Working time directive

[Diddums x]

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.

As much as I wish this was the case, it really isn't. Our OOH work involves putting an entire building in darkness, working over desks, shutting down critical plant, etc. I don't think a company which pays £1m a year per floor would appreciate us working on a tower above them on a weekday.

The fact is that the client pay for this work, it's part of their contract. They acknowledge that this work can only be done OOH and they pay OT rates for it. It's got to get done, one way or another. The only question is who does it: us or agency staff.

This isn't cost cutting at all.

 

[scorza]

It totally depends how the business operates whether OT makes sense over bringing on extra people. Used to be that while employees were charged out to projects at three times their charge rate for normal time and 1.5/2.0 times their charge rate for OT. Sadly, and partially as a result of the WTD imo, they changed it so OT costs more than normal time.

The WTD totally screwed over young people in this country when you think about it. Firstly, after leaving full time education for the first time you have few skills and little experience, what you do (or should have) is a lot of energy and enthusiasm and a desire to work hard and prove your value, in other words work long hours to get the job done. When you're older and more experienced then you might not want to work a lot of hours because your body is starting to fail and you get tired, you have a partner and children at home that you need to spend time with and your skills and experience mean that you add loads of value during normal hours anyway. The WTD totally helps the latter groups as it promotes employing older, more productive people over younger harder workers. Not to mention that it reduces young people's earning potential which impacts their ability to save for a house deposit.

 

[Energize]

No they aren't

What fantasy land do you live in where employees are paid out of charity? Salary is dictated by productivity and market rates, if you force more holiday days via legislation people simply end up being paid a lower hourly rate to account for the lost hours of productivity.

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.

Just lol.

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

You'd be out a vote straight away for failing to understand simple economics then.

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.

So do I, doesn't make it good legislation though.

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

I do eat lunch in about 10mins. But who is proposing forcing someone to work without breaks with a gun to their head?

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

I never said that.

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

A source that confirms that employees are paid for productivity and not to sit on their arse all day?

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.

How does increased performance and productivity directly benefit the employee?

And what kind of office have you ever worked in where you had to use rest break time to use the loo or stand up out of your chair?

 

[Gixer]

I'm not so sure that at *1.5 for OT and doing 100hours OT each month means it would be beneficial to employ another head at *1. For basic pay it about equals out but once you start taking into account average sick time, holiday time off, any financial benefits at cost to the company for the new employee etc the cost of that extra head is going to be more than the basic *1 hourly rate. This will of course vary company to company as not all offer benefits and also have differing sick pay rules. Whilst I like the fact I can do OT I do ensure my finances are based on my basic wage so if the OT is ever removed whilst it'll be a bit of a blow and require a change in aspects of my life I'd still be able to meet all my financial commitments.

Scorza I think you've a valid point in what you're saying too. I just turned 39 and would like to reduce the OT hours alas my basic hasn't really risen as I'd hope with my age. Only one pay rise in 14 years of engineering and I do feel the responsibilities I've taken on still exceed the rise given to me (2 years ago). I know this is a company thing though and sadly the only way to get better is to grow some and move on. That said my OT hours are used to work and without them at the moment hitting deadlines set would more than likely not happen It's just one of those points in time!

 

[Freefaller]

A source that confirms that employees are paid for productivity and not to sit on their arse all day?

How is a holiday or a break being paid to sit on their arse?

How does increased performance and productivity directly benefit the employee?

A sense of worth, promotion possibility, bonuses, achieving better results for business resulting in better longevity of the business thus being in a stable/safe job, the fact that most people turn up to work wanting to do a good job (i.e. people don't turn up to work to **** up or do a bad job), and a plethora of other reasons - but also why wouldn't you want to do better at work? and why wouldn't you want to be more productive and succeed?

And what kind of office have you ever worked in where you had to use rest break time to use the loo or stand up out of your chair?

None - you have completely missed my point (no surprise there) but, in some industries, where the work is more manually intensive, sometimes it's not that easy. And it's hard to remember to take a break, and not taking a break can be lethal potentially. However you were harping on about why people should be paid to take a break as if it is a privilege. I was making the point that allowing people autonomy in how they work generally makes them work better.

