Conference Agenda

The right to disconnect is an emblem of orthodoxy (with some progressive tropes). This contention is explored by analysing current and proposed laws on the right to disconnect in several jurisdictions, ranging from Continental Europe to Australia, to determine what (if any) legal entitlement workers have to a sui generis employment claim for the right to disconnect.

The right to disconnect has gained momentum in Europe with recent initiatives (European Law Institute’s guiding principles (2023); EU Commissioner for Jobs and Social Rights’ commitment (12 December 2023) to legislate on the matter). The right’s construction in law, however, has been narrow. EU Member States with this right have placed restrictions on its scope (such as a threshold of number of workers before the right may apply). The restricted European examples exceed what is found in several common law jurisdictions. The US does not have a right. Only the Canadian province of Ontario has a requirement for employers to have a policy, without a legal entitlement to disconnect. The UK Government has proposed to create a "right to switch off". Ireland only has a code of conduct, which is not legally enforceable. Australia stands out as a jurisdiction establishing an enforceable right to disconnect.

Drawing from current and proposed laws, the right inserts the hierarchy of the work relationship (framework of subordination) into the digital tools of work. The right does not disconnect the individual employee from the employment relationship. The right only protects employees from punishment when they do not respond to persistent contact outside of normal work hours. It does not guarantee time free from the intrusion of work. As set out, the right falls short of facilitating the freedom from an always on culture suggested by the concept. Instead, the right to disconnect admits the gaps in the enforcement of the protective dimensions of work time in employment contracts and working time regulations. A stricter approach to working time laws (see Austria and its working time laws) may be one approach to the right. Discussing the right to disconnect as only a working time matter, though, is a narrow construction which insufficiently responds to the broader impact of digitalisation on work. Instead, the right to disconnect should be viewed as an element of privacy as freedom. Privacy as freedom is about the entitlement to control private time that each person possesses.

The world of work is undergoing rapid and profound transformations due to shifts and developments in areas such as artificial intelligence (AI), global supply chains, and the expansion of platform work. These developments pose significant regulatory and governance challenges, requiring innovative mechanisms to assess and adapt labor standards. This paper examines whether the Standards Review Mechanism Tripartite Working Group (SRM) of the International Labour Organization (ILO) can serve as a model for addressing these challenges in the future. The SRM was established in 2015, partially in response to the escalation of the right to strike dispute in 2012, which underscored the need for systematic labor standard reviews. This body, reporting to the ILO Governing Body, was created to systematically review and assess the relevance and coherence of international labor standards (ILS). Its objective is to ensure that existing conventions and recommendations remain ‘up to date’ in a rapidly changing world of work. By categorizing standards based on their current applicability, the mechanism facilitates updates, consolidations, or possible revisions of outdated instruments. In doing so, the SRM plays a distinct role in maintaining the relevance of ILS amid challenges such as technological advancements, evolving employment relationships, and globalization. Its structured and transparent review process offers a potential model for addressing emerging labor governance challenges in the future. The primary research question guiding this paper is thus whether this model and the consolidating idea behind it can be effectively adapted to address contemporary challenges in the world of work, or mitigate arising conflicts. Methodologically, this study employs a qualitative analysis of ILO and SRM reports and other discursive documents to assess the structure and progress of the SRM. Comparable review mechanisms in the international system are spotlighted with regard to how they rate vis-a-vis the SRM. Findings suggest that the SRM’s tripartite and consensus-driven process can enhance effectiveness and legitimacy. Its model could be expanded, abstracted and transferred to address emerging issues through the incorporation of more flexible, change- and technology-responsive frameworks. To maintain regulatory effectiveness and uphold the goal of decent work, it is essential that ILS remain adaptable to ongoing disruptions in the world of work. This research thereby contributes to the literature on the institutional future of global labor governance by highlighting the adaptability and relevance of innovative organizational structures in addressing emerging labor market challenges.

Introduction:

The global labour market faces profound challenges to worker health and decent employment due to emerging risks, such as mental health stressors, organizational dysfunctions, and the erosion of job protections. Innovations like artificial intelligence and digital transformation amplify these risks, underscoring the need for proactive governance. This paper introduces Sociovigilance, an innovative framework based on fundamental human rights at work. It institutionalizes vigilance, monitoring, reporting, management, treatment, and prevention to protect health in occupational settings while addressing systemic gaps in labour governance.

Research Question(s):

How can Sociovigilance strengthen labour institutions to ensure inclusive protection for all workers, regardless of status, while addressing emerging risks to decent work?

Methodology:

The concept of Sociovigilance was developed through:

- Comparative Analysis: Identifying gaps in occupational health frameworks in France, Europe, the United States, and Canada.

- Interdisciplinary Research: Integrating insights from public health, labour law, and governance studies.

- Case Studies: Learning from governance failures like the asbestos crisis to design proactive solutions.

- Stakeholder Mapping: Highlighting the role of governments, unions, and international organizations in implementation.

Contribution to Literature:

Sociovigilance innovates labour market governance by emphasizing prevention, early risk detection, and centralized coordination. Its scalable model adapts to diverse contexts, offering global applicability while addressing gaps in institutional responses to emerging workplace risks.

Findings:

1. Systemic Deficiencies: Current fragmented systems inadequately manage risks, leaving workers vulnerable.

2. Sociovigilance Model: An independent authority is proposed with two key pillars:

- A scientific hub for data aggregation, early warning, and research.

- An intervention hub for worker support, employer accountability, and organizational transformation.

3. Global Adaptability: Sociovigilance promotes inclusivity and draws lessons from successful examples of institutional modernization.

Policy Relevance:

Sociovigilance aligns with the conference’s focus on reinventing labour institutions to tackle global challenges. By fostering coalitions among states, unions, and emerging actors, it provides a robust mechanism to ensure decent work. Its adaptability enables implementation across national contexts, informed by international best practices.

Conclusion:

Sociovigilance reimagines occupational health governance as a cornerstone of labour reform. This paper invites dialogue on its adoption to create inclusive, proactive, and effective systems that address the complexities of the modern world of work.