ChatterBank1 min ago
48 hour working week opt out
21 Answers
Despite our Governments protest, Labour MEP's voting to ban it mean those who WANT to work hard, earn decent money and prop up the economy won't be allowed to.
I would dearly love to see how they will police this one. Once again, the unions get their way because they don't stop to think of the Self Employed, who it has to be said, help keep this country well and truly on it's feet.
Does this Government not have a say in what it's own MEP's vote for?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by BigDogsWang. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Au Contraire Hgrove! France has, for quite some time been trying to scrap it's 35 hour working week to boost it's faultering economy. But the issue is not about 'crumbling economies', the issue is once again about Europe dictating to the man in the street what he can and can't do, even if he wants to do it. Opting out of the Working Times Directive is personal choice. No one is bullied into signing it.
I work in the recruitment industry, so I have a detailed knowledge of the WTD. I have had a number of contractors, both self employed and P.A.Y.E that work for my organisation, and 80% turn contracts down if they do not offer more than 50 hours per week. The only way to enforce reduced hours would be to increase wages.
This of course would send more work to China and other developing countries, resulting in mass unemployment in the UK.
It's the beginning of the end for the freelance workforce, of whom there are over 3 million.
Believe you me, if this comes into force, there will the mother of all protests.
I
-- answer removed --
Help me out BTW
Do the Working Time Regulations prevent someone from having two jobs with two differnt employees? If not the employee could work two thiry hour week (or whatever). If so how does noe ever police it? Obviously if they are working through an agency the situation can be controlled, but what about the office person who works nights in a bar?
The regulations are undoubtedly well intended, designed to prevent employees working excessive hours, and the arguments include their own safety, and the safety of people they come into contact with.
But consider the following.
What about people who commute long distances? Some people commute for 2 or more hours. what about travelling time.
What about people who choose to stay out late etc? are they not tired and a danger to themselves and others.
Some jobs lend themselves to long hours wihtout any risk to the worked or anyone else, jobs that involve a lot of Stand By time for example, others are stressful and dangerous at all times.
If you consider someone who through choice, or ability, earns the Minimum Wage, are they to be told that they can not enjoy some luxuries by working longer hours?
Whatever happened to the concept of people taking responsibility for thier own lives?
Of course the self employed can work all hours, earn less than the NMR, and not have time off for holidays, maternity, sickness etc.
Do the Working Time Regulations prevent someone from having two jobs with two differnt employees? If not the employee could work two thiry hour week (or whatever). If so how does noe ever police it? Obviously if they are working through an agency the situation can be controlled, but what about the office person who works nights in a bar?
The regulations are undoubtedly well intended, designed to prevent employees working excessive hours, and the arguments include their own safety, and the safety of people they come into contact with.
But consider the following.
What about people who commute long distances? Some people commute for 2 or more hours. what about travelling time.
What about people who choose to stay out late etc? are they not tired and a danger to themselves and others.
Some jobs lend themselves to long hours wihtout any risk to the worked or anyone else, jobs that involve a lot of Stand By time for example, others are stressful and dangerous at all times.
If you consider someone who through choice, or ability, earns the Minimum Wage, are they to be told that they can not enjoy some luxuries by working longer hours?
Whatever happened to the concept of people taking responsibility for thier own lives?
Of course the self employed can work all hours, earn less than the NMR, and not have time off for holidays, maternity, sickness etc.
Where I work the opt-out is written into your contract when you join - You're meant to be able to negotiate this but who's going to when they've just landed a job.
One of the purposes of killing the opt out is to stop employers who have this kind of attitude - As it happens We aren't asked to work 48 hour average weeks, they just want to make sure they stack the decks as much as possible and give employees the fewest possible rights that they possibly can.
As it happens it's all a bit academic - the MEPs have no real power it's all with the council of ministers - But it does give all the rabid Euro-ranters an outing now that they've been let off their leads post General Election - standby for a hail of straight banana Euromyths!
You may be fortunate enough Jake, not to need to work more than 48 hours to earn a decent crust. And if you 'opt out' despite the fact that you don�t want to, that's you own fault, regardless of accepting a job because you might be worried they will not take you on if you don't.
Didwot is absolutely right (sorry Didwot I couldn�t answer your question without looking further into it) in that you could be a Health and Safety risk at work even if you don�t work long hours, simply because of your personal lifestyle.
