Working time directive

The desire is for the opt out to be removed.

Failing that, I think stricter rules to stop employers forcing staff to agree to opt outs are required. There certainly are many abuses of this.

Why is being in an environment where you cannot be forced to work overtime equate to "being shafted"?

I don't get this calculation. Salaried staff are usually paid for working a 'fixed' week. If that fixed week doesn't change why should they get paid less?

no idea.

This is not what is being asked for.

Tim

I think you are confused here. It may be typical for people in France to work 35 hours per week. Here it is probably more like 37-38.

The working time directive and 48 hour maximum should relate to both. When cuts are negotiated then unions/workers generally expect the same money for less hours.

I started with the Health Service at a point where the working week had just been reduced from 40- 37.5 hours. The unions had agreed with the employers that it would be very difficult to implement due to the need to recruit and change rotas. So for the first year I was there we worked a 40 hour week and got paid 2.5 hours overtime every week.

Making a small cut in hours would be best implemented by paying full time workers the same for less hours. For part-timers a decision would need to be taken on whether to cut hours pro-rata, or if you could not realistically reduce their hours they could work the same hours for a higher hourly rate.

James

But on the flip side, if the WTD forced you to take Fridays off and you badly needed the money that Friday would bring what are you to do ? Get another, part time job ?

But length of that fixed week would change wouldn't it ?

What is being asked for then ? You seem to understand this. Please elaborate

Cheers

Norm

yep :-(

no (I don't see that it does anyway)

I answered that in the bit that you snipped.

They want the opt-out that allows people to voluntarily work more than 48 hours to be removed, so that the maximum becomes 48 hours for everyone (except the exempt 'professions'). I can see both sides of this, there are undoubtedly some people who genuinely want to work more than 48 hours, OTOH there are some unscrupulous employers who effectively make it compulsory for their employees to agree to work longer, whether they want to or not. On balance, I think that removing the opt-out is the fairer because the person who does really want to work longer can go down the second job route whereas the person who is being forced into working extra hours often has to enforce his right not to, via an ET which can be a bad move for the rest of your career even if the ET finds in your favour at the time.

tim

OK.... so... I am an employee 9and director of my own limited company, typically working on short term contracts for clients. Following the above then once I will have worked 48 hours in a week no matter what my client requires then I am unable to fulfill that? On the basis that while my client needs the time input, my company cannot allow me, and I unable to elect to, work for more than 48 hours in a week .... what happens then? Employ somebody else for the handful of extra hours needed (which could be 1!) but in the knowledge that some weeks it might not be needed at all... ?????????

Ian

"Ian Diddams" wrote

I thought that the maximum hours rules did NOT apply to Directors - much like the minimum wage (hourly rate) does not apply ??

correct and to answer the final point the figure is averaged over a number of weeks (qlick, whizz, buzz whilst I look it up), which seems to be 17.

Tim