Decision time for EP over Working Time
An enormous political and media storm has arisen on the issue of the Working Time Directive and whether the European Parliament will vote to phase out the right for individual workers (though often under pressure from employers) to opt out of the 48 hour maximum average working week.
Yet the position of the two sides is actually not that far apart. The Council of Ministers, with UK government support, wants a tighter definition of the 48 hour limit (averaged over three months), but allow individual workers to opt out, subject to stricter safeguards than there are at the moment. The European Parliament has a looser definition of the 48 hours (averaged over 12 months - which implies considerably more flexibility than three months, which will cater for the needs of most industries and services), but with the opt out gradually disappearing.
In other words, all concerned are searching for the right balance between protection and flexibility. If Parliament does indeed amend the Council's position, and Council then does not accept this, it should not be beyond the bounds of the possible to negotiate a compromise ahead of the third reading.
Let us not forget that this directive was introduced originally well over a decade ago (when a British Conservative government, at the time, abstained in the Council of Ministers rather than vote against it) in response to growing medical evidence that sustained and long term excessive working hours have considerable and negative health implications for the workers concerned. Not to mention the implications
for the rest of us if we are, for instance, operated on by a tired doctor or run over by a tired lorry driver. The Clapham Junction Railway Accident, in November 1989which killed 35 people and injured hundreds, is one of too many examples, where the investigation states the direct cause ‘was undoubtedly the wiring errors made’ by the electrician due to ‘the constant repetition of weekend work in addition to work throughout the week which has blunted his working edge, his freshness and his concentration.’ In the three months before the accident the electrician had had one day off over the entire period.
Opt outs are only possible at the moment where provided for under national legislation and with the explicit agreement of the worker concerned. Under the new proposals, there will be extra safeguards to prevent employers pressurising workers to opt out (Council of Ministers version) or the opt out will be ended in entirely, but balanced by having an annual average, thereby enabling much longer working weeks for up to half the year or more (Parliament's version).
Of course, there is a case to say that a young healthy person in a job that is not excessively physically demanding and that does not endanger the health of others should be able to choose to work longer if they genuinely wish to do so. The Council's position caters better for those cases. But there are also numerous and well documented cases of employees being pressurised to work such longer hours against their will (polling evidence shows that a majority of people working more than 48 hours would prefer not to do so). The European Parliament's position caters
better for protecting them. Surely it s possible to reconcile the two?
Labels: legislation, Parliament, Working Time Directive


<< Home