# Is it time to remove the working time directive?



## Purple

There is much talk about the need to cut the minimum wage since people can’t afford to live on any less.
Why not remove this law which limits the right of a person to work when and how much they choose? That way a person on €6.00 an hour could work 60-70 hours a week and have a reasonable income. 70 hours is 85.5 pay hours. That’s €513 (or about €25’000 a year) at €6 an hour.


----------



## bond-007

*Re: Isit time to remove the working time directive?*

No.

It would open the door to exploit workers. It would introduce slavery by the back door.


----------



## Mpsox

*Re: Isit time to remove the working time directive?*

Is there not a risk that by doing so you would actually increase unemployment(less staff needed)?


----------



## Purple

*Re: Isit time to remove the working time directive?*



bond-007 said:


> It would open the door to exploit workers.


 How? Would it not just reintroduce free will?


bond-007 said:


> It would introduce slavery by the back door.


How? We have a welfare state, why would anyone work for nothing? Owning another person is against the law in this country.


----------



## bond-007

*Re: Isit time to remove the working time directive?*



Mpsox said:


> Is there not a risk that by doing so you would actually increase unemployment(less staff needed)?


Also it would encourage people not to look for work. People are not going to work for peanuts. 

This is like the US system. People working 100 hours a week just to make ends meet. Crazy. Do we really want that here?


----------



## steve1234

I think it would be better to reduce everybodys working time (and pay) at the same time to 35 hours per week (like france).

At least then there would be potentially more jobs and people would have a better standard of living (id prefer this to tax increases anyways )


----------



## Padraigb

Purple said:


> There is much talk about the need to cut the minimum wage since people can’t afford to live on any less.
> Why not remove this law which limits the right of a person to work when and how much they choose? That way a person on €6.00 an hour could work 60-70 hours a week and have a reasonable income. 70 hours is 85.5 pay hours. That’s €513 (or about €25’000 a year) at €6 an hour.



There is the additional benefit that they wouldn't have so much time to spend it, so it would seem like even more.


----------



## Latrade

Nah leave it, if nothing else it helps in the great contradiction of Unions fighting to have the legislation brought in and the getting apoplectic when they realise it means less overtime and less pay.


----------



## Mpsox

*Re: Isit time to remove the working time directive?*



Purple said:


> How? Would it not just reintroduce free will?
> .


 
would it really? or would people be left with 2 choces, work an 80-100 hour a week for a low hourly wage or lose their social welfare? is that free will?


----------



## Purple

*Re: Isit time to remove the working time directive?*



bond-007 said:


> Also it would encourage people not to look for work. People are not going to work for peanuts.
> 
> This is like the US system. People working 100 hours a week just to make ends meet. Crazy. Do we really want that here?


No, we don’t want people working 100 hours a week and still staying under the poverty line but since we have nowhere near the levels of immigration that they have in the USA (or a border with Mexico) and we do have a welfare system that provides family income support etc this is very unlikely to happen.


----------



## Purple

steve1234 said:


> I think it would be better to reduce everybodys working time (and pay) at the same time to 35 hours per week (like france).
> 
> At least then there would be potentially more jobs and people would have a better standard of living (id prefer this to tax increases anyways )



They got rid of that (or at least emasculated it) last year.


----------



## Purple

*Re: Isit time to remove the working time directive?*



Mpsox said:


> would it really? or would people be left with 2 choces, work an 80-100 hour a week for a low hourly wage or lose their social welfare? is that free will?


 How would it leave people with only those two choices?


----------



## Sherman

steve1234 said:


> I think it would be better to reduce everybodys working time (and pay) at the same time to 35 hours per week (like france).
> 
> At least then there would be potentially more jobs and people would have a better standard of living (id prefer this to tax increases anyways )


 
No there wouldn't. Lump of labour fallacy.


----------



## BeanPole

In my line of work, we put in a good 60 - 70 hours per week. If you started on about your "rights" to limit your working hours, you'd be out the door. 

