• Taleya@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    2 months ago

    yup, and oh look, they recently gave us the carrot of “right to disconnect” as if it was something we previously didn’t fucking have

    • Gorgritch_Umie_Killa@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      To a degree the right to disconnect is like working from home, those policies affect white collar far more than blue collar, or min wage service workers, etc.

      So in my mind it makes sense that, that reform went through without much issue. Everybody is on the side of the middle clas white collar worker it seems.

      Its noticeable how much media time work from home has got since COVID over just about every other issue impacting workers. Maybe its because journalists identify more with it, maybe other classes of workers haven’t the power to effect change, and influence national conversations.

      • Taleya@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        Really? Because the first place my mind goes to is service workers. Not answering a call wanting to get them in off shift, and not facing penalty for it.

        White collar workers would not be penalised for not responding out of work hours, it’s a lawsuit waiting to happen

    • Zagorath@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      Eh, I think strictly codifying a law that basically exists but is potentially vague can be a good thing. This makes it absolutely undeniable that you have the right to disconnect from work, where previously you’d have to kind of work it out and employers might try to argue exceptions.

      It’s like minimum passing laws for cyclists. A car going past a cyclist at 90 cm is obviously dangerous and irresponsible driving and any reasonable person would say it’s a chargeable offence for that reason. But in practice it very rarely got prosecuted, and even when it was it didn’t always succeed, because motornormative society defaults to saying the cyclist must be wrong. With a hard and fast rule that passing at less than 1 metre breaks the law, nobody can quibble about subjective matters like whether it’s dangerous or reckless.

      • Taleya@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        As a regular cyclist, your analogy is giving me zero faith in lawful application

        • Zagorath@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Ha! Yeah that’s fair. But the problem in that case is with the police refusing to do their job. Under the new laws, if it does go to court, a conviction is pretty much guaranteed. Unlike poor Richard Pollett, whose killer got off scott free on charges of “dangerous operation of a vehicle” prior to the minimum passing laws.