COMMENTS:
Here's the rest of the article from where the above ended:
However, most countries face difficulties complying with a recent European court ruling, which says that time spent at work on call counts as working time, even when the worker is asleep.
The amended law, both in the original form proposed by the European Commission and the form now proposed by Finland, the current holder of the EU presidency, states clearly that inactive time on call does not count as working time.
Workers' consent
There have been reports that the UK may be prepared to accept the Finnish proposal if the absolute maximum working week is set at 65 or 70 hours, and if there are legal safeguards to prevent courts overturning the opt-out.
Some professions, such as company executives and emergency workers, would still be exempt.
Under the Finnish proposal, a workers' 48-hour working week could be averaged out over a reference period of up to 12 months, the precise period being set by national governments.
This would enable most employers operating in markets where there are seasonal peaks to avoid violations.
The maximum working week of 60 hours, for those making use of the opt-out, would be averaged over three months.
Workers would have to agree to opt out, and would be able to withdraw their agreement at any point in the next three months without suffering any penalty.
The UK Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) says the Finnish proposal would impose a huge bureaucratic burden on companies, which would be forced to submit exhaustive records of hours worked by staff.
UK debate
"Surrendering the opt-out would be equivalent to abandoning British businesses but so would allowing it to be watered down with tons more red tape," said FSB national employment chairman Alan Tyrrell.
An FSB spokesman said the fact that Secretary of State for Trade and Industry Alistair Darling was due to attend the meeting himself, rather than sending a junior minister, was a signal that a deal could be about to be struck.
The Trade Union Council said the UK no longer needed the opt-out, because:
* Fewer workers are now working more than 48 hours - roughly 3.3m instead of 4m eight years ago
* Some 1.5m workers would cease working more than 48 hours per week if their working hours were averaged over 12 months
* Up to one million "autonomous workers" such as senior managers are exempt from the restriction anyway
"This means that only 800,000 to 1m UK employees would have to make a serious change to their working patterns," the TUC said.
Typical. The EU is working hard to keep Europe uncompetitive.
Here's the problem -- in most positions, "people" don't determine how long they work -- corporations do. And in the US, at least, there has been a dysfunctional increase of the work week, over the past several decades. Personally, I welcome some government- imposed sanity.
There was a time when Americans wanted reforms such as a ten hour work day, equal rights for women, an end to the flogging of sailors, abolition of slavery and so on.
yeah, those damn Europeans have fucking longer vacations and more benefits, they're soooo not competitive to us workaholic North Americans, and look how they're suffering!!!
by aya on Tue Nov 07, 06 9:44am
[+]
Aya: they work less, but they also earn less.
The european economy is less competitive than the american economy, with a higher unemployment rate and lower growth. If they're willing to trade wealth for leisure time that's fine for them, but they should acknowledge that it will cost them. And I don't think it's right to prevent people from working if they want to work.
Voted : Government, limit the work week
Working as I do in the UK, I should point out that I get 10 weeks holidays a year and do a 35 hours week and earn a good wage.
How did I get this package? I belong to a union.
Is the company bankrupt? Last year they made a profit of 235,000,000 pounds, so they are hardly on their uppers.
The whole, 'uncompetitive' argument is just hogwash, they said the same when the UK implemented the minimum wage. The Conservative Party decried that millions would be thrown out of work and companies would go bust.
The reality, there is a shortage of labour, unemployment is low and interest rates steady.
So much for the scaremongers.
Steel: please deny that the average unemployment is lower, and the average growth rate and the average income higher, in europe than in the US.
Please. I really want you to make this claim.
Voted : Government should set it up as a standard that workers can choose if they want, or reject if they wa
I believe it is important that workers do have the right to the CHOICE of appropriate breaks, days off, holidays and such. I believe the government should set a standard at which workers have the right to such things.
However, the government should NOT force the workers to follow this dogmatically. The government role in it should merely be about providing the standardas a generally expected choice. However, workers should also be free to reject this choice as well. The standard should be set so that if a worker wants to take it, then they have the absolute right to do so. At the same time they should have the right not to follow this standard- and be free to work more hours and do over-time if that is what they want.
Therefore, my solution would be for the government to set up a standard; and workers, as individuals, are free to accept or reject it anytime they wish.
So the employer is forced by the government to offer such holidays, breaks, time off and such... and individual workers are free to accept or reject the offer if they wish.
That would be a true free market because: 1) The workers are free to make the choice themselves as individuals. And 2) The government forcing employers to offer standards is necessary to avoid slavery. Slavery goes against capitalistic individual rights and therefore the government should enforce laws against it.
