what is your opinion on the 48,hourworking week, as a engineering construction worker( pipefitter) , 7 days a week has been the norm for years, ( if you wanted all the overtime)

Originally posted by patchalan
what is your opinion on the 48,hourworking week, as a engineering construction worker( pipefitter) , 7 days a week has been the norm for years, ( if you wanted all the overtime)

Dont really make a difference as anybody can opt out of it anyway

Thought it was in the news today that the "opt-out" loophole was to be closed/tightened?
If so, I think that's a good thing. Work/home balance is important and for a lot of people, not too balanced!

what do people think of being forced to work less than 48 hours a week. Apparently the opt-out is going to be phased out according to bbc news.

It seems absurd to me because many jobs (mine included) actualy require that you work more than 48 hours a week a lot of the time. Given we compete directly against people in other countries who can work longer hours this will be a serious problem in terms of competiveness.

And how exactly can they enforce it, unless they stand in my office door and drag me away from my computer when times up??!

Originally posted by hotphil
Thought it was in the news today that the "opt-out" loophole was to be closed/tightened?
If so, I think that's a good thing. Work/home balance is important and for a lot of people, not too balanced!

True, but another loophole in the system is that you can just have a 2nd job and still work more than 48 hours.

My father, a staunch socialist fought tooth and nail for a 40 hour week. For me there was no such thing in the Royal Navy as a forty hour week and no OT, so I was a conservative. But not any more with George W in the White house.

Originally posted by patchalan
7 days a week has been the norm for years

I know the feeling.................................self employed bricklayer/builder......................48 hours.....................if only!
Some folk don't know they're born. Part timers:rolleyes::wink:

One thing is for sure.... the decision about how long the limit should be or whether there should be an opt-out for the employee should be ENTIRELY up to the government of this country and not the EU (as is the case since they're wanting to close the opt-out).

It should be scrapped (lowered). I know for sure that my staff work their bums off on a 40 Hour week (they would on a 35 hour week) - they do deserve better. In an ideal world, I feel that a 35 hour week would be a more people friendly figure to work to, but unfortunatley, as a senior manager, my hands are tied due to various financial factors (based on current company accounts etc). To reduce the working hours in the week is still high on my list of "people" priorities. If I could get more people to cover this I will, and I have this built into the business model as a key aim in our strategy.

I am all for flexible working. After all we dont come to work because we enjoy it (lets be blunt for once!). We come to work for the qualities and assurances that the income brings.

Originally posted by bigflesh
It should be scrapped (lowered). I know for sure that my staff work their bums off on a 40 Hour week (they would on a 35 hour week) - they do deserve better.

If you think they deserve better you're free to give your employees a shorter working week.

Originally posted by t020
If you think they deserve better you're free to give your employees a shorter working week.

I totally agree t020 - but from a commercial point of view..... I can't as its not "currently" a possible proposition. If I did, my employees would be out of a job in 4 years tops as the company would be broke.

Its a fine balance t020..... I'd rather "softly softly catch a monkey" for the organisations future-sake and prosperity of a keen and experienced work-force.

thank you for such a good point though, t020.

I work a 3 week rota.
It varies from 42 - 52 hours. Rota'd.
Before overtime.

Am I being shafted? :confused:

Originally posted by Don_Kiddick
I work a 3 week rota.
It varies from 42 - 52 hours. Rota'd.
Before overtime.

Am I being shafted? :confused:

Yes. You're employer can't legally make you work over 48 hours in 1 week unless you have signed the opt-out (which may have been in your contract).

I dont think the EU should have a say in this at all and am outraged that people outside this country have the ability to take such decisions on our behalf.

I agree the condition should be tightened so people are not exploited, but if i'm in need of extra cash and working 40 hours a week, why should I be prevented from working over 48 hours if I want to?

Its not fair and it keeps this country competitive. Most of the European states experienced a recession. We didn't. They need to learn from us, not start stripping us of the right to work long hours if we so wish.

