A recent AFR article reported that a senior manager has launched a legal claim after being expected to work 75-hour weeks. For anyone in or around leadership circles, that number doesn't exactly make jaws drop. Many senior roles have long come with an unspoken asterisk:

“Oh, and by the way, this job will eat your weekends, your evenings, and possibly your sanity. But welcome to the big leagues.”

For decades, the trade-off has been tacit: bigger title, bigger pay packet, bigger hours. But as legal challenges start piling up, we are seeing a real cultural and regulatory shift. The question is no longer “Can you hack it?” It is becoming: “Is this actually lawful or remotely sustainable?”

The Case For Calling It Unreasonable

Under the Fair Work Act, full-time employees can work a maximum of 38 hours per week, plus reasonable additional hours. That word “reasonable” is doing a lot of heavy lifting. It is assessed against factors such as:

• Risk to health and safety

• The employee’s role and responsibilities

• Their compensation and personal circumstances

• Notice given for additional work

• Industry patterns and operational requirements

Courts and tribunals are increasingly willing to scrutinise these factors. The Rugg case was one of the first high-profile tests, and others are following. The idea that “it’s always been this way” doesn't hold up so well when someone puts it before a judge.

Burnout Is Not a Moral Failing

The evidence is clear. Sustained overwork leads to fatigue, stress, cognitive decline, increased errors, and mental health risks. We still romanticise the grind, the heroic executive running on four hours’ sleep and 15 coffees. That narrative does not survive contact with reality. Over time, people make worse decisions, disengage, or leave. If your best talent crashes, the business pays for it in lost capability, turnover costs, reputational damage, and legal exposure.

Cultural Consequences Are Real

When excessive hours become the norm for senior leaders, it seeps down through the organisation.

• It quietly excludes people with caring responsibilities, often women.

• It sets a dangerous precedent for emerging leaders who feel pressure to “prove” themselves.

• It creates a warped sense of loyalty where exhaustion is confused with commitment.

That is not culture. That is a slow erosion of boundaries dressed up as ambition.

The Legal Climate Is Shifting

For years, “reasonable additional hours” was a clause sitting quietly in the background. That is changing. More executives are recognising that a high salary does not give employers carte blanche to demand whatever hours they like. The combination of case law, regulatory focus, and public scrutiny is reshaping the landscape quickly.

Some Roles Are High-Intensity by Nature

Senior leadership roles often come with high stakes and critical periods where long hours are simply part of the reality. Mergers and acquisitions, product launches, restructures, crises. For ambitious professionals, this intensity can be thrilling. They see it as the price of impact, influence, and career acceleration.

Remuneration Reflects the Load

Senior executives are usually paid handsomely, not just in base salary but bonuses, equity, and perks. The courts often view this as relevant. If you are paid at a level that assumes broader responsibilities, some additional hours may indeed be reasonable. It is part of the implicit contract: “We will pay you more, because this role asks more of you.”

Temporary Surges Can Be Legitimate

No one is arguing that working late during a crunch week is inherently illegal. Most businesses have cycles, such as end of financial year, product launches, or major deals. The issue is sustained overwork without boundaries, clarity, or compensation. Temporary sprints are one thing. Permanent marathons are another.

Enforcement Is Messy

This is not black and white. Reasonableness depends on facts: role seniority, duration, personal circumstances, notice, industry norms, and contractual context. Executives often sit outside awards, meaning the written contract and industry expectations carry significant weight. There is no universal hour cap for every situation, which is why these cases are so hotly contested.

My Take: Overwork Is Not Heroism. It Is a Design Flaw.

Here is the uncomfortable truth. If your organisation requires 70 hour weeks to function, it is not a badge of honour. It is a planning problem. Either the business is under-resourced, expectations are unrealistic, or leadership has normalised a way of working that simply does not scale, legally or humanly.

Yes, leadership roles sometimes demand sprints. But if sprinting is the only way you can get to the finish line, eventually someone collapses. If you expect that level of commitment, you need to answer honestly:

• Is this genuinely essential, or are we covering inefficiencies?

• Are we compensating appropriately?

• Where are the boundaries and recovery periods?

• What cultural message does this send to the rest of the organisation?

• Could this stand up in court?

Why This Matters Beyond One Case

This is not just about one senior manager. It is about the future of how we define work at the top end of organisations. The old model, long hours as a rite of passage, is colliding with new legal, cultural, and demographic realities. Younger leaders are less willing to sacrifice their health for status. Regulators are more willing to intervene. And culturally, we are beginning to value sustainable performance over heroic burnout. Businesses that fail to adapt will face talent drain, reputational damage, and legal exposure. Often all three at once.

The Conversation We Need to Have

There are good-faith arguments on both sides and plenty of grey in between. But pretending it is not happening is no longer an option. Where do you draw the line? Is 70 plus hours ever reasonable? Or have we normalised something broken?