Working-time Directive

Mrs. LTD is a Biomedical Scientist and the implementation of this is already impacting on us.

Her on-call time is now reduced meaning split shifts overnight. She either comes home at 9pm of leaves home at 8-30pm to start at 9pm.

The upshot of this is that she works twice as many split shifts as the rota is still covered by the same amount of people.

Same hours, less time at home with the family.

Bugger the European Directive - let's get the Great back in Britain !

Discussed this with my bro recently, who works as an HGV driver. What happens when the 48 hours are up? Does he abandon his wagon on the hard shoulder and thumb a lift home, or break the law and perhaps jeopardise his license?

Most people I know, including poor old me, work 55 to 60 hours a week. It’s this overtime that pays for most of the little luxuries in life, whether it be a nice bottle of something, an upgrade to the hi-fi or a weekend away.

Take this away, and there can only be a negative impact on our own economy. Less money being earned – less money getting spent – less tax being paid.

Kev.

I can only imagine that my industry will carry on with an exemption. I can't see them letting an airliner full of passengers sit and wait for the next shift of engineers to turn up and fix a component. All that tax free fuel being wasted.......?

Tony

The first thing that springs to mind after reading Tony and Toad's comment are that I'd rather HGV drivers were not driving more than 8hrs per day, and that aircraft engineers/fitters weren't working on my plane at the end of a 12 hour shift.....

If your workload requires that you need to do more than 10hrs per day, then really you or your employer should be bringing in more personnel to cover that work. I appreciate that that's easier said than done, that these additional workers don't necessarily grow on trees, but WTD is a sensible ruling.

quote:

Originally posted by Brian OReilly:
but WTD is a sensible ruling.

The problem with the WTD is that it is trying to enforce a law across the board, penalising everyone, when currently it's only a minority of rogue employers (e.g. the government with the NHS) which are the problem.

There are a lot of people out there that choose to work longer hours in return for the extra income it gives them, not because an employer is making them do it. I know people who have multiple jobs in order to earn more cash and while they won't do more than 48 hours a week with a single employer they will overall. Is the WTD going to stop that as well?

Sounds like a good thing to me if it is implemented in a way that can't be circumvented. Hopefully less hours worked per employee will mean that they will have to take on more staff to cover the same work. All my mates would like to spend less time working and more time listening to music, playing with the kids etc. The reason they don't is because they are 'expected' to work more tha their paid hours - if they suddenly started turning up at 9am and buggering off at 5pm every night they'd find themselves accused of lack of 'commitment' and even potentially subject to disciplinary procedures because they may not be able to do everything expected of them. My wife works in a department with 4 managers. In a recent restructure 4 managers became three managers. The 4th man's tasks were divided between the other three for no extra pay or promotion. Result: three overworked managers.

Jonathan

quote:

Originally posted by Jonathan Gorse:
All my mates would like to spend less time working and more time listening to music, playing with the kids etc. The reason they don't is because they are 'expected' to work more tha their paid hours

As an employer I don't expect my staff to work more than their contract hours (37.5) however there are a few of them who probably average more like 40 hours a week. The only employees that average anything like 48 hours a week or more are the directors and I don't see how any WTD is going to be able to stop us.

Several staff members may need to work more than 48 hours a week when project work requires (and again I doubt the WTD is going to stop that) but we're flexible in return and no-one resents that.

Steve G,

Your style of Management is in my view fair and entirely reasonable. Sadly, it's not common nowadays. I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect people to work extended hours on occasion if there's a big project on etc provided there's a bit of leeway the other way after it's over so they can take-off early on a Friday or whatever. It's all about balance I guess.

Jonathan

I've never known any firm here working along these lines, and I think the WTD is generally simply ignored. The most folk who like to tell everybody how hard they work, and how many hours they put in (observation not critisism) are self employed, and generally have a far greater enthusiasm for working 24/7 if they could, these two factors are very often treated as the same, which they most definately ain't.


FRitz Von Free _Enterprize for all

FWIW, the WTD looks at the average number of hours worked per week over a longer period (3 months, if memory serves), so the odd 50 hour week doesn't break the law.

Mark S

quote:

unfair economic advantage

This brings the following to mind:

Oh sir sir - the UK's a swat - it is doing extra work - it is not fair - stop them working

I'm with Brian on this there are several types of job that should have restrictions truckers and ground staff as mentioned. No one should drive more than 8hrs without the "proper" breaks. No one seems to mind air crew doing maximum allocated hours. The frivilous "what am I supposed to do, abandon my truck when I hit 8 hrs?" no you pull up at suitible place before 8 hrs or what ever limit it is.
Twice recently I have delivered hire cars for the delivery driver of an other car to return home. In both cases the drivers have driven down from Glasgow (to Crawley near Gatwick Airport) this is 08:30 they are then driving straight back home. One was even going on to Brighton first. These guys are dangerous.It must take at least 5-6 hrs down an then 7-8 hrs back with the day time traffic. I expect they will rest on the way back home I just hope it is not in the front of any of my family's cars.

Howard

I'm sure the new drivers of busses lorries etc, in UK from Poland, Estinia, Slovakia, are going to take a blind bit of notice on that one. Their new British employers take them on because they are cheap, and I don't see any of them refusing to do what they are told somehow, do you ?

Fritz Von 100 hour weeks for surgeons to cut waiting lists (no pun intended)

Like Steve I don’t see the point of people working themselves ragged as a matter of course and I actively discourage long hours. I see no merit in it as a measure of someone’s competence, enthusiasm or loyalty. The key is matching your manpower to the workload and within that flexible time management to allow for a good work/home balance and a happy,rested team. As such we’ve never had to think about the WTD and whilst part of me wonders about the merit of legislating for this one has to wonder about wisdom for the employee or employer of continually chalking in more than 48hours per week. If you think it through, 48 hours work is really quite a slog and like Brian says I’d wouldn’t want my safety or business depending on the efforts of someone who was getting to the end of their tenth 60 or 70 hour week. I did my training with a large American practice and the competitive macho culture valued crazy hours punched and billed to the exclusion of any individual need or familial responsibility. The number of burnouts and broken relationships that I saw in my two years there was a salutary lesson.

