# Working Time Act: Time for the nanny state to grow up?



## Purple (4 Mar 2008)

_This thread was split from another. I did not post title._


ClubMan said:


> Aren't you self employed? Does the directive apply to those who own their own businesses? I didn't think so. Or do you mean that your employees were forced to work beyond the statutory maximum hours?


 I'm an employee of a business in which I own a share. We limit the overtime worked by our employees so that they do not breach the directive. They are not happy about it but what can we do? It limits their earnings for no good reason and adds cost to the business. We have never forced anyone to do any overtime but now we do force them not to work it. Like I said, stupid law.


----------



## aircobra19 (4 Mar 2008)

*Re: Should she be paid for overtime?*



Purple said:


> I'm an employee of a business in which I own a share. We limit the overtime worked by our employees so that they do not breach the directive. They are not happy about it but what can we do? It limits their earnings for no good reason and adds cost to the business. We have never forced anyone to do any overtime but now we do force them not to work it. Like I said, stupid law.



On the flip side does it not limit the hours people can be expected/obliged to work for free.


----------



## Purple (4 Mar 2008)

*Re: Should she be paid for overtime?*



aircobra19 said:


> On the flip side does it not limit the hours people can be expected/obliged to work for free.


Yes but that can also be done with a contract. If someone wants to work, and is under no pressure from their employer, why stop them?


----------



## aircobra19 (4 Mar 2008)

*Re: Should she be paid for overtime?*



Purple said:


> Yes but that can also be done with a contract. If someone wants to work, and is under no pressure from their employer, why stop them?



Because people (employee and employer) take it to excess.


----------



## Purple (4 Mar 2008)

*Re: Should she be paid for overtime?*



aircobra19 said:


> Because people (employee and employer) take it to excess.



If there is no coercion and they are adults isn't it their own business?


----------



## joejoe (4 Mar 2008)

*Re: Should she be paid for overtime?*



Purple said:


> If there is no coercion and they are adults isn't it their own business?



I don't think so, is it not the owness not on the employer to ensure all employees adhere to legislation including the company? This I would say is the reason, her now exemployers have brought in a new contract of emloyment after she left.

Joejoe


----------



## aircobra19 (4 Mar 2008)

*Re: Should she be paid for overtime?*



Purple said:


> If there is no coercion and they are adults isn't it their own business?



Well we're dragging this off topic, so maybe Clubman can split the topic. 

Purple - if theres legislation governing it then no? 



> *Overtime* is the amount of time someone works beyond _normal working hours_. Normal hours may be determined in several ways:
> by custom (what is considered healthy or reasonable by society),
> by practices of a given trade or profession,
> by legislation,
> by agreement between employers and workers or their representatives.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overtime


----------



## Purple (4 Mar 2008)

*Re: Should she be paid for overtime?*



joejoe said:


> I don't think so, is it not the owness not on the employer to ensure all employees adhere to legislation including the company?


 OK, I should have said, _"If there is no coercion and they are adults should it not be their own business?"._


----------



## aircobra19 (4 Mar 2008)

*Re: Should she be paid for overtime?*



Purple said:


> OK, I should have said, _"If there is no coercion and they are adults should it not be their own business?"._



Thats a discussion for a seperate thread no?

Your question, is can employers, and employees self regulate overtime. Well yes. But then I ask, can it be abused. Also yes. This thread being an example of it. IMO. I would say the abuse of unpaid overtime is common tbh, especially in certain industries.


----------



## Purple (5 Mar 2008)

*Re: Should she be paid for overtime?*



aircobra19 said:


> Thats a discussion for a seperate thread no?
> 
> Your question, is can employers, and employees self regulate overtime. Well yes. But then I ask, can it be abused. Also yes. This thread being an example of it. IMO. I would say the abuse of unpaid overtime is common tbh, especially in certain industries.




I agree that it can be abused but the bigger question is how invasive should the government get? This legislation restricts our basic freedom to work the hours that we want to work. How far should the state poke it's nose into the way we live our lives? Why should choices freely made by adults be any of their business?

Anyway, I'll stop pulling the thread off topic.


----------



## aircobra19 (5 Mar 2008)

*Re: Should she be paid for overtime?*

I don't have any more to add to what I've ready posted tbh.


----------



## MugsGame (5 Mar 2008)

*Re: Should she be paid for overtime?*



> This legislation restricts our basic freedom to work the hours that we want to work. How far should the state poke it's nose into the way we live our lives?



I've always wondered if Bertie's own working hours are covered by the working time act!