Being self employed i do, and will continue to, work as little or as much as i damn well please. But in previous jobs such as when i was a barman during a busy week if i chose to work 60-80 hours in a week, who should tell me i can't?

I don't think anyone should be forced to work overtime but if they want to, let them.

-PK-

I agree with the majority of you , Why should we be ruled by the EU. BUT ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE COIN WOULD THIS CREATE MORE JOBS

Hi there, I can't believe that you all want to work so much ! In France they work a 35 hour week a minimum of 5 weeks paid holiday - and usually higher salaries than here. There is overtime allowed - and most people would agree to it because it is always paid a much higher rate.

The idea is that the public are protected and given the right to say NO if they want to, but still have the possibility of working more if they want to.

The social system in France is very protective towards its employees and you can not just be put out of a job that easily - the bosses have to go through a system which proves that they really need to make staff redundant - and then you can get much higher benefits than here.

Just my sixpence worth.

I'm surprised that no-one in the government saw this coming and said something about it earlier (i.e. during the election campaign).
Could it be that they were afraid to mention that Brussells is now making our laws?

Originally posted by t020
Yes. You're employer can't legally make you work over 48 hours in 1 week unless you have signed the opt-out (which may have been in your contract).

Not so! My (ex)employer tried that one on. They notified everyone that their contracts would expire in 90 days and that the only way to keep the job would be to sign the new one, complete with 48 hour opt out. They were plainly using it to shaft the employees by forcing longer and longer working weeks. In fact, they did try and enforce longer working weeks, which is why I quit (and by longer, I mean 75 hours MINIMUM for a desk job) by stating that the longer hours were 'voluntary' (i.e. unpaid) and at the discretion of the employee. Just try not doing it though (I did. 3 hours grilling by directors and managers about why I was 'not a team player' ensued...)

Anyway, the employees got together and enquired with some legal advisors about the situation, and you absolutely CAN NOT include the opt out as part of the contract of employment. It has to be a separate agreement, and is entirely optional on the part of the employee. You also cannot fire someone just for not signing the opt out.

Anyway, the happy (happiness is relative) ending was that the 'new' contract ended up almost identical to the old one, because just about everything that they had added was, in fact, completely illegal.

On the proposition of scrapping the opt out: it's ludicrous. People should be able to work longer if they want to. They just shouldn't be forced to. Also, note that you can, currently, opt out of the opt out, meaning you can revert to a 48 hour week if the employer starts to take the p*ss.

it's funny how people dislike rules coming from brussels. We are involved in the process as well you know. Maybe our MEP's voted for the measure and are enforcing it on other countries. It's not a them and us situation.

France has all that lovely protection of the workers, and look how their economy is doing compared to ours. We don't want to take things that far. But stopping the exploitation of people by unethical companies and management is a good aim.

Originally posted by Cyclone
it's funny how people dislike rules coming from brussels. We are involved in the process as well you know. Maybe our MEP's voted for the measure and are enforcing it on other countries. It's not a them and us situation.

France has all that lovely protection of the workers, and look how their economy is doing compared to ours. We don't want to take things that far. But stopping the exploitation of people by unethical companies and management is a good aim.

Indeed we are involved in the process. It was only last June that we last elected our own MEPs to represent us in the European Parliament. I have today received the following information from Linda MacAvan, Labour MEP for Yorkshire and the Humber -

"The European Parliament has been very much in the news over the vote on the "Working Time Directive". The directive has been criticised by some in industry and the government has expressed reservations, but unions and other organisations strongly back the legislation which sets the average working week at a maximum of 48 hours. Contrary to some press reports, the draft legislation does not ban overtime above 48 hours. The compromise package agreed meets employers concerns about flexible working since working time can be averaged over 12 months, instead of the current 4 months. Nor will the legislation jeopardise NHS staff cover because of the flexibility built into the proposal. But the "opt out" which some workers have been asked - and in some cases forced - to sign with their contracts, will be phased out. Tory and Lib Dem MEPs voted against the legislation which received, nevertheless, support across all political groups in the European Parliament, including many in the right-wing EPP Group.
The UK has the longest working hours of any EU country and 69% of those working over 48 hours want to see them cut - not surprisingly given that fewer than half of those surveyed receive any overtime payment for doing so. The draft law now goes to ministers before coming back to Parliament for a final vote."