If UK business had a decent track record on self-regulation I might prefer no legislation in this regard but as I recall how business argued for self-regulation in lieu of minimum wage legislation, I remember how so many found themselves unable to restrain dizzying salary hikes for management whilst holding firm on poverty wages for their lowest paid workers.

It’s a cliche but it’s true; nobody ever lay on their death bed and regretted not having spent more time at the office.

Whilst I was aware that some peculiar types still mourn the loss of the Empire in general and the Raj in particular, I wasn’t aware that Britain was no longer Great. I think that it’s a smashing place to live and am puzzled at how anyone could view the rejection of something like the WTD as being a defining issue in this regard.

I would question how this ruling can possibly be applied to an employer like myself. My contract states 40 hours per week, however it is understood that this is rarely the case.

If I began stating the directive every-time 48 hours was reached half my business would collapse.

This is BS of the highest order. I should be happy, I don't get overtime, but if I ain;t there I am letting my team down when they need me, that won't happen. I would imagine this is true for many hundreds of thousands of middle employers around the country, who when asked will say that they do 40 hours per week.

So in my eyes the rules are as enforceable as the fox hunting ban, which is also bull shit.

A cop pulled up a pickup truck on the freeway and asked the driver, a redneck "got any I.D.". The redneck replied " bout what"?

You don't need to state the directive every time 48 hours is reached as it averaged over a reference period which currently is, as someone above mentioned, 3 months though the current plan is tp extend this to 12 months. This has the advantage of letting your staff cope with peaks, troughs and unforeseen situations when they need you or vice versa, as you can then let them have time in lieu. If employers want to work beyond the time limit it is going to be unenforceable but despite my misgivings I can also see many situations such as I outlined above where it will be a good thing.

Just to clear up a couple of points ref my earlier post, and in reply to Brian & Howard’s posts.

My brother may only be driving for three or four hours a day, due to the nature of his job – loading/unloading, waiting for forklifts etc etc. Driving hours are already regulated by his tachograph (yes, I know, they’re not impossible to fiddle). My comment regarded the length of his working week, not his driving hours. Sorry I didn’t make myself clear, I was trying to be brief, not frivolous.

What is admittedly worrying is the fact that drivers of small delivery vehicles or courier services seemingly have no regulation to their driving hours. I have seen drivers turn up in Aberdeen late at night from way down south, moan about how they were working all day before getting instructions to deliver up here, then promptly turn around for the return journey. A few readily admit to driving for 14+ hours a day.

Kev.

My own take is that it doesn't matter whether this particular directive is a good thing or a bad thing. What I dislike is that it's a European Union imposed thing.

I was listening to an item on Radio 4 yesterday about the serious problems arising in Belgium. Apparently, the French and Flemish speaking halves are moving apart and no one feels 'Belgium'.

In the next several years there will be good times and bad times - economically, militarily, whatever. There always are. If Europe becomes ever more controlling and increasingly Federal, when the shit hits the fan, how many Europeans from the UK, France, Germany, Italy, etc. are going to feel 'European'?

Regards
Steve M

Footnote: This Belgium issue is apparently quite serious, despite the lack of media coverage. I recommend that everyone looks into this:

The language battle that is tearing Belgium apart (The Times)

Chaps

It is this sort of thing that is giving the EU a bad name and is fuel for the the UKIP crowd.

My own take on this is that we are now in a meritocracy and it is survival of the fittest at a personel level right through to global level.

If you want a well paid job, you have to work at it and 48 hours is not that bad. If you can't hack it, resign and do something else. It is your choice.

We do not need some foreign civil servant telling us how to run the worlds 4th greatest economy.

Regards

Mick

quote:

Originally posted by Mick Parry:
Chaps

It is this sort of thing that is giving the EU a bad name and is fuel for the the UKIP crowd.

Yes it IS grist to the mill of UKIP types. But this is merely yet another example of why certain sage individuals beseech mainstream politicians to repeal that stupid, ridiculous, profane and unholy 1972 European Communities Act, that has been shafting us persistently since the day it was signed.

It's a bloody farce that'd be funny if it wasn't true.

EW

EW

This shows that Maggie Thatcher had it right.

It makes good sense to link stronger to Europe for trade purposes but we need to retain our own constitution. There is no way we should submit to EU legislation.

Regards

Mick

quote:

Originally posted by Mick Parry:
EW

This shows that Maggie Thatcher had it right.

It makes good sense to link stronger to Europe for trade purposes but we need to retain our own constitution. There is no way we should submit to EU legislation.

Regards

Mick

I agree, although I wonder what political 'links' (ties?) we need with our European... er... neighbours (was that the right word??) to maintain our ability to trade in the world market?

But more fundamentally, I agree: once an Act of Parliament allowed British courts to be overruled by a bunch of mad, pompous, unelected, megalomaniac liberal Johnnies fond of wholly unnecessary crack-pot legislation to keep themselves in pathetic little jobs at huge expense to the taxpayer who won the war...!!!

I rest my case.

EW

Toad,

Delivery drivers are bad enough but there is currently discussion about raising the ceiling on working hours for aircrew. We already have a situation where Ryan Air pilots are sleeping in their cars at Stanstead before operating flights, how long till a pilot makes a fatigue induced mistake and kills hundreds?

Fortunately the 'sleeping in cars is something I have only heard about in Ryan Air so far.

Jonathan