IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Working Time Opt Out, EU vote to abolish
Keep the opt out or scrap it?
Keep the opt out or scrap it?
Keep it [ 4 ] ** [57.14%]
Scrap it [ 3 ] ** [42.86%]
Total Votes: 8
Guests cannot vote 
Edgecrusher
post May 11 2005, 02:51 PM
Post #1


Foxtrot Uniform Charlie Kilo
Group Icon

Group: Gold Member
Posts: 213
Joined: 3-August 04
From: UK
Member No.: 480
PSN Name: JonnyCanonFodder



QUOTE
[center]Euro-MPs back tighter work hours[/center]†

Workers' hours have prompted fierce debate
An opt-out rule which allows EU workers to choose to put in more than 48 hours a week may come to an end after MEPs voted to scrap it.
The right to opt out could come to an end over a three-year period.


Unions said the decision was a victory for UK employees but business groups said competitiveness would suffer.

The proposed changes to the Working Time Directive on health and safety grounds still need to be approved by the Council of Ministers.

Under the current system - used more in the UK than elsewhere - individuals can opt out if they want to work longer hours.

Blocking vote?

The UK Government will need to recruit other countries' support to retain the opt-out clause in the Council of Ministers under qualified majority voting.

Working Time Directive
Guarantees workers 11 hours' rest per day and regular breaks
Weekly working time of 48 hours, on average, or less
Minimum annual holiday of four weeks
Night working to be limited, usually, to eight hours out of 24

The issue was about "freedom of choice", said the Director-General of the CBI, Sir Digby Jones.

"People who just do five hours a week overtime and use the money for a holiday. All I want to know is who's going to pay them for the money they lose."

The retention of the opt-out had also been supported by hospitals in Germany, France and Spain and small business groups across the EU.

But the vote saw Labour MEPs oppose the UK government line and side with many Socialists, Communists and Greens in backing the changes.

"The measures we are supporting give workers a good degree of flexibility to manage their working hours," said Gary Titley, the leader of the Labour MEPs.

Business concerns

The Working Time Directive was first agreed in 1993, and changes were debated as part of a 10-year review.

MEPs voted by 378 to 262 in support of a number of changes to the directive, including scrapping the opt-out.

They also decided on-call time would be counted as working time in most instances, and average working hours could be calculated over a full year, rather than the present period of four months.

Unions in the UK had claimed workers can be effectively forced into working unfairly long hours.

Business groups including the British Chambers of Commerce, the Recruitment and Employment Confederation and the EEF voiced their disappointment at the decision.

"It flies in the face of the EU's decision to focus on growth and jobs and sends a strong message that the European Parliament is not interested in improving Europe's competitiveness," said BCC Director General David Frost.


Source.

What do you think about it? From my point of view, I can see how some would be worried that it might affect the economy, and people who depend on overtime wages, but forty eight hours is still a long week, and it gives you less choice, but I have encountered companies that force workers to sign the opt out. On the whole, I agree with it being abolished.


--------------------
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NCP
post May 11 2005, 03:36 PM
Post #2


Nobody Special
Group Icon

Group: Gold Member
Posts: 28
Joined: 2-August 04
From: Soest, Netherlands
Member No.: 73



Scrap it. 48 hours is more than enough.


--------------------
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MetGreDKo
post May 11 2005, 05:56 PM
Post #3


Upstanding Citizen


Group: Members
Posts: 0
Joined: 1-April 05
From: NYC
Member No.: 11,176



I had voted scrap it but misread something so count me as "keep it." The only time I may not oppose removing it is for highly dangerous fields where one needs to be focused. If someone is exhausted in dangerous fields then serious problems may result. On the other hand I see little reason to deny people the ability to work as long as they may wish.

Now, do note that I agree with a limit for how many hours in a day. So yes, there would still be a limit. I think as is the limitation placed on working is too great in some respects. There needs to be a medium.


"Weekly working time of 48 hours, on average, or less"

Question, after how many hours in EU member nations does overtime pay come into effect? If a business wishes to spend more money then needed why not let them?




"Night working to be limited, usually, to eight hours out of 24"

Why not the same as day working?




"Minimum annual holiday of four weeks"

I personally feel a stepping up based upon time spent at a job would be sufficient. If you're new then you get only 1 week per year. If you've been there for say 5 years then let's say 2 weeks. Ten years and 3 weeks. This is just an example to show you just what I mean.