Workers rights are one thing, but the amount of hours you want to work is a Freedom of Choice in most cases. Do YOU want this country to have another of it�s �freedoms� taken away from it?
You may be different if you're self employed but an awful lot of us are paid an annual salary and we don't get paid overtime.
Working longer hours is expected if it's "what is needed to get the job done".
The argument about jobs going abroad is a pointless one because we can never compete with developing countries on a purely financial basis (even Indian outsourcers are subcontracting to the Chinese) - we have to compete on innovation and quality and you don't get that from knackerred staff.
You might also be interested in the fact that Other European countries such as Germany and Spain apply the opt out to their health care systems - If ever there was an area needing protection from overly long hours that's it.
The fact that the UK economy is head and shoulders above most other EU states suggests to me that it's down to the hard graft of the British worker, not enforced working hours.
Limiting workers hours will restrict the amount of money people can earn. It reeks of a nanny Euro state. There are far more important Health and Safety matters at work, such as drink / drugs, and dangerous machinery.
Surely we can't be head and shoulders above other European countries - I distinctly remember being told how our economy would collapse when the minimum wage was introduced!
Well if we can protect workers by guaranteeing them a minimum wage without the dawn of the economic apocalypse perhaps letting them spend some quality time with their families might work too.
That's just my point. Not everyone has a family and are quite happy to work long hours. Those who want to spend more time with their families, have the choice whether or not to opt out. Those with no families should not be told they are working too many hours.
It's give and take.
The minimum wage is a different matter and was introduced to stop employers paying pittance. The increase in business costs when the minimum wage was introduced was minimal.
Reducing the revenue raised from longer working hours will have an immediate effect on the economy, as less money in peoples pockets, means less spending in the high street, means less income tax for the Government, etc, etc, etc,.
It's give and take.
The minimum wage is a different matter and was introduced to stop employers paying pittance. The increase in business costs when the minimum wage was introduced was minimal.
Reducing the revenue raised from longer working hours will have an immediate effect on the economy, as less money in peoples pockets, means less spending in the high street, means less income tax for the Government, etc, etc, etc,.
The thing is, if you don't sign, you don't get the job, even though you'll be told they have decided not to recruit after all. As for terminating the agreement... can an employee do so unilaterally? Even if they can, they'll be out very fast indeed. I used to work for a company which did not pay overtime, yet people who refused to do it (and I mean late nights past midnight at least one week a month) got sacked. I think I am agreeing with Jake the peg here. As for BigDogsWang, I am sorry, but his experience seems to be limited to a self-selecting elite of high flying individuals who can pick and choose what contracts they take... most people are not in that priviledged position. I can hear alarming echos of a return to the Poor Law here. Deserving poor working all hours for the peanuts the master deigns to throw at them. Free overtime for the employer... And those who refuse are the ******** Poor who deserve to end up in the Poor House... Sorry to be so tragic but this is my experience, very different to BigDogsWang's as you can see.
I would hardly call a Mechanical or Electrical Fitter on �10 per hour a high flying 'Elite' Hgrove.
I speak from 16 years of experience of supplying Blue Collar workers to industry, and, as mentioned before, 80% of temporary B.C workers turn contracts away if you cannot offer more than 50 hours.
I regularly visit them in there place of work, and if the contract appears to be running out of overtime, they want out.
I would like to take you into their environment and listen to you preach. You, sir, would be eaten alive.
Yes the employee can unilaterally withdraw from the opt out agreement: Working Time Regulations reg 4.
Sacking someone for refusing to opt out is automatically unfair: Employment Rights Act s101A.
The employee takes the job, and then gives the requisite notice to end the opt out (7 days, or such longer period not exceeding 3 months as the agreement requires), and there is nothing hte employer can do about it.
Sacking someone for refusing to opt out is automatically unfair: Employment Rights Act s101A.
The employee takes the job, and then gives the requisite notice to end the opt out (7 days, or such longer period not exceeding 3 months as the agreement requires), and there is nothing hte employer can do about it.
Exactly what I have been trying to get across. Maybe we have been at cross purposes all along. I don�t particularly agree with being forced by an employer to sign the opt out if the job is a permanent one.
But in the case of a temporary contract, you are not tied to your employers terms (only the agency's), and you may well want to work overtime to compensate for the fact that you may not be in work for 12 months of the year.
This is why I am objecting to the MEP's vote, because it may go some way to stopping permanent employees having to work excessive hours, but temporary workers should be allowed the freedom of choice.