This is not exploitation: merely giving people the freedom to work as many hours as they choose. It is Europe at its worst when some distant Eurocrat decides the maximum number of hours anyone should work.

Big brother at its worst


----------



## Padraigb

BeanPole said:


> In my line of work, we put in a good 60 - 70 hours per week. If you started on about your "rights" to limit your working hours, you'd be out the door.
> 
> This is not exploitation: merely giving people the freedom to work as many hours as they choose...



You must be kidding. You make it clear that in your place of work there is no place for those who choose to work 40 hours per week.

Working heroic hours for the benefit of an employer is a mug's game. Believing that it is the right and proper way to act compounds the mistake.


----------



## Purple

Padraigb said:


> You must be kidding. You make it clear that in your place of work there is no place for those who choose to work 40 hours per week.


 We make it clear that overtime will be required. If you don't want to work it then don't take the job.



Padraigb said:


> Working heroic hours for the benefit of an employer is a mug's game.


 I agree, the employee should be paid for their overtime. If this happens then both parties benefit.


----------



## Purple

BeanPole said:


> This is not exploitation: merely giving people the freedom to work as many hours as they choose. It is Europe at its worst when some distant Eurocrat decides the maximum number of hours anyone should work.
> 
> Big brother at its worst


 I agree 100%. The working time act takes away the basic right of an individual to work as they choose.


----------



## dave28

Is it a max of 48 hours per week ??
I know a person who often works Saturday and Sunday overtime (voluntarily) - 39 hrs Ord + 16 hrs o/t = 55 hours.
Is the employer breaking employment laws ? Or is it averaged over the year ?


----------



## Purple

dave28 said:


> Is it a max of 48 hours per week ??
> I know a person who often works Saturday and Sunday overtime (voluntarily) - 39 hrs Ord + 16 hrs o/t = 55 hours.
> Is the employer breaking employment laws ? Or is it averaged over the year ?



AFAIK it's averaged over a 17 week period.


----------



## Yeager

And what about someone regularily coming to work with little/no sleep - a hazard to themselves and others don't you thing?


----------



## bond-007

For sure.


----------



## Purple

Yeager said:


> And what about someone regularily coming to work with little/no sleep - a hazard to themselves and others don't you thing?


Indeed... what's the EU directive to ensure employers ensure their employees don't watch late night porn during the week?


----------



## Yeager

Porns as good in the morning as it is late at night.

Employer can give you your P45 for coming into work knackered everyday if its your own doing, they can't as easily if its because of them that you are so tired i.e. finishing a 12 hr shift and having to start another one in 3-4 hrs again. 

Unless your a junior doctor of course where it appears to be perfectly fine to do 30+ hr shift making life/death decisions - yet air traffic controllers (who are technically doing the same thing) wouldn't do this amount of hours in a week! Can never get my head around that one.


----------



## csirl

The Working Time Act exists for H&S reasons. People who work long hours over a prelonged period of time usually end up with severe health issues and become a burden on the health and social welfare systems. It saves the taxpayer a lot of money.


----------



## Purple

csirl said:


> The Working Time Act exists for H&S reasons. People who work long hours over a prelonged period of time usually end up with severe health issues and become a burden on the health and social welfare systems. It saves the taxpayer a lot of money.



Yes, but 9-10 hours 5-6 days a week is hardly excessivly long hours.


----------



## bond-007

It is when a person has a 1 hour commute each way per day.


----------



## Claire1956

It's hard to call - we've had staff who wanted to work every hour they can and threaten to leave if not given extra hours and one that did leave(they are not on or near the min wage btw). Yet NERA stand firm that giving them the hours is an issue.

In a different part of the business we have other staff members that work circa 4 days and occasionally (say 4 times a year) are *asked* to work 5.5 days, but we stopped because they are so non-functioning the following Monday, having had half Saturday and all Sunday off.

As an employer its takes time to get the balance to give each employee what they want and respect that not everyone wants the same thing re hours, and still not get up someones nose.............and from reading some of the posts regarding AL for marriage it would encourage you to offer only the minimum that is required and quit thinking about how to reward folks beyond that.


