I'm guessing it is something like, you can't be fired specifically for not answering outside of working hours. Nothing stopping companies from firing you for not fitting company culture (the unspoken part being company culture is we all answer calls outside of work hours). Still a step forward because there will be some careless/incompetent companies that leave a paper trail indicating they fired you for this so you can sue and get paid.
So, hiding true intentions and needs is better? Why is regulation not to force companies to be clear that you may be expected to be flexible with your corp comunication before signing the contract?
No, it is illegal. Your proposed law would have the opposite effect of the law that passed: every company would include this in their employment contract and would have legal protections to make employees work overtime.
In addition, there are exceptions:
> To cater for emergencies and jobs with irregular hours, the rule still allows employers to contact their workers, who can only refuse to respond where it is reasonable to do so. Determining whether a refusal is reasonable will be up to Australia's industrial umpire, the Fair Work Commission (FWC), which must take into account an employee's role, personal circumstances and how and why the contact was made.
It never ceases to amaze me that people argue against things that are good for them.
You remain free to answer calls after hours. You simply cannot be fired or reprimanded for not being at your employers beck and call after hours *if you choose not to be*.
Even in situations where after hours calls require pay to immediately start, you remain free to negotiate with your employer how that works. If anything, creating such regulation *increases your freedoms*.
