Authored By: Kashish Mishra
IMS Unison University
INTRODUCTION: THE NEW FRONTIER OF WORK
The way we work has changed alot, in the recent times. New digital technologies, and global business operations have reshaped older work patterns. Nowadays, employees at nearly all levels are supposed to be reachable even after their working hours, kinda quietly. This is especially true for executives and senior managers, who often get a bit extra pay for staying available all the time.
The “right to disconnect” has become a big topic in many countries. The idea is basically that employees get a legal permission to ignore work messages after hours, without getting in trouble or having issues. However, even though laws have been written on this, there are still plenty of headaches. Employers and employees seem unsure about what is actually permitted, like there is no clear line, or the line keeps moving.
This article looks at the connection between executive pay and the right to disconnect. It asks if expecting people to be on-call 24/7 is fair, and if it should come with extra compensation, or if it is wrong, and ends up violating workers’ rights. By checking current legislation and a few real examples, this analysis argues that today’s laws don’t protect most workers properly and can still cause problems for companies too.
DEFINING THE RIGHT TO DISCONNECT: LEGAL FOUNDATIONS
The idea of “right to disconnect”[1] came from France. It became a law in 2016 through something called the El Khomri Law[2]. This law forced companies with more than 50 workers to create written rules about their right to ignore work messages after office hours. This French idea later inspired other countries to make similar laws.
The legal reason for these rights comes from different laws. Labor laws normally say how many hours a person should work and they require rest breaks. This is because working too much is bad for health. Safety laws at work also protect people from psychological problems caused by not having enough time for family, and personal life. Human rights laws stop discrimination, and they protect workers from bad treatment if they try to use their disconnecting rights.
INTERNATIONAL LEGISLATIVE APPROACHES
Different countries have made different laws about the right to disconnect. This shows how each country has its own way of thinking about work and workers.
France
France was the first country to make a complete law about this. In 2016, they passed a law that said companies with more than 50 workers must create rules about disconnecting. If companies don’t follow this, they can be punished. But France depends a lot on talks between workers and employers, so different companies have different rules[3].
Ireland
In 2021, Ireland made a Code of Practice about the right to disconnect. This is not a strict law, but more like a guide. It says employers cannot punish workers for not answering calls after work hours. Employers should also make rules about when they can contact workers. Even though it’s not a law, courts can consider this if there is a problem between workers and companies[4].
United States
America has not made any comprehensive law about the right to disconnect. The Fair Labor Standards Act talks about minimum wage and overtime pay, but it doesn’t protect workers who are expected to be available all the time. Many highly paid workers like managers and professionals don’t get these protections. This means the people who are expected to work 24/7 have the least protection[5].
LEGAL GAPS: WHERE CURRENT FRAMEWORKS FALL SHORT
Even though many countries have made laws about the right to disconnect, there are still a lot of problems in these laws. Some gaps remain, and they basically leave workers without real protection, also it creates confusion, for everyone involved.
The Exempt Employee Gap in most countries, disconnecting rules tend to protect hourly employees, whose working hours are kind of fixed, and also the pay matches that schedule. But managers and professionals who receive salary pay are often left out of these protections, and that feels odd. I mean, the people who are most expected to be available 24/7 are also the ones with the least legal coverage in practice.
The Global Workforce Gap today, many companies operate with employees across different countries. So, a worker can end up in a place where disconnecting laws are weaker or nonexistent, but they still might be asked by an employer based elsewhere to remain reachable. International labor law, does not really spell out a clear rule for these situations. So, the same worker might end up with very different treatment, depending on which country’s legal framework actually applies.
The Compensation Recognition Gap Many laws don’t really say whether extra pay should happen when workers are expected to stay available. If executives get compensation for being reachable around the clock, is that genuine performance-based remuneration, or is it more like a workaround so employers avoid granting workers their rights. The problem is that current laws don’t answer this clearly. As a result, companies struggle with pay plans, and workers struggle when deciding whether a job is fair.
