Is the Working Time Directive worth retaining (plus other workers' rights legislation)?

[Bletchleyite]

from https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/the-obesity-epidemic-causes-and-solutions.207552/page-6

I edited after you posted, but the Conservatives were strongly opposed to any limits being applied at all. I have no doubt that, once we are out of the transition period, workers' rights will be in grave peril.

I don't doubt you're right. The WTD however I've long considered fairly pointless, simply because most people working very long hours choose to do so to earn more. I'm opted out of it and I can't recall the last time I worked a week of over 48 hours. It occasionally happens up to deadlines but hardly ever.

It also applies very poorly to working from home, where working hours are rather more nominal, work-life split is often more blurred (e.g. I might do a data load in the evening while watching TV - is that a working hour or not?), and it's more about getting the work done and the amount of allocated work being reasonable.

 

[najaB]

As I see it, the vast majority of employees who would work more than 48 hours a week only need to do so because they're underpaid.

 

[Bletchleyite]

As I see it, the vast majority of employees who would work more than 48 hours a week only need to do so because they're underpaid.

That may be so, but restricting the hours they work doesn't solve that (not least because they can opt out). To solve that, you need to increase the minimum wage.

Edit: but even that becomes difficult, again with reference to the note above - I put in a data load taking 2 hours, and can't do anything else on my laptop while it loads as it eats the bandwidth. Actually putting it in takes maybe 5 minutes. Have I worked 5 minutes or 2 hours? If I was in the office it's clearly 2 hours, but at home? So even the concept of the minimum wage becomes blurred with increased home working. Is some form of regulated piecework the future in some lines of work?

 

[najaB]

Keep in mind that the WTD doesn't just set maximum hours per week. It also sets the requirement for paid leave, rest time between shifts, recognition of unsociable hours, etc.

Edit: Sorry, I fell into the common trap. The WTD doesn't even set maximum hours per week - it sets the maximum average hours per week. There's nothing that stops someone from working more than 48 hours on needs-must basis.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Keep in mind that the WTD doesn't just set maximum hours per week. It also sets the requirement for paid leave, rest time between shifts, recognition of unsociable hours, etc.

Traditionally in the UK holiday entitlements are and have been well above the legal minimum anyway[1], so I'm unclear what difference that would make in practice. I'll give you rest time, unsociable hours etc, but they are a small part of it.

[1] The legal minimum was for a long time 20 days including public holidays. While that was the case, the vast majority of companies offered something like 20 *plus* bank holidays (which is now the legal minimum) and some quite a lot more - 30+8 (and even more so 25+8) is not at all unusual in office work and not even all highly paid!

 

[najaB]

Traditionally in the UK holiday entitlements are and have been well above the legal minimum anyway[1], so I'm unclear what difference that would make in practice.

Convention is not law.

I'll give you rest time, unsociable hours etc, but they are a small part of it.

They are most certainly not a small part of it. When I worked in a call centre we had to repeatedly gently remind management that the shifts they were assigning weren't legal - it wasn't uncommon to end up with an 11pm finish and a 6am start.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Convention is not law.

It's not, but there's little point in creating red tape by legislating for something where companies, by and large, are not creating problems. I joined our company when it was very small, fewer than 20 permanent staff, and they asked me if I would be willing to opt out to save them the admin. I agreed and as I'm still on the same contract it remains in place (they've never bothered harmonising us despite a merger, splitting back out and a takeover). I oppose business red tape that doesn't bring significant employee benefits.

They are most certainly not a small part of it. When I worked in a call centre we had to repeatedly gently remind management that the shifts they were assigning weren't legal - it wasn't uncommon to end up with an 11pm finish and a 6am start.

That's just stupid, and any sensible business will know that employees who have only had about 4-5 hours of sleep (as they will in that situation) are going to be ineffective and potentially get ill more often. But some managers are just thick as the proverbial porcine.