----------



## BeanPole

Good post Claire

Time is now long past to abolish this socialist directive, and to allow people the freedom to agree their own working hours (and pay rates) with their employer.


----------



## roker

We need the 48 hour rule because some employers do not pay for overtime and expect you to work for nothing, a lot of staff employees are working overtime for no pay. I have also fallen foul of this, they write it into your employment contract before you are hired.


----------



## Purple

roker said:


> We need the 48 hour rule because some employers do not pay for overtime and expect you to work for nothing, a lot of staff employees are working to this rule. I have also fallen foul of this rule, they write it into your employment contract before you are hired.



So it's ok to work an extra 9 hours a week for nothing but not 10?
How about just paying overtime?

My problem is that if I want to earn extra money I can't work more than 9 hours paid overtime a week, even if both I and my employer want me to. For me that's a violation of my basic right to work.


----------



## bond-007

Good luck arguing that in a court.

If you want to opt out of the WTD you can sign a disclaimer protecting your employer from any lawsuits that arise from your excessive working.

The WTD is there to protect the vulnerable from ruthless employers.


----------



## Purple

bond-007 said:


> Good luck arguing that in a court.
> 
> If you want to opt out of the WTD you can sign a disclaimer protecting your employer from any lawsuits that arise from your excessive working.
> 
> The WTD is there to protect the vulnerable from ruthless employers.



There is no legal opt out for employees, the government doesn't think they have the brains to make their own decisions, so we have no choice.

The WTD is there because the French socialists had a stupid law stopping people working more than 35 hours. It was screwing up the French economy so they thought they'd screw everyone else up as well and lo and behold the EU got the working time directive. The Brits opted out and as far as I know the swath of employment protection laws they have in place have, so far, protected the poor stupid "wurkors" from the evil capitalist employers.

So in the UK if an adult wants to work hard to provide for their family they still can. Irish people, it seems, aren’t capable of such weighty decisions.


----------



## canicemcavoy

Purple said:


> There is much talk about the need to cut the minimum wage since people can’t afford to live on any less.
> Why not remove this law which limits the right of a person to work when and how much they choose? That way a person on €6.00 an hour could work 60-70 hours a week and have a reasonable income. 70 hours is 85.5 pay hours. That’s €513 (or about €25’000 a year) at €6 an hour.


 
Er, yes, because the problem is that there's too much work to go around.

*bashs head off keyboard*


----------



## Purple

canicemcavoy said:


> Er, yes, because the problem is that there's too much work to go around.
> 
> *bashs head off keyboard*



Hvae you read this thread? 
In particular: 





Sherman said:


> Lump of labour fallacy.



*bashs head off keyboard*


----------



## sunrock

Sherman said:


> No there wouldn't. Lump of labour fallacy
> 
> It`s easy to dismiss the benefit of reducing working hours by the above link.
> Our gov. and most posters here agree that spending has to be cut. Take teachers for example...if they all agreed to work 10% less hours for 10% less pay,we could have roughly 10% more teachers  and we have a lot of unemployed teachers.Better still,let them have a 10% pay cut for the same hours and hire 10% extra teachers anyway.The teachers union would be up in arms despite all their "worry" about the pupil teacher ratio.
> A lot of money could be saved on dole by this method, but those in secure jobs don`t like job sharing because it means less income for the reduced hours.


----------



## Sherman

I think using the example of teachers misses the point, as the 'job of work' (amount) of teaching required in the State in any given time period _is_ to a greater or lesser degree fixed. The only 'consumer' of/driver of demand for teaching services is the State (it creates the demand in both public and private schools by virtue of its exam system), so it stands to reason that, in the case of teaching, there is indeed a 'fixed' amount of work to go around, which can be share around depending on how many teachers there are - halve the number of teachers, but you'll need to double their hours if the 'amount of teaching' done is to remain the same (btw I realise that is a crass way to look at education, just using the op's example).