I fail to see how this will help the economy. In fact it may end up hurting their economies because of their labor force shrinking. Such time restrictions will mean you will lack workers. Longer weekly hours may actually be needed instead. Of course you don't want to go too far in extending working hours.


I remember how in the late 1800's and early 1900's there was debate over labor hours and how at start due process was seen as a substantive right to liberty of contract. The prosecution had to come up with reasons to limit this liberty in order for limitations to be seen as legal by the Supreme Court. This changed when Chief Justice Hughes stated the courts opinion on the case of Muller v. Oregon which he stated that "...regulation which is reasonable to its subject and is adopted in the interests of the community is due process."

Page 186
Muller v. Oregon
A Brief History With Documents
By: Nancy Woloch

Now I wonder, what the EU or its individual member nations views on liberty of contract are. How do those countries see it? The topic of this thread tells us some about it but not the whole story.



NCP1315, you may say 48 hours is enough but what about if someone wants to or doesn't mind working more than that? For example, I would work on average over 60 hours a week, sometimes as much as 85 when I held a job. I didn't mind it much because money was coming into my pocket. If I don't mind or even wish to work so much then who are you or anyone else to say I can not? Yes, I am aware that we are on different continents but answer it hypothetically, as if we were in the same region.


--------------------
IPB Image
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Edgecrusher
post May 11 2005, 06:09 PM
Post #4


Foxtrot Uniform Charlie Kilo
Group Icon

Group: Gold Member
Posts: 213
Joined: 3-August 04
From: UK
Member No.: 480
PSN Name: JonnyCanonFodder



I'd be Ok with it, but it needs to be revised. I've seen too many companies present it as something you have to sign in order to work for them, and alot of people don't realise that forty eight hours is all they can legally be made to work (depending on the job).


--------------------
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
psychÝ
post May 11 2005, 06:36 PM
Post #5


Upstanding Citizen


Group: Members
Posts: 0
Joined: 26-August 04
From: The Steel City, England
Member No.: 1,279



I think it should be there so you don't have to work 48 hr's a week but you should be able to just say you will work for longer if you want to.


--------------------

Dragonfly
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Edgecrusher
post May 11 2005, 06:41 PM
Post #6


Foxtrot Uniform Charlie Kilo
Group Icon

Group: Gold Member
Posts: 213
Joined: 3-August 04
From: UK
Member No.: 480
PSN Name: JonnyCanonFodder



QUOTE(psychÝ @ May 11 2005, 08:36 PM)
I think it should be there so you don't have to work 48 hr's a week but you should be able to just say you will work for longer if you want to.
[right][snapback]609009[/snapback][/right]

You don't have to work forty eight hours anyway, that's just the maximum. Obviously if you pick a job with a forty eight hour week, that's what you'll do. The opt out gives people who want to work longer the choice to do so, but companies exploit it to con people into doing more than they want to because they don't read the fine print.


--------------------
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NCP
post May 11 2005, 06:57 PM
Post #7


Nobody Special
Group Icon

Group: Gold Member
Posts: 28
Joined: 2-August 04
From: Soest, Netherlands
Member No.: 73



QUOTE(MetGreDKo)
NCP1315, you may say 48 hours is enough but what about if someone wants to or doesn't mind working more than that? For example, I would work on average over 60 hours a week, sometimes as much as 85 when I held a job. I didn't mind it much because money was coming into my pocket. If I don't mind or even wish to work so much then who are you or anyone else to say I can not? Yes, I am aware that we are on different continents but answer it hypothetically, as if we were in the same region.


Ofcourse working more than 48 hours once a week is not too bad, but people need rest and they might overwork themselves and then not be able to work. Ofcourse people don't always overwork and you want to earn money. But people have families and parents need to spend time with their families. Maybe you don't have a family now, but must people who work have a family and I think a family is important. Now if someone doesn't earn enough in money that 48 hours, to take care of himself and his family, do you think he should work more than 48 hours or that he needs to get paid more. I'd say that he needs to get paid more. I hope you get what I mean.


