This does not stop an employer from potentially disciplining or firing you. Laws do, because they bind. Implicit contracts and hope are not a strategy, with regards to worker rights and protections.
An employer who is prepared to put in writing that you will be fired for not working unpaid overtime (responding to email) is in for bad time.
If my employer wants me to work off hours, I mean maybe I will, if I don't have anything going on, and I'll take some time the next day where I won't work as compensation for doing that, I won't ask permission.
If I do have something going on, I'll say, "Can't do that. Have something going on". They're fine with it. They're reasonable people. Why would I work for unreasonable people? I would work for someone else.
If they actually did fire me? OK, maybe I look for another job, but probably I'm retired. I saved my money. I negotiate from a position of strength.
In other words, you are at the tender mercies of your employer, and you rely on them to uphold the implicit contract that they will not cross those unspoken boundaries. I'm glad this strategy works for you, but you are literally placing your livelihood, a roof over your head, and the food on your table at risk to keep it this way. If that's an acceptable risk for you, then sure.
There are no tender mercies involved.
"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest" -- Adam Smith
Mr. Smith is talking about the sell side rather than the buy side in that passage, but the same principle applies.
Obviously employers would prefer not to employ employees if there are more profitable alternatives. If my employer decides not to employ me any longer (which is expected, my team was 50 people this time last year, it is 10 people now), neither the roof over my head nor the food on my table is at risk. My life, financially, will go on exactly as it does now.
You can get the same type of thing, but you have to give something up in order to get it. Most people won't and that's their choice and that's fine.
Then your situation has zero relevance to almost every human being on earth
If the employer is abusive, find another job. If you are paid a large salary to be a slave to company, consider finding a job with a better work/life balance.
If you mean that most employers are abusive then yes. That’s why there are laws like this one. Non-abusive employers can ignore it because they were already doing the right thing.
See the problem is that if labour laws didn't protect people, then everyone would be constantly under the stress of having one foot out the door and having to look for another job at the drop of a hat. Workplace productivity would plummet and the economy be quickly be tanked
Reap what you sow “I work to live not live to work” crowd. Your destiny is to be further economically colonized by the “I live to work” crowd.
Yeah it sucks to have a bad wlb work culture, but the alternative is losing what makes America so awesome.
The way I see it, unless you’re in the top say 5-10% of tech workers you probably aren’t seeing great benefit from the US’s leads in anything. And anyone outside of that is seeing their general QoL being slowly degraded by ever higher prices and an ever weaker government (due to monopolization).
I'm just curious as to why did you make a distinction between France and Europe.
You're not reaping the benefits of that “hard work”, executives do.
Countless exceptions sure but there's no denying this is a good attempt at change.