New 'Iron Lady' & the 48 hour week

5 Jan 2012

New 'Iron Lady' orders Cameron to win back powers from Brussels
Incoming head of Tory Eurosceptics has drawn up 'shopping list' for PM
Top of her shopping list is a new EU rule allowing member states to opt out of Brussels directives whenever they have a change of government. That would allow the Coalition to end the maximum 48-hour week under the EU's working time directive, agreed when Labour was in power.

Is it time to loose the max 48 hour week?

5 Jan 2012

Quote by Bluefish2009
New 'Iron Lady' orders Cameron to win back powers from Brussels
Incoming head of Tory Eurosceptics has drawn up 'shopping list' for PM
Top of her shopping list is a new EU rule allowing member states to opt out of Brussels directives whenever they have a change of government. That would allow the Coalition to end the maximum 48-hour week under the EU's working time directive, agreed when Labour was in power.

Is it time to loose the max 48 hour week?

Thought there was always an opt-out from the 48 hour maximum which workers can "volunteer" to sign up for.
John

5 Jan 2012

Quote by Geordiecpl2001
New 'Iron Lady' orders Cameron to win back powers from Brussels
Incoming head of Tory Eurosceptics has drawn up 'shopping list' for PM
Top of her shopping list is a new EU rule allowing member states to opt out of Brussels directives whenever they have a change of government. That would allow the Coalition to end the maximum 48-hour week under the EU's working time directive, agreed when Labour was in power.

Is it time to loose the max 48 hour week?

Thought there was always an opt-out from the 48 hour maximum which workers can "volunteer" to sign up for.
John
There is. I have signed one of these forms each time I join a new agency.

5 Jan 2012

Quote by Bluefish2009
Is it time to loose the max 48 hour week?

Why ?? what possible sensible reason could anyone give for allowing employers to impose a longer working week on their staff ?? ..... perhaps you should merge this thread with the health and safety one

6 Jan 2012

Quote by Staggerlee_BB

Is it time to loose the max 48 hour week?

Why ?? what possible sensible reason could anyone give for allowing employers to impose a longer working week on their staff ?? ..... perhaps you should merge this thread with the health and safety one
odd that statement staggs most companies work their employees 40 hrs anything over is normally considered voluntary and overtime
their so evil these employees i even know one that sends his sick staff home with pay but with all this plague about I'm sure its the sensible thing to do
i do however feel for poor children who might be made to sweep chimneys for rich people for more than 48 hours a week

6 Jan 2012

A masterpiece of misinterpretation Rob....I'm fully aware of the fact that most employers deal fairly with their employees ,and this legislation I'm sure has had no effect on them, the key word is MOSTsome employers are (and I know this will be a shock to you)unscrupulous and will do their utmost to exploit their employees,it is these workers this legislation given that most employers are not effected by this legislation,can you think who may profit from it's repeal and how ??

6 Jan 2012

Quote by Staggerlee_BB
A masterpiece of misinterpretation Rob....I'm fully aware of the fact that most employers deal fairly with their employees ,and this legislation I'm sure has had no effect on them, the key word is MOSTsome employers are (and I know this will be a shock to you)unscrupulous and will do their utmost to exploit their employees,it is these workers this legislation given that most employers are not effected by this legislation,can you think who may profit from it's repeal and how ??

I do not see your point Staggs, surely if an employer is unscrupulous enough to force someone to work more than 48 hours a week, he is unscrupulous enough to force his employees to sign an opt out
Surely with an opt-out clause available to the employee, the legislation is a powerless tool, open to misuse by those that would exploit their employees?

6 Jan 2012

Quote by Bluefish2009
A masterpiece of misinterpretation Rob....I'm fully aware of the fact that most employers deal fairly with their employees ,and this legislation I'm sure has had no effect on them, the key word is MOSTsome employers are (and I know this will be a shock to you)unscrupulous and will do their utmost to exploit their employees,it is these workers this legislation given that most employers are not effected by this legislation,can you think who may profit from it's repeal and how ??

I do not see your point Staggs, surely if an employer is unscrupulous enough to force someone to work more than 48 hours a week, he is unscrupulous enough to force his employees to sign an opt out
Surely with an opt-out clause available to the employee, the legislation is a powerless tool, open to misuse by those that would exploit their employees?
However the choice has been given to the employee, where previously they had no choice. The law is there and it is down to the employee to exercise their rights if they wish. If they don't then it is their choice for their reasons.
Dave_Notts

6 Jan 2012

Quote by Dave__Notts
A masterpiece of misinterpretation Rob....I'm fully aware of the fact that most employers deal fairly with their employees ,and this legislation I'm sure has had no effect on them, the key word is MOSTsome employers are (and I know this will be a shock to you)unscrupulous and will do their utmost to exploit their employees,it is these workers this legislation given that most employers are not effected by this legislation,can you think who may profit from it's repeal and how ??