----------



## Purple (6 Mar 2008)

*Re: Should she be paid for overtime?*



MugsGame said:


> I've always wondered if Bertie's own working hours are covered by the working time act!



Isn't he providing an essential public service?


----------



## ubiquitous (6 Mar 2008)

*Re: Should she be paid for overtime?*



Purple said:


> This legislation restricts our basic freedom to work the hours that we want to work.



...only as employees. There is nothing to stop a contractor or self-employed person from working themselves into an early grave. This is the essential stupidity of this law.


----------



## Purple (6 Mar 2008)

*Re: Should she be paid for overtime?*



ubiquitous said:


> ...only as employees. There is nothing to stop a contractor or self-employed person from working themselves into an early grave. This is the essential stupidity of this law.


I agree. The premise of the law seems to be that employees are stupid and need to be protected from scheeming and exploitative employers by a materialistic government. This may have been the case when Dickens was a scrivener but it is offensive to all concerned in this day and age.


----------



## werner (6 Mar 2008)

*Re: Should she be paid for overtime?*



Purple said:


> I agree. The premise of the law seems to be that employees are stupid and need to be protected from scheeming and exploitative employers by a materialistic government. This may have been the case when Dickens was a scrivener but it is offensive to all concerned in this day and age.


 
On the contrary there is a staggering amount of abuse of the directive both with low paid workers and young entrees to various professional bodies being coerced into excessive hours etc. 

Employees really need to be protected from unscruplous employers.

I have friends that work in the investigative areas of ..... ( I don't think I should post of ....) and you would be shocked to know of the type of abuse that go's on.


----------



## ubiquitous (6 Mar 2008)

*Re: Should she be paid for overtime?*



werner said:


> On the contrary there is a staggering amount of abuse of the directive both with ... young entrees to various professional bodies being coerced into excessive hours etc.



You mean trainee doctors? They are exempt from the Act. Which shows how useful it is


----------



## Purple (6 Mar 2008)

*Re: Should she be paid for overtime?*



werner said:


> On the contrary there is a staggering amount of abuse of the directive both with low paid workers and young entrees to various professional bodies being coerced into excessive hours etc.
> 
> Employees really need to be protected from unscruplous employers.


If they knew that long hours were expected when they took the job and they made the decision to take it anyway then what's the problem? When I started work I knew that the job required 6.5 days (65-68 hours) a week. Knowing this I still took the job so I was not entitled to moan about it being unfair. If I didn't like it I knew where the door was.


----------



## aircobra19 (6 Mar 2008)

*Re: Should she be paid for overtime?*



Purple said:


> If they knew that long hours were expected when they took the job and they made the decision to take it anyway then what's the problem? When I started work I knew that the job required 6.5 days (65-68 hours) a week. Knowing this I still took the job so I was not entitled to moan about it being unfair. If I didn't like it I knew where the door was.



If you don't know about it, and its not in the contract, but the employee takes the job, then afterwards realises that working beyond the agree hours is expected what then?


----------



## aircobra19 (6 Mar 2008)

*Re: Should she be paid for overtime?*



Purple said:


> I agree. The premise of the law seems to be that employees are stupid and need to be protected from and exploitative employers by a materialistic government. This may have been the case when Dickens was a scrivener but it is offensive to all concerned in this day and age.



I think the law has to work for the lowest common denominator, and for eveveryone. Do you think that no explotation goes on in this day an age? IMO its alive and well.


----------



## greenfield (6 Mar 2008)

On a point of info, Doctors are not exempt from OWT, there was a phasing period to allow its introduction in hospitals.   I am not sure if Ireland is compliant yet but the law does apply to Doctors.


----------



## Purple (6 Mar 2008)

*Re: Should she be paid for overtime?*



aircobra19 said:


> If you don't know about it, and its not in the contract, but the employee takes the job, then afterwards realises that working beyond the agree hours is expected what then?


Leave and get another job.


----------



## Purple (6 Mar 2008)

greenfield said:


> On a point of info, Doctors are not exempt from OWT, there was a phasing period to allow its introduction in hospitals.   I am not sure if Ireland is compliant yet but the law does apply to Doctors.


The phasing period is alive and well.


----------



## Purple (6 Mar 2008)

*Re: Should she be paid for overtime?*



aircobra19 said:


> I think the law has to work for the lowest common denominator, and for eveveryone.


 So you are in favour of penalising the majority, treating them like children because of the few who are incapable of behaving like adults?


aircobra19 said:


> Do you think that no explotation goes on in this day an age? IMO its alive and well.


Some inept and/or stupid people will always be screwed over. The state is not your Mammy, it should not be expected to act like it is.

