• 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.