It seems glaringly obvious to me that if you're going to swap shifts the time to do it is with a rest day/weekend/whatever in between.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The legal minimum was for a long time 20 days including public holidays. While that was the case, the vast majority of companies offered something like 20 *plus* bank holidays

The legal minimum in the WTD is 28 days FTE, inclusive of public holidays.

So to go back to 20 days FTE inclusive of public holidays would be a big step backwards.

I'll give you rest time, unsociable hours etc, but they are a small part of it.

They are for office work, but not for everyone else. The WTD puts in important protections for shift workers, which is especially important given the known negative health effects that varying shift work causes.

But some managers are just thick as the proverbial porcine.

Some are thick, some are malicious or uncaring. But, either way, legislation has teeth that convention does not.

You can be told to stop whining if something is convention, you cannot if something is statutory.

As for reducing leave, the IOM government give 21 days FTE exclusive of public holidays, of which there are 10 on the island. Careful what you wish for.

 

[najaB]

It's not, but there's little point in creating red tape by legislating for something where companies, by and large, are not creating problems.

There's very little red tape involved in ensuring 28 days paid leave - it just needs to be part of the standard contract of employment.

That's just stupid, and any sensible business will know that employees who have only had about 4-5 hours of sleep (as they will in that situation) are going to be ineffective and potentially get ill more often.

You're making the assumption that all employers actually care about their employees. Many do, but many more don't.

In my example, management made it very clear that they didn't give a **** because they had a steady stream of students who would fill any vacancies. It was so bad that the recruitment agency had an office on-site and there was a constant stream of applicants. At one point we went six months with 10 new staff members every week - and we only went from ~650 staff to ~750, that's how quickly they churned through bodies.

They only cared if you got a permanent contract.

 

[GB]

Seems a bit backwards to suggest worker's rights be disbanded or otherwise call them into question. They should be kept no matter how small the right may be.

 

[birchesgreen]

Edit: but even that becomes difficult, again with reference to the note above - I put in a data load taking 2 hours, and can't do anything else on my laptop while it loads as it eats the bandwidth. Actually putting it in takes maybe 5 minutes. Have I worked 5 minutes or 2 hours? If I was in the office it's clearly 2 hours, but at home? So even the concept of the minimum wage becomes blurred with increased home working. Is some form of regulated piecework the future in some lines of work?

Well it depends i guess, are you able to go out or ignore the laptop for those 2 hours or do you need to keep an eye on it every now and then. If so then its all work time.

 

[Domh245]

Seems a bit backwards to suggest worker's rights be disbanded or otherwise call them into question. They should be kept no matter how small the right may be.

You would think that, but with the current government ("oh no, we don't need a bill to stop us from selling the NHS off to the Americans, we'd never do such a thing") you sadly can't be too sure

 

[Iskra]

Keep in mind that the WTD doesn't just set maximum hours per week. It also sets the requirement for paid leave, rest time between shifts, recognition of unsociable hours, etc.

Edit: Sorry, I fell into the common trap. The WTD doesn't even set maximum hours per week - it sets the maximum average hours per week. There's nothing that stops someone from working more than 48 hours on needs-must basis.

This. If you've ever worked in a 24-hour business, you will understand why these rules are necessary. Unfortunately, there are still some dinosaur line managers/companies that ignore them. When I was a student, I had a line manager that thought it was okay to put you finishing at 2300 and back in at 0700. Although she never did such shifts herself though... Wasn't so bad when I was young but I couldn't do that nowadays.

WTD protects businesses in some ways too as well as workers.

I can't think of any sensible argument for scrapping them.

In terms of working from home, working hours are within the employees control.

My current boss actually told me off for working too much a few weeks back... (it was only for one week)

 

[cactustwirly]

For workplaces such as a factory the WTD is very important, and stops the workers being treated like slaves.

 

[mailbyrail]

Having worked in HR in the UK for several large US multinationals, the standard question was what was the minimum statutory level of provision for any employer provided benefit and what was the minimum they could realistically expect to provide. The closer to the minimum statutory level, the better. I had to argue hard for many standard items that weren't actually legislated for but were seen as excessive from the US perspective but pretty basic from UK custom and practice.
Don't forget, many US employers provide 2 weeks holiday, and very few other 'benefits' that bletchleyite and a few others take for granted.
Be careful what you wish for.

