Today members of the European Parliament showed us just how much power the EU juggernaut can wield over its members and ultimately its citizens. MEPs voted 421-273 to scrap Britain’s opt-out from the maximum 48-hour working week. The 48-hour limit already exists in many EU countries, such as France, where market flexibility is perhaps not as important as workers rights. The bill was pushed through the EP after many doctors across the EU have filed lawsuits against hospitals for not complying with rulings from the European Court of Justice regarding working-time limits. This is a clear demonstration of the ECJ’s increasing role in European integration, however indirectly.
The working week limit will surely benefit doctors, teachers and other over-worked public servants, but it will not help graduates and young professional couples who need to work 55 hours a week in order to pay their mortgage. Some may argue that people should not work more than 48 hours for their own health and piece of mind, but if they choose to work so many hours, then so be it – more work can only benefit the economy at large.
15 EU countries, including the UK, are beneficiaries of the opt-out, so it is unlikely that an agreement will be reached between the EP and the Council of Ministers. Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not against the European project, but it’s frightening that in an economic climate such as this, the European Union can have so much control over our right, our need even, to go out and earn a bit of extra dosh. Even more frightening is the fact that Gordon Brown clearly has no control over British MEPs, many of whom are Labour. Tory MEP Philip Bushell-Matthews summed up Big G’s failures quite nicely in today’s Guardian:
“This is a double failure of Gordon Brown. Not only has he failed to control his MEPs, but he also naively signed up to a package deal that saw Britain give ground on the agency workers directive in exchange for our working time opt-out.
His folly was to assume the left in the European parliament would not sabotage the deal. British businesses have been given two damaging pieces of employment legislation for the price of one”.
This post was written my Kathryn Woodroof, BULS member
It would be great if you could show a little more respect to your Labour MEPs and from the Socialist Group – like MPs they are democratically elected to represent citizens – if anything the EU juggernaut you talk about has been dominated by the conservative right both at the European Commission (Barroso) and in the Parliament.
Don’t you remember that it was the Tories who opted out of the 48 hour week in 1992?
Doesn’t it outrage you that anyone would need to work 55 hours to pay their mortgage – should we get down on our knees for employers and landlords or should we fight for the right to a living wage and the right to spend time with our partners, families, carers?
Evidence links long working hours to stress related illness and family problems, but I guess as long as we’re good little consumers benefiting the economy then that’s OK?
Maybe you need to get back onto the doorstep if you think only doctors have been campaigning to end the opt out!
People have the right to work as much or as little as they please. Noone should tell us or legislate otherwise. What about those who do not have families and want to spend their time earning rather than sitting at home staring in to space?
What about those who do have families but want to work more to give their family more luxuries in life? What about those who need to work more because they lose a partner or dont have enough to make ends meet? Should they be denied their chance because a few self righteous bureaucrats think we need more leisure time?! That is a matter of choice for the individual… not the state or any other government body.
As far as I am concerned Kathryn is spot on in her assessment that the EU is a juggernaut which once again is coercing the British in to following their lead. Incidently you talk of elected representatives noel but what about the fact that the British government and opposition are in agreement that the working week should not be capped? I think you will find that they were elected by a darnsight more people than the MEPs were. Do their views not matter?
Either way I am pleased that the government have pledged to keep Britains opt out of the 48 hour week regardless of what the EU say although personally Id feel more comfortable assuming the conservatives get in in the next election as you can bet your bottom dollar they will tell the Brussels Bureaucrats where to go.
People don’t have the right to work as much or as little as possible. Many are subject to a cap of 48 hours. The vast majority have no actionable right to work little as they will starve to death.
It’s all very well writing down a right to not work on a nice piece of legal paper, or in a grand philosophical manuscript. But it makes no difference as to whether people actually have it.
Separate point, but I’m amazed that Labour Party members still denounce the EU as a juggernaut in this day and age. This article combines a misguided Bennite attitude to the EU with a heavy dose of Thatcherite economics.
“Should they be denied their chance because a few self righteous bureaucrats think we need more leisure time?! ”
This argument applies to all EU law… put in place according to treaties agreed by democratic states, and with oversight from a parliament far more democratic than that of the UK (though, that said I’m very sceptical about the power of the Commision etc.)
“what about the fact that the British government and opposition are in agreement that the working week should not be capped? ”
They are both agreed that we should be members of the European Union and subject therefore to the supremacy of its legal structures.
As for 48 hours itself, surely CEOs and shareholders should pay graduates enough for them not to have to work back breaking hours? If they’re being payed more for these hours anyway then the finance exists! I don’t therefore see why doing less work for the same money is bad for the employees in question.
It’s just bad for gross profit. So let’s be honest about the argument against the limit, which is 100% about profit and business viability, not the welfare of workers.
