Is the Working Time Directive worth retaining (plus other workers' rights legislation)?

[Meerkat]

One needs to consider why they're being militant about it.

Because they are militant! Obviously it only works one way. One girl wanted overtime as she was over her flexitime.....by half an hour, over a whole month! She looked a bit put out when I asked if she could guarantee she hadnt spent at least that looking at wedding dresses online On company time.....

If an employer has no intention of sticking to the working week stated in the contract, then why does the contract state a working week?

That is a fair point but it’s just custom, and I have no idea how you would write a meaningful contract to cover reality.
I love the idea that we should all work less but I just don’t know how to make it happen, whether it’s fair to stop people who want to get on working hard for it, how you stop it damaging companies or having unexpected results (less hours and money for the perms and more contractors for example), and how you do it and stop the jobs just getting exported to cheaper places.

 

[najaB]

I love the idea that we should all work less but I just don’t know how to make it happen, whether it’s fair to stop people who want to get on working hard for it...

Which is why the opt-out exists.

 

[Meerkat]

Which is why the opt-out exists.

But that doesn’t work as most will opt out as it’s not really voluntary (and few actually do that many hours anyway).
If you wanted a result of more people employed, but doing less, it has to be compulsory. But then you just export jobs, and restrict innovation.

 

[RT4038]

If an employer has no intention of sticking to the working week stated in the contract, then why does the contract state a working week? If an employer expects an open-ended working week without additional pay then this should be made clear, both in recruitment and in the contract. I've had one contract which set out a standard working week but said I was expected "to work hours commensurate with the grade", which was fair enough as I was the manager of the service, but which was code for "no overtime, no TOIL". Fine, we all know where we stand.

I left that job because my senior manager was a bit of a pillock, but that's by the by.

I don't think it is "militant" to expect an employer to comply with their contract, because employers expect employees to do so.

In my line of work it is broadly 9-5, but I will stay and do extra if needed. And it is sometimes needed, sometimes promotional work and sometimes the muck hits the fan at 4.55.

As GusB alludes to, clockwatching can work both ways. I had one contact centre employer who docked 15 minutes wages if you were 5 minutes late arriving, but wouldn't pay an extra 15 minutes if you were more than 5 minutes late leaving. So I stuck to my contract, I made sure I wouldn't get a call that would overrun, and then I left the job entirely as soon as I could.



Definitely. And that's why I think it's important to get things in black and white, so there is less scope for argument. The WTD is an important part of that.

In my experience, the contract stating a working week is that would be the minimum hours that you would get paid, even if the employer was unable to provide you with work for that number of hours.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Aug 2020 ==

But that doesn’t work as most will opt out as it’s not really voluntary (and few actually do that many hours anyway).
If you wanted a result of more people employed, but doing less, it has to be compulsory. But then you just export jobs, and restrict innovation.

And if you didn't want to do this, what is the point of having the legislation in the first place? Why would you want to have legislation restricting how much people can work?

 

[Meerkat]

And if you didn't want to do this, what is the point of having the legislation in the first place? Why would you want to have legislation restricting how much people can work?

If working hours were restricted more people would have to be employed and the wages would get spread out more, and it’s probably better for their health and society in general.
Bit tricky to do without just exporting jobs and you have so many problem cases - can you only work one job, what about those who need to work all hours to dig themselves out of a hole, is it fair to restrict people’s life choices etc etc.

 

[GusB]

And if you didn't want to do this, what is the point of having the legislation in the first place? Why would you want to have legislation restricting how much people can work?

It's not restricting how many hours people can work, though. Those who wish to work more can opt out. The WTD exists to prevent employers forcing people to work unrestricted hours.