![angela rayner](/https/www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/business/2024/07/14/TELEMMGLPICT000372033849_17209565041770_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqfMt6WG3qWK4uIFjshnk5ohRfNQpJ73m_zUI98IYu_5s.jpeg?imwidth=680)
![angela rayner](/https/www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/business/2024/07/14/TELEMMGLPICT000372033849_17209565041770_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqfMt6WG3qWK4uIFjshnk5ohRfNQpJ73m_zUI98IYu_5s.jpeg?imwidth=680)
Sir Keir Starmer has been ready for any nanny-state arguments to be flung his way for months. After he unveiled proposals for supervised toothbrushing in schools earlier this year, he made it clear he was “up for that fight”.
There are worse insults, but this is an easy one – almost any policy aimed at reforming workers’ rights or guiding health decisions can be dismissed as state “mollycoddling”. Bring it on, Sir Keir has said. He is a barrister, after all.
Life can never be risk-free, but that doesn’t mean the Government should leave us all to it. Studies have shown how people often make decisions that are not in their interests, no matter the stakes.
There was once widespread pushback against the mandatory wearing of seatbelts – the editor of Motor Sport ranted in 1964 that he would “not use them in my car for the same reason that I do not take a parachute when I fly” – as well as the ban on indoor smoking. The Government cannot take seriously every nanny-state argument from taxpayers who feel patronised.
But a line does need to be drawn somewhere.
Taking action on seatbelts, smoking and sugary drinks is miles apart from wading into areas such as late-night emails from the boss. Attention will this week turn to Labour’s flagship workers’ rights reforms as the King’s Speech is expected to underline how the overhaul is going ahead as planned.
The package of reforms has followed many hours of conversations with both business chiefs and unions behind the scenes, but there is a risk that one of the more eye-catching but gimmicky plans – a “right to switch off” for workers – will trigger arguments about nanny-state Britain at a time when the country is desperate for investment.
An employers’ group last week warned that stopping bosses from sending late night work emails or making calls out of hours could create a “playground for ambulance chasers” as aggrieved staff seek legal action.
The move also assumes that anyone answering a late-night email must feel overwhelmed or hard done by. In a world where more people than ever are working flexibly as companies shift away from the traditional idea of a nine-to-five job, the concept is a dated one.
For most people I speak to, including parents of young children, they would prefer to have flexibility than a ban on out-of-hours contact. “I’d rather leave work at 5pm so I can pick-up my son, then log back in in the evenings if I need to,” says a City mum over lunch.
I agree – I’d rather finish this column at 11pm if it means I can go home and see my daughter first. Would a late-night ban mean I can no longer email contacts in the evenings?
The ban makes no sense from a business point of view, either. Won’t deputy leader Angela Rayner, who is spearheading the pro-worker reforms, need to contact her own team in the evenings?
“It’s a ludicrous idea,” a boardroom veteran tells me. “The modern workplace has already worked out how to balance this. I just don’t think it’s a real problem for many people. Modern working does require rapid response times and so a ban on that is just excessive. Stay out of it, government.”
There are obviously examples where toxic bosses take it too far, and we all know that staring at our smartphones for hours on end can lead to burnout and problems with sleep. But is it up to the Government to tell us when to switch off?
Contacting staff repeatedly or unnecessarily out of hours should be dealt with, yes, but a lot of this is just about common sense and useless managers. Some people are just dreadful at their own time management or work better later in the day.
Does the Government really need to step-in and dictate what times are good and bad for us? “Good employers are thoughtful about managing the requirements of clients with the needs of employees,” another boardroom veteran and City chief tells me, adding that blanket rules won’t fly given how vastly different each industry is.
Labour is fully aware of all this criticism, which is why the Government is not expected to launch a legal “right to switch off” from work emails and calls out of hours, instead including the rule in a code of practice for companies over a certain size.
France, Italy, Ireland and Belgium have adopted a similar approach. The idea is that a light bit of government intrusion, when combined with all the other pro-worker reforms coming our way, will send out a clear signal to the bad apples out there about what is acceptable and unacceptable behaviour. Workers have had enough and Labour has promised them change.
There is much to fight for on workers’ rights, but this isn’t it. The people struggling to pay their bills or who feel overwhelmed by unstable, zero-hour contracts are not complaining about the ping of a late-night email.
There is a danger that this idea distracts from the more effective employment policies which are on the horizon. Politicians have always had to tread carefully when telling the public how to behave, particularly among more traditionalist Conservatives.
There is a time and a place for nanny-state meddling. A post-6pm notification on a mobile phone isn’t it.
Labour has no right to put a curfew on when employers can email staff
There is a time and a place for nanny-state meddling, but this certainly isn’t it