3 ms·

Would the proposed regulation prohibit explicit clauses requiring employees to read that email? If not, there's no issue from the laissez-faire perspective. If

Would the proposed regulation prohibit explicit clauses requiring employees to read that email? If not, there's no issue from the laissez-faire perspective. If it isn't in your contract then you don't need to perform the duty. Perhaps some might say, "Aha! But employees don't have an equal footing in this power dynamic, therefore exploitation!". Which would lead me to assume that contracts are worthless if they are unenforceable. So yes, whatever passes for a market in California should be able to handle it without further intervention from the state. Interestingly, laissez-faire is or was once considered "liberal", but here we are.

Terr_ 3y ago
> Would the proposed regulation prohibit explicit clauses requiring employees to read that email? If not, there's no issue from the laissez-faire perspective. Did some searching, and: > (b) An employer shall establish a workplace policy that provides employees the right to disconnect from communications from the employer during nonworking hours. > (c) Nonworking hours shall be established by written agreement between an employer and employee. > (d) An employer may contact an employee during nonworking hours for an emergency or for scheduling. So it looks like employer can't put a blanket "you agree to respond to anything at any time" thing in their contracts, at least not without also defining "working hours" as 24/7. https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB2751/id/2965645 https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB2751/id/2965645