--------------------
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
psychÝ
post May 11 2005, 07:48 PM
Post #8


Upstanding Citizen


Group: Members
Posts: 0
Joined: 26-August 04
From: The Steel City, England
Member No.: 1,279



QUOTE(Edgecrusher @ May 11 2005, 08:41 PM)
QUOTE(psychÝ @ May 11 2005, 08:36 PM)
I think it should be there so you don't have to work 48 hr's a week but you should be able to just say you will work for longer if you want to.
[right][snapback]609009[/snapback][/right]

You don't have to work forty eight hours anyway, that's just the maximum. Obviously if you pick a job with a forty eight hour week, that's what you'll do. The opt out gives people who want to work longer the choice to do so, but companies exploit it to con people into doing more than they want to because they don't read the fine print.
[right][snapback]609029[/snapback][/right]
well i can't help it if people can't be bothered to read there own contract

it stops some people who want to work for longer working for that long meaning they might not be able to make enough money to hold up the standard of living they have


--------------------

Dragonfly
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MetGreDKo
post May 12 2005, 02:18 PM
Post #9


Upstanding Citizen


Group: Members
Posts: 0
Joined: 1-April 05
From: NYC
Member No.: 11,176



QUOTE
Ofcourse working more than 48 hours once a week is not too bad, but people need rest and they might overwork themselves and then not be able to work. Ofcourse people don't always overwork and you want to earn money.

Isn't that the point of vacations, to allow someone to come back to work with a fresh mind? I know I got burnt out only because I had no vacation. Otherwise I was fine. I didn't mind working 162 and a half hours in 13 days. I didn't mind working 21 out of 24 hours in one day. Getting burnt from over work is what happens in the long run to someone who has long hours. Those working 48 hours may still end up getting burnt out because of the work they do.


QUOTE
But people have families and parents need to spend time with their families. Maybe you don't have a family now, but must people who work have a family and I think a family is important.

Not everyone have families, I for one will basically excommunicate myself with my "family" because I don't like many of those who I am related to. So to say those who like to work (maybe someone likes to teach) and wishes to do so more can not aren't you needlessly restricting their ability to do what they want when it won't be harming anyone?


QUOTE
Now if someone doesn't earn enough in money that 48 hours, to take care of himself and his family, do you think he should work more than 48 hours or that he needs to get paid more. I'd say that he needs to get paid more. I hope you get what I mean.

Usually people get raises when they are efficient, when the business conducts services in an efficient manner. If productivity per person does not increase yet they give raises anyway you will see the business approaching deficit. They can end up losing money. So to give raises when efficiency may not be increasing enough if at all to anyone who has a family yet not enough money can seriously damage the economy. What goes into your pocket needs to go into your job plus some because as we all know if a business is breaking even chances are their not going to expand.

I think if that man who is working does not have enough money then he should look at their lifestyle. What they spend the money on. If it is on expensive clothing and such which are not necessary then you really need to think about how much that stuff means to you. If it means enough to you to work a longer week or day, even both, then be my guest. Who am I to tell you that you can't?


--------------------
IPB Image
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NCP
post May 13 2005, 11:23 AM
Post #10


Nobody Special
Group Icon

Group: Gold Member
Posts: 28
Joined: 2-August 04
From: Soest, Netherlands
Member No.: 73



QUOTE
Isn't that the point of vacations, to allow someone to come back to work with a fresh mind? I know I got burnt out only because I had no vacation. Otherwise I was fine. I didn't mind working 162 and a half hours in 13 days. I didn't mind working 21 out of 24 hours in one day. Getting burnt from over work is what happens in the long run to someone who has long hours. Those working 48 hours may still end up getting burnt out because of the work they do.


All I can say to that is that you're not like everyone else. If everyone was the same, people would do the same job, wear the same clothes etc.

QUOTE
Not everyone have families, I for one will basically excommunicate myself with my "family" because I don't like many of those who I am related to. So to say those who like to work (maybe someone likes to teach) and wishes to do so more can not aren't you needlessly restricting their ability to do what they want when it won't be harming anyone?


I depends, does your family wants to see you? Because if they want to see you, would you just plain say: "Fuck 'em"? I think you should keep good relations with your family. I already lost contact with 5 nieces and 1 nephew, because my parents didn't care about their parents.

Ofcourse a person needs to look at himself first before he asks for raise, but when someone works hard and he doesn't spend money on dumb things, then I think you should pay him more if he can't support his family.

