Working time directive

[Caged]

104 hours overtime sounds like a company that hasn't hired enough staff.

 

[Diddums x]

104 hours overtime sounds like a company that hasn't hired enough staff.

Nah, it's out of hours work. We can choose to take on agency staff for the work but we prefer to collect the cash ourselves.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

Cheers. We get 1.5x for Saturdays and call outs, 2.0x Sundays and bank holidays, and when we're on call on bank holidays we also get a day in lieu. So whilst it seems like ridiculous amounts of work, the perks make it worthwhile and the pay is good.

If you're doing that amount of overtime it sounds like staffing levels are poorly managed - I'm not surprised the regional manager is clamping down on excess OT claims - it'll be cheaper to employ more people rather than pay all that overtime at inflated rates. If it's out of hours work, continental shifts could also probably fulfill the requirements more efficiently as well as they wouldn't have to pay on-call or 1.5x/2x OT rates.

But yeah, you could opt out of the WTD - it doesn't oblige the company to give you unlimited OT though.

We're all opting out of it in approximately 2 years good riddance to a bad law. Just glad I managed to work enough OT to get my deposit for my first house before they introduced it

What about those that don't want to do more than 48hrs a week?

 

[Orionaut]

What about those that don't want to do more than 48hrs a week?

I always felt that at least part of the WTD was to ensure that available work was shared out rather than hogged by a small (but willing) minority...

 

[Deleted member 66701]

I always felt that at least part of the WTD was to ensure that available work was shared out rather than hogged by a small (but willing) minority...

I think that was an unintended consequence, not an aim.

 

[beh]

We're all opting out of it in approximately 2 years good riddance to a bad law. Just glad I managed to work enough OT to get my deposit for my first house before they introduced it

Please explain why you think it's a bad law. Specifically which of the following do you not agree with?
-right to at least 28 days in paid holidays
-rest breaks
-restricts excessive night work
-right to work no more than 48 hours per week (irrelevant to your ability to work OT as it can be opted out of)

 

[scorza]

What about those that don't want to do more than 48hrs a week?

They didn't claim as much OT.

 

[Energize]

Please explain why you think it's a bad law. Specifically which of the following do you not agree with?
-right to at least 28 days in paid holidays
-rest breaks
-restricts excessive night work
-right to work no more than 48 hours per week (irrelevant to your ability to work OT as it can be opted out of)

Paid holidays are a fallacy, employees salaries are just reduced by 28 days pay to take into account the loss of productivity. There's no such thing as a free lunch.

Rest breaks now mean 5 hours of your week are now wasted around where you work instead of spent at home, what good has that achieved?

Right to work no more than 48 hours a week harms the employees that are willing to work more than 48 hours a week by effectively limiting the number of hours they can work for an employer, because an employer can't operate their business based on a longer working week. So everyone is stuck with being forced to work less hours.

 

[Freakbro]

Paid holidays are a fallacy, employees salaries are just reduced by 28 days pay to take into account the loss of productivity. There's no such thing as a free lunch.

No they aren't

Rest breaks now mean 5 hours of your week are now wasted around where you work instead of spent at home, what good has that achieved?

What on earth are you on about....well, I can see but it's just dribble.

Right to work no more than 48 hours a week harms the employees that are willing to work more than 48 hours a week by effectively limiting the number of hours they can work for an employer, because an employer can't operate their business based on a longer working week. So everyone is stuck with being forced to work less hours.

You mean apart from the voluntary opt out...

Apologies if i've missed the sarcasm and that actually a satirical post

 

[Minstadave]

I work in the NHS and do regular overtime. We just sign an opt out.

 

[Rroff]

Right to work no more than 48 hours a week harms the employees that are willing to work more than 48 hours a week by effectively limiting the number of hours they can work for an employer, because an employer can't operate their business based on a longer working week. So everyone is stuck with being forced to work less hours.

Complete rubbish in reality - people working an extended week who aren't in it because they like the job or are engaged in management/career progression will be performing less effectively the longer those hours are - an employer who really cared about performance and what was best for their company would be hiring 1-2 more staff instead.

 

[NiCkNaMe]

Nah, it's out of hours work. We can choose to take on agency staff for the work but we prefer to collect the cash ourselves.

If there's enough out of hours surely it's just a new shift pattern and then they can pay someone accordingly saves on all the expensive OT that way. Unfortunately unless you own the business then it's not what you prefer it's what the business prefers and that'll be the lowest cost

 

[ZombieFan]

The regional manager may feel that they have identified a risk in staff levels. Even though you are happy to work that overtime, the next person to do your job may not be. And if they are not, then the manager would have to find another one or two people all at once to fill that gap. Better to share the work out now rather than panic about it if you hand in your notice.

 

[Panos]

Paid holidays are a fallacy, employees salaries are just reduced by 28 days pay to take into account the loss of productivity. There's no such thing as a free lunch.

