Working Time saga set to continue

So, the saga of working time will continue (see my blog of monday).

Parliament today amended, instead of approved, Council's position, which means no legislation has been adopted. Instead, negotiations continue to seek a solution acceptable to both Parliament and Council.

In Britain, the trade unions, doctors, the BMA and others are happy with the amendments adopted by Parliament, while the government, the CBI and many businesses are not. However, all must now focus on seeking the agreement necessary for legislation to be adopted, with the give and take that that implies.

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?

Last night I went head to head with Graham Stringer on BBC Radio 4, debating the proposed EU treaty.

You can listen to the whole discussion by clicking on the link on the Westminster Hour webpage here.

Another useful link:

John Redwood's latest return from the wilderness won him extensive headlines with his deregulation, red tape-cutting policy proposals. Many people couldn't believe the Conservatives returned to Redwood, though many of his ideas went down well with the right-wing press.

The TUC has produced a paper on what Tory deregulation, including the Working Time Directive, would mean. It's also a useful guide to what the EU's Social Chapter actually is. Click here to read.

The Sun has needlessly got its knickers in a twist over the Working Time Directive by claiming paramedics would have to finish their breaks before answering emergency calls. And who is to blame for this? Well the “barmy EU”. Obviously.

Of course anyone with any sense will realise this is patently quite ridiculous but the journalist responsible, Emma Morton, had few qualms about the truth and liberally dipped into the Sun’s big book of how to construct a Eurosceptic scare story to produce this shocker.

Even the most cursory reading of the working time directive would have revealed to Ms Morton that in the case of ambulance service workers and fire and civil protection services "derogations (ie exemptions) ....shall be permitted". In other words, ambulance crews are exempted out of the break provisions of the working time directive.

Still, the Sun has never let the facts prevent it from bashing the EU and Ms Morton slavishly follows the paper’s line with what appears no recourse to research.

Interestingly, exemptions to obligatory break provisions are also allowed for press journalists - and judging by the inaccuracies and distortions in Ms Morton's "story", perhaps she is due a lengthy break.


Addendum 16 December:

Although I wrote to the Sun pointing out their factual error, they did not print my letter, but instead printed another one yesterday from a James Cullen, saying how ludicrous these rules are and that they could mean the difference between life and death. He would be right, of course, if the rules actually said that - but the Sun is clearly not going to let its readers know the truth!

We voted today on the revision of the working time directive. The Labour MEPs have negotiated a compromise which, whilst recognising that the opt-out is bound to be phased out in due course, gives employers and employees greater flexibility in allowing the calculation of the 48-hour week to be made over a 12-month reference period. This will allow for large variations over the course of the year and will be welcomed by many small businesses, especially in those sectors where activity varies over the year.

This was a first reading by Parliament - in other words it is a package of suggestions submitted to the national governments who will consider it in the EU Council. They can accept it or amend it, notably to take account of any particular national concerns, and then send it back to Parliament for further consideration.