If you cant earn enough money in 48hours then hitch your prices up or ask for a rise.

I am from the old socialist school that fought for a shorter working week.

Life's far too short to chase the pound, wake up and smell the coffee. I didn't and it ruined my life.

We live in a consumer society but we dont need it. A pair of jeans at 100 quid wear just as well as a pair from Primark, I know, they dont have the same kudos, but so what.

Do you want a pair of 100 quid jeans and a health problem or a pair from Primark and be here in you latter years?

One day that choice will be taken from you.

Originally posted by BoppinBruce
If you cant earn enough money in 48hours then hitch your prices up or ask for a rise.

I am from the old socialist school that fought for a shorter working week.

Life's far too short to chase the pound, wake up and smell the coffee. I didn't and it ruined my life.

We live in a consumer society but we dont need it. A pair of jeans at 100 quid wear just as well as a pair from Primark, I know, they dont have the same kudos, but so what.

Do you want a pair of 100 quid jeans and a health problem or a pair from Primark and be here in you latter years?

One day that choice will be taken from you.

Well said, BoppinBruce :thumbsup:

I appreciate that people may need to work overtime to earn even a decent basic wage in some cases, but what about their health in the longer term? Or even the not-so-long term?

Some of these hours people say they work are truly scary, especially if it's week after week after week, year on year. It can't possibly be good for them. :(

I'm from the old Socialist school myself, and a shorter working week should be one of the aims of any government that has the welfare of its citizens at heart. It's very worrying, the amount of exploitation that seems to go on in the workplace with regard to hours worked.

StarSparkle :(

You,re a fine man BOBBINBRUCE, I was waitng to see how long it would be before i got the answer i was hoping would come to the fore.

I think British employers are in a kick back to when slave labour was around. When you think more of efficiency to quality of life you lose the human element to it all and shouldn't be near people anyway. Give them a line of robots instead.

The people that work all the hours God sends are nerds and should be shafted for all they are worth as friends and family have shunned them already. All this in the quest for more money ie. Greed !

If its quality of life people want then they have to stick up for it, let the employers know that they are dealing with people not animals or robots.

For the lower paid trades like catering and cleaning this is difficult and should come under a minimum wage critea where people can afford to live with working up to 48 hours.

I am willing to elaborate if required.

Originally posted by Cyclone
it's funny how people dislike rules coming from brussels. We are involved in the process as well you know. Maybe our MEP's voted for the measure and are enforcing it on other countries. It's not a them and us situation.




But it's OUR country, our government should make the rules. We shouldn't just have a minor say in an EU parliament, it should be 100% down to Britain.

Originally posted by Hopman
I'm surprised that no-one in the government saw this coming and said something about it earlier (i.e. during the election campaign). Could it be that they were afraid to mention that Brussells is now making our laws?

Labour MEP's voted for it, against Tony Blairs advice. So in fairness to TB he could'nt have seen it coming.

Rather than impose limits on people (always wary of this socialist tendency) we should be looking at making sure companies don't take the micheal with the opt out. Some companies get away with murder in terms of putting pressure on their employees to do overtime.

Rather than bring in a new system, lets just make the old system work!

Stars, look for my new thread.

Originally posted by t020
But it's OUR country, our government should make the rules. We shouldn't just have a minor say in an EU parliament, it should be 100% down to Britain.

OUR Government - voted in by OUR country made this particular concession to the EU. Deal with it!

