I'm not going to advocate they should do this, but...

I wouldn't be surprised if there were more successful startups under such a regulatory regime. Most meetings are for the benefit of people who either don't know how to or can't be bothered to compose async comms.

  I must not meet.
  Meetings are the work-killer.
  Meetings are the little-death that bring total distraction.

What cleanup is necessary here? If everyone didn't want to read email after work they'd simply not do it, of course! What is happening, though, is that most people do not engage in after-work emails and calls, but a small group of people are going "above and beyond" in an effort be more competitive in the workplace. This has placed the general population in a situation where they are feeling increased pressure to also go "above and beyond" to remain competitive alongside. Something they do not want to do, something they find a need to correct.

Let's face it, there are workers out there who have clear distain for other workers and left to their own devices will do all kinds of crazy things to ensure that they screw over the other worker sitting beside them out of a job. They will accept less pay, longer hours, unsafe environments, what have you just to fuck over the other guy. And if it means reading emails at all hours of the day to compromise their neighbour, they will do it! That's why we find labour laws of all sorts to quash such behaviour. This is just yet another instance.

You are quite right that the people often don't consider the unintended consequences, but they also have a problem at hand and government is the tool they know. It may not be the right tool, but I also don't see suggestion of what the better tool is. You can't use tools you are unaware of. It is no surprise the people are not reaching for whatever this unknown better tool is.

There's no law against chewing rocks or sticking a fork in your ass until, for whatever unfathomable reason, a bunch of people start doing it in a manner that inconveniences everyone else.

The real solution here would be that you can't fire someone just because someone else is more productive... except that would go against at-will employment and would crush small companies that will not be able to take on the risk. Additionally, some people are just more productive by nature, and not trying to do it because they hate their coworkers. Some people are better at things than other people, this is just natural and trying to control it and equalize the playing field would be catastrophic. I think if someone is in a position where their coworkers are outperforming to the point that person feels overwhelmed, then that job is probably not the right match and they need to keep looking until they find that intersection of something they are naturally good at and something a company needs.

Not where I am located, no. In some places, sure.

> The real solution here would be that you can't fire someone just because someone else is more productive...

Is it? We also already have the no email/calls law on the books here. In fact, we have all kinds of labour laws. By the same logic, if you can't fire someone for charging too much you shouldn't need minimum wage, but we have that too. If you can't fire someone for refusing to work in unsafe conditions, you shouldn't need workplace safety laws either, but we also have those. And for good reason. It is not the threat of being fired, at least not exclusively so, that creates these competitive conditions.

I think this line is somewhere around physical injuries or really extreme scenarios, and yes this means that right now even in the U.S., the gov. (especially CA) has too many laws around employment.

Yet, as a rule, we don't have laws against people doing unsafe things. You can, say, drive a car as fast as you want on private property. Only when you create risk for other people on public roads is your speed legally constrained.

You can't legally engage in an unsafe workplace environment because it compels other workers to do the same and the general public doesn't want to get drawn into that. If it were just about your personal safety, who cares? Nobody gives a rat's ass if you choose to hurt yourself so long as it doesn't impact anyone else.

> here is nothing wrong with working after 5pm, it's really a matter of preference

Different groups of people call for different things, so your milage may vary, but said law in this jurisdiction accounts for that.

> why not have government enforce everything about all jobs?

Government isn't some magical thing, it's just a group of employees who work for the people to clean up outliers who are compromising the will of the general public. The people have busy lives and don't sit around and think about every last scenario that could have a law for, they only call to action when something is bothering them.

> Why not have all jobs be 9-5, in office, only 5 meetings a week, etc. etc.

What makes you think this is bothering the people?

How many people are bothered by the after-hour emails? Are there statistics on that? I would be surprised if it was the majority, or the "general public".

This problem is being tackled by a small group of politicians who believe it is something that will benefit EVERYONE. This is were we differ on what is really happening here. I think politicians are trying to architect society more so than listening to the majority of people, at least in this instance.

Sure government is a group of people that are trying to implement what people want, but at least in the US, we elect representatives that have quite a bit of flexibility to suggest policies that are not really asked for, especially in California.

So the actual problem here is that you are living under a dictatorship. Sure, history has shown that doesn't tend to work out. I'm afraid in that case you can't pass the work off to the hired hands, though, you're going to have to get your own hands dirty.

ironic for the thought of "without distractions" .. all i can think of are "open offices" and "meetings" are the real distractions to a whole lot of folks; or companies so big and siloed where folks refuse to talk to other folks .. which all boil down to management problems and terrible expectations.

I do think a 4 day work week and max 30-32 hours in those 4 days would make a lot more folks happy in the long run (albeit easier said than done) - at least worth a try vs not trying at all. need somebody to work more than that, then pay em overtime... Classic example of Mike Monteiro's fyou pay me in which a lot of people dont get paid for work

The law of the land is in the upper bound of how extensive it needs to be.