The lump of labour fallacy really applies to the private sector, where productivity, demand and labour are elastic.


----------



## ringledman

All unecessary regulation is a burden on the economy. The free market works best with little regulation. Government regulation of any type stifles innovation and economic growth.

The WTD is a joke. People should be free to work the hours they want. We need more freedom from government/european legislation.

Get rid of the c*** reems of legislation from the EU and Europe may one day become competitive again on the global stage.


----------



## ringledman

Purple said:


> There is no legal opt out for employees, the government doesn't think they have the brains to make their own decisions, so we have no choice.
> 
> The WTD is there because the French socialists had a stupid law stopping people working more than 35 hours. It was screwing up the French economy so they thought they'd screw everyone else up as well and lo and behold the EU got the working time directive. The Brits opted out and as far as I know the swath of employment protection laws they have in place have, so far, protected the poor stupid "wurkors" from the evil capitalist employers.
> 
> So in the UK if an adult wants to work hard to provide for their family they still can. Irish people, it seems, aren’t capable of such weighty decisions.


 
Too right. We need less government intervention in our lives. I hate the way the Western governments are trying to intervene in our lives with stupid regulation that stifles our economies. 

If you don't want to work overtime tell your employer no. People need to take control of their own lives and not try and rely on the government to do so.


----------



## BeanPole

+1


----------



## sunrock

I can`t understand why people are getting  so hostile to the WTD.It is there to stop workers working excessive hours.If an employer wants more work done he can easily hire out of our 400,000+ unemployed.
In the U.K. with their opt out ,workers are frequented taken advantage of by having to do 60+ hours a week just to get a living wage....the overtime rate is usually no more than the regular rate and the long hours mean wage rates can be lowered.With the proliferation of agencies competing for employers, things such as holiday pay is not paid.The WTD is there to protect especially lower paid workers...take truck drivers...there has been some very bad accidents involving especially immigrant truck drivers here who were working huge hours and literally fell asleep at the wheel.
A lot of our high paid  workers work a lot less than 48 hours a week and no one suggests they could work a few more hours to help out the economy..at the same salary of course.
Another thing is ...about the minimum wage is if this was abolished or reduced substantially it would put irish workers at a disadvantage with immigrants in the job market. For example if an employer had a job paying 5e an hour...an irish worker wouldn`t accept it, but an immigrant who couldn`t get welfare would. The welfare rates could be reduced but then the employer could reduce the pay again.


----------



## Purple

sunrock said:


> I can`t understand why people are getting  so hostile to the WTD.It is there to stop workers working excessive hours.If an employer wants more work done he can easily hire out of our 400,000+ unemployed.


 It’s not about the employer, it’s about the employee. If a person wants to work extra hours to support their family (say 8 hours on a Saturday in a shop on top of 44 hours during the week) what business is it of the government? 



sunrock said:


> In the U.K. with their opt out ,workers are frequented taken advantage of by having to do 60+ hours a week just to get a living wage....the overtime rate is usually no more than the regular rate and the long hours mean wage rates can be lowered.


Legislate so that minimum wage levels are met and overtime is paid. Simple.
I worked over 60 hours a week for 15 years, it’s not that big a deal.



sunrock said:


> With the proliferation of agencies competing for employers, things such as holiday pay is not paid.


 Different argument. 



sunrock said:


> The WTD is there to protect especially lower paid workers...take truck drivers...there has been some very bad accidents involving especially immigrant truck drivers here who were working huge hours and literally fell asleep at the wheel.


 Also a different argument; long before the working time act there were limits on the hours truck drivers could work, same for pilots and train drivers.



sunrock said:


> A lot of our high paid  workers work a lot less than 48 hours a week and no one suggests they could work a few more hours to help out the economy..at the same salary of course.