I find that if you treat people like children they tend to behave like children and if you treat them like adults they tend to behave like adults.
I don't like laws that tell me what I can or cannot do in situations where I act freely and have no negative impact on others. I'm a liberal, I am in favour of personal liberty.


----------



## ubiquitous (6 Mar 2008)

*Re: Should she be paid for overtime?*



Purple said:


> Some inept and/or stupid people will always be screwed over. The state is not your Mammy, it should not be expected to act like it is.



The funny thing is, that in their capacity as employer of junior doctors, the State (and more particularly the HSE) is by far the most prominent guilty party in overworking its staff. The same State that enacted the Working Time Act for the rest of us.


----------



## aircobra19 (6 Mar 2008)

*Re: Should she be paid for overtime?*



Purple said:


> So you are in favour of penalising the majority, treating them like children because of the few who are incapable of behaving like adults?



I never expressed an opinion for or against. 

But like you said people are free to move job why not move to a job thats doesn't come under the act? or move to a job that earns more for less hours. Your free to do that. 



Purple said:


> Some inept and/or stupid people will always be screwed over. The state is not your Mammy, it should not be expected to act like it is.
> 
> I find that if you treat people like children they tend to behave like children and if you treat them like adults they tend to behave like adults.
> I don't like laws that tell me what I can or cannot do in situations where I act freely and have no negative impact on others. I'm a liberal, I am in favour of personal liberty.



The problem with exploitive behavior especially with regard to working extra or overtime hour is that it may have a negative impact on others. You are ignoring that possibility. 

A debate about the [SIZE=-1]responsibility [/SIZE]of the state to its citizens would be far ranging and perhaps beyond the scope of this thread no? As for treating people like adults. Some don't even treat people like people. Hence the act.


----------



## Purple (6 Mar 2008)

*Re: Should she be paid for overtime?*



aircobra19 said:


> I never expressed an opinion for or against.


 So what is your opinion?



aircobra19 said:


> But like you said people are free to move job why not move to a job thats doesn't come under the act? or move to a job that earns more for less hours. Your free to do that.


 That facile. The point is that the government has already restricted the way in which people can choose to work in most of the economy.





aircobra19 said:


> The problem with exploitive behavior especially with regard to working extra or overtime hour is that it may have a negative impact on others. You are ignoring that possibility.


 So can going on holidays. Should that be banned as well?



aircobra19 said:


> A debate about the [SIZE=-1]responsibility [/SIZE]of the state to its citizens would be far ranging and perhaps beyond the scope of this thread no?


But this aspect of how the state interferes in the basic day to day decisions that we are allowed to make is not beyond the scope of this thread. 



aircobra19 said:


> As for treating people like adults. Some don't even treat people like people. Hence the act.


It's meant to be a free country. If people don't like their job they are free to get another one. There are all sorts of areas that should and are regulated and legislated for to protect people in their place of work. I simply do not think the length of time they choose to spend at work should be one of them.
If a person has a second job but doesn't tell either of their employers is one or both of them liable for breaching the act?

Without working long hours I could not have bought my first home and all that followed would not have been possible.
This act penalises a person wants to work hard and get on in life. That's just not right.


----------



## greenfield (6 Mar 2008)

Purple - both the employer and employee are liable if there is a breach on rest breaks etc.   However, the employer can defend themselves on the basis that they did not know, or by reasonable enquiry could have known about the second job.


----------



## ubiquitous (6 Mar 2008)

*Re: Should she be paid for overtime?*



aircobra19 said:


> The problem with exploitive behavior especially with regard to working extra or overtime hour is that it may have a negative impact on others.



If this is correct, it surely applies both to employees and the self-employed. Yet the latter are free to work as long as they want while the former are prohibited from doing so. This doesn't make sense.


----------



## Purple (6 Mar 2008)

greenfield said:


> Purple - both the employer and employee are liable if there is a breach on rest breaks etc.   However, the employer can defend themselves on the basis that they did not know, or by reasonable enquiry could have known about the second job.



What business is it of mine if my employee works another job at the weekend? I'm not his/her mother either.


----------



## aircobra19 (6 Mar 2008)

*Re: Should she be paid for overtime?*



Purple said:


> So what is your opinion?



You're only seeing one side, because its to your advantage. 



Purple said:


> That facile. The point is that the government has already restricted the way in which people can choose to work in most of the economy.



Its the same point you made. You can just move jobs if you don't like the hours. As if lifes that simple for everyone. 



Purple said:


> So can going on holidays. Should that be banned as well?



Holiday leave IS regulated aswell. Overtime isn't banned (AFAIK) its regulated and limited. 



