Is it time to remove the working time directive?

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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.

I agree; welfare rates have to be cut. With the cost of living dropping that’s not unreasonable.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
Was this a problem a few years ago before the WTD?
 
 
 
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'
 
Purple said:
It was a problem yes, but did the WTD reduce it?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Mpsox said:
Yes, I believe it did. Can I prove it, no, but then can you prove it didn't?
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Most employers obey to the law, even if they think it is stupid.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
[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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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).
 
jaybird said:
You might see employers and employees as being one big happy bunch with the same goals
Click to expand...
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).
 
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.
Click to expand...

I agree. How is that helped by the government limiting a persons right to work?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register