Within the cosmos of the European Union there is a great deal of talk about workers’ rights, one of which is the right to disconnect, that is, to disconnect from one’s work once one has ended one’s working day. There is also talk about the inequalities in pay between genders and the need for companies to be more transparent about their pay structures. There is also talk about remote working and other issues.
That we have an objective, healthy debate about family-friendly measures (or so they were called up to a few years ago, because such benefits were linked to the need to create a better balance between one’s obligations at work and one’s obligations towards one’s family) is absolutely necessary. In principle, there is nothing against any of these measures if one looks at them in a dispassionate way.
Admittedly, there would always be an element of opposition to such ideas, just as there was opposition to maternity leave, parental leave, the maximum 48-hour week, and so many rights that have been given to (or won by) workers over the years. Eventually these ideas got accepted, but we can learn from that experience about the way such measures should be introduced.
We need to appreciate that any right needs to be balanced by responsibilities
There has been one fundamental change since then, which I have already alluded to. Such measures used to be called family-friendly measures, or measures that aim to promote a better work-life balance. Nowadays, there is the expectation that such measures should apply to all, irrespective of one’s personal situation. In fact, some should apply to all. For example, pay inequalities due to gender is such an important fundamental principle that it needs to be applied universally. Other measures may need to be applied selectively.
The point I am trying to make here is that we need to appreciate that any right needs to be balanced by responsibilities. Taking once more the example of pay inequalities due to gender, the right to equal pay for equal work or equal responsibilities is underpinned by the concept of the same results. Pay is a function of one’s performance as much as it is a function of one’s responsibilities. After all, this is what real meritocracy is all about.
On the other hand, employers need to understand as well that it is in their interest to have a compensation policy that explains clearly the principles upon which employees’ salaries are determined. They also need to understand that showing empathy to their staff in specific situations is to their benefit.
Equally, employees need to accept that there is nothing like a free lunch. Unfortunately, the ease with which some people in this country have made money, through all means legal and illegal, make others believe that they have a right to a salary which is better than they have today, irrespective of their responsibilities and performance.
Another example to take is remote working, a measure which has been resorted to significantly because of the coronavirus. Some employees treat it as a perk, like they would treat having a coffee machine at the place of work as a perk; but a perk has no real value by definition. I would rather it is called a benefit, and I am not splitting hairs here.
The snag with remote working is that some have turned it into a real farce. I have had people not accepting appointments because they claim that they are working remotely, and at the time of the proposed appointment, they would be on their daily walk. If they were not working remotely, the issue of the walk would not even arise. As such, remote working may be something positive but some believe that it is a good enough reason to skive off work with impunity.
This brings me to the right to disconnect. Of course, I want to have the right to disconnect after a hard day’s work. However, are we willing to let doctors disconnect if we need them at 10pm because of an emergency? So, are we sure that this principle should be applied to all?
And if someone has the right to disconnect after a hard day’s work, does one have the responsibility to disconnect from the outside world during the time one is meant to be working?
People who have worked with me in the past or work with me today know the liberal approach I adopt towards these issues. However, it is useless talking about such issues if someone believes that one can act with impunity, or someone does not treat others respectfully. Any healthy and objective debate about such measures needs to be built on these principles.