EU votes against freedom!!!!!

[amadeus]

'cuz they can't afford it or want to maximize profits? If everyone's giving crap wages, and an ample workforce is working for that amount, what incentive does an owner of a business have in creating higher wages?

Businesses do it all the time, they constantly compete for good employees with better wages.

What's the population of Zimbabwe again?

13 million. However, we are not talking about Zimbabweans but people in Great Britain. Besides, Western-style capitalism isn't allowed in Zimbabwe anyway so the problem is the fault of Mugabe's grand socialist schemes.

 

[Mise]

Well if it's enshrined in law that no one can work more than 48 hours for an employer, the problem is eliminated anyway.

Well my point was that if employers currently shirk the EU directive at present -- that is, ignore the law that states that (a) they must allow people the option to work a maximum of 48 hours, and (b) they must not discriminate against those people -- then they will continue to ignore the EU directive in the future. They're already doing something illegal by ignoring the current EU directive. If the wording of that directive is changed from "optional" to "mandatory", then why wouldn't they continue to ignore it?

I don't doubt that many employers ignore the directive, and discriminate against people who opt-in. And I don't doubt that those unscrupulous employers will continue to ignore the directive in the future, regardless of its wording.

 

[Bill3000]

If people want to 100 hours, 140 hours or 168 hours, it's none of my business. If, however, a significant number of people are regularly working 100 hours a week, then our economy has serious structural problems that I would seek to address directly. Mandating any kind of limit on how long people should be allowed to work will not address those problems. It's tackling the symptoms, not the disease. The concept is flawed, for this reason.

What the heck do you mean that it's none of your business? Is it none of your business if we allowed indentured servitude or allowed people to sell themselves into slavery? How is this any different? We disallow certain contracts for ethical reasons, because we don't want people to be treated in an unjust or cruel matter. The economics of the situation is irrelevent; slavery ought to be banned regardless of the negative effects its banning would have on the economy. This is the same thing. This is simply a matter of prohibiting people from harming other people.

If it was seriously "none of your business", then you would be calling for the outlawing of labor laws, but I presume that you don't. As I said before, this is a matter of how much is exploitation, not whether or not there should be a ban on exploitation.

 

[ComradeDavo]

It's not exploitation; you're volunteering your time in exchange for payment. If my boss wanted me to work more than 40 hours a week, I'd tell him to go stuff it and find another job. It's really as easy as that.

No it's not. You have a very distorted view of how 'easy' it is to find a job. The UK is in recession and we have the highest number of jobless in years (highest number since 1997 in fact). One of the most well known UK stores, Woolworths, is actually closing down in january.

Well, then what if you want to work more than 48 hours a week? Let's say you've got a job you find fulfilling and you've got no family? What if your job pays well and you want to be better off?

Well ideally we would have a situation where you can easily sign a bit of paper if you want to work more, your descion not your employers. Thats how it's meant to be but It's not as easy as that, as there are job shortages so employers can pressure people who are scared of being made unemployed if they don't do as asked.

 

[bhsup]

There's a line between whats best for the buisness and exploitation. I think making someone reguarly work over 48 hours a week is expoloitation.

There is nothing wrong with a 50-60. hour work week. I am not saying 40/48 is unacceptable, but to say more than that is exploitation is just silly.

Remember, idle hands are the devil's playground.

 

[Mise]

What the heck do you mean that it's none of your business? Is it none of your business if we allowed indentured servitude or allowed people to sell themselves into slavery? How is this any different? We disallow certain contracts for ethical reasons, because we don't want people to be treated in an unjust or cruel matter. The economics of the situation is irrelevent; slavery ought to be banned regardless of the negative effects its banning would have on the economy. This is the same thing. This is simply a matter of prohibiting people from harming other people.

If it was seriously "none of your business", then you would be calling for the outlawing of labor laws, but I presume that you don't.