 

[071]

Don't forget, many US employers provide 2 weeks holiday, and very few other 'benefits' that bletchleyite and a few others take for granted.
Be careful what you wish for.

Also worth noting that many Americans don't take their full quota of holidays just in case their job isn't there when they come back. Hire and fire at will.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Also worth noting that many Americans don't take their full quota of holidays just in case their job isn't there when they come back. Hire and fire at will.

Trust me - I know!

 

[AM9]

You would think that, but with the current government ("oh no, we don't need a bill to stop us from selling the NHS off to the Americans, we'd never do such a thing") you sadly can't be too sure

Since the WTD was first established in 1993, the UK government has been pressured by a certain section of employers to resist its introduction in the UK. Apart from the claims that the UK's productivity would suffer if restrictions were placed on them, (conveniently forgetting the fact that the UK's productivity was lower than most of the EU nations that already had better working hours), there was more than an anti-EU attitude at the time as well.
Move forward to 2020 when many of that type of employer still exists, there is the 'take back control' mentality of the current administration that seems willing to sacrifice anything in its botched trade negotiations. That could be a major factor in a failure to agree on a 'level playing field', that will be needed to get a worthwhile deal.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I don't doubt you're right. The WTD however I've long considered fairly pointless, simply because most people working very long hours choose to do so to earn more. I'm opted out of it and I can't recall the last time I worked a week of over 48 hours. It occasionally happens up to deadlines but hardly ever.

The other issue is... how much is the WTD worth if any employer that doesn't like it simply puts an opt-out into employment contracts. There aren't that many people in the private sector who feel secure enough with their employment situation to turn down a job just because it has a WTD opt-out in the contract. I know my last employed job had an opt-out in it, which I reluctantly put up with it because refusing would have meant I wouldn't have been offered that job (and this was a pretty highly paid professional job, not a minimum wage low-skilled one).

 

[najaB]

The other issue is... how much is the WTD worth if any employer that doesn't like it simply puts an opt-out into employment contracts.

It's not legal to force someone to opt-out - though, naturally, some employers will try their best to convince employees that they should.

 

[Hadders]

The other issue is... how much is the WTD worth if any employer that doesn't like it simply puts an opt-out into employment contracts. There aren't that many people in the private sector who feel secure enough with their employment situation to turn down a job just because it has a WTD opt-out in the contract. I know my last employed job had an opt-out in it, which I reluctantly put up with it because refusing would have meant I wouldn't have been offered that job (and this was a pretty highly paid professional job, not a minimum wage low-skilled one).

That is unlawful.

 

[RT4038]

That is unlawful.

Far better to have the Opt Out as a separate document. Sign this first ..... No? Sorry the job is no longer available.
Not that many jobs really are busting the normal WTD maxima in normal circumstances; the Opt Out releases the employer from the onerous record keeping requirements.

 

[najaB]

Sign this first ..... No? Sorry the job is no longer available.

Still unlawful. And in any case, all you have to do is sign it to take the job, and then cancel it immediately afterwards.

the Opt Out releases the employer from the onerous record keeping requirements.

You're the second person to raise record keeping requirements that don't exist. If someone is salaried then the contract will set their hours of work, and if they're paid hourly then you'll need to record their hours anyway. What additional record-keeping is required?

 

[RT4038]

Still unlawful. And in any case, all you have to do is sign it to take the job, and then cancel it immediately afterwards.
You're the second person to raise record keeping requirements that don't exist. If someone is salaried then the contract will set their hours of work, and if they're paid hourly then you'll need to record their hours anyway. What additional record-keeping is required?

Maybe, but few will do that.

The contract may set the hours of work, but that may not be the number of hours that the employee actually works. The WTD is concerned with actual hours worked rather than contracted hours. Opt out pretty much releases employers from keeping records, monitoring and enforcement and acting upon if there is a breach..