 Who’s saying that? Many of the so called professions work bugger all hours (Medical consultants and GP’s spring to mind). Damb right they should be working longer hours, in most cases for less money.



sunrock said:


> Another thing is ...about the minimum wage is if this was abolished or reduced substantially it would put irish workers at a disadvantage with immigrants in the job market. For example if an employer had a job paying 5e an hour...an irish worker wouldn`t accept it, but an immigrant who couldn`t get welfare would. The welfare rates could be reduced but then the employer could reduce the pay again.


 I agree; welfare rates have to be cut. With the cost of living dropping that’s not unreasonable.


----------



## Mpsox

There are valid reasons in some industries to have a cap on hours on grounds of Health and Safety. Personnally, I would not want to get on a plane where the pilot was flying for 70 hours a week simply so he could afford to pay his bills. I've worked 80-100 hour weeks in the past over a number of months to deliver certain projects. It's only when you stop working those hours and return to more normal times/hours do you actually realise how knackered you were in the weeks previously. Tiredness is a major cause of accidents and death.

Secondly, I'd be concerned that some employers would try and exploit it and coerce employees into working long hours for fear of losing their jobs.


----------



## Purple

Mpsox said:


> Secondly, I'd be concerned that some employers would try and exploit it and coerce employees into working long hours for fear of losing their jobs.


 Was this a problem a few years ago before the WTD?


----------



## Mpsox

Purple said:


> Was this a problem a few years ago before the WTD?


 
yes, I can certainly name at least 2 cases, one in my own family, one of a family friend.


----------



## Purple

Mpsox said:


> yes, I can certainly name at least 2 cases, one in my own family, one of a family friend.


 It was a problem yes, but did the WTD reduce it?


----------



## sunrock

Purple said:


> It’s not about the employer, it’s about the employee. If a person wants to work extra hours to support their family (say 8 hours on a Saturday in a shop on top of 44 hours during the week) what business is it of the government?
> 
> Well the government would have to pay dole to the person who would otherwise  be employed,if some people weren`t doing such long hours.
> I don`t imagine many workers in boring jobs really want to do extra hours...it`s just that with wage rates being low they feel they have to work long hours or are under pressure from their employer to do so.
> Anyway surely 48 hours is enough for anyone,considering all the jobseekers out there.


----------



## ringledman

sunrock said:


> Purple said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well the government would have to pay dole to the person who would otherwise be employed,if some people weren`t doing such long hours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect. A proper functioning economy is not a zero sum game where if one person works overtime then another must lose out.
> 
> The other person could be working in a productive industry or new economy sector.
> 
> The problems stoping this becoming a reality is not as a result of people being more productive by working overtime! but due to -
> 
> 1) Government & European intervention in the form of unnecessary regulation and taxation.
> 
> 2) An unwillingness of many employees to gain the skills & education necessary to meet the needs of the 21st century economies.
> 
> The root problem affecting western economies is as a result of unnessesary intervention in the free market and employees believing the government must help them out all the time. Get rid of these 2 problems and employees would be free to work as many or as few hours as they so wish.
Click to expand...


----------



## ringledman

In the words of Reagan - 

*'Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases:*
*If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it'*


----------



## sparkeee

bring back child chimney sweeps.


----------



## Mpsox

Purple said:


> It was a problem yes, but did the WTD reduce it?


 
Yes, I believe it did. Can I prove it, no, but then can you prove it didn't?

After all, over the past 150-200 years, various laws have been brought in prohibiting excessive working/ guaranteeing staff time off etc. There will always be some employers who either out of ignorence or greed will try and flout those laws, but most will adhere to them.


----------



## Purple

ringledman, can you edit your post to show the correct quote please?


----------



## Purple

Mpsox said:


> Yes, I believe it did. Can I prove it, no, but then can you prove it didn't?


 That’s not a sound reason to legislate; proving a negative is always difficult.


Mpsox said:


> After all, over the past 150-200 years, various laws have been brought in prohibiting excessive working/ guaranteeing staff time off etc.


For me this isn’t about employers as they can and do employ others to fill in the gaps. This is about the right of an individual to work when they want to work. There are some jobs where there should be regulation of working hours but a blanket ban is unreasonable. 