Those labour laws already prevent slavery and indentured labour. As I said, if someone is required to work 100 hour weeks just to make ends meet, then there are deeper, structural flaws that need to be addressed. Those structural flaws are not addressed by a mandatory ceiling on hours worked. Working 100 hours a week is the symptom, not the cause. Capping working hours tackles the symptoms, not the cause. The directive is fundamentally flawed, for this reason.

 

[RedRalph]

Remember also - there is no devil

 

[bhsup]

Remember also - there is no devil

Excellent, plan proceeding on schedule!

 

[Jazzmail]

What do you mean by "burden to perform" (who's performance, what does "burden" mean in this context?)

The burden to perform is that a business has to make a product at a competitive price. Wages and secondary benefits are only a part of that equation.

If a company cannot reduce benefits, cut vacation days, pay lower wages, etc. it may have to, for example, cut management layers or innovate in order to compete better and still be succesful. Competition will have shifted a little further to other aspects of running a business.

"lower wage cost" (how will the EU directive result in lower wage costs?), "easier to compete" (for who?), "competition" (between workers? or between employers?)?

If you can hire one man to do the job for two, working twice aslong, you can have twice as many potential candidates for the same position. The candidates effectively compete with eachother. They'll work for less.

 

[amadeus]

No it's not. You have a very distorted view of how 'easy' it is to find a job.

It's easy in that the employer is not obliged to hire you for the purpose of giving you a comfortable life. The employer is in a privileged position here.

 

[Mise]

A limit is good because it makes employable adults compete a little less against eachother and shift some of the burden to perform better to the employer.

If companies can have wage slaves, who barely make a living with long hours, they will. Lower wage costs will make it easier to compete.
So for competion to remain fair and make a higher standard possible, you will need a level playing field and laws that apply to all.

The burden to perform is that a business has to make a product at a competitive price. Wages and secondary benefits are only a part of that equation.

If a company cannot reduce benefits, cut vacation days, pay lower wages, etc. it may have to, for example, cut management layers or innovate in order to compete better and still be succesful. Competition will have shifted a little further to other aspects of running a business.

Companies can do either or both of those things at any time. If the company chooses to cut wages or jobs on lower paid workers instead of cutting wages or jobs on higher paid workers, it's because the company will make more profit from doing so. If the company is instead forced to keep wages and jobs on lower paid, it will be to the detriment of the company. The company will lose money. And that means more job losses for everyone.

However, companies are cutting pay and jobs across their entire business. It's not just low-paid workers that are being affected by this recession; actually, it's the reverse.

If you can hire one man to do the job for two, working twice aslong, you can have twice as many potential candidates for the same position. The candidates effectively compete with eachother. They'll work for less.

1. Not everyone is willing to work twice as long, so the difference isn't such a simple arithmetic calculation.

2. If a company can employ a worker for £8 per hour instead of £9 an hour, it will save £1 per hour. That means that it can reduce prices on its goods, making its goods cheaper. It also increases the profits of the company, allowing it to employ more people. Additionally, cheaper goods means that the living costs of everyone falls -- including those who are unemployed or employed in other lower paying jobs.

On the other hand, if a company has to pay £1 extra per hour, it has to charge more for its goods, meaning everyone loses out -- including those who are unemployed or working other jobs -- by having to pay more for goods. It also means the company makes less profit, meaning it won't employ as many people in the future.

3. We're entering a recession, in which businesses all over the country are losing money and making massive losses. By forcing companies to pay more for labour than they need to, those companies will make even more losses. Companies who make losses can't afford to keep workers employed; they will make people redundant.

 

[Oruc]

Are people being forced to work more then 48 hrs in places? Couldn't they just refuse.

 

[EnglishEdward]

How this works in practice is, when you start a job, you have to tick a box to say whether you agree to work longer than 48 hours per week. So, if you don't tick the box, you cannot be expected to work more than 48 hrs per week averaged over 17 weeks.

