What "powers" do the "euroskeptics" want back?

[geni]

It is hard to not come to that conclusion given what the whining seems to often centre on. For example "working hour directive" - I mean it is just not on that we are no longer "allowed" to force people engaged in non-critical work, such as say junior Drs, work 20 hours a day for a fortnight!

Thats got more to do with on call time.

Aside from the on call issue I'm not sure who the working time dirrective actualy impacts. Not many jobs break 48 hours a week and those that do will generaly find people prepared to opt out (after all it means more money).

 

[Darat]

Thats got more to do with on call time.

That was meant to be a sarcastic comment I pulled out of my backside, if it is in fact accurate then I've unintentionally poed myself!

Aside from the on call issue I'm not sure who the working time dirrective actualy impacts. Not many jobs break 48 hours a week and those that do will generaly find people prepared to opt out (after all it means more money).

No, no Geni, you've got this totally wrong. The working time directive severely hampers British productivity and our ability to be competitive in the modern world (never mind we have a personal opt out). For proof of this look at the productivity and economic growth rates of a country in the EU, say Germany - they've fully implemented the working time directive and thanks to all that useless EU imposed bureaucracy, paperwork and "workers' rights" nonsense they are way behind us in economic growth rates and productivity and have been ever since it became a EU wide directive....*






















*Hint - Think Poe.

 

[Darat]

In other words we shouldn't allow the EU to have anything to do with our health and safety standards.

Or they should be viewed as a minimum standard.

 

[uk_dave]

Or they should be viewed as a minimum standard.

To be fair, the figures in the table are from 1996 for euro countries (and 2006 for the colonies) but from 20098 for the UK.

It could be that nearly all construction in the UK in that year was done by robots with only a few going berserk and killing everything in their path with ruthless efficiency. A bit like Germans.

 

[3point14]

To be fair, the figures in the table are from 1996 for euro countries (and 2006 for the colonies) but from 20098 for the UK.

It could be that nearly all construction in the UK in that year was done by robots with only a few going berserk and killing everything in their path with ruthless efficiency. A bit like Germans.

I wouldn't trust figures extrapolated that far into the future...

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

To be fair, the figures in the table are from 1996 for euro countries (and 2006 for the colonies) but from 20098 for the UK.

It could be that nearly all construction in the UK in that year was done by robots with only a few going berserk and killing everything in their path with ruthless efficiency. A bit like Germans.

Or that we weren't building much in 2009 (or possibly 8) due to the economic downturn so those who were employed were more likely doing minor repairs, snagging and "care and maintenance" than using dangerous heavy machinery to actually achieve anything.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

No, no Geni, you've got this totally wrong. The working time directive severely hampers British productivity and our ability to be competitive in the modern world (never mind we have a personal opt out). For proof of this look at the productivity and economic growth rates of a country in the EU, say Germany - they've fully implemented the working time directive and thanks to all that useless EU imposed bureaucracy, paperwork and "workers' rights" nonsense they are way behind us in economic growth rates and productivity and have been ever since it became a EU wide directive....*

The working time directive as implemented in the UK does seem like pointless paperwork - what does it actually achieve?

If you want to work more than 48 hours, you can opt out.

If you don't, you can't officially be forced to, but lets face it in the current economic environment is anyone really going to turn round and cite the 48 hour limit?

So you end up with firms obliged to get paperwork for people to opt out, which if they don't have they are exposed to a fine should those people actually want to work more than 48 hours.

And of course it gets used in stupid situations that it is wholly inappropriate for - like classing a warden who live in a sheltered housing block as being working all the time they are there and on call.

 

[geni]

The working time directive as implemented in the UK does seem like pointless paperwork - what does it actually achieve?

If you want to work more than 48 hours, you can opt out.

If you don't, you can't officially be forced to, but lets face it in the current economic environment is anyone really going to turn round and cite the 48 hour limit?

Junior doctors. Aditionaly the fact that someone can cite it provides a good reason for companies not to run with core hours of greater than 48 hours a week.

 

[geni]

Or that we weren't building much in 2009 (or possibly 8) due to the economic downturn so those who were employed were more likely doing minor repairs, snagging and "care and maintenance" than using dangerous heavy machinery to actually achieve anything.

Repairs and the like are actualy more dangerious since you don't know what you are dealing with. And heavy machinery dosen't generaly cause deaths by falling from hight.

 

[geni]

Or they should be viewed as a minimum standard.

Doesn't work like that. If something meets the EU's standards for say a safety harness then we have to accept it as a safety harness.