The Implied Agreement Gap employment contracts often mention availability, and working hours, but they usually don’t spell out disconnecting rights in a direct way. So there is ambiguity about what level of after-hours availability employers can actually expect. Also, it’s unclear in most jurisdictions how enforceable “unwritten” expectations are, like a broad duty of loyalty that could be interpreted as requiring availability after hours.
The Enforcement Gap even when disconnecting rights exist, its still often really hard to enforce them. Workers might be afraid to use their disconnecting rights, because they worry about losing their jobs or, you know, getting overlooked for promotion. This is especially true in competitive executive roles where showing dedication matters for career growth. Government agencies tasked with enforcing these rules are frequently slow and they often dont have enough resources. On top of that, workers have to prove their own case, which can be quite challenging, not just time consuming.
CASE STUDIES: REAL-WORLD APPLICATIONS
Case Study 1: Volkswagen AG (Germany) In 2012, Volkswagen made a decision to give its production workers a right to disconnect. After studying employee stress and work-life balance, the company stopped sending emails to workers’ private accounts after working hours. They even blocked their email servers during rest periods. But the policy didn’t apply to executives. This shows both the good and bad sides of corporate disconnecting policies. Volkswagen’s policy did reduce after-hours emails and employee stress. However, leaving out executives means senior employees still don’t have protection. Also, since this is just a company policy and not a legal right, it can be changed anytime[6].
Case Study 2: Ford Motor Company (United States) In 2019, Ford Motor Company got into trouble when it was found that employees in some departments were expected to reply to messages within hours after work. The company later asked managers to set clear rules and respect personal time. But this was only guidance, not a binding policy[7].
This case shows how American companies struggle with disconnecting expectations when there are no clear laws. Ford realized that expecting availability causes problems like employees leaving and burnout. But the company didn’t have any legal obligation to change its practices.
Case Study 3: BNP Paribas (France) BNP Paribas, the big French bank, ended up in legal trouble after some employees said they kept getting work messages, after hours and stuff. In France, the law basically says the firm has to put in place disconnecting policies, like real safeguards or something. So yeah, you can see the French system has both the bright side and the rougher side. When these disconnecting policies are done the right way, they really can lower after-hours work and that part is helpful for employees. However, the problem was that the people involved still didn’t quite know what would happen if they actually tried to use those disconnecting rights, and that uncertainty made it messy for them.
This case shows how France depends on collective bargaining and company policies rather than individual enforcement. Even though BNP Paribas created policies, it’s unclear how willing employees were to assert their rights[8].
Case Study 4: NTT Docomo (Japan) In 2022, the Japanese phone outfit NTT Docomo gave its roughly 30,000 workers a right to disconnect, like not having to be on call. The rule, as it was written, says managers can’t reach out to their subordinates after work hours, unless it’s in a true emergency. If the limits get broken, there can be disciplinary steps, so it’s not just a friendly suggestion. What’s notable is that this same approach also covers executives. That means the “be available” expectations should not be for senior staff only, it should also cover people at the top, too.
This case shows how companies can take leadership even when there are no laws. It also shows that disconnecting practices help businesses keep employees and reduce burnout costs[9].
EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION AND THE AVAILABILITY QUESTION
The relationship between executive pay and disconnecting rights raises complicated questions. Executive compensation packages often include extra pay meant to compensate for being available and working long hours. Annual bonuses, long-term incentive plans, and retirement benefits for executives often assume that they will be available beyond normal working hours.
The question of whether such pay packages legally allow 24/7 availability expectations remains mostly unanswered. Here are three ways to think about this:
The Quid Pro Quo Analysis if executives earn some kind of extra pay because they stay available, does that imply they should also be working, more hours. I mean under this way of thinking, firms could set up pay packages that more or less fully repay workers for being on call 24/7, so then the whole disconnecting debate becomes kind of pointless, for the people who are actually getting that arrangement.[10].