I am advised that many UK employers in the retail trade give applicants
the form earlier on in the process before offering them the job.

And if the applicant don't tick the boxes saying they will work Sunday's
and over 48 hours, then guess what? They don't offer them the job.


I started work for the UK government before this law. I won't sign.

I know what happens. Management often fails to plan and manage,
and then expects you to work long hours to cover up their failure.
They can be so dishonest. They won't ask me to work more than
48 hours. They will just demand a job is done by a particular time,
knowing full well that to do that properly would mean long hours.

Some youngers colleagues will, hoping for promotion. Maybe they
will get it, maybe they won't. I know I won't and can not be fooled.

Very occasionally I will work longer hours, but of course they then
use the EU law as an excuse not to pay me for the long hours.

Are people being forced to work more then 48 hrs in places? Couldn't they just refuse.

They can, but they don't want to be added to the top of the potential redundancies list!

 

[Oruc]

I am advised that many UK employers in the retail trade give applicants
the form earlier on in the process before offering them the job.

And if the applicant don't tick the boxes saying they will work Sunday's
and over 48 hours, then guess what? They don't offer them the job.


I started work for the UK government before this law. I won't sign.

I know what happens. Management often fails to plan and manage,
and then expects you to work long hours to cover up their failure.
They can be so dishonest. They won't ask me to work more than
48 hours. They will just demand a job is done by a particular time,
knowing full well that to do that properly would mean long hours.

Some youngers colleagues will, hoping for promotion. Maybe they
will get it, maybe they won't. I know I won't and can not be fooled.

Very occasionally I will work longer hours, but of course they then
use the EU law as an excuse not to pay me for the long hours.




They can, but they don't want to be added to the top of the potential redundancies list!

Kinda scary man, I would hate to work at a place without a Union. Guess I've been spoiled now.

 

[Jazzmail]

Companies can do either or both of those things at any time.

Unless a larger body, like a government forces companies in another directions away from cutting at the employees and seeking other ways to compete better. Many countries in the world do in fact have such social measures like minimum wages to some degree.

1. Not everyone is willing to work twice as long, so the difference isn't such a simple arithmetic calculation.

I wasn't interested in coming up with and exact figure, just the cause and effect.

2. If a company can employ a worker for £8 per hour instead of £9 an hour, it will save £1 per hour. That means that it can reduce prices on its goods, making its goods cheaper. It also increases the profits of the company, allowing it to employ more people. Additionally, cheaper goods means that the living costs of everyone falls -- including those who are unemployed or employed in other lower paying jobs.

No, because the other companies will also lower their wages. The consumers will simply have less money to spend, because their wages fell. The costs may have gone down, but so has demand for the product. It's good bye luxury goods and back to primary needs like food and booze. Just hope they don't import food from abroad.

3. We're entering a recession, in which businesses all over the country are losing money and making massive losses. By forcing companies to pay more for labour than they need to, those companies will make even more losses. Companies who make losses can't afford to keep workers employed; they will make people redundant.

Except that there will be losses to pay for in all scenarios, because the country is not going to let the unemployed masses starve.

Social-democracies are willing to put a burden on the economic system to keep the population in reasonable welfare and those economies climbed out of past recessions too. It has always worked.

 

[innonimatu]

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.

Oh, the humanity! How dare they forbid that a single mother with two children work herself to the death to feed her poor children? Single mothers should spend all their wake hours working - think of the children!

Clearly the best thing the state can do for single mother with children is to encourage their exploitation and the dumping of said children... somewhere while the mother works.

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!"

You left out a fourth possibility, that profits would be lower. Unless you assume that business have no profits at all (absurd) prices depend on costs and profits.

So what if prices are increased? Are you seriously claiming that a minimum-wage earner in, say, a fast food restaurant that had his minimum wage increased by 10% would suddenly find that all his expenses would also increase 10%? That's absurd. Very few and very particular products would become more expensive, while at the same time a particular group of low-income people would have more income to spend on any kinds of products.