Rest breaks now mean 5 hours of your week are now wasted around where you work instead of spent at home, what good has that achieved?

Right to work no more than 48 hours a week harms the employees that are willing to work more than 48 hours a week by effectively limiting the number of hours they can work for an employer, because an employer can't operate their business based on a longer working week. So everyone is stuck with being forced to work less hours.

Yeah, some more with your brains, and you will bring this island back to the 19th century. I know many of your kind.

FYI I am a contractor so no paid holidays, sick days etc, however I find your argument at least rubbish, and I do not want to work more than 37.5h per week.
After 7.5 designing and writing software, all of us look like zombies, who are forced to take on the road driving for another hour - hour and half, in a state that we shouldn't be driving at all.

However if that becomes the norm, I say farewell to this country, and getting my companies out. Netherlands, Belgium, Germany don't have people like your lot.

 

[CapitalOne]

Paid holidays are a fallacy, employees salaries are just reduced by 28 days pay to take into account the loss of productivity. There's no such thing as a free lunch.

Rest breaks now mean 5 hours of your week are now wasted around where you work instead of spent at home, what good has that achieved?

Right to work no more than 48 hours a week harms the employees that are willing to work more than 48 hours a week by effectively limiting the number of hours they can work for an employer, because an employer can't operate their business based on a longer working week. So everyone is stuck with being forced to work less hours.

Right here, evidence there should be some form of exam to pass before being given a vote..

 

[beh]

Paid holidays are a fallacy, employees salaries are just reduced by 28 days pay to take into account the loss of productivity.

Whether or not they're "paid" is moot (some employers allow you to trade unused holidays for more money), most people enjoy their time away from work and wouldn't be happy to see their entitlement reduced.

Rest breaks now mean 5 hours of your week are now wasted around where you work instead of spent at home, what good has that achieved?

So you don't eat lunch then? Wouldn't it be worse to force people to work without any breaks?

Right to work no more than 48 hours a week harms the employees that are willing to work more than 48 hours a week by effectively limiting the number of hours they can work for an employer, because an employer can't operate their business based on a longer working week. So everyone is stuck with being forced to work less hours.

As has been repeatedly pointed out, there's an opt out. Nobody is being forced to work less hours.

 

[Destination]

Sounds more like managing costs to me. If there are few of you banking overtime like that the cheaper option will be to just recruit someone else.

Precisely this, if it is regular, constant, then it is madness to be paying *1.5/*2 for it, when you employ a new bod, and give them *1.

 

[Woden]

Precisely this, if it is regular, constant, then it is madness to be paying *1.5/*2 for it, when you employ a new bod, and give them *1.

You could create a shift at standard rate. Cheaper and less risk of no one wanting the overtime. There was four positions created in my department because we were all doing way too much overtime.

Not great for my attempts at saving for a deposit on a house, but what they were paying was honestly obscene.

 

[Freefaller]

Paid holidays are a fallacy, employees salaries are just reduced by 28 days pay to take into account the loss of productivity. There's no such thing as a free lunch.

Source? And besides, what's wrong with a holiday? Or time off?

Rest breaks now mean 5 hours of your week are now wasted around where you work instead of spent at home, what good has that achieved?

It's been proven time and time again that human beings cannot perform at their best for such prolonged periods of time. Having a break is not only necessary,
a) to eat / drink
b) to stand up and stretch your legs if you're office / desk based you should be doing this at least every hr if not ever 30 mins. And it doesn't have to be more than a 2min stretch/stroll.
c) if not office based, and out in the field, or working on heavy machinery you need a break as it can be stressful and tiring (I've worked in environments which are very demanding)
d) you need to go the to the loo - though that could be incorporated into b)
e) You will not be as productive if you don't have a break, so having a break can actually increase productivity.

Right to work no more than 48 hours a week harms the employees that are willing to work more than 48 hours a week by effectively limiting the number of hours they can work for an employer, because an employer can't operate their business based on a longer working week. So everyone is stuck with being forced to work less hours.

Employees can work more than 48hrs if they so wish - but it is their choice. In all my management positions I've always agreed to waive my rights to a 48hr week, most weeks I do at least 45-50hrs, but I do it because I enjoy my job, not because I'm obliged to, and I don't get paid overtime.

If a company is struggling to be more productive, making people work longer is not really the most effective way of improving productivity. I've done dozens of lean six sigma studies on various processes/projects over the past dozen or so years and generally introducing better processes/management is the way to go. Of course there are some instances where there will be an exception to the rule.

 

[Worthy]

It's quite common for the easy overtime to be taken away, especially in management changes. Sounds like he knows you're fleecing them and doesn't like it. Even if you opt out he'll just refuse to authorise your OT. Can't say I disagree to be honest, it's rife at our place. This "has to be done OOH, it will take a full day". When in most cases it can be done during the day and will take two hours max.