I do not see your point Staggs, surely if an employer is unscrupulous enough to force someone to work more than 48 hours a week, he is unscrupulous enough to force his employees to sign an opt out
Surely with an opt-out clause available to the employee, the legislation is a powerless tool, open to misuse by those that would exploit their employees?
However the choice has been given to the employee, where previously they had no choice. The law is there and it is down to the employee to exercise their rights if they wish. If they don't then it is their choice for their reasons.
Dave_Notts
and the sort of employers that do this take little or no notice of what the employees rites are
so extending or reducing working hours will have little or no effect on empoyments laws for those that really need them dunno

was my point... just dont see why so many of us are tared with the marxist brush of hate

6 Jan 2012

But not having them removes the choice of the employee. So it is needed. Whether the employee wants to exercise those rights is up to them.
The argument for removing them because unscrupulous employers would just ignore them would be like saying remove the law on murder as murderers would not care if it was there or not.
Dave_Notts

6 Jan 2012

Quote by Dave__Notts
But not having them removes the choice of the employee. So it is needed. Whether the employee wants to exercise those rights is up to them.
The argument for removing them because unscrupulous employers would just ignore them would be like saying remove the law on murder as murderers would not care if it was there or not.

Dave_Notts

:laughabove::laughabove::laughabove:
thanks for that dave i`ll be chuckling at that for the next two weeks on holiday

6 Jan 2012

Quote by Lizaleanrob
But not having them removes the choice of the employee. So it is needed. Whether the employee wants to exercise those rights is up to them.
The argument for removing them because unscrupulous employers would just ignore them would be like saying remove the law on murder as murderers would not care if it was there or not.

Dave_Notts

:laughabove::laughabove::laughabove:
thanks for that dave i`ll be chuckling at that for the next two weeks on holiday
Glad I could be service to you. Enjoy your holiday
Dave_Notts

7 Jan 2012

Quote by Dave__Notts
But not having them removes the choice of the employee. So it is needed. Whether the employee wants to exercise those rights is up to them.
The argument for removing them because unscrupulous employers would just ignore them would be like saying remove the law on murder as murderers would not care if it was there or not.
Dave_Notts

Laws come and go, and laws change over time.
However, my reasoning is different. It is less about repealing this law, and more about the power being back in our hands. I vote for a government of my choice, who I wish to make laws and change them if they so wish or require. For me, the more power which is back in the hands of our politicians and not Europe, the better

7 Jan 2012

I remember quite clearly when this came out it was around the time of the new holidays laws etc. At the time I liked what New laboour was trying to do, some of it worked some of it did not. This is one of the did nots. As I found out reading my contract for the company Mitie they simple added the opt out into the contract that you sign to work for the company. So you sign the contrat you sign away your right to work a maximum 40 hours and if you dont sign the contract you dont have a job. It may depend simply on the quality of your employer. I noted this clause added to contracts of many of the high employer low payer cleaning/services companys. Its not in my current contract though.

7 Jan 2012

Quote by tweeky
I remember quite clearly when this came out it was around the time of the new holidays laws etc. At the time I liked what New laboour was trying to do, some of it worked some of it did not. This is one of the did nots. As I found out reading my contract for the company Mitie they simple added the opt out into the contract that you sign to work for the company. So you sign the contrat you sign away your right to work a maximum 40 hours and if you dont sign the contract you dont have a job. It may depend simply on the quality of your employer. I noted this clause added to contracts of many of the high employer low payer cleaning/services companys. Its not in my current contract though.

It is like any statutory legislation. It is only any use if the employee has the want to use it. Within the Working Time Directive, an employer can add the opt out to a contract but the employee can opt out of the opt out after a set amount of time
In the real world, the employer would lose any tribunal claim if an employee took them there. However, the employer would sack the employee but not because of this...........it would be 5 minutes late from break or any other minor point that they could get the employee on.
Dave_Notts

7 Jan 2012

In the real world round here, you're lucky if you get the opportunity to sign a contract.

8 Jan 2012

Quote by Dave__Notts
I remember quite clearly when this came out it was around the time of the new holidays laws etc. At the time I liked what New laboour was trying to do, some of it worked some of it did not. This is one of the did nots. As I found out reading my contract for the company Mitie they simple added the opt out into the contract that you sign to work for the company. So you sign the contrat you sign away your right to work a maximum 40 hours and if you dont sign the contract you dont have a job. It may depend simply on the quality of your employer. I noted this clause added to contracts of many of the high employer low payer cleaning/services companys. Its not in my current contract though.