Minimum wage laws cause unemployment? How many times must that notion be debunked here? I'm not bothering, rather you prove your original claim above.

 

[EnglishEdward]

Kinda scary man, I would hate to work at a place without a Union. Guess I've been spoiled now.

Actually as a civil servant I am probably better off than most employees,
but an awful lot depends upon whom you are working with at the time,
and even the best of colleagues slip up or go ill etc. from time.

My main criticism about the EU law is that it results in time spent
in complying with procedures involving recording hours worked so that
the employer can establish their misleading paper trail of innocence.

And when you realise that a measure ostensibly intoduced to save you
from working longer actually add 15 minutes to your working week,
one's natural enthusiasm to work hard often somewhat wanes.

 

[Mise]

Oh, the humanity! How dare they forbid that a single mother with two children work herself to the death to feed her poor children? Single mothers should spend all their wake hours working - think of the children!

Clearly the best thing the state can do for single mother with children is to encourage their exploitation and the dumping of said children... somewhere while the mother works.

At present, she has the choice of whether to work more hours or not. The EU directive removes that choice, and forces her to accept a lower income. At least acknowledge that simple fact...

You left out a fourth possibility, that profits would be lower. Unless you assume that business have no profits at all (absurd) prices depend on costs and profits.

If a business has lower profits, it has less money to hire new staff next year. You are correct that there are several variables in the equation; you can't change one variable without affecting one or more of the other variables.

So what if prices are increased? Are you seriously claiming that a minimum-wage earner in, say, a fast food restaurant that had his minimum wage increased by 10% would suddenly find that all his expenses would also increase 10%? That's absurd. Very few and very particular products would become more expensive, while at the same time a particular group of low-income people would have more income to spend on any kinds of products.

Minimum wage laws cause unemployment? How many times must that notion be debunked here? I'm not bothering, rather you prove your original claim above.

I support the minimum wage, because it is set at a level that does not increase unemployment significantly. However, we aren't talking about minimum wage laws, we're talking about a specific EU directive forcing people to accept a lower overall income level. Rather than forcing people to accept a lower wage, I would rather the government increased benefits such as child tax credits and unemployment benefits, imposed higher taxes on people earning more than £100,000, and lowered taxes on low income workers. That will genuinely help people through the recession, and prevent more people from slipping into poverty.

In addition, instead of reducing VAT by 2.5% (which was a stupid move by Brown ), they should have reduced employers' National Insurance contributions by 1%. It would mean that the cost of keeping people employed is reduced, so employers are more willing to keep staff employed. This prevents jobs being lost.

The EU directive is useless and ineffective. Genuine social policies that will help low income families and the unemployed escape poverty are things I support, however.

 

[Steph]

Damn, now the French will have to work 13 hours more every week to meet Brussels limit!

 

[Mise]

I am advised that many UK employers in the retail trade give applicants
the form earlier on in the process before offering them the job.

And if the applicant don't tick the boxes saying they will work Sunday's
and over 48 hours, then guess what? They don't offer them the job.


I started work for the UK government before this law. I won't sign.

I know what happens. Management often fails to plan and manage,
and then expects you to work long hours to cover up their failure.
They can be so dishonest. They won't ask me to work more than
48 hours. They will just demand a job is done by a particular time,
knowing full well that to do that properly would mean long hours.

Some youngers colleagues will, hoping for promotion. Maybe they
will get it, maybe they won't. I know I won't and can not be fooled.

Very occasionally I will work longer hours, but of course they then
use the EU law as an excuse not to pay me for the long hours.




They can, but they don't want to be added to the top of the potential redundancies list!

As I said, I don't doubt that employers already ignore the EU directive. Nor do I doubt that they will continue to ignore the directive, in the manner you suggested. It's such a useless piece of legislation...