I think only the UK has this system that we are talking about (not sure though) and I think that if you're in the EU, that you need to do what the rest of Europe with the EU does. Not do your own thing, if you want to do that, get out of the EU. Simple as that.


--------------------
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CaldMagi
post May 13 2005, 11:33 AM
Post #11


Upstanding Citizen


Group: Members
Posts: 0
Joined: 17-April 05
Member No.: 11,541



What about people who struggle, who WANTS to work more hours to get a little more money for him or his family. He won't be allowed because some fuckhead in the EU wants to "benifit citizens". Europe is very socially oriented, but if the EU really is, they wouldn't have made this stupid rule. The lower class suffers from this in the long run.


--------------------
QUOTE(psychÝ)
And don't write stuff about me in your sig which i have never said how about u quote what i say or leave it out all together
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NCP
post May 13 2005, 11:39 AM
Post #12


Nobody Special
Group Icon

Group: Gold Member
Posts: 28
Joined: 2-August 04
From: Soest, Netherlands
Member No.: 73



I think the EU made this rule, mostly because of the Eastern European countries who joined the EU lately. Not because they hate the poor guys in Western Europe.


--------------------
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MetGreDKo
post May 13 2005, 11:48 AM
Post #13


Upstanding Citizen


Group: Members
Posts: 0
Joined: 1-April 05
From: NYC
Member No.: 11,176



QUOTE
All I can say to that is that you're not like everyone else. If everyone was the same, people would do the same job, wear the same clothes etc.

I never said I am like everyone else but am saying those like me should be able to if they so choose. They should have the option.

QUOTE
I depends, does your family wants to see you? Because if they want to see you, would you just plain say: "Fuck 'em"? I think you should keep good relations with your family. I already lost contact with 5 nieces and 1 nephew, because my parents didn't care about their parents.

This is off topic but I once made my father cry with just words so you tell me if I would say "Fuck 'em." I don't give a damn what they want when in truth they are not good for my personal growth. My parents (same with some other relatives) are far too prejudice for me to want to talk to them. I don't like what two uncles are doing on different, major things and I don't like how weak another uncle is in terms of speaking his mind.

To be honest I don't even think I want kids. I've had at one point had feelings for a young lady who had a daughter. Something may have grown out of my friendship with her and her daughter was a cute kid as well. The idea of me being a father however is not something I especially like.


QUOTE
Ofcourse a person needs to look at himself first before he asks for raise, but when someone works hard and he doesn't spend money on dumb things, then I think you should pay him more if he can't support his family.

If that person can't support their family on that job then they should have looked at what kind of pay they will be looking at when at that job before those problems arise. Someone failing to look ahead is by no means reason for someone to give a hand out to someone. Basically you are saying reward someone for being dumb when it comes to them taking care of their finances. If one person can't support the family then have someone else get a job. Either way why make others (in this case business owners) pay for the workers mistakes?


--------------------
IPB Image
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Edgecrusher
post May 13 2005, 11:50 AM
Post #14


Foxtrot Uniform Charlie Kilo
Group Icon

Group: Gold Member
Posts: 213
Joined: 3-August 04
From: UK
Member No.: 480
PSN Name: JonnyCanonFodder



I believe the minimum wage in the UK is currently £4:85 an hour (I think that's for people under twenty one, it's higher after that), that's £232.8p per week (based on a forty eight hour job). That's a decent wage, if someone really can't afford to maintain their standard of living on that, then I think that they need to re-evaluate their lifestyle, because they are obviously spending too much money on extravagances. Not to mention that most jobs in the UK exceed the minimum wage.


--------------------
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CaldMagi
post May 13 2005, 11:53 AM
Post #15


Upstanding Citizen


Group: Members
Posts: 0
Joined: 17-April 05
Member No.: 11,541



You can't raise a family on minimum wage. Working a little overtime to earn more money is a good solution for those people. You wan't to take that away from them? How do poor people benifit from this? This is only putting money from the poor into the pocket of the rich.