Purple said:


> But this aspect of how the state interferes in the basic day to day decisions that we are allowed to make is not beyond the scope of this thread.



Debating should the state act as mammy is a different topic than should we have opted in to the EU working act. 



Purple said:


> It's meant to be a free country. If people don't like their job they are free to get another one. There are all sorts of areas that should and are regulated and legislated for to protect people in their place of work. I simply do not think the length of time they choose to spend at work should be one of them.
> If a person has a second job but doesn't tell either of their employers is one or both of them liable for breaching the act?
> 
> Without working long hours I could not have bought my first home and all that followed would not have been possible.
> This act penalises a person wants to work hard and get on in life. That's just not right.



AFAIK its not like Ireland drafted this. This is an EU directive that we agreed to. Employers and employees could agree to opt out, but that was abused so they changed it.


----------



## aircobra19 (6 Mar 2008)

*Re: Should she be paid for overtime?*



ubiquitous said:


> If this is correct, it surely applies both to employees and the self-employed. Yet the latter are free to work as long as they want while the former are prohibited from doing so. This doesn't make sense.



Why not?


----------



## ubiquitous (6 Mar 2008)

*Re: Should she be paid for overtime?*



aircobra19 said:


> Why not?



Laws should, in general, apply equally to all workers.

If the WTA is so important to PAYE employees' welfare, why does it not apply to other workers.


----------



## Purple (7 Mar 2008)

aircobra19 said:


> You're only seeing one side, because its to your advantage.


 No, what's your opinion of the working time act? Do you think it is right that our government legislates in this way? Do you accept that it restricts our right to free choice?





aircobra19 said:


> Its the same point you made. You can just move jobs if you don't like the hours. As if lifes that simple for everyone.


 No it's not, I cannot choose to work more hours in most jobs because the government has taken that choice away from me. They have restricted my ability to make a living.





aircobra19 said:


> Holiday leave IS regulated aswell. Overtime isn't banned (AFAIK) its regulated and limited.


I was not aware of legislation that restricts the maximum amount of holidays that one can take. Can you post a link please?




aircobra19 said:


> Debating should the state act as mammy is a different topic than should we have opted in to the EU working act.


 The working time act is the example of the state acting in a maternalistic way which is being discussed here. 





aircobra19 said:


> AFAIK its not like Ireland drafted this. This is an EU directive that we agreed to.


Yes, but we didn't have to agree to it. That's the issue.



aircobra19 said:


> Employers and employees could agree to opt out, but that was abused so they changed it.


Really? Can you expand on that point please?


----------



## MugsGame (7 Mar 2008)

> This thread was split from another. I did not post title.



No, that was me trying to be provocative!


----------



## Purple (7 Mar 2008)

MugsGame said:


> No, that was me trying to be provocative!


----------



## csirl (7 Mar 2008)

Occupational health is the reason for the WTA. If employees worked too many hours over a long period of time without adequate rest, they will eventually have a breakdown or serious health issue. Then the taxpayer has to pick up the tap re: sick benefit, medical treatment, looking after dependents etc. WTA saves the taxpayers money.

If a firm has most of its employees on regular overtime, then why dont they just hire more staff? Could even be cheaper if employees get premium rates for overtime.


----------



## Purple (7 Mar 2008)

csirl said:


> Occupational health is the reason for the WTA. If employees worked too many hours over a long period of time without adequate rest, they will eventually have a breakdown or serious health issue.


 This can also happen if the employee stays up late at night watching TV. Should the state regulate what time PAYE workers should go to bed at? It seems self employed people are adults and don't need to be told how to run their lives so they are in the clear.


csirl said:


> WTA saves the taxpayers money.


 I do not share this view, it is not my experience. Can you back it up with facts?



csirl said:


> If a firm has most of its employees on regular overtime, then why dont they just hire more staff? Could even be cheaper if employees get premium rates for overtime.


 Labour flexibility is essential for any successful business. There are many reasons why overtime increases efficiencies and reduces unit costs but this is about the right of an adult in a free country to work when they want to work. There are many things that would make economic sense but are unacceptable in a free country.


----------



## aircobra19 (7 Mar 2008)

Purple said:


> No, what's your opinion of the working time act? Do you think it is right that our government legislates in this way? Do you accept that it restricts our right to free choice?



I don't have a problem with it. No because you have the choice to work in a job that has an exception from it. 

http://citizensinformation.ie/categ...mployment_working_time_records?printpreview=1
[broken link removed]
http://www.emplaw.co.uk/researchfree-redirector.aspx?StartPage=data%2f98nov011.htm



Purple said:


> I was not aware of legislation that restricts the maximum amount of holidays that one can take. Can you post a link please?