 

[Darat]

Doesn't work like that. If something meets the EU's standards for say a safety harness then we have to accept it as a safety harness.

No we don't, you can always purchase something with a higher specification if you want to.

 

[geni]

No we don't, you can always purchase something with a higher specification if you want to.

You can but the real world tends not to work like that. People will go by what something is called. If it is called a life jacked they will not unreasonably assume it is a life jacket. Thanks to the EU that is no longer the case.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Junior doctors. Aditionaly the fact that someone can cite it provides a good reason for companies not to run with core hours of greater than 48 hours a week.

"A survey of 470 junior doctors conducted by the British Medical Association (BMA) found that nearly two-thirds of respondents felt compliance with the new rules would have a "negative effect" on their training."

http://www.personneltoday.com/artic...-of-working-time-directive-on-skills-and.html

Great, the doctors aren't tired, but they aren't as well trained either. Unless of course they have opted out, which you have no way of knowing when you go to them for treatment and which they have a clear incentive to do so that they receive an adequate training.

 

[Darat]

You can but the real world tends not to work like that. People will go by what something is called. If it is called a life jacked they will not unreasonably assume it is a life jacket. Thanks to the EU that is no longer the case.

That would only make any kind of sense if something that was a labelled a "life jacket" did the opposite and actually reduced your risk of surviving.

 

[Darat]

"A survey of 470 junior doctors conducted by the British Medical Association (BMA) found that nearly two-thirds of respondents felt compliance with the new rules would have a "negative effect" on their training."

http://www.personneltoday.com/artic...-of-working-time-directive-on-skills-and.html

Great, the doctors aren't tired, but they aren't as well trained either. Unless of course they have opted out, which you have no way of knowing when you go to them for treatment and which they have a clear incentive to do so that they receive an adequate training.

Perceptions are not always accurate. I've no idea - is there evidence that changes have had a negative effect on their training (that translate to worse/better Drs)?

 

[The Don]

The working time directive as implemented in the UK does seem like pointless paperwork - what does it actually achieve?

If you want to work more than 48 hours, you can opt out.

If you don't, you can't officially be forced to, but lets face it in the current economic environment is anyone really going to turn round and cite the 48 hour limit?

So you end up with firms obliged to get paperwork for people to opt out, which if they don't have they are exposed to a fine should those people actually want to work more than 48 hours.

And of course it gets used in stupid situations that it is wholly inappropriate for - like classing a warden who live in a sheltered housing block as being working all the time they are there and on call.

I don't think the UK should aspire to being the lowest paying, longest working economy in the EU. I appreciate that this would give an economic advantage but I'd prefer our advantage to be on the basis of innovation or efficiency as opposed to just working longer for less.

Even if there are large-scale opt outs (and the case of the IT industry, hardly anyone I know logs hours worked, just days) it is a good aspiration.

When I was a pup I used to work for a large American consultancy who prided themselves on the hours they encouraged their people to work (get in before the client, leave after the client). In part this was because they billed by the hour but paid by the day (so if you worked an 80 hour 5 day week they got twice the revenue for no extra cost) and in part it was the culture of "my gentleman's part is bigger than your gentleman's part". As a consequence 100 hour work weeks (with commuting on top of this) were not unusual, 70-80 hours was considered just about pulling your weight. This quickly changed when there was a string of fatalities with employees falling asleep at the wheel in the middle of the night trying to get home. I can't say that company culture turned around on a sixpence but at least there was an aspiration to work more reasonable hours.

I view the 48 hour limit as being this kind of aspiration

 

[Debaser]

http://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/european/european-comparisons.pdf

Comparison of deaths and injuries at work in 2007.

Sometimes, as a nation, we actually are quite good at things, and ahead of the curve.



Strange, but true.

 

[geni]

That would only make any kind of sense if something that was a labelled a "life jacket" did the opposite and actually reduced your risk of surviving.

Compared to what was labled a life jacket Pre EU it does.

 

[geni]

"A survey of 470 junior doctors conducted by the British Medical Association (BMA) found that nearly two-thirds of respondents felt compliance with the new rules would have a "negative effect" on their training."

http://www.personneltoday.com/artic...-of-working-time-directive-on-skills-and.html

Great, the doctors aren't tired, but they aren't as well trained either. Unless of course they have opted out, which you have no way of knowing when you go to them for treatment and which they have a clear incentive to do so that they receive an adequate training.

I suspect regardsless of the claims the actual complaint is that when you have junior doctors limited to 48 hour weeks they get a lot more night shifts.

 

[Darat]

Compared to what was labled a life jacket Pre EU it does.

Rubbish.