Originally posted by goose
OUR Government - voted in by OUR country made this particular concession to the EU. Deal with it!

No. It isn't fair that 75% of our laws are now made in Brussels. I was born in, and want to live in, Britain. Not the United States of Europe.

Originally posted by t020
No. It isn't fair that 75% of our laws are now made in Brussels. I was born in, and want to live in, Britain. Not the United States of Europe.

Fair enough. Did you vote UKIP in the last General Election then?

Originally posted by t020
No. It isn't fair that 75% of our laws are now made in Brussels. I was born in, and want to live in, Britain. Not the United States of Europe.

Do I assume, on a matter of principle, that you refused to vote in last years European elections? Or did you vote for UKIP?

EDIT: Goose beat me to the same question!

Ted Heath took us into the European community. Harold Wilson gave us a referendum to decide whether to stay in or opt out. The nation chose to stay in. We elect our own MEPs to represent us. None of the major parties, including the Conservative party, advocates withdrawal from the EU.

You may not like some or all of the decisions of the European Parliament, just like you may not like some or all of the decisions of the UK parliament. But the EU has been a fact of life for decades now, and you're just going to have to get used to it.

UKIP in the European elections, although it was more a protest - I don't think a complete withdrawal from the EU is necessary but we should dictate our own laws.

Originally posted by t020
UKIP in the European elections, although it was more a protest - I don't think a complete withdrawal from the EU is necessary but we should dictate our own laws.

Not in the General Election then!

At any time this Government, or any other, could pull out of Europe if they don't like it. The fact is that all major parties are pro-european because its the way forward in terms of the economy and general international relations.

I'm not saying their arent any problems that need smoothing out, but lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater!

Originally posted by goose
Not in the General Election then!

At any time this Government, or any other, could pull out of Europe if they don't like it. The fact is that all major parties are pro-european because its the way forward in terms of the economy and general international relations.

I'm not saying their arent any problems that need smoothing out, but lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater!

I'm not sure the Tories can be described as a pro-European party. Not as a whole anyway. Europe wasn't really an issue at this election but in the referendum for the constitution next year, my cross will be going firmly in the NO box.

Originally posted by t020
I'm not sure the Tories can be described as a pro-European party. Not as a whole anyway. Europe wasn't really an issue at this election but in the referendum for the constitution next year, my cross will be going firmly in the NO box.

Maybe not the wider party membership, but those at the 'business end' of the party recognise the economic disaster that would ensue if we retreated from the EU.

The Tories didnt talk about it because they really want to be against it (to pick up votes) but know they can't be!

Should be an interesting referendum, think i'll go with YES. Maybe someone should start a poll.

with hindsight did people see this coming when mr, heath took us into the common market ? doubt it!

The only people I have heard come out and criticise this are the same people who thought that the minimum wage would be the end of western civilisation.

I think there is room for some sort of compromise between letting people work longer who want to whilst having safeguards to prevent exploitation. But so often any suggestion of workers having more rights always comes up against a wave of propoganda mainly started by the CBI, which in my opinion is one of the most malevolent organisations in this country.

Why do people prefer to identify with "we" as a group from this island rather than "we" as a group from europe?

You could equally be arguing that you don't like the way westminster is run and want sheffield to make all the decision about sheffield, as far as i can see progress has been made over the last several thousand years from tribal groups towards countries and that the next step is closer and closer integration between countries (whilst maintaining local control for certain things as it makes sense to do).

I for one would be happy if the EU stood up for me and mine. Every job I've had I've had to sign away ALL my employment rights - I can be scheduled to work long hours with no breaks then in again the next day really early. I'm a 'flexworker', you see. Thankfully my boss and the woman who does my rota are both ace and I haven't crossed them yet!

I don't like th way Westminster is run, but why does that mean you would want to shift to somewhere even more remote and faceless?