That makes no sense. Thats like saying is there a law that limits the number of hours I don't work in a day. There is a law for the minium amount of holidays. 



Purple said:


> The working time act is the example of the state acting in a maternalistic way which is being discussed here. ....Yes, but we didn't have to agree to it. That's the issue.


 
Overtime wa/is abused. Unless you conceed that, then it will never make sense to you. 

Its bit like saying I can smoke and it does no one else any harm. So we didn't have to agree to smoking bans. Etc. 



Purple said:


> Really? Can you expand on that point please?



Mainly a UK issue. AFAIK. I don't know the current status of this. 



> Employers do not force workers to take holidays and breaks they are entitled to, so that staff could still in theory work 24 hours a day 365 days a year.
> 
> In the UK, employees can volunteer to work more than 48 hours a week, and so can work unlimited hours.
> 
> ...


----------



## aircobra19 (7 Mar 2008)

Purple said:


> This can also happen if the employee stays up late at night watching TV. Should the state regulate what time PAYE workers should go to bed at? It seems self employed people are adults and don't need to be told how to run their lives so they are in the clear.



I assume its because self employed people are not employers.



Purple said:


> Labour flexibility is essential for any successful business. There are many reasons why overtime increases efficiencies and reduces unit costs but this is about the right of an adult in a free country to work when they want to work. There are many things that would make economic sense but are unacceptable in a free country.



Uncontrolled working hours is now one of them. 

Equally often overtime is the result of bad practices and is only feeding the symptoms and solving not the problem that required the overtime in the first place.


----------



## Purple (7 Mar 2008)

aircobra19 said:


> No because you have the choice to work in a job that has an exception from it.


 So if you are an accountant and want to work the amount of overtime you choose you must take a job you are now skilled to do? That's not logical. 



aircobra19 said:


> That makes no sense. Thats like saying is there a law that limits the number of hours I don't work in a day. There is a law for the minium amount of holidays.


 Taking holidays puts extra stress on the people you work with. Should the government introduce legislation to counter this? 




aircobra19 said:


> Overtime wa/is abused. Unless you conceed that, then it will never make sense to you.


 Noone should be forced to work overtime, there are always options.



aircobra19 said:


> Its bit like saying I can smoke and it does no one else any harm. So we didn't have to agree to smoking bans. Etc.


 Smoking has health implications for those around you. I have yet to see the  study which shows that spending more than 48 hours a week in work can give your co-workers cancer. 




aircobra19 said:


> Mainly a UK issue. AFAIK. I don't know the current status of this.


 So it's hear-say. 

The crux of the issue is should the government have the right to tell people how long they are allowed to work.
I accept that there is potential for coercion by employers (and employees) but freedom has drawbacks and well and benefits. I do not think that the restriction on free choice that this law imposes is justified by the potential for coercion. We are free to disagree on this (until the directive that restricts this as well).


----------



## Purple (7 Mar 2008)

aircobra19 said:


> Equally often overtime is the result of bad practices and is only feeding the symptoms and solving not the problem that required the overtime in the first place.


 Can you back that up please?


----------



## aircobra19 (7 Mar 2008)

Purple said:


> So if you are an accountant and want to work the amount of overtime you choose you must take a job you are now skilled to do? That's not logical.



Ditto moving jobs if the conditions are unfair. 



Purple said:


> ....If I didn't like it I knew where the door was.





Purple said:


> Taking holidays puts extra stress on the people you work with. Should the government introduce legislation to counter this?



So you don't think people need holidays now. 



Purple said:


> Noone should be forced to work overtime, there are always options.



Like leaving the job. See above?



Purple said:


> Smoking has health implications for those around you. I have yet to see the  study which shows that spending more than 48 hours a week in work can give your co-workers cancer.




http://www.ilo.org/public/english/region/asro/bangkok/public/releases/yr2007/pr07_24.htm
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=22819&Cr=labour&Cr1=
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0167527304004632

Common sense will tell you if someone works excessive hours, their health will suffer in the long run, they'll makes mistakes, which can cost money or at worst kill someone. Take the example of someone driving excessive hours. Are they likely to make mistakes. A bus driver, etc. 



Purple said:


> So it's hear-say.



As much as what you've posted. At least I've posted links you've posted none. 



Purple said:


> The crux of the issue is should the government have the right to tell people how long they are allowed to work.
> I accept that there is potential for coercion by employers (and employees) but freedom has drawbacks and well and benefits. I do not think that the restriction on free choice that this law imposes is justified by the potential for coercion. We are free to disagree on this (until the directive that restricts this as well).



