Time’s up!

pete quentin, 16 December 2008

This Wednesday (17th December), MEPs will vote on a proposal to end the UK’s opt-out from the EU’s Working Time Directive. If passed, the changes will make it illegal for workers to choose to work more than 48-hours in a week from 2011.

Under current arrangements British workers can choose to work up to 78-hours in a week when business demands, despite EU regulation capping working hours at a legal maximum of 48-hours in a week. The UK’s opt-out was first negotiated by John Major in 1993 and maintained by Labour until the present day. However The Times commented that Wednesday’s vote will divide UK Labour MEPs because the attempt to end the opt-out is led by Labour MEP Stephen Hughes, whilst Labour leader Gordon Brown has insisted that preserving the opt-out is a “key priority”. In fact, Brown’s government recently negotiated to give temporary workers full employment rights after 12 weeks in a job in exchange for protecting the UK’s opt-out on working times.
Those arguing to remove the UK’s opt-out are quick to emphasise that the EU Working Time Directive is a Health and Safety Directive. At an Open Europe Seminar on the issue last week, Paul Sellers, Policy Officer for the Trades Union Congress, reiterated this argument, insisting that research shows that longer working hours decreases workers’ concentration and productivity, and increases the risk of stress and heart disease. He insisted that the debate over the UK’s Working Time opt-out comes down to a simple conflict between safeguarding workers’ right to work long hours and attempts to ensure workers’ safety. Mr Sellers insisted that it is the state’s right to ensure safety, so therefore the opt-out must end.
The battle lines have apparently been drawn so that to argue in favour of keeping Britain’s opt-out is to advocate workers’ productivity over workers’ safety. But is it really that simple? “You can’t argue with the health and safety stats!” seemed to be the favoured mantra for those arguing to end the UK’s working time opt-out but, as was pointed out at the seminar, working shorter hours cannot guarantee safety because one could be in an accident whilst enjoying the extra free time.
So what do British workers think about the proposed limit to working hours? Stephen Hughes MEP, who is also the Socialist Group spokesman on employment, has insisted that “Seven out of ten workers say they would like shorter working time” an ideal that I’m sure many people would adhere to. However, Lord Mandelson, the UK Business Secretary points out that keeping the opt-out is actually in the interest of workers because “People remain free to earn overtime if they wish”, which allows them to “boost their earning potential when some are already struggling with high food and energy prices.”
It is important that statistics about the health risks resulting from the stress of working longer hours are presented in a wider context. That is, the UK and EU economies are currently battling recession. Workers are already facing the increased stress of job insecurity and incomes instability. Therefore removing the UK’s working time opt-out could increase this stress by further decreasing productivity; further damaging the UK economy.
Reducing working hours without compromising productivity will force businesses to employ more staff. For example removing the opt-out will specifically put strain on the National Health Service because NHS staff currently spend long shifts on duty and then take rest which does not count as working time. However, under the proposed changes, there will be no differentiation between active and inactive on-call time. The changes will force the NHS to hire more doctors to compensate for doctors not being allowed to work more than 48-hours per week. However, shortened working hours will not result in increased employment, which might have been an adequate justification in the current recession. Lord Mandelson insists that the opt-out “is essential to Britain’s labour market flexibility” because as jobs are put under pressure, more flexibility equals more employment. Therefore, workers and businesses stand to lose out if MEPs vote to remove the UK’s opt-out on the EU’s Working Time Directive.
There is optimism that the UK’s opt-out might be preserved this week because it will take an absolute majority of MEP’s votes for the opt-out to be removed. However the European Commission and the European Council of ministers’ have proposed for the opt-out to continue and the European Parliament’s employment and social affairs committee has already voted to end the opt-out, so we might see rift between MEPs and ministers. This week’s European Parliament vote raises a fundamental question for the EU – should these issues really be decided in Brussels? The UK labour model is unique to Britain so that singular employment legislation from Brussels cannot possibly work in the interest of business and workers in all 27 states, therefore perhaps the EU’s principle of subsidiarity (decision making kept at the most localised level) should be called on to bring the debate back to Westminster.
Last week’s Open Europe seminar was enlightening, but I did not hear decisive arguments for removing the UK’s opt-out. Whilst Health and Safety concerns are real and important, they must not become the stick with which to beat hard working industries and businesses that are already facing a bleak near-future. A more realistic solution could be to isolate specific industries in which workers would benefit from a lower legal cap on working hours (as is currently the case with long distance lorry drivers). The EU should strive to protect those who need to be protected without compromising already weakened economies.