Voted : A shorter work week should be encouraged but not legally enforced
I think this is a good thing in some ways. People in North America, like Aya pointed out, work too many hours and are obsessed with their jobs. I think life is meant to be enjoyed. How can you enjoy life stuck in an office all the time. I see the point about having a flexible labor force, but I think that in Europe, they enjoy life more than we do.
This will not harm most industries, but finance will suffer. That is precisely why the UK is fighting this the most. London has a great environment for finance right now. 60 hour work weeks just won't cut it when things need to get done.
aya
They're not competitive. That's a fact.
I cant speak for Europe, I only speak for the UK, and we are doing very nicely thank you.
The working time directive only sets the hourse people work as standard, but many do PAID OVERTIME and work over the 35 hours a week.
This is voluntary, and many take up the overtime and are paid an overtime rate (in my company its time and a third)
It seems that conservatives want all the rules to meet their demands and not what is fair for the worker.
If you take Europe as a whole, the unemployment and growth rate may indeed be lower than the US, but we are constantly expanding and admitting more countries into the EU, so the perception is skewed.
Poland, Bulgaria and Romania are relatively poor countries compared to western Europe and this would be reflected in the unemployment rate and growth.
It will take some years for this to adjust.
We in Europe have socialised medicine and a healthy welfare state, so this is also reflected.
The US may seem to be all roses, but how long before the multi trillion dollar deficit and woeful healthcare system bite into the working families of America.
You can be damned sure the rich will not be paying the price.
"I cant speak for Europe, I only speak for the UK, and we are doing very nicely thank you."
That's not what I asked, and it's not a matter of opinion, just cold numbers.
" The working time directive only sets the hourse people work as standard, but many do PAID OVERTIME and work over the 35 hours a week"
No, it sets a max that you cannot exceed.
" If you take Europe as a whole, the unemployment and growth rate may indeed be lower than the US, but we are constantly expanding and admitting more countries into the EU, so the perception is skewed."
Come on, you know for a fact that if we take europe as a whole, or any indivdiual country, or any combination of countries the US still comes out on top.
" Poland, Bulgaria and Romania are relatively poor countries compared to western Europe and this would be reflected in the unemployment rate and growth"
And britain france and germany are wealthy, but consistently have a higher unemployment rate and lower income. I'll note that you have yet to refer to any actual numbers and are instead trying to deflect attention on to eastern europe.
"
The US may seem to be all roses, but how long before the multi trillion dollar deficit and woeful healthcare system bite into the working families of America."
Sure, maybe then we'll have that communist revolution you've been hoping for. Ha!
SH: "I cant speak for Europe, I only speak for the UK, and we are doing very nicely thank you."
GU: That's not what I asked, and it's not a matter of opinion, just cold numbers.
SH retort: I answered the question as I understood it, and it is hardly my fault if you meant something else.
SH: " The working time directive only sets the hours people work as standard, but many do PAID OVERTIME and work over the 35 hours a week"
GU: No, it sets a max that you cannot exceed.
SH retort: There is a ceiling of course, people cannot be expected to work 70+ hours per week without serious health and safety issues arising. Working longer hours does not mean higher production, it actually has been shown to do the opposite, owing to tiredness.
I do around 5 - 10 hours overtime per week, but I can work up to 15 hours if I wish.
We are not born to work, we need time to have a family and social life. The so called work ethic is a misnomer, as it just makes for unhappy workers and happy employers.
SH: " If you take Europe as a whole, the unemployment and growth rate may indeed be lower in the US, but we are constantly expanding and admitting more countries into the EU, so the perception is skewed."
GU: Come on, you know for a fact that if we take europe as a whole, or any indivdiual country, or any combination of countries the US still comes out on top.
SH retort: The top of what? The top of the downsizing chart, the top of the healthcare shortfall or the top of the service industry list?
SH: " Poland, Bulgaria and Romania are relatively poor countries compared to western Europe and this would be reflected in the unemployment rate and growth"
GU: And britain france and germany are wealthy, but consistently have a higher unemployment rate and lower income. I'll note that you have yet to refer to any actual numbers and are instead trying to deflect attention on to eastern europe.
SH retort: All industrial nations have ebbs and flows in the unemployment rates, but we have a safety net to help those who are seeking work. You may think that you employment rates are low, but if you look closely at the new jobs created in the last 5 years, they are almost all low paying jobs with little of no healthcare, many of them part time.
SH:"The US may seem to be all roses, but how long before the multi trillion dollar deficit and woeful healthcare system bite into the working families of America."
GU: Sure, maybe then we'll have that communist revolution you've been hoping for. Ha!
