It was, Labour declared in its “plan to make work pay” this summer, “time for change”. Among several proposals in the plan, which is thought to be headed by Angela Rayner, the deputy prime minister, two that have made waves are the “right to switch off” and to make work “more family-friendly”. However, they have left business leaders scratching their heads trying to figure out what it all means.

Part of the problem is that Labour is yet to properly flesh out its proposals, beyond a 20-page document it published in the run-up to the election. What we know so far is that the new government thinks the “culture of presenteeism is damaging to morale and productivity”, which is why it wants to bring in a “right to switch off”. To create a better work-life balance for employees, it also has promised to make flexible working, in terms of location and timings, “the default from day one for all workers”.

Beth Hale, a partner at CM Murray who specialises in employment law, has received emails from clients asking what they should be doing to make sure they are ready for the changes. “I’m telling them not to do anything yet, until we know what [the plan] looks like.”

For the “right to switch off”, the expectation is that the policy will involve a code of practice agreed by employers and employees, setting out expectations of normal working hours when staff should expect to be contacted.

Hale suspects that a worker whose employer repeatedly breaches that agreement will not be able to pursue a standalone claim, although they probably will be able to use it to get a bigger payout should they take their employer to a tribunal for unfair dismissal or harassment, for example.

“Say someone was awarded £20,000. They might get 10 per cent or 20 per cent more if they can show that [their employer] hadn’t complied with the code on the right to switch off,” she said.

In terms of flexible working, Labour wants to make that the norm, rather than the exception. “At the moment, the expected norm is to work full-time and if you want to work flexibly you have to make an application,” Hale said. “I think what they’re planning to do is make it harder to turn down a request for flexible working.”

The concern among chief executives is that what works for one company or sector might not work for others. “The NHS shift system, for example, would not be a good model for the typical pub,” Tina McKenzie, policy chairwoman of the Federation of Small Businesses, said. “It’s crucial that any changes take proper account of the real differences that exist in different workplaces.”

Hale agreed: “There has to be some ability for employers to say, ‘Actually, this arrangement can’t work for a particular job in this particular organisation.’ ”

The British Chambers of Commerce is seeking to arrange round-table discussions between business members and ministers for early next month to discuss the policies.

Jamie Cater, head of employment and skills policy at Make UK, another of the Big Five business lobby groups, said the new legislation must continue to allow businesses to decline flexible working requests “where they feel it is not possible for that particular role” and added that the government’s approach to creating the right to disconnect “must enable employers to put in place the right measures to improve work-life balance for their employees while preserving their ability to respond urgently and flexibly to business-critical needs.

“Many manufacturers already have their own policies, which establish expectations on out-of-hours communication with employees. For example, if a critical maintenance or safety issue arises that requires a specialist to be contacted or to be present on-site outside of their normal working hours.”

That most big businesses, especially large ones, already have policies around flexible working has added to the bafflement felt by many companies. “We’re not actually sure what problems the government is trying to solve here,” an insider at one FTSE 100 company said.

Matthew Aldridge, managing director of igus UK, a Northampton-based subsidiary of a German group, making plastic products for the manufacturing industry, said younger workers, in particular, had embraced the right to switch off. “The young people do that anyway,” he said. “They put in a hard day’s work, they leave work and they don’t pick up their work email or anything until they’re at work the next day. That’s just how they roll. Anyone that’s probably 35 or older, we’re much more guilty of answering emails any time, whenever they come in.”

Alexandra Hall-Chen, principal policy adviser at the Institute of Directors, said that any “right to switch off” should focus more on “protecting employees who choose not to respond to communication outside of working hours, rather than on banning employers from contacting employees outside of agreed hours”.

Michael Stull, managing director of Manpower UK at ManpowerGroup, the recruiter, believes that these days companies have little choice but to have flexible working policies if they can. “We’re in a talent-short market and we all have to compete for talent. The better work-life balance you can provide, the more competitive you’re going to be.”

Hall-Chen agreed that businesses were “embracing flexible working as a key means of recruiting and retaining the best talent”. The IoD’s research suggests that 91 per cent of businesses offer remote working, 70 per cent part-time working and 42 per cent offer “flexitime”.

During the post-lockdown “war for talent”, many businesses loosened their rules around flexible working to appeal to would-be employees. With the jobs market having slowed down dramatically and the economic outlook becoming more uncertain, the balance of power has started to shift back towards the employer. Despite that, few companies have sought to use that by tightening the rules again.

“Most organisations that can facilitate remote working have accepted that hybrid is here to stay in some shape or form,” Claire McCartney, policy and practice manager at the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, the professional body for human resources workers, said. “Our evidence suggests that organisations typically rate the performance of employees working remotely positively and they also recognise the benefits it has for attraction and retention, employee satisfaction and business flexibility.”

Labour hopes that its plans will improve productivity and drive growth, although there are concerns among some bosses that the proposals, if not properly implemented, risk having the opposite effect. “[The government] has to be careful about the unintended consequences,” the chief executive of one large retailer said.

Stull warned that changes to workers’ rights could end up adding extra cost and risk for businesses, which might deter them from expanding as quickly as they might have. His recruiters have noticed a slowdown in hiring as employers “wait to see how some of [Labour’s plans] play out”.

Neil Carberry, chief executive of the Recruitment and Employment Confederation, said that, with most of Labour’s proposals, “everyone broadly agrees on [them]. The test is, will Labour listen to business and make sure that whatever they do is practical?”

A spokeswoman for the Department for Business and Trade acknowledged that “many employers already provide good, family-friendly conditions for their workers because they know that doing so improves morale and retention”.

She added: “There is good evidence to suggest offering flexible working arrangements makes sound business sense, which is why our ‘make work pay’ plan is designed around increasing productivity and creating the right conditions for businesses to support sustained economic growth. We are working in close partnership with business and civil society to find the balance between improving workers’ rights while supporting the brilliant businesses that pay people’s wages.”