The Duress Analysis On the other hand, can availability expectations in executive pay be considered forced? Executives might have no real choice but to accept these expectations to get jobs or promotions. Under this thinking, pay labeled as “availability premiums” might not be genuine extra pay where employees have no realistic alternative but to accept being available all the time[11].
The Health and Safety Analysis Work safety laws increasingly recognize psychological problems caused by poor work-life balance, including burnout and chronic stress. Under this thinking, availability expectations—no matter how much pay is given—could violate employer duties to keep workplaces psychologically safe. This means extra pay cannot replace the need for proper rest and personal time[12].
Current laws don’t give clear answers to these questions. This creates big problems for companies designing executive pay packages and for executives thinking about job offers.
CORPORATE ASSET OR LABOR VIOLATION: THE FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION
On the other hand, the argument for Availability as Labor Violation is that forcing employees to be available, even if the pay is higher, still removes autonomy. It can chip away at health and wellbeing. When people are expected to be always there, the working conditions can become rough for mental health, especially if employees cannot actually say no, not without risking their career path. And in most employment settings there’s already an imbalance of power between employer and worker. Because of that, availability expectations are often not truly agreed, they are more like imposed. So, the legal side should step in and protect employees.
Then comes a Balanced Approach, which is basically to avoid going all in either direction. Instead, there should be clear rules about how availability is discussed and compensated. Employees should have the right to understand, upfront, what “being available” means in practice when they join. They should also be able to refuse those expectations if they are not compensated fairly. Plus, they should be able to use their right to disconnect, without it turning into consequences later on. For their part, companies should have duties to spell out expectations clearly, to pay properly for them, and to respect employees who actually choose to disconnect.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION
Recommendations for Legislative Reform
Countries that don’t yet have disconnecting laws should consider putting fresh laws in place that:
• Give each employee enforceable rights to disconnect not only rely on collective bargaining
• Shield all employees including managers and those higher paid too
• Tackle the difficulties faced by workers across different countries through coordination
• Set up enforcement mechanisms that actually work and don’t make it overly hard for workers to prove their claims
• Ask companies to state clearly the availability expectations inside employment contracts
Recommendations for Corporate Policy
Companies should:
• Write down clear rules about availability expectations, including which kinds of messages are acceptable after work hours
• Apply disconnecting rules across the whole company, even executives
• Train managers to respect disconnecting policies and to explain what follows if they don’t
• Design pay structures that specifically account for availability expectations
• Create safe procedures so employees can assert their disconnecting rights, without worrying about retaliation
Recommendations for Legal Interpretation
Courts and government agencies should:
• Interpret existing labor laws so disconnecting rights are recognized when the law’s language allows it
• Make it easier for employees to prove their cases in disconnecting disputes
• Note that extra compensation does not justify availability expectations that clash with health and safety duties
• Build consistent methods for balancing disconnecting rights with legitimate business needs
Conclusion The right to disconnect is an important step in labor law. It responds to workplace problems that older rules simply didn’t anticipate. Still, there are plenty of gaps—gaps that can leave executives and highly paid workers especially exposed
Reference(S):
[1] In France, the right to disconnect allows employees to refrain from work-related communications outside normal working hours, legally established under Law n°2016-1088 of 8 August 2016.
[3] The Right to Disconnect in France – HReact
[4] code-of-practice-on-the-right-to-disconnect.pdf
[5] In the US, companies may lead the ‘right to disconnect’ movement, leaders say | HR Dive
[7] Ford Case Study (pdf) – Course Sidekick
[8] PR_Affaire-BNP_23-feb-23.pdf
[10] Quid Pro Quo: A Philosophical Analysis | PDF | Consideration | Estoppel
[12] Health & Safety Performance as Factor in Executive Compensation
![Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd. [1897] AC 22 (HL)](https://recordoflaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/ChatGPT-Image-Dec-17-2025-08_24_07-PM.png)