 

[Greebo]

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

It's a great law and stops employers abusing employees. You can always opt out so them introducing it never affected you unless you wanted it to.

 

[Energize]

How is a holiday or a break being paid to sit on their arse?

Is that a trick question?

A sense of worth, promotion possibility, bonuses, achieving better results for business resulting in better longevity of the business thus being in a stable/safe job, the fact that most people turn up to work wanting to do a good job (i.e. people don't turn up to work to **** up or do a bad job), and a plethora of other reasons - but also why wouldn't you want to do better at work? and why wouldn't you want to be more productive and succeed?

Of come off it. We all want to succeed, but do you really believe that legislation like the working time directive really makes people enjoy their job and achieve career success?

None - you have completely missed my point (no surprise there) but, in some industries, where the work is more manually intensive, sometimes it's not that easy. And it's hard to remember to take a break, and not taking a break can be lethal potentially. However you were harping on about why people should be paid to take a break as if it is a privilege. I was making the point that allowing people autonomy in how they work generally makes them work better.

No one is being paid to take a break, breaks are normally unpaid. I am saying forcing breaks is a pain in the arse for many employees like myself and is effectively making us stay at work for a number of extra hours a week for no extra pay, and you are creating a false dichotomy, not having forced breaks every 6 hours via legislation for all employees does not mean that businesses will stop offering employees breaks entirely, indeed as you state it would possibly lower productivity and be bad for the business.

 

[beh]

Nobody is being forced to work less hours.

I never said that.

everyone is stuck with being forced to work less hours.

Ho-hum.

if you force more holiday days via legislation people simply end up being paid a lower hourly rate to account for the lost hours of productivity.

I already gave you an example that contradicted your assertion that holidays aren't paid (holiday trading). Now you trip yourself up referring to the hourly rate, if the entitlement increased how would employers go about paying a lower rate to anyone on the NMW/NLW?

 

[Energize]

Ho-hum.

Keep re reading it until you get it.

I already gave you an example that contradicted your assertion that holidays aren't paid (holiday trading). Now you trip yourself up referring to the hourly rate, if the entitlement increased how would employers go about paying a lower rate to anyone on the NMW/NLW?

It does not contradict my assertion at all, holiday trading is voluntary, not enforced by legislation, it is an example of employers offering above the minimum to make their business more attractive to employees, something that the working time directive does not accomplish.

If someone is on the minimum wage then obviously they can't be paid less, they will simply be let go if the entitlement makes them no longer profitable to employ. An example of why the minimum wage is a bad thing too, but that's another topic.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

So wait people are moaning you get paid 28 days holiday at full rate?? How do you get paid more if you are already being paid?? I mean people do get, lots of jobs don't pay by the hour as its a fixed salary- you might get a bonus at the end of the year after a performance review,but if you need to work extra hours to get a project done,you need to do the work.

 

[Freefaller]

Is that a trick question?



Of come off it. We all want to succeed, but do you really believe that legislation like the working time directive really makes people enjoy their job and achieve career success?



No one is being paid to take a break, breaks are normally unpaid. I am saying forcing breaks is a pain in the arse for many employees like myself and is effectively making us stay at work for a number of extra hours a week for no extra pay, and you are creating a false dichotomy, not having forced breaks every 6 hours via legislation for all employees does not mean that businesses will stop offering employees breaks entirely, indeed as you state it would possibly lower productivity and be bad for the business.

It puts the onus on the employers to ensure their staff are looked after and not abused. Which could potentially happen without some legislation. I'm not suggesting it should be the tail wagging the dog, but at the same time, you can't expect your pound of flesh from your staff. They are people, and there needs to be a balance.

WTD just helps employees/employers know what they're entitled to - and makes sure that both are protected. I've seldom had to manage staff, I've given them autonomy and those that abuse it, are easily spotted, and funnily enough the peer pressure from others not to take the **** works well. I think forced breaks are sometimes necessary - and frankly, as impressive and stoic as people can be, whilst commendable people don't always know what is best for them. I don't expect people to make themselves ill or uncomfortable at work. Sometimes having rules to protect themselves from themselves is important.