SH retort: Laugh all you like, only when the effect hit your pocket will you then realise, you cannot live on credit forever, and the knock on from such failed economics will rock the US at its core, and that core is not the rich.
SH: let's look at some facts, the average income in europe is significantly lower than in the US.
Only norway and luxembourg beat us (largely due to oil wealth). The US is third at $43,555, the UK is 18th at 30,436, and germany and france are 17th and 20th respectively. 17th, 18th, and 20, vs. 3rd. Who earns more?
These aren't opinions.
And the big three (france germany and britain) have unemployment rates that typically are double of what the US is, not an ebb and flow, a consistently unemployed population, year after year, every year for decades.
Besides which, britain is a mostly capitalist state, how are you defending it? I thought everyone was poor and starved under capitalism, and yet you're saying things are "doing very nicely". It seems you favor capitalism when it suits your argument.
If the NHS and the Welfare state in the UK is capitalist, Im a Texan NeoCon.
We have a minimum wage of £5.80 ($9 approx) where as the US minimum wage is just over $5, so our poorest can at least have a wage above subsistance.
The simple fact that the majority of the poor in the US would enjoy our system that the US system.
You look to denigrate my points with silly arguments about socialism, a subject you cannot really argue with, as it equilty, fairness and justice.
The things neoconservatives detest, because they wish to resort to a fuedal system.
"If the NHS and the Welfare state in the UK is capitalist, Im a Texan NeoCon."
I said mostly. In britain is property owned exclusively by the government? Do you work for the government? Are all people paid the same from janitor to brain surgeon?
No? So property is owned by individuals, wages are set mostly by the free market and people have to compete for jobs? Sounds like capitalism to me mate.
" We have a minimum wage of £5.80 ($9 approx) where as the US minimum wage is just over $5, so our poorest can at least have a wage above subsistance. "
So you believe communism is defined by having a high minimum wage? That's not it at all.
No wonder we've had such disputes over the years.
" The simple fact that the majority of the poor in the US would enjoy our system that the US system."
Fact, you use that word pretty loosely. You see I presented facts, numbers that were generated by scientific measures and can be verified. You made a claim based on what you want to be true and labled it a fact. Do you see the difference between our two ideas of "facts"?
And the poor in the US are hardly scrambling to leave, so I don't think your claim even holds up to the old common sense check.
"You look to denigrate my points with silly arguments about socialism, a subject you cannot really argue with, as it equilty, fairness and justice. "
Except that everytime it has been tried that has never happened. You've taken a science course in your life I assume, what do you say of a theory that has been tested again and again, under different conditions, using slightly different methods, but has failed every single time without a single success? Do you call that a sound theory, or perhaps one that has been mostly disproven? Or do you say throw a few million more peasants on the fire and maybe we'll get it right this time?
" The things neoconservatives detest, because they wish to resort to a fuedal system."
Actually the welfare system tends to produce a more statified society than you would think. Handouts for the most part have the effect of keeping people in their place in society and stifling social motility.
But if you're looking for a modern feudal state you need look no further than the defunct USSR. Talk about the haves vs. the have nots. Unfortunately the haves also had all the guns, and the have nots were disarmed. So there was little hope for change from within.
And still you do not understand?
You perpetuate the same fallacy that capitalism is the saviour of the poor.
You keep using the totalitarian Stalinist system in the USSR to prove a point, but fail to see the contradictions.
Socialism had no resemblance to that state.
Socialism is about inclusion, equality and justice.
Capitalism is about greed, exclusion, inequality and injustice.
Where injustice lies, you see poverty, war and workers pitted against each other.
The UK is not socialist, but has many socialist models in place, it does not mean that it is perfect. Much has to change in the UK and the rest of the world for socialism to really take root.
Misinformation and wrong headed education serves to keep the masses in line, using arguments such as yours to skew the truth and give the power into the hands of the landed and owning classes, while those who really contribute to society are merely paid a wage woefully less than their worth.
Fortunately owing to the internet and other media outlets, you and your capitalist cohorts are being found wanting and people are less inclined to believe the BIG LIE of capitalism anymore.
" You perpetuate the same fallacy that capitalism is the saviour of the poor."
Based on empirical evidence. The poor in the US are quite well off compared to most other people. And they've been getting better since day one, as a result of capitalism.
Socialism is a parasite. It can thrive for some time in a healthy host, but it doesn't produce anything, it merely takes what it likes and gives nothing back. No nation was ever founded solely on socialism. They all had to build off the backs of some other system, and slowly expend all the resources that nation had built up and finally collapse.
Please, please, I beg of you, deny the fact that the poor in the US are substantially better off than they were 50 years ago, and are better off than the poor in most nations. Do it, this will be fun.
|