Because 'hours paid' is not necessarily 'hours worked' (in the industry I work in anyway), separate records have to be kept of the hours worked unless the Opt Out is signed. Not only kept, but monitored and enforced and acted upon if there is a breach.

All extra administration and management time.

 

[mailbyrail]

And if the WTD didn't exist, what standard would you consider to be reasonable? How would you judge what is excessive?
You take a job in a world without the WTD that regularly requires 60 hours a week for example but then that becomes 72 with just six hours between shifts. What standard suggests that it's unreasonable? Even having signed an opt out, you've grounds to have a discussion with your employer. Take away any legal framework and then how do you make any judgements? Bletchleyite may not remember when he last worked over 48 hours, but there are employers in some sectors who would think this should be a regular occurence or even a base level.

 

[najaB]

Because 'hours paid' is not necessarily 'hours worked' (in the industry I work in anyway), separate records have to be kept of the hours worked unless the Opt Out is signed. Not only kept, but monitored and enforced and acted upon if there is a breach.

It seems you're making the argument that it's somehow a good thing that people aren't paid for the hours that they work...

 

[RT4038]

And if the WTD didn't exist, what standard would you consider to be reasonable? How would you judge what is excessive?
You take a job in a world without the WTD that regularly requires 60 hours a week for example but then that becomes 72 with just six hours between shifts. What standard suggests that it's unreasonable? Even having signed an opt out, you've grounds to have a discussion with your employer. Take away any legal framework and then how do you make any judgements? Bletchleyite may not remember when he last worked over 48 hours, but there are employers in some sectors who would think this should be a regular occurence or even a base level.

The Working Time Directive is a recent piece of legislation, forced on the UK because a previous administration had voluntarily signed the 'Social Chapter' of EU membership.
Prior to the WTD there was all sorts of legislation governing rest periods, hours of work etc, but nothing governing the maximum hours of work (subject to the restrictions by default from the existing legislation). I am unsure that there was actually a problem, but the EU demanded that the UK adopted the WTD, which introduced complex administration and management time. This maximum hours of work rules was dreamt up in the context of reducing competition with several other member states who were following much stricter policies on working hours, in order to reduce their unemployment problem.
Of course there needs to be rules about minimum rest periods, breaks etc. However, I do not think any over-arching artificial restriction on maximum working hours is necessary. And certainly nothing with the complexity of the WTD (definitions of working time)

It seems you're making the argument that it's somehow a good thing that people aren't paid for the hours that they work...

Not at all. However, I suspect that there are numbers of salaried people to whom this statement well applies. However, their salaries are probably such that they are still above the minimum wage per hour.

In my industry for hourly paid staff, it is the other way round - paid hours being in excess of working hours (WTD definitions). For those who wish to work overtime, much administration is required to ensure no fouling of the rules; pretty much unnecessary with the Opt-out.

 

[Hadders]

An employer cannot force an employee to sign an opt out.

They cannot discriminate against an employee because they refused to sign an opt out.

 

[mmh]

An employer cannot force an employee to sign an opt out.

They cannot discriminate against an employee because they refused to sign an opt out.

An employer cannot force an employee to do anything. They can, and many do, discriminate against someone who has refused to.

Far, far too many people seem to think that because something is unlawful it won't happen.

 

[najaB]

They can, and many do, discriminate against someone who has refused to.

Until and unless employees are able/willing to take them to employment tribunals that is.

However, I suspect that there are numbers of salaried people to whom this statement well applies. However, their salaries are probably such that they are still above the minimum wage per hour

I doubt there are that many salaried employees who average over 48 hours a week because they have no choice but to.

For those who wish to work overtime, much administration is required to ensure no fouling of the rules; pretty much unnecessary with the Opt-out.

As you say, for those who wish to the opt-out of always available. So there's really no harm in protecting the majority who have no desire to be coerced into working 60-hour weeks.