Mpsox said:


> There will always be some employers who either out of ignorence or greed will try and flout those laws, but most will adhere to them.


 Employers are just people, no different to employees. Many people are employees and employers at different times. Some are both at the same time. 
Most employers obey to the law, even if they think it is stupid.


----------



## bond-007

> Most employers obey to the law, even if they think it is stupid.


You have never worked in the security business. WTD was routinely ignored by them. If you did not like that you could find a new job.


----------



## Mpsox

In theory, I agree, people should have a right to work when they want to work, without the need for a blanket ban. However we don't live in an ideal world and were people to be given that right
-some employers would try and exploit it, 
-some employees, either out of fear, lack of education or whatever reason would end up being exploited.


----------



## Purple

Mpsox said:


> In theory, I agree, people should have a right to work when they want to work, without the need for a blanket ban. However we don't live in an ideal world and were people to be given that right
> -some employers would try and exploit it,
> -some employees, either out of fear, lack of education or whatever reason would end up being exploited.



Funnily enough the thread was prompted by a conversation with a friend who owns a small business. He is under severe pressure from one employee for more overtime.


----------



## Mpsox

Purple said:


> Funnily enough the thread was prompted by a conversation with a friend who owns a small business. He is under severe pressure from one employee for more overtime.


 
I know people like that as well and in one respect I have some sympathy for them. I grew up on a farm and my dad had a full time job as well and probably worked 80 hrs a week, but he enjoyed farming. However it doesn't mean that it is neccessarily good for a person

Other risk for employees working lots of overtime is that they become used to it financially and struggle when it stops. My first main job was in the mail room of a London bank, they're were guys working there who had worked 20 hrs overtime a week for years, bought houses and had a lifestyle built on that income. When we got taken over, the new owners put a stop to it quickly and some guys struggled as a result


----------



## sunrock

[quote=ringledman;

Incorrect. A proper functioning economy is not a zero sum game where if one person works overtime then another must lose out. 

The other person could be working in a productive industry or new economy sector.

Well with 400k signing on it is more like a zero sum game...if an employee does 20 hours overtime then surely that is 20 hours an unemployed person could have done.For self employed or family members working in a family buisness the hours worked don`t matter as such.


----------



## Purple

sunrock said:


> Well with 400k signing on it is more like a zero sum game...if an employee does 20 hours overtime then surely that is 20 hours an unemployed person could have done.



It just doesn’t work that way in practice. Skill sets, team interaction, customer contact etc all work against what in effect would be job sharing.  
There is also a cost per head for each additional employee (payroll costs, canteen, locker and toilet space, provision of equipment and space etc).


----------



## Purple

jaybird said:


> You might see employers and employees as being one big happy bunch with the same goals


 I don't think they are one big happy family but if the employer is smart then they will all have the same goals (the medium term success of the business).


----------



## Purple

jaybird said:


> Unfortunately many employers are not that smart then.....or do not believe that treating employees like human beings will contribute to their success in business. The economy is not the only reason businesses fail.



I agree. How is that helped by the government limiting a persons right to work?


----------



## Purple

jaybird said:


> I don't think the government should limit a persons right to work, as long as there are alternative safeguards in place to limit an employers ability to force people to work long hours.


 I agree.



jaybird said:


> Isn't it a European directive anyway? We can't just opt out of it I thought?


 Yes and yes, but we didn't.