It is like any statutory legislation. It is only any use if the employee has the want to use it. Within the Working Time Directive, an employer can add the opt out to a contract but the employee can opt out of the opt out after a set amount of time
In the real world, the employer would lose any tribunal claim if an employee took them there. However, the employer would sack the employee but not because of this...........it would be 5 minutes late from break or any other minor point that they could get the employee on.
Dave_Notts
Like I said somewhere :laughabove: an opt-out clause makes this legislation a powerless tool, open to misuse by those that would exploit their employees

8 Jan 2012

Quote by Bluefish2009
Like I said somewhere :laughabove: an opt-out clause makes this legislation a powerless tool, open to misuse by those that would exploit their employees

The power is returned within the legislation by having an opt out of the opt out. If the employee does not wish to use the law then that is their choice, but the law is in place.
Dave_Notts

9 Jan 2012

Quote by Dave__Notts
Like I said somewhere :laughabove: an opt-out clause makes this legislation a powerless tool, open to misuse by those that would exploit their employees

The power is returned within the legislation by having an opt out of the opt out. If the employee does not wish to use the law then that is their choice, but the law is in place.
Dave_Notts
The simple way to have done this would be to have made the maximum amount of hours that a UK employee is contractually allowed to work as 40 hours. Contracts for jobs over 40 hours would be illegal full stop. You could then stipulate that employees are free to work as much overtime as they wish (maybe a sensible limit impossed but thats another issue). People who then wish to work 60 hours a week can with 20 hours overtime but what that does do is give them the option to just do 40 hours at times that suit them wihtout the contractural pressure of having to do 60 hours. If as a goverment you wanted to be a real ass and actually stop people working over 40 hours for the most part then just add in stupid legislation like every hour over 40 must be followed by a half hour break lol

and make it not worth while at all.

9 Jan 2012

A small point of order:

Adult workers cannot be forced to work more than 48 hours a week on average - this is normally averaged over 17 weeks. You can work more than 48 hours in one week, as long as the average over 17 weeks is less than 48 hours per week.

Taken from here:

I thought I'd mention it as someone I know was stuck working 60 hours one week, and when he tried to invoke his rights under this legislation he was politely told where to go because his 17 week average was still below 48. confused

9 Jan 2012

Quote by Dave__Notts
Like I said somewhere :laughabove: an opt-out clause makes this legislation a powerless tool, open to misuse by those that would exploit their employees

The power is returned within the legislation by having an opt out of the opt out. If the employee does not wish to use the law then that is their choice, but the law is in place.
Dave_Notts
As has been pointed out below Dave by Tweeky, the choice is not always there for the employee to use, it is often tacken out of there hands by carefully placed unseen pressure. The choice and power is with the employer, just as it always was, in my view.

Quote by tweeky
I remember quite clearly when this came out it was around the time of the new holidays laws etc. At the time I liked what New laboour was trying to do, some of it worked some of it did not. This is one of the did nots. As I found out reading my contract for the company Mitie they simple added the opt out into the contract that you sign to work for the company. So you sign the contrat you sign away your right to work a maximum 40 hours and if you dont sign the contract you dont have a job. It may depend simply on the quality of your employer. I noted this clause added to contracts of many of the high employer low payer cleaning/services companys. Its not in my current contract though.

Quote by Dave__Notts
But not having them removes the choice of the employee. So it is needed. Whether the employee wants to exercise those rights is up to them.
The argument for removing them because unscrupulous employers would just ignore them would be like saying remove the law on murder as murderers would not care if it was there or not.
Dave_Notts

I can't find any opt out clause for murder lol

11 Jan 2012

Quote by Bluefish2009
As has been pointed out below Dave by Tweeky, the choice is not always there for the employee to use, it is often tacken out of there hands by carefully placed unseen pressure. The choice and power is with the employer, just as it always was, in my view.

The power is with the employer, the choice is with the employee.
Remove the legislation and the choice is then removed from the employee.
Dave_Notts

11 Jan 2012

Quote by Dave__Notts
As has been pointed out below Dave by Tweeky, the choice is not always there for the employee to use, it is often tacken out of there hands by carefully placed unseen pressure. The choice and power is with the employer, just as it always was, in my view.

The power is with the employer, the choice is with the employee.
Remove the legislation and the choice is then removed from the employee.
Dave_Notts
I still can not agree, the facts are simple to me, those employers who are honest did not need this legislation, and those who are not have been given a way round it, totally pointless and useless in my view

11 Jan 2012

Quote by Bluefish2009
As has been pointed out below Dave by Tweeky, the choice is not always there for the employee to use, it is often tacken out of there hands by carefully placed unseen pressure. The choice and power is with the employer, just as it always was, in my view.

The power is with the employer, the choice is with the employee.
Remove the legislation and the choice is then removed from the employee.
Dave_Notts
I still can not agree, the facts are simple to me, those employers who are honest did not need this legislation, and those who are not have been given a way round it, totally pointless and useless in my view
Touches forelock....