EU votes against freedom!!!!!

[crabapple]

What do you mean unofficially? As in under the table, illegally?

Let me explain like this. You can work more then 8 hours a day if you are given overtime pay, and as you are the owner of your enterprise you can always choose what pay you want as normal and overtime pay thereby this rule doesnt affect the owner of the company but it do affect the people working for you

 

[crabapple]

You're forgetting that there are people who need to work more than 48 hours per week, or else they can't feed their families.

then they work overtime and is given more PAY and thereby not need to work that much anymore!

 

[ori]

How in the world can a small business survive if you don't let them work more than 48 hours per week?

uh you can work unoffically as a owner. And people can always work more for overtime pay, with is more then normal pay

ehm no.

Article 6
Maximum weekly working time
Member States shall take the measures necessary to ensure that, in keeping with the need to protect the safety and health of workers:
(a) the period of weekly working time is limited by means of laws, regulations or administrative provisions or by collective agreements or agreements between the two sides of industry;
(b) the average working time for each seven-day period, including overtime, does not exceed 48 hours.

however there are certain exceptions that do mostly benefit small businesses:

Article 17
Derogations
1. With due regard for the general principles of the protection of the safety and health of workers, Member States may derogate from Articles 3 to 6, 8 and 16 when, on account of the specific characteristics of the activity concerned, the duration of the working time is not measured and/or predetermined or can be determined by the workers themselves, and particularly in the case of:
(a) managing executives or other persons with autonomous decision-taking powers;
(b) family workers; or
(c) workers officiating at religious ceremonies in churches and religious communities.

there is one more exception from the 48hours for sea going vessels and offshore workers but I don't think that is of interest here

I am unsure as to how I stand with regards to this. The previous opt-out that Britain introduced but that was unspecific enough for all Member States to follow was in fact used to de facto ignore this directive. On the other hand while most of the other rules in this directive (including minimum rest periods and the like) can very well be defended with public health reasons these hard limits on work hours are too restrictive for most businesses imho (note: not even emergencies allow going over 48h per week within any 4 month period - so I can very easily create a scenario were people have to break this law in order to save lives...).
Now we'll have to see how this is going to be applied.

 

[Jazzmail]

You're forgetting that there are people who need to work more than 48 hours per week, or else they can't feed their families.

That's what minimum wages are for. I don't know how it is in your country, but not being abel to feed your family on a 48 hour per week job?! That sucks.
Raising minimum wages may be justified here.

 

[ori]

The EU does not have a minimum wage - and many member states don't have one either... Of course in most of them social security systems provide a de facto floor for take-home salary...

 

[Mise]

That's what minimum wages are for. I don't know how it is in your country, but not being abel to feed your family on a 48 hour per week job?! That sucks.
Raising minimum wages may be justified here.

Err, you don't just spend money on food, you know. You have to pay rent, electricity, central heating, water, tax, etc etc etc. A single mother with two children being paid £6 per hour for 48 hrs per week earns £230 after tax. She has to pay all of these bills, AND feed and clothe 3 people. On £230 per week. Every hour she works is vital to her children's survival.

Secondly, you don't get something for nothing. If you increase minimum wage, either fewer workers will be employed, or those workers will be employed for fewer hours, or businesses will have to increase prices, meaning real wages go lower again. Plus, for people who are unemployed, they're made even worse off by rising cost of living. You can't just say, "hey! businesses! Give workers more money!"

 

[crabapple]

ehm no.




however there are certain exceptions that do mostly benefit small businesses:




there is one more exception from the 48hours for sea going vessels and offshore workers but I don't think that is of interest here

I am unsure as to how I stand with regards to this. The previous opt-out that Britain introduced but that was unspecific enough for all Member States to follow was in fact used to de facto ignore this directive. On the other hand while most of the other rules in this directive (including minimum rest periods and the like) can very well be defended with public health reasons these hard limits on work hours are too restrictive for most businesses imho (note: not even emergencies allow going over 48h per week within any 4 month period - so I can very easily create a scenario were people have to break this law in order to save lives...).
Now we'll have to see how this is going to be applied.

well then its wierd that most people i know work much more then 48 hours a day, maybe there is some loop hole somewhere in the law or they work on their "free time" without pay

EDIT: I think i know how they do it, the law says average with means when they work more then 48 hours but then go on longer holidays whenever it doesnt break the law. But considering for most people the extra holiday is mostly not used becouse its hard to take the holiday out

 

[Mise]

well then its wierd that most people i know work much more then 48 hours a day, maybe there is some loop hole somewhere in the law or they work on their "free time" without pay

Maybe it's just another a useless, ineffectual EU directive?

 

[ori]

well then its wierd that most people i know work much more then 48 hours a day, maybe there is some loop hole somewhere in the law or they work on their "free time" without pay

Maybe it's just another a useless, ineffectual EU directive?

The loop hole is what the EP wants to remove - it is this one:

Article 22
Miscellaneous provisions
1. A Member State shall have the option not to apply Article 6, while respecting the general principles of the protection of the safety and health of workers, and provided it takes the necessary measures to ensure that:
(a) no employer requires a worker to work more than 48 hours over a seven-day period, calculated as an average for the reference period referred to in Article 16(b), unless he has first obtained the worker's agreement to perform such work;
(b) no worker is subjected to any detriment by his employer because he is not willing to give his agreement to perform such work;
(c) the employer keeps up-to-date records of all workers who carry out such work;
(d) the records are placed at the disposal of the competent authorities, which may, for reasons connected with the safety and/or health of workers, prohibit or restrict the possibility of exceeding the maximum weekly working hours;
(e) the employer provides the competent authorities at their request with information on cases in which agreement has been given by workers to perform work exceeding 48 hours over a period of seven days, calculated as an average for the reference period referred to in Article 16(b).

which essentially removes the 48 hours limit completely - since even without any proof you can safely assume that anyone who refuses to work more than 48 hours will either not be hired or will loose his job very soon

in this respect I love the provision in (b) - yeah right that is going to happen

 

[Mise]

The loop hole is what the EP wants to remove - it is this one:




which essentially removes the 48 hours limit completely - since even without any proof you can safely assume that anyone who refuses to work more than 48 hours will either not be hired or will loose his job very soon

in this respect I love the provision in (b) - yeah right that is going to happen

I opted in and I still have my job

then again I don't think I've worked a full 8 hour day in my life.

