both organizations and individuals to build intentional systems — whether cultural, managerial, or personal — that maintain flexibility while protecting against the creep of the endless workday.