You mean like should a doctor be allowed to do surgury after being up for 48 hours? A pilot fly a plane after 4 long distance flights. Operate a heavy machine? A crane? Etc.



Purple said:


> Can you back that up please?



Quite usual in IT to see people working long hours, weekends, all night for extended period of times to rush a project to completion only to find so many errors and mistakes, that it takes longer to fix than it would have done to do it right in normal working hours the first time. Usually lots of people (unfmailar with the project) get thrown on to the project which leads to even more mistakes than if you'd just let the original team just get. on with it. Seen this in contruction projects quite often aswell. 

On one project which normaly would take a month to do. Was outsourced, to a company that work all hours to complete it. It came back in 2 weeks. But it took another 4 weeks to fix it. 

One place I was in they had a process/task that took a team of 6, 2 extra hours  beyond their normal day to complete. They did this about once or twice a week. it was time critical in that it had to be done by a specific time in the morning. We looked at it, changed the process and wrote some software so the same task could be completed by 2 people in 15/20mins. 

How many times have you seen someone like Eircom dig up a road, put it back, only for someone like ESB to dig it right back up a few weeks later. Crews working through the night to minimise disruption. 

Example are endless.


----------



## Purple (7 Mar 2008)

aircobra19 said:


> Ditto moving jobs if the conditions are unfair.


No, you can move jobs to one within your existing field. To be clear, it is not OK to change the pay or conditions of an employee. I am of the opinion that if someone takes a job knowing that overtime is the norm they should not then moan about something that they freely engaged in. 



aircobra19 said:


> So you don't think people need holidays now.


 No, I am applying your logic that people should be restricted from making their own decisions because it may impact on others. I have no problem with people taking as many holidays as they like as long as they agree it with their employer.



aircobra19 said:


> Like leaving the job. See above?


 See above.




aircobra19 said:


> Common sense will tell you if someone works excessive hours, their health will suffer in the long run, they'll makes mistakes, which can cost money or at worst kill someone.


 I agree. Some hours are set because of public safety issues (pilots, bus drivers etc). Are you suggesting that 48 hours constitutes excessive for everyone else? 




aircobra19 said:


> You mean like should a doctor be allowed to do surgury after being up for 48 hours? A pilot fly a plane after 4 long distance flights. Operate a heavy machine? A crane? Etc.


 See above





aircobra19 said:


> Quite usual in IT to see people working long hours, weekends, all night for extended period of times to rush a project to completion only to find so many errors and mistakes, that it takes longer to fix than it would have done to do it right in normal working hours the first time. Usually lots of people (unfmailar with the project) get thrown on to the project which leads to even more mistakes than if you'd just let the original team just get. on with it. Seen this in contruction projects quite often aswell.
> 
> On one project which normaly would take a month to do. Was outsourced, to a company that work all hours to complete it. It came back in 2 weeks. But it took another 4 weeks to fix it.
> 
> One place I was in they had a process/task that took a team of 6, 2 extra hours  beyond their normal day to complete. They did this about once or twice a week. it was time critical in that it had to be done by a specific time in the morning. We looked at it, changed the process and wrote some software so the same task could be completed by 2 people in 15/20mins.


And all of them can and should be addressed by agreement between employees and employers. We are one off the most regulated countries in the world, there are more than enough structures in place to deal wit this.



aircobra19 said:


> How many times have you seen someone like Eircom dig up a road, put it back, only for someone like ESB to dig it right back up a few weeks later. Crews working through the night to minimise disruption.


 This is a good example of why the working time act is a bad idea. If the guy filling in the hole is an hour from finished should he down tools and disrupt traffic for the next day if things have run over time and he is about to exceed his overtime allowance for that three month period?

I have been an employee and an employer. This law has little impact on me as an employer but would have has a hugely detrimental effect on me when I was an employee.


----------



## aircobra19 (7 Mar 2008)

Purple said:


> No, you can move jobs to one within your existing field. To be clear, it is not OK to change the pay or conditions of an employee. I am of the opinion that if someone takes a job knowing that overtime is the norm they should not then moan about something that they freely engaged in.



Why only see the least common scenerio here. Whats more common is someone starts a job only to to realise that overtime, unofficial or official is expected. Have you never had a job where the spec, or the conditions of employment are very different to whats in the description, or common practise in that company. Its not always as simple to just get another job.



Purple said:


> No, I am applying your logic that people should be restricted from making their own decisions because it may impact on others. I have no problem with people taking as many holidays as they like as long as they agree it with their employer.