----------



## Complainer

Spotted this article in Health & Safety Review today;



> Aviva, the British insurance company which owns Hibernian, is warning that the ‘long hours’ culture in Britain could be putting employees’ health at risk.
> 
> According to James Draper, of Aviva Risk Management Solutions, among the problems caused by long hours working are musculoskeletal disorders, cardiovascular disorders, chronic infections, depression, stress and diabetes.
> 
> Mr Draper delivered his comments when Aviva published a report on the health of the UK’s workforce, Health of the Workplace 3. Continuing, he said: “Other problems associated with the long hours culture include headaches, reduced immune systems, extreme fatigue and insomnia”.
> 
> He said that in 2007/2008 (the HSE’s statistical reporting year), 13.5m workdays were lost in the UK due to work-related stress, depression and anxiety.
> 
> According to the Aviva report, nearly 60% of British workers believe that the recession is adding to workers’ stress, while GPs are predicting that during the recession, stress-related illnesses will be the biggest health issue.
> 
> Aviva’s UK occupational health business development manager, Alex Marshall, said that around 37% of workers are failing to take lunch breaks. He said there is a need for a strong focus on stress management, which should be treated like any other workplace hazard. Solutions, such as employee assistance programmes, should be put in place.
> 
> Given the similarities between the Irish and British labour markets and the impact of the recession on both countries, the Aviva report is relevant to Irish employers. It would be interesting to see an Irish insurer publish a report on the health of the Irish workforce. Given that there are three insurance companies in Ireland in the occupational healthcare market, the ability to publish such a report exists.


----------



## BeanPole

Yet another nail biting article from the Health & Safety review. No real surprise that an insurance company is trying to sell more workplace insurance. I wonder did Aviva happen to take out any advertising in the magazine?


----------



## Complainer

BeanPole said:


> I wonder did Aviva happen to take out any advertising in the magazine?


Nope - no Aviva advert in the magazine. In fact, no advertising at all in the magazine, so no compromises there. But you would have known that from your previous reading of the magazine - right? You wouldn't have made a 'nail-biting' dig at a magazine you had never read, I'm sure.


----------



## bggb

the are alot of people saying that it takes away peoples write to work the hours they choose this is a load of rubish because you can opt out of the directive. Also dont you think it is wrong to choose long hours when it can potential be a hazzard to the people around you or customers. actualy it gives you more freadom of your working hours in a way as without this in place organisations could make people work watever hours they wanted to make them work


----------



## Purple

bggb said:


> the are alot of people saying that it takes away peoples write to work the hours they choose this is a load of rubish because you can opt out of the directive.


 A country can opt out but once it is accepted, as it has been here, individuals or businesses cannot. Therefore you are completely incorrect in that ascertion.



bggb said:


> Also dont you think it is wrong to choose long hours when it can potential be a hazzard to the people around you or customers.


 I agree, people should not work so long that it is potentially dangerous for themselves or others but many people have worked more than 48 hours a week for years (me, for example) with no detrimental impact on anyone.



bggb said:


> actualy it gives you more freadom of your working hours in a way as without this in place organisations could make people work watever hours they wanted to make them work


 No employer can force you to work more than your contracted hours. If they do that’s bullying and there are plenty of laws to protect you. I don’t understand how it gives you more freedom.


----------



## ROSE ALFRED

It will increase unemployment, I think 48hr a week is much better option.


----------



## Purple

ROSE ALFRED said:


> It will increase unemployment, I think 48hr a week is much better option.



That nonsense was debunked on the first page;


Sherman said:


> No there wouldn't. Lump of labour fallacy.


----------



## lightswitch

Purple said:


> We make it clear that overtime will be required. If you don't want to work it then don't take the job.
> 
> I agree, the employee should be paid for their overtime. If this happens then both parties benefit.



With regard to your first remark it is clear you would find it next to impossible to accomodate single parents or others with childcare requirements that are not 100% flexable.


----------



## Purple

lightswitch said:


> With regard to your first remark it is clear you would find it next to impossible to accomodate single parents or others with childcare requirements that are not 100% flexable.



If your personal circumstances don’t suit the job description them don’t take the job.
I find it very hard to arrange my childminding requirements around my hours but why should I get special treatment because I have 4 children and my wife works full time as well?
Some degree of flexibility is required by all involved as long as everyone gets their job done but people shouldn’t get penalised because they have no children.


----------



## lightswitch

Purple said:


> If your personal circumstances don’t suit the job description them don’t take the job.
> I find it very hard to arrange my childminding requirements around my hours but why should I get special treatment because I have 4 children and my wife works full time as well?
> Some degree of flexibility is required by all involved as long as everyone gets their job done but people shouldn’t get penalised because they have no children.



