In today’s fast-paced business landscape, one of the most lucrative decisions companies can make is to instruct their employees to unplug after work hours. While this notion might seem counterintuitive in an era that prizes constant connectivity, recent research from Mark Ma and his team at the University of Pittsburgh reveals substantial benefits for both businesses and their staff when boundaries are set around work time.

This timely research emerges as many regions are contemplating legislation to protect the right to disconnect, a move already embraced by numerous jurisdictions. It strongly suggests that lawmakers, both at the federal and state levels, should consider adopting similar measures.

The key takeaway from the study, which might surprise those accustomed to late-night work communications, is that when countries implement right-to-disconnect laws, company profits tend to rise. An extensive analysis, covering 143,396 firm-year observations across 28 OECD countries between 2014 and 2024, shows that firms in countries with such laws experienced notable improvements in financial performance. Specifically, there was a 5.7% increase in return on assets and a 6.1% boost in operating income relative to standard deviation.

The explanation behind these figures is straightforward: productivity flourishes when employees have time to recharge away from work. The study found that after these laws were adopted, revenue per employee increased while operating expenses per employee decreased, without significant changes in overall headcount. This means companies were able to generate more revenue per employee while maintaining leaner operating costs—precisely the outcome that executives aim for.

The data lands at a moment when many are debating whether to follow dozens of jurisdictions that already protect the right to disconnect; both Congress and state legislatures should strongly consider following their lead. 

Here is the study headline finding you will not hear in late-night Slack threads: When countries adopt right-to-disconnect laws, firm profitability goes up. In a large analysis spanning 143,396 firm-year observations across 28 OECD countries from 2014 to 2024, companies in nations that enacted a right to disconnect posted significant gains in both a return on assets and operating income — up 5.7 percent and up 6.1 percent, respectively, from standard deviation.

The mechanism is not mystery or magic. Productivity improves when people recover outside of work. The study documents higher revenue per employee after adoption and lower operating expense per employee. Total headcount does not change in a statistically significant way. In other words, firms generated more per person with leaner operating costs — exactly what executives say they want.

Not all right-to-disconnect laws are created equal, of course; design choices determine whether the policy is a paper tiger or a performance enhancer. Countries that pair the right with meaningful enforcement see larger gains. Where fines for noncompliance exist, and where employers must include the policy in employment contracts, the profitability lift is bigger and statistically stronger.

Eligibility matters, too. Extending protections to all workers beats limiting them to remote or hybrid staff, although even remote-only rules still help. These details are not abstractions; they are levers U.S. lawmakers can pull. 

International experience offers practical templates. Australia’s version created a national right to refuse employer contact outside working hours, with clear timelines for rollout and guidance from the Fair Work bodies. The official legislation and regulator explain when the right applies, how disputes are handled, and when small businesses come into scope, giving employers certainty and workers clarity. 

Europe’s experience is instructive as well. Company-level research compiled for the EU finds that right-to-disconnect policies work best when paired with awareness efforts, manager training and practical measures that limit out-of-hours connection. That combination raises acceptance and improves effectiveness on the ground. More than 70 percent of workers in companies with a policy rate its impact positively, but the biggest gains come when policies are embedded in day-to-day practice. 

This is the core lesson for the U.S. If Congress or states choose to act, they should avoid vague aspirations and write rules that are easy to follow. Spell out what counts as “nonworking hours,” require written policies, align with time-zone realities, and specify enforcement that nudges compliance rather than inviting litigation. The profit story depends on clarity. 

And profit is only half the story; workers’ lives improve when they can truly unplug. Using tens of thousands of Glassdoor ratings, the study shows a statistically significant rise in work-life balance satisfaction among employees in Ontario after the province implemented its right to disconnect in 2022. The effect is strongest at firms that started with weaker work-life balance — exactly where policy can do the most good. 

Independent surveys point the same direction. Slack’s Workforce Index, based on more than 10,000 desk workers, finds that people who log off at the end of the day report “20 percent higher productivity” than those who feel pressure to work after hours. That is a striking confirmation that productivity improves when boundaries are respected. 

Opponents warn that the right to disconnect will paralyze urgent operations. But that straw man ignores the text of modern bills and laws, which include exceptions for emergencies and scheduling. New Jersey’s pending A4852 would require employers to set a written policy defining nonworking hours, while allowing exceptions for emergencies or scheduling and specifying administrative enforcement, a straightforward and flexible approach. 

Congress could set a floor for federal contractors, requiring a written right-to-disconnect policy with emergency carve-outs and reporting requirements. Agencies could model best practices by setting server-side delays on emails sent after hours or by adopting default quiet hours, techniques already used by several European employers. States can run alongside with targeted statutes like New Jersey’s. Even with a market approach, the evidence still helps: boards and investors can ask management teams to adopt right-to-disconnect policies voluntarily, because the business case is now clear. 

Finally, consider the labor market angle. The profitability effect in the research is greater in tighter labor markets, where employees have more bargaining power. That implies a competitive advantage for jurisdictions that make it easier to attract scarce talent with credible work-life balance. If Washington wants to keep high-skill workers in the United States, codifying a sensible right to disconnect would be a smart way to do it. 

When lawmakers ask business what they need, the answer is usually the same: productivity, predictability and talent. The right to disconnect delivers all three. Productivity improves because rested people do better work. Predictability improves because expectations are clear, and after-hours communication is reserved for truly urgent needs. Talent flows to places that respect time outside the office, especially in a world where many of the best candidates can take their skills anywhere. 

The latest evidence should move this debate out of the realm of intuition. The picture that emerges is a blueprint for policy that supports business outcomes without sacrificing human ones. 

It is time to stop treating after-hours availability as a proxy for commitment. A clear, pro-growth move that Congress can make for the modern economy is to help Americans log off, so they can show up the next day ready to produce at the top of their game. 

Gleb Tsipursky, Ph.D., serves as CEO of the hybrid work consultancy Disaster Avoidance Experts and authored the best-seller “Returning to the Office and Leading Hybrid and Remote Teams.”