 

[Brighteye]

well then its wierd that most people i know work much more then 48 hours a day, maybe there is some loop hole somewhere in the law or they work on their "free time" without pay

Maybe it's just another a useless, ineffectual EU directive?

I would like very much to be able to work much more than 48 hours a day. If you could tell me, crabapple, how it's done, I'd be glad. The most I seem to manage is about 16 hours.

 

[Jazzmail]

Err, you don't just spend money on food, you know. You have to pay rent, electricity, central heating, water, tax, etc etc etc. A single mother with two children being paid £6 per hour for 48 hrs per week earns £230 after tax.

Okay, so it officially sucks over there.

Now you can have this single mother working 80 hrs per week for a crap wage and no time for raising her children, let alone time for courses and a chance at a better job.

Secondly, you don't get something for nothing. If you increase minimum wage, either fewer workers will be employed, or those workers will be employed for fewer hours, or businesses will have to increase prices, meaning real wages go lower again.

If the work needs to be done, they will hire.

Plus, for people who are unemployed, they're made even worse off by rising cost of living. You can't just say, "hey! businesses! Give workers more money!"

This is exactly what western europe has done in the 20th century and it has been a nice improvement over 19th century capitalism.

 

[amadeus]

This is exactly what western europe has done in the 20th century and it has been a nice improvement over 19th century capitalism.

No, it was because the volume of wealth expanded so rapidly thanks to mass production and improvements in technology.

Dictating wages to businesses is just going to drive up prices. It won't have any positive effects for those in the lower income groups.

 

[Bill3000]

negative income tax > minimum wage

 

[Jazzmail]

No, it was because the volume of wealth expanded so rapidly thanks to mass production and improvements in technology.

Dictating wages to businesses is just going to drive up prices. It won't have any positive effects for those in the lower income groups.

Without unions, minimum wages and other social measures in the past, the lower class would still have been dirt poor.
More wealth doesn't mean more wealth for all.

 

[Mise]

Okay, so it officially sucks over there.

Now you can have this single mother working 80 hrs per week for a crap wage and no time for raising her children, let alone time for courses and a chance at a better job.

Currently, she has the choice to work 40hrs per week, or to work 80hrs per week if she wants. The EU is eliminating that choice. There is no benefit to eliminating that choice -- she can already work only 48 hours if she wants to!

If the work needs to be done, they will hire.

Except we're entering a recession Businesses are shedding jobs left right and centre. 187,000 people lost their jobs in the three months to October, and far more than that will be lost in October to December. Wages are being cut. Jobs are being lost. Take-home pay is falling. People are struggling to earn enough to pay their bills. Yet you want to force people to earn even less?

If people want to work more hours to supplement their basic pay, they should be allowed to. They should not be denied the opportunity to work.

This is exactly what western europe has done in the 20th century and it has been a nice improvement over 19th century capitalism.

That statement proves that either (a) you don't know much about economic history, or (b) you're being deliberately disingenuous.

 

[REDY]

Oh shut up We have 40 hours max here, so who's the socialist?

AFAIK this rule doesn't limit overtime work, so what's the problem?

Have you read what I have wrote or are you completely out of reality now I feel that somewhat personal when you are attacking any my post, that "your english suck" posts were at least logical.
I see it in hospital and private industry company, everybody is simply ignoring that restrictions.

Edit:2400th post

 

[really]

It has already been said but the 48 hour week is an average over several weeks and includes overtime.

This is mostly based on protecting workers but also partly on the bad economics of if 3 people are working 50 hours a week and you force them to work only 37.5 hours a week you have created another job.

Of my experience of this across Europe the only people who seem to work standard weeks without either loosing potential income or time off are public servants.

 

[Jazzmail]

Currently, she has the choice to work 40hrs per week, or to work 80hrs per week if she wants. The EU is eliminating that choice. There is no benefit to eliminating that choice -- she can already work only 48 hours if she wants to!

She doesn't want to. She now HAS to. Maybe child support isn't such a bad idea.

Except we're entering a recession Businesses are shedding jobs left right and centre. 187,000 people lost their jobs in the three months to October, and far more than that will be lost in October to December. Wages are being cut. Jobs are being lost.

Having people work longer doesn't create jobs. It does the opposite. You're not creating more work if you have people work longer, you'll have fewer people employed.

That statement proves that either (a) you don't know much about economic history, or (b) you're being deliberately disingenuous.

Great, now I'll have to listen to your version of history.

 

[amadeus]

Without unions, minimum wages and other social measures in the past, the lower class would still have been dirt poor.
More wealth doesn't mean more wealth for all.

I don't accept the premise that more wealth doesn't get spread around. What kind of company is going to be successful if it limits its consumer base to a tiny fraction of the population? That might have been possible 100 years ago, but it isn't possible today.

And if a business decides to pay its employees $.01/hour, who will work for it? The labor market today is very competitive and no one company would be able to successfully hold a monopoly position that would cause such a fall in incomes.