This is one of the reasons that there is a maximum working week.  Quite a number of people prefer to work to live rather than live to work hence don't want to spend more than a certain amount of hours working.  Others have dependent family members that they need time to take care of. 

Some day you may have a better understanding of peoples varying circumstances.


----------



## Purple

lightswitch said:


> This is one of the reasons that there is a maximum working week.


 Rubbish. I take it that you are an adult. If so then you are responsible for organising your own life. If you don’t want to work long hours then don’t take a job that requires you to work long hours. If you want to work long hours (because you love working, because your are obsessive, because you hate your family, because you have no friends; whatever) then you should be free to do so as long as you don’t pose a danger to yourself or others. 



lightswitch said:


> Quite a number of people prefer to work to live rather than live to work hence don't want to spend more than a certain amount of hours working.  Others have dependent family members that they need time to take care of.


 Bully for them. I’d prefer to stay at home and have an attractive call girl arrive at my house every week with a bundle of cash but I can’t seem to land that job.
I have four children, one of whom has special needs (mild) but that’s not my employers problem. Do you think it should be? Do you think an employer should have to pay someone to stay at home to mind their dependants on a regular basis? 
You enter into a contract with your employer; X pay for Y job. The rest is your own business.



lightswitch said:


> Some day you may have a better understanding of peoples varying circumstances.


 Maybe someday you’ll have a better understanding of how the real world works and maybe you’ll realise that being a grown up means that you can’t expect a “mammy state” to hold your hand all the time.


----------



## lightswitch

Other than to point out that the state has never held my hand I have no intention to responding to the rest  of your rant............

Either way lets face it pigs will fly before the Government, inept as they are, will change the working hours to favour your suggestion.


----------



## Purple

lightswitch said:


> Other than to point out that the state has never held my hand I have no intention to responding to the rest  of your rant............
> 
> Either way lets face it pigs will fly before the Government, inept as they are, will change the working hours to favour your suggestion.


But if the first part of your post is true then you would have no problem if they do change it.


----------



## lightswitch

The first part of my post is true and as far as I can tell it will remain that way.  There is no conflict between the first part of my post and my previous posts on this subject.


----------



## Purple

lightswitch said:


> The first part of my post is true and as far as I can tell it will remain that way.  There is no conflict between the first part of my post and my previous posts on this subject.



Good for you, now don't start posting comments like "Some day you may have a better understanding of peoples varying circumstances." unless you want the same sort of comment thrown back at you. 

You were doing oh so well 'till you started getting condescending


----------



## podgerodge

I see that people who "control their own hours" are exempt - can someone elaborate on how wide an interpretation can be made on this statement for me please?  Does it include someone who decides "I'll do 40 hours this week and 30 next week" or does it only include people that, while employees, can pretty do whatever they want?


http://www.entemp.ie/publications/employment/1997/workingtimeact.pdf


----------



## Purple

podgerodge said:


> I see that people who "control their own hours" are exempt - can someone elaborate on how wide an interpretation can be made on this statement for me please?  Does it include someone who decides "I'll do 40 hours this week and 30 next week" or does it only include people that, while employees, can pretty do whatever they want?
> 
> 
> http://www.entemp.ie/publications/employment/1997/workingtimeact.pdf



I don't think this has been tested in court but I would welcome clarification by another poster.


----------



## joe sod

*sunday work*

i think the wtd should stay in place, and sundays should command a premium if employers wish work to be done on sundays, why, because this encourages employers only to employ people for essential work on sundays and organising the week so that most work is done during the week. However i agree that the minimum wage should fall, and also that social welfare rates should fall. However I think as always we are looking at the wrong areas for cuts and efficiencies, the biggest costs in ireland are because of the vested interests such as state companies, local authorities, public services, publicans, and the legal system who have unbridled power in the irish economy, and who are over represented in government


----------