People don’t “have the right to work as much or as little as they please”, but it seems that’s what you want. If people should have the right to work as long as they please and “noone should tell us or legislate otherwise” people should also have the right not work at all and, of course, even a Conservative government couldn’t just let them starve: they’d need to be provided for. The result: the largest expansion of the benefit system in living memory. Is that really what you want? No, it isn’t. So, if people don’t have the “right” to be unemployed, why should they have the “right” to work as long as they wish? Do you also want people destroying themselves, their families, their lives due to greed or, worse still, because they are forced to work longer than is healthy? No, unless, of course, you’re one of the people who’s selling the produce of their labour.
You talk about “rights”, but it’s always convenient to hide behind the shield of liberalism – the “freedom to choose”, in order to ignore oppression. Why would you, or indeed anyone, do such a thing? Perhaps because you “don’t believe it right that this country should be ruled, have almost all it’s laws, made by totally unelected foreigners, over whom we have no possibility of any control”, at least that’s how Nick Griffin puts it.
Be reasonable – 48 hours is enough; do the sums and you’ll find it’s 9 hours and 36 minutes five days a week / eight hours six days a week, which doesn’t give you that much time to spend “staring into space”. In any case, (even after this legislation is passed) there will still be no laws to prevent people from spending as much time as they want doing work outside of official hours, if they’re that stuck for things to do. This legislation stops or at least severely limits exploitation of workers through the use of long working hours, perhaps, at the cost of “free choice”, but in law there cannot be a distinction between those who work excessive hours of their own free will and those who are forced to do so by unscrupulous employers.
If you’re not outraged that anyone would need to work 9-5 everyday from Monday to Saturday just to “make ends meet”, then you’re obviously not paying attention. There should be no need for people to work any longer just to survive, no matter their circumstances. Remember, these calculations don’t take account of preparation outside of working hours and, even if they did, my stance would be the same. The answer isn’t to force employees to work even longer by denying this legislation, but to force the companies to give them higher wages. This is the most likely reason the government doesn’t particularly like this legislation: if people can’t be made to work longer, the government will have no choice but to raise the minimum wage.
People on the lowest wages are already entitled to have their earnings “topped up” by the state and isn’t the cornerstone of Conservatism to save government money? Or is that the Party’s ability to be uninterruptedly dominated by the economic elite? I can never remember…
The EU doesn’t just “think we need more leisure time”. Do you really believe that they haven’t done any research on this topic, that they just plucked the idea out of thin air? I sincerely doubt it. Furthermore, as a member of the European Union we are bound to follow it’s rules. To opt out of legislation we at least need a legitimate reason. Do we have a legitimate reason? The MEPs don’t seem to think so.
Seeing as, in your view, people should be able to choose to damage their health through excessive work so they can make more money, then you must also agree that we should legalise dangerous drugs. After all, what’s the difference? Drugs allow people to escape reality, they’re addictive, they give a lot of people pleasure, they completely ruin your family life and they can, in the long term, severely damage your health. The same applies to working excessive hours, so why not continue to promote freedom of choice in Britain? After all drugs too are “a matter of choice for the individual… not the state or any other government body”.
As far as MP VS MEP elections go, it’s incorrect to look at how many people actually voted in the elections, a far better analysis would be to look at the number of the people who had the chance the vote and, after doing this, you’ll find the numbers aren’t actually that different after all. No one has the right to complain about the result when the people demonstrate such indifference.
On one final note, “noone” is actually spelt “no one”, it’s also “staring into space” not “in to space” and “I’d” not “Id” (the latter being the a component of Freud’s structure of the mind, as you probably know).
Good day.
“people should also have the right not work at all”
Therein lies the fundamental breaking point between the Tories and Labour. We will NEVER accept that anyone who is physically able to work can have the option not to. Working to support yourself and the economy in so far as you are physically able as far as I am concerned is non negotiable. Working a bit extra to earn a bit more for your family by contrast is your perogative as it does not impact on anyone else negatively. Not working at all however for no bloody reason other than you are a lazy f**k is a drain on the state and taxpayers as a whole.
If you enjoy the benefits of the nation: free health, education, protection from the police, fire and military you HAVE to contribute if you are physically able. So no… working a bit extra to support yourself is your choice… prefering to sit on your backside while the rest of the country subsidises your lazy ass is NOT a choice.
The fact is that there could be some families in Britain which due to unforseen circumstances (like the sudden death of the primary breadwinner) need to be able to work as many hours as possible so as not to default on all their commitments and lose everything else. They should not be told that they physically cannot work just because a few self righteous bureaucrats think we need ‘a bit more leisure time’. Leisure should be taken when the individual so choses and if some people prefer to work why should they be told they cant? That is opression my friend.
