SHRM, Garden State Council Oppose Right-to-Disconnect Bill in N.J.

A right-to-disconnect bill in New Jersey would unduly limit the autonomy employers and HR professionals need to establish effective workplace cultures, SHRM and the Garden State Council-SHRM (GSC-SHRM) wrote in a recent letter to New Jersey Assemblywoman Heather Simmons.

Simmons sponsored Assembly Bill 4852, which would require New Jersey employers to establish a workplace policy that provides employees with the right to disconnect from communications from their employer during nonworking hours. Nonworking hours would be established by written agreement between the employer and employee. An employee would have the right to ignore communications from the employer during nonworking hours. An employer would be able to contact an employee during nonworking hours for an emergency or for scheduling.

Reasons for Opposition

SHRM and GSC-SHRM opposed the bill for the following reasons:

• Compliance uncertainty: The bill lacks clear definitions of the term “emergency.” This ambiguity could lead to inconsistent enforcement and numerous legal challenges.
• Sector and role sensitivity: The legislation does not adequately recognize the different realities of various industries and roles. For example, what constitutes an emergency can vary greatly between a tech startup and a health care provider, making a blanket approach unworkable.
• Operational agility: Restricting all after-hour communication could hinder critical work processes and delay important business decisions. This could negatively impact businesses’ ability to serve their customers and respond to changing conditions.
• Applicability: The legislation creates a catch-22 for an employee who cannot be simultaneously disconnected to comply and connected to the employer to respond to an emergency. An employee needs to be connected to determine the nature of the communication from their employer. 
• Inadequate implementation time: The legislation requires employers to comply within six months of enactment, a relatively short time to develop and implement a sound policy.
• Work-hour flexibility: The legislation unreasonably restricts occasional overtime necessitated by the natural flow of work.
• Administrative considerations: A4852 could create a significant administrative burden for HR and employers, diverting resources from strategic functions to compliance tasks and reducing overall business efficiency and economic competitiveness.
• International competitiveness: In today’s global market, the ability to communicate across time zones is crucial for many businesses. A4852 would place U.S. companies at a disadvantage compared to competitors in markets without restrictions.

SHRM similarly opposed a right-to-disconnect bill in California this year—legislation that was defeated.

After-hours intrusions can lead to employee dissatisfaction, but sweeping mandates rarely yield positive outcomes, the New Jersey letter said.

“A workable solution to this issue requires a collaborative approach that promotes a focus on clear communication and encourages employers to set transparent expectations for after-hours work at the outset of employment and for specific projects,” wrote Emily M. Dickens, J.D., SHRM chief of staff and head of government affairs, and Michael Timmes, state director of GSC-SHRM. “While SHRM and GSC-SHRM oppose this legislation, we believe our expertise can be a valuable resource to find common ground.”