 

[Energize]

See I don't see how staff are being abused, there is a contract which is voluntarily entered into by two adults of sound mind, no gun pointed to anyone's head. That is not abuse in any way shape or form. If you don't like the working conditions, you are not forced to be there. What employees are entitled to is clearly defined in a contract. The WTD is a well intentioned obstacle to both employees and businesses.

 

[Freefaller]

Well I see it as a useful tool to enable good work/life balance for staff, and serve as a reminder that we're not drones to do the bidding of the big corporations.

Don't get me wrong, I have a strong work ethic, but I'm senior enough to make those choices. I'm quite happy to have a law that protects my workforce, as well as myself.

Sure you signed up to work, but at the same time, you need to be looked after. A happy worker = productive worker = better outputs for company.

I think we're going to go around in circles though as I think you're more of an authoritarian ball breaker - and that's your prerogative I just see it as a little unnecessary these days.

 

[Energize]

Well I see it as a useful tool to enable good work/life balance for staff, and serve as a reminder that we're not drones to do the bidding of the big corporations.

Don't get me wrong, I have a strong work ethic, but I'm senior enough to make those choices. I'm quite happy to have a law that protects my workforce, as well as myself.

Sure you signed up to work, but at the same time, you need to be looked after. A happy worker = productive worker = better outputs for company.

I think we're going to go around in circles though as I think you're more of an authoritarian ball breaker - and that's your prerogative I just see it as a little unnecessary these days.

You must be absolutely joking, I am about as libertarian as you can get. Wanting less government control and regulation is the exact opposite of authoritarianism. Good grief!

Suggesting that people are made to do the bidding of corporations is known as the robber baron myth.

 

[CapitalOne]

It totally depends how the business operates whether OT makes sense over bringing on extra people. Used to be that while employees were charged out to projects at three times their charge rate for normal time and 1.5/2.0 times their charge rate for OT. Sadly, and partially as a result of the WTD imo, they changed it so OT costs more than normal time.

The WTD totally screwed over young people in this country when you think about it. Firstly, after leaving full time education for the first time you have few skills and little experience, what you do (or should have) is a lot of energy and enthusiasm and a desire to work hard and prove your value, in other words work long hours to get the job done. When you're older and more experienced then you might not want to work a lot of hours because your body is starting to fail and you get tired, you have a partner and children at home that you need to spend time with and your skills and experience mean that you add loads of value during normal hours anyway. The WTD totally helps the latter groups as it promotes employing older, more productive people over younger harder workers. Not to mention that it reduces young people's earning potential which impacts their ability to save for a house deposit.

Superb. At last the straw man example to help all internet users to identify a straw man argument. That took balls sir, credit to you for posting without so much as a blush!

 

[Freefaller]

You must be absolutely joking, I am about as libertarian as you can get. Wanting less government control and regulation is the exact opposite of authoritarianism. Good grief!

Suggesting that people are made to do the bidding of corporations is known as the robber baron myth.

Then surely you should be in favour of protecting workers?

 

[Martini1991]

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

Illogical stance is illogical.

 

[Energize]

Then surely you should be in favour of protecting workers?

Libertarianism is about freedom of individuals and businesses from government control, allowing them to make deals that best suit themselves. Creating a law that prevents businesses from creating contracts with working hours appropriate for their needs is not compatible that view.

Secondly, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Laws that are brought in to "protect workers" can have the opposite effect, the minimum wage law for example makes anyone producing less than £7.50 an hour unemployable, which is obviously harmful to the people at the bottom.

 

[Qjumper]

In my opinion it could be cost cutting, the deciding factor would be the job role you do. If you are doing a safety critical role or directly supervise staff your employer may be looking to ensure you have sufficient r & r to ensure that there are no lapses or errors due to fatigue or high stress levels.

Ultimately depends on the job role and the RA carried out by your employer who has a legal obligation to consider your welfare aswell as H&S.