You’re making out like Britain is some kind of 3rd world state, where we are overly worked, under paid and expolited by the employers. Alot of legislation has been passed which ensures we recieve adequate breaktimes, which ensures our rights as employees are protected but ultimately the ‘economy doesnt sleep’ and if people want to work more to make money then let them.
Incidently how many people do you know that work more than 48 hours a week? Personally I know nobody that does… and Id wager youor anyone else doesnt either. Therefore ‘this legislation is typical EU: UNNECCESSARY. However there may be some individuals in the country who may in the future need to work longer hours as the economy collapses around their ears, if they are willing to they should be able to work. There is absolutely no need for this kind of legislation.
Although i grant you the likihood of anyone wanting to work more than 48 hours is slim its not impossible and thus we shouldnt legislate on it. I f it is to the detriment of one single person who needs and wants to work a bit extra to support their family than we have no right to tell them not to. Also sometimes what we want to do and what we need to do are not one in the same. If a parent doesnt have enough to make ends meet a good parent will work more to get it even if they dont want to and even if it means working all the hours god sends, they want and need to do it for their kids. A bad parent will sit back and let the state subsidise them.
Incidently people demonstrate ‘indifference’ as you put it because by and large people havent an iota of respect for Brussels. The last polls show a clear majority opposed to closer integration and an increasing number in favour of pulling out altogether (although admittedly not a majority yet). Its legislation like this that is pushing people in to the euro-sceptic camp.
In actual fact, we are in agreement on at least your first point: any adult who is capable of working and is below the retirement age is under an obligation to work for the well being of the state, it is, as you say, (and the majority of people would agree) “non negotiable”, except, of course, if there is a legitimate reason not to work. In fact, you seem to have contradicted your earlier statement, which was what my first comment was disputing, if you’d read that paragraph as I had intended it. So: which is it? Do “People have the right to work as much or as little as they please” or do you “NEVER accept that anyone who is physically able to work can have the option not to”?
The government has a duty to help people who are victims of unforeseen circumstances so that they don’t lose everything. Specialised circumstances require specialised legislation. Wives having to work impossible hours, because their husbands have died, is simply unfair and if they can be taken advantage of in this way, the government doesn’t have any other option other than to protect them from their misfortune. And that’s what they need to do.
We may not live in a “third world state”, as you so aptly put it, but that doesn’t mean that employers won’t go as far as they can to maximise profits. Because it’s the only reason their company exists: to make money and the more money they can make the better. That’s why people need protection.
This isn’t about personal experience; anecdotes of what you have or have not seen are virtually irrelevant. Capping working hours is the right thing to do, not only to stop that form of exploitation, but also to bind the countries of the European Union closer together through their mutual adherence to common laws. This legislation is virtually inevitable, as, at some point, we will have to start following our own organisation’s rules.
Don’t take polls too literally, as they can only ever review a minority of the overall population and even if they do virtually represent various groups, they still gain only a collection of individuals’ opinions. In fact, you tell us more about what you think, rather than what the public believes. By the way you represent these polls, wherever you may have taken them from, indicates that you want the United Kingdom to pull out of the European Union altogether. If that is true, you actually oppose the Conservative Party.
“People have the right to work as much or as little as they please”
ahh I see what youre getting at…. what I meant by that was as much or as little *overtime as they please. Apologies for the confusion but anyone who knows me that I believe it is a given that people are required and expected to work (as long as they are physically and mentally able) and as such I just took the fact they have to work as a given and focused on overtime without being explicit.
Look I think we’re going round in circles. You believe its good to cap hours in case workers exploit their employees. I do not believe there is any credible evidence to suggest that this occurs. Whats more in Britain that type of thing is already closely monitored and there are many ways in which the rights of workers are protected and enshrined in law. My view is that those who want to work extra should have the option no foreign body should tell them otherwise.
“If that is true, you actually oppose the Conservative Party.”
Haha… youve only just heard?…. part of the reason the Conservative Party has been the most formidable and successful party in British (indeed world) political history lies in the fact that we are ‘a broad church’. We are pragmatic rather than ideological. As much as we may from time to time embrace certain ideologies, particularly when deployed against other ideologies, we are by and large pragmatic. Our membership is as diverse as our political opinions. BUCF in particular prides itself on its diversity of opinion. It makes for lively and healthy debate and Europe is definately one of the areas I diverge from the current party line however members of my committee would (and do) disagree entirely with me.
Back on topic… my argument is simple: If any such legislation is to be brought forward limiting the working hours of British workers then it is a matter for the BRITISH Parliament. Just as the french, dutch or german would be a matter for their respective legislative bodies. I disagree entirely with the attitude of Europe that they are some kind of ‘boad church’ that can issue policy blue prints for every member state to follow. Europe is incredibly diverse and this should be respected not restricted. So whilst I disagree with the notion of capping working hours I would say if there is going to be a vote on it it should be in the commons where all the members have been elected by the British people.