Regardless of whether people agree with the concept or not, this seems like excessive bureaucracy. This sort of thing should already be legal or illegal based on what is in an employment contract and it seems like just paperwork to have more laws saying that someone's reasonable working hours are indeed their agreed reasonable working hours. It shouldn't and probably doesn't need an act to metaphorically underline a short phrase in a contract. It is just creating drag on small businesses and that sort of thing costs money. I suppose this is an opportunity to link my favourite article reminding everyone that petty business regulation pretty much just makes countries poorer [0].

It reminds me of when politicians criminalise things that were already illegal to show that they are taking an interest in some crisis.

[0] https://www.grumpy-economist.com/p/the-cost-of-regulation

▲

awinter-py 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

a major function of the law is to mediate between groups that have unequal power

as a collective, employees out-vote employers and can obtain this kind of concession through the law but not in an individual contract negotiation

(mancur olson notwithstanding)

taken to its logical extreme your argument would forbid all group negotiations, I'd think?

▲

roenxi 3 hours ago | parent [-]

I'm just going off the summary document [0], but the law doesn't seem to require any particular working hours. It just says people should stick to them once they've been agreed. That's already implied by having working hours. The whole bill basically just tells the regulator that the legislature thinks the fine for not sticking to the employment contract should be up to $500 which is probably redundant since I assume the regulator (or someone, at any rate) can already fine people who don't stick to contracts. And they shouldn't need special and specific powers to fine someone for particular employment contract violations, if they're going to have power they should have general powers.

> taken to its logical extreme your argument would forbid all group negotiations, I'd think?

I don't see how the bill or anything I wrote have anything to do with group negotiations. People can negotiate as a group for all I care, as long as I can negotiate on my own.

[0] https://legislature.mi.gov/documents/2025-2026/billanalysis/...

	▲	Arainach 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> I assume the regulator (or someone, at any rate) can already fine people who don't stick to contracts ....what contract? There's no contract in most cases and contracts that exist very rarely define hours. I've never encountered one that did. > seem to require any particular working hours This isn't about enforcing hours, it's about communication during hours you're not being paid for.

▲

tancop 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> This sort of thing should already be legal or illegal based on what is in an employment contract

are you saying that unfair terms are a workers own fault for signing? individual workers cant really negotiate employment contract below executive level and staying unemployed is not an option in todays economy. you need unions or laws to make sure everything is fair.

▲

zoobaloo 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You have a point, and I share your general concern with bureaucracy. However, I'd encourage you to consider how I've seen employment law situations like this play out in practice.

Some examples:

* Management pressuring someone to forge tax documents, and firing said employee when they refused. They even provided a written statement stating this as the reason.

* Someone getting fired for refusing to use grant funding outside of its designated purpose.

* A government employee was accused of corruption and was asked to step down quietly. The city wanted this employee's replacement to take money from one part of the budget for a hush-money payout, while keeping this secret from the city council.

* Someone taking maternity leave, then having her role eliminated. She was given the opportunity to apply for a new job when she returned from mat leave.

* Someone getting laid off while on mat leave. No option for another role.

On paper, all of this was highly illegal, and any employer operating in good faith should have been able to work out a solution when confronted. All of them dug in their heels and refused to consider that they were wrong. Followup generally looked like this:

* Employee escalates within the organization. This becomes a negotiation, where the org decides how much leverage they have. Note that the org might not read the law carefully or even at all. If it's gotten to this point, they've often already decided they can get away with it.

* Depending on the circumstances, reporting to some government agency may happen. There may or may not be an agency that can help. Even if there is, don't expect to become a priority or have significant resources devoted to you.

* More negotiation. The org may have lawyers who are already on salary, or at least an HR department that's ready to step in. You likely do not, and need to track down and pay for your own attorney.

* After a lot negotiation, there's some kind of settlement. If this has to go to a lawsuit, good luck paying for those additional costs and managing everything. Meanwhile, you need to find a new job. For the people you're negotiating against, it's just another day at the office and they have all the time in the world.

Having multiple statutes to establish legal claims can be redundant and annoying. It can also reduce ambiguity when negotiating with an employer who is unwilling or unable to respect their liability. Which ends up being more important will be influenced by the details of the laws and the circumstances of each situation.

This doesn't obviate your point, which I agree is important. It's dumb and sad that this is where we are.