--------------------
QUOTE(psychÝ)
And don't write stuff about me in your sig which i have never said how about u quote what i say or leave it out all together
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MetGreDKo
post May 13 2005, 12:00 PM
Post #16


Upstanding Citizen


Group: Members
Posts: 0
Joined: 1-April 05
From: NYC
Member No.: 11,176



QUOTE(Edgecrusher @ May 13 2005, 08:50 AM)
I believe the minimum wage in the UK is currently £4:85 an hour (I think that's for people under twenty one, it's higher after that), that's £232.8p per week (based on a forty eight hour job).  That's a decent wage, if someone really can't afford to maintain their standard of living on that, then I think that they need to re-evaluate their lifestyle, because they are obviously spending too much money on extravagances.  Not to mention that most jobs in the UK exceed the minimum wage.
[right][snapback]611963[/snapback][/right]

I don't think minimum wage is meant to be something which one can live off of. I think it is currently (at the very least) intended to serve as a stepping stone of some sort.


--------------------
IPB Image
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Edgecrusher
post May 13 2005, 12:15 PM
Post #17


Foxtrot Uniform Charlie Kilo
Group Icon

Group: Gold Member
Posts: 213
Joined: 3-August 04
From: UK
Member No.: 480
PSN Name: JonnyCanonFodder



QUOTE(MetGreDKo @ May 13 2005, 02:00 PM)
QUOTE(Edgecrusher @ May 13 2005, 08:50 AM)
I believe the minimum wage in the UK is currently £4:85 an hour (I think that's for people under twenty one, it's higher after that), that's £232.8p per week (based on a forty eight hour job).† That's a decent wage, if someone really can't afford to maintain their standard of living on that, then I think that they need to re-evaluate their lifestyle, because they are obviously spending too much money on extravagances.† Not to mention that most jobs in the UK exceed the minimum wage.
[right][snapback]611963[/snapback][/right]

I don't think minimum wage is meant to be something which one can live off of. I think it is currently (at the very least) intended to serve as a stepping stone of some sort.
[right][snapback]611974[/snapback][/right]

Exactly, most people can, and do, live on that wage, if the wage increases further, that can only be a good thing.

QUOTE
You can't raise a family on minimum wage. Working a little overtime to earn more money is a good solution for those people. You wan't to take that away from them? How do poor people benifit from this? This is only putting money from the poor into the pocket of the rich.

The rich, in this case the companies that exploit the opt out, suffer the most. My Mum raised me and my sister on roughly £6000 a year (you do the math) up until I was about fifteen, we may not have had all the extravagances that other kids had, but we survived, and we had a decent education, food on our table and clothes on our back. If my Mum had been earning £232.8p a week back then, I would've felt like I was rich.


--------------------
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CaldMagi
post May 13 2005, 12:22 PM
Post #18


Upstanding Citizen


Group: Members
Posts: 0
Joined: 17-April 05
Member No.: 11,541



Yeah, but you CANT raise a family on minimun wage. You said you make £232.8p (340 euro) a week. How are you able to raise 2 (or more) children, feeding them, your wife and yourself, pay your childrens education, pay your rents, and get some fun out of life. With £232.8 a week? No fucking way.

EDIT: Just read your post. You can't compare your situation with that of everyone else who is poor. Life is keep getting more expensive, and earning become lesser. Just be glad you still got your own currency there in britain, and not the euro.

This post has been edited by CaldMagi: May 13 2005, 12:25 PM


--------------------
QUOTE(psychÝ)
And don't write stuff about me in your sig which i have never said how about u quote what i say or leave it out all together
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Edgecrusher
post May 13 2005, 12:23 PM
Post #19


Foxtrot Uniform Charlie Kilo
Group Icon

Group: Gold Member
Posts: 213
Joined: 3-August 04
From: UK
Member No.: 480
PSN Name: JonnyCanonFodder



I just said my Mum did it, on less money. I have never felt deprived.

Ps: I don't have a minimum wage job.

Edit: Well my own personal situation is all I have to use as a comparison, I never said everyone can survive on that, and few people have to. Remember I calculated the minimum legal wage, and I said the majority of jobs exceed that wage.


--------------------
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CaldMagi
post May 13 2005, 12:26 PM
Post #20


Upstanding Citizen


Group: Members
Posts: 0
Joined: 17-April 05
Member No.: 11,541



You posted when I was typing my message. I edited my post.


--------------------
QUOTE(psychÝ)
And don't write stuff about me in your sig which i have never said how about u quote what i say or leave it out all together
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 22nd August 2014 - 07:54 AM

GTA 5 | GTA San Andreas | Red Dead Redemption | GTA 4