 
You applying  no logic other than it doesn't suit your situation, so lets ignore any other scenerio. Like I said you've no problem with people taking no holidays. What you're saying here doesn't exclude that. 



Purple said:


> I agree. Some hours are set because of public safety issues (pilots, bus drivers etc). Are you suggesting that 48 hours constitutes excessive for everyone else?



Is there a difference in physiology?



Purple said:


> And all of them can and should be addressed by agreement between employees and employers. We are one off the most regulated countries in the world, there are more than enough structures in place to deal wit this.



Yet people still abuse it. So obviously the EU felt there was a need for regulation and the govt agreed. Perhaps from what they were seeing in the labour courts and similar. 



Purple said:


> This is a good example of why the working time act is a bad idea. If the guy filling in the hole is an hour from finished should he down tools and disrupt traffic for the next day if things have run over time and he is about to exceed his overtime allowance for that three month period?



If there isn't enough people on the job to finish a job within the schedule thats not the acts fault. You don't suddenly realise you won't finish as you run out of time at the deadline. You must know its going to be tight at least the day before. What if that guy has other commitments outside of work, an hour later, should he drop those because the job wasn't scheduled properly. The fault in your example is bad management, bad practises, not the act. 



Purple said:


> I have been an employee and an employer. This law has little impact on me as an employer but would have has a hugely detrimental effect on me when I was an employee.



Why didn't you say before? Of course your needs take piority over everyone else who finds the act a positive effect.  

The act has no impact on me, as I've either been self employed or worked where theres no paid overtime (officially).


----------



## Purple (7 Mar 2008)

aircobra19 said:


> Why only see the least common scenerio here. Whats more common is someone starts a job only to to realise that overtime, unofficial or official is expected. Have you never had a job where the spec, or the conditions of employment are very different to whats in the description, or common practise in that company. Its not always as simple to just get another job.


 I agree that it's not that simple. I disagree that it's more common that hours and job description are very different to what people sign up for. If it is then it's a breach of contract.



aircobra19 said:


> Like I said you've no problem with people taking no holidays.


 You are incorrect in your conclusion about my opinion. I know 'cause it's my opinion.



aircobra19 said:


> Is there a difference in physiology?


Are you suggesting that a security guard sitting in a hut with a TV for the night will be an physically or mentally tired as a brain surgeon or a pilot working for the same period of time?



aircobra19 said:


> Yet people still abuse it. So obviously the EU felt there was a need for regulation and the govt agreed. Perhaps from what they were seeing in the labour courts and similar.


 If the abuse still takes place then the restriction on our freedom of choice was for nothing.



aircobra19 said:


> If there isn't enough people on the job to finish a job within the schedule thats not the acts fault. You don't suddenly realise you won't finish as you run out of time at the deadline. You must know its going to be tight at least the day before. What if that guy has other commitments outside of work, an hour later, should he drop those because the job wasn't scheduled properly. The fault in your example is bad management, bad practises, not the act.


So there should be a load of extra people on the job "just in case". SIPTU must love you.



aircobra19 said:


> Why didn't you say before? Of course your needs take piority over everyone else who finds the act a positive effect.


 When did I say that?



aircobra19 said:


> The act has no impact on me, as I've either been self employed or worked where theres no paid overtime (officially).


 So as long as your freedom is not restricted you don't care about your fellow citizens? That's very selfish!


----------



## aircobra19 (7 Mar 2008)

Purple said:


> I agree that it's not that simple. ....



Hurrah, flags and bunting waved!




Purple said:


> You are incorrect in your conclusion about my opinion. I know 'cause it's my opinion.



Its not a conclusion . Its what you said. "no problem with people taking as many holidays as they want". So if they say 0 or 1 day holidays you don't have a problem with that. 



Purple said:


> Are you suggesting that a security guard sitting in a hut with a TV for the night will be an physically or mentally tired as a brain surgeon or a pilot working for the same period of time?



Whats the metric this is being measured by? Will they be tired yes. Will they be as effective or effcient as when they are not tired. No. 

Its also an occupation that specifically listed as an exception to the act in the links I posted above. 



Purple said:


> If the abuse still takes place then the restriction on our freedom of choice was for nothing.



Why take this so literally. It probably reduces the abuse of it. Do you think its useful to dismiss it something entirely if it doesn't achieve 100% compliance?



Purple said:


> So there should be a load of extra people on the job "just in case". SIPTU must love you.



Why replace one person with a load of extra people? That makes no sense to me can you explain why you'd do that. Why would you not just plan the work properly. If people constantly running out out of time on project is a problem. Its sounds like the typical under resourcing projects and expecting others to take up the shortfall.