A lot more local self-determination would be good in my book. And not the daft watered down Yorkshire assembly that Labour want to fob us off with.

Also if we dont want to work over 48 hours per week there are lots of foreign workers the Business gurus can import and say "There is a shortage of skills" which is total Bull.

The skills are here but British employers dont want to invest in people just use people. My boss said that if he had to pay a cleaner £8 per hour minimum wage he would lose the cleaner.
Great until there is an accident or ill health and then it will cost him loads more.

To keep a competitive edge the UK needs to look at training people younger, as in apprentices, letting skilled retiring workers use the last years as apprentice masters to keep the experience in house and to use local resources wherever possible to boost other British businesses.

No business I know is pro-British and use imported materials instead of using local produced materials to gain a cost advantage. Great business but is costing the UK dearly and making other countries richer from us instead of inward self investment.

We've already gone to the dogs and I can see I will be moving to France in the next two years cockle picking on the Med coast.

Does anyone know what the 48hr week directive actually says? (I don't btw). From memory though isn't it 48hr week averaged out over a 4 week period or something like that? But with certain stipulations about working so many days without a day off etc.

Anyway, we currently have the 'opt-out' form and some people sign it. But, who actually monitors and polices it? As far as I can see - no-one. So it all seems a bit of a nonsense, though I assume it would give an individual some rights or recourse to an Employment Tribunal if they had a disagreement with their employer about it.

The Government - well they aren't exactly the best employer in the world are they? They say one thing, tell others how to run their businesses and do the exact opposite themselves.

What I really object to is those people who are paid as 'staff' which means they have to work as many hours as their employer dictates without any overtime payments - now surely there must be something the EU can do about this issue?

Originally posted by Hadron
Also if we dont want to work over 48 hours per week there are lots of foreign workers the Business gurus can import and say "There is a shortage of skills" which is total Bull.

The skills are here but British employers dont want to invest in people just use people. My boss said that if he had to pay a cleaner £8 per hour minimum wage he would lose the cleaner.
Great until there is an accident or ill health and then it will cost him loads more.

To keep a competitive edge the UK needs to look at training people younger, as in apprentices, letting skilled retiring workers use the last years as apprentice masters to keep the experience in house and to use local resources wherever possible to boost other British businesses.

No business I know is pro-British and use imported materials instead of using local produced materials to gain a cost advantage. Great business but is costing the UK dearly and making other countries richer from us instead of inward self investment.

We've already gone to the dogs and I can see I will be moving to France in the next two years cockle picking on the Med coast.

america proved for us some time ago that protectionism doesn't work. If in your ideal a company forsook the cost advantage of buying from abroad, it would be uncompetative and unable to sell it's products, either at home or abroad.
Do some research, are we a net importer or a net exporter?

Just a thought surely the 48hour weekly max helps all the offices workers/factory workers where there is no standard agreement ie most people nowdays work between 35 to 40 per week where industry has an agreement with a union. So even these workers have the option of between 8 - 13 hours overtime. Currently its averaged out over a rolling 17 week period.

Originally posted by spiffymonkey
hours were 'voluntary' (i.e. unpaid)

"voluntary" doesn't mean unpaid. "unpaid" means unpaid. "voluntary" means voluntary.

--
JGH

Almost all the publicity about this talks about stopping people working more than 48hr/wk. That's completely upside down. It's about stopping employers forcing people to work more than 48hr/wk (averaged over 12 months).

It's like the way some people talk about not being able to work after age whatever. Who's going to stop me? Is some government busy-body going to steal my computer, my hammer, my cement mixer on my 65th birthday?

--
JGH

Originally posted by jgharston
Almost all the publicity about this talks about stopping people working more than 48hr/wk. That's completely upside down. It's about stopping employers forcing people to work more than 48hr/wk (averaged over 12 months).



But they will be stopping people working more than a 48 hour week. Some people may actually want to work more than this to earn more money, but when trying to ask their boss for extra hours they will be turned down.