----------



## Purple (7 Mar 2008)

aircobra19 said:


> Hurrah, flags and bunting waved!







aircobra19 said:


> Its not a conclusion . Its what you said. "no problem with people taking as many holidays as they want". So if they say 0 or 1 day holidays you don't have a problem with that.


 I know many people (not those who work for me) who take less than 20 days a year off. If they do so of their own free will I see no problem with this. I also know people who take 6-8 weeks a year off. I also have no problem with this. They are adults and so make their own decisions.





aircobra19 said:


> Why take this so literally. It probably reduces the abuse of it. Do you think its useful to dismiss it something entirely if it doesn't achieve 100% compliance?


Not at all, I bring it back to the core issue that this law restricts freedom of choice and this diminution of liberty is not worth the return.




aircobra19 said:


> Why replace one person with a load of extra people? That makes no sense to me can you explain why you'd do that. Why would you not just plan the work properly. If people constantly running out out of time on project is a problem. Its sounds like the typical under resourcing projects and expecting others to take up the shortfall.


 Do you accept that on occasion it is necessary for people to work late/ longer in order to complete a time critical task (such as finishing road works before morning rush-hour)?  This may be due to all sorts of unforeseeable issues.

By the way, you nearly have me worn down; I don’t think I’ll last more than another page


----------



## aircobra19 (7 Mar 2008)

Purple said:


> ...Not at all, I bring it back to the core issue that this law restricts freedom of choice and this diminution of liberty is not worth the return.



If you only look at a very narrow view point. If you work in an industry where working excess overtime is the norm then you might be glad of it. 



Purple said:


> .
> Do you accept that on occasion it is necessary for people to work late/ longer in order to complete a time critical task (such as finishing road works before morning rush-hour)?  This may be due to all sorts of unforeseeable issues.



In that example no. In Germany they work on critical roads at night not the day so as to minimise disruption. All this working long hours achieves is mistakes IMO. Some occupations are exempted.


----------



## Purple (8 Mar 2008)

aircobra19 said:


> If you only look at a very narrow view point.


 So it’s OK to restrict the freedoms of some people, just so long as you don’t do it to everyone?



aircobra19 said:


> If you work in an industry where working excess overtime is the norm then you might be glad of it.


 You might or you might not. Your right to choose has been taken away. That’s what I have a problem with.


aircobra19 said:


> In that example no. In Germany they work on critical roads at night not the day so as to minimise disruption. All this working long hours achieves is mistakes IMO. Some occupations are exempted.


 So if the guys in Germany are just about finished and morning traffic volumes are starting to increase and their JCB breaks down you think they should just clock off and not wait for a replacement part/ JCB to finish the job? 

I am not taking a position on this as an employer; it does not affect my business one way of the other. I simply have a problem with laws that restrict our freedoms and take away choice that we, as adults, should be left to make.


----------



## aircobra19 (8 Mar 2008)

How about you take it up with your local politicians, and post back their response.


----------



## room305 (8 Mar 2008)

aircobra19 said:


> How about you take it up with your local politicians, and post back their response.


 
That could be quite interesting. Most politicians work incredibly long hours including nights and weekends. So essentially they are insisting that their constituents comply with an EU directive that they themselves have no intention of ever honouring, not least because it would damage their prospects for re-election and with consequent effects for their career. Do they feel any compunction about damaging the career prospects of those in other professions?


----------



## Purple (8 Mar 2008)

aircobra19 said:


> How about you take it up with your local politicians, and post back their response.


Why the snide comment? 
In all of your posts you have not once given your opinion. Do you think the government should restrict our right to make our own decisions in this way? I would be interested in your answer.


----------



## aircobra19 (9 Mar 2008)

How is it snide.



Purple said:


> If they knew that long hours were expected when they took the job and they made the decision to take it anyway then what's the problem? When I started work I knew that the job required 6.5 days (65-68 hours) a week. Knowing this I still took the job so I was not entitled to moan about it being unfair. If I didn't like it I knew where the door was.



If you want to do overtime, pick a job that has it.


----------



## Purple (10 Mar 2008)

aircobra19 said:


> If you want to do overtime, pick a job that has it.



Like what?
If someone on a low income wants to work hard to get extra income are you suggesting that they apply for a job as a doctor?


----------



## aircobra19 (10 Mar 2008)

Yes that makes perfect sense. 



greenfield said:


> On a point of info, Doctors are not exempt from OWT, there was a phasing period to allow its introduction in hospitals.   I am not sure if Ireland is compliant yet but the law does apply to Doctors.


----------