I think Europe is trying to influence behaviour not enforce it. People will do what they want anyway, its good practice to set ground rules and 48 hours per working week is just that.

This decision has not just been made up in the last few months, its been a very long study into working life over the past few centuries and peoples social habits and how the two effect each other. Quality of life isn't cheap and weve been paying for it with our NIC and its been very good.

The change in pensionable age and the influx of immigrants is challenging our system and most people will say it is now unstable.

As for protectionism of industry as someone put it, America has never been protectionist although it was called for but it was too late for their economy and so they are nose diving. How can any democratic greedy country be protectionist?!
I would say China is more of a model of a protectionist state.

British Airways and BT are just a few companies that are looking for exploitable work forces outside the UK because they are not prepared to invest in their own people or customers. Like a car that you just run without servicing it will break down eventually but, boy how fast does it go at the moment!

read a little bit of history (http://www.rain.org/campinternet/american-history/america-1800-history-unit-1.html) and then tell me again that America has never been "protectionist" as someone called it.

here's a bit of history from March 2004
India's fight against the growing opposition to IT outsourcing received a major impetus recently when US Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan warned against protectionist steps being adopted in the U.S.

On March 22, 2002 the worst fears of the Canadian lumber
industry were realised as the US Department of Commerce
imposed punishing duties of 29% on imports of Canadian
softwood lumber into the United States.1


However, major institutions, including the Toronto Dominion
Bank, are warning that current conditions in the United States
could help foster protectionism.2 One of the factors they suggest
could give rise to more protectionism is the fact that the
US is facing mid-term elections this year. This could result in
politicians trying to win support from various groups by endorsing
trade restrictions that will benefit those groups.

just type it into google, there's plenty to look at.

Maybe you could explain what exactly immigration is challenging and how this relates to the length of the working week?

Originally posted by Hadron
I think Europe is trying to influence behaviour not enforce it. People will do what they want anyway, its good practice to set ground rules and 48 hours per working week is just that.

This decision has not just been made up in the last few months, its been a very long study into working life over the past few centuries and peoples social habits and how the two effect each other. Quality of life isn't cheap and weve been paying for it with our NIC and its been very good.

The change in pensionable age and the influx of immigrants is challenging our system and most people will say it is now unstable.

As for protectionism of industry as someone put it, America has never been protectionist although it was called for but it was too late for their economy and so they are nose diving. How can any democratic greedy country be protectionist?!
I would say China is more of a model of a protectionist state.

British Airways and BT are just a few companies that are looking for exploitable work forces outside the UK because they are not prepared to invest in their own people or customers. Like a car that you just run without servicing it will break down eventually but, boy how fast does it go at the moment!

I would love to work 4 to 8 hours a week:loopy:

Originally posted by jgharston
"voluntary" doesn't mean unpaid. "unpaid" means unpaid. "voluntary" means voluntary.

Yeesss... that's why I put 'voluntary' in inverted commas. They said 'voluntary' but meant 'unpaid'. I know the difference, they know the difference, still tried to fob us off with no money.

Originally posted by Hels
Does anyone know what the 48hr week directive actually says? (I don't btw). From memory though isn't it 48hr week averaged out over a 4 week period or something like that? But with certain stipulations about working so many days without a day off etc.

Anyway, we currently have the 'opt-out' form and some people sign it. But, who actually monitors and polices it? As far as I can see - no-one.

It's averaged over 17 weeks, and nobody specifically polices it. However, if an individual has not opted out and it being forced to work more than 48 hours per week, they need to keep a record of their hours and report the company to the DTI (I think). They will then start an investigation.

The system reacts to people putting in specific complaints. That way, if somebody works more than 48hrs/week on average without an opt out, but for a perfectly valid reason (and they don't mind) then they don't have to get the company in trouble. The point of this system is no active prevention of long working hours, it's providing recourse for those unfairly forced into it.