Posted By Raymond Rapp Lyndon In principle I support the WTD (Regulations?) because as you say, they are for the benefit of employees' welfare. That said, I do not agree that they should have an opt out clause. It can and has been abused. I would much rather a caveat that allows some discretion on working hours between the employer and employee if both parties agree. The WTD has become something of a non-event because of its practical weaknesses. Ray

Posted By steve e ashton Lyndon: You say that "We as a business opted out years ago...". It was my understanding that the opt out was for indivudals ONLY. A company cannot 'opt out' on behalf of its employees. That way lies dirty water with unscrupulous slave masters... There was a great deal of controversy when the opt-out clause was initially negotiated, but that was in the days when the unions were toe-to-toe with Government and business. And Government didn't see much need or value in negotiating / consulting with worker representatives. Whilst I believe the 'opt out' arrangements can be (and sometimes are) widely misused, I think there is a strong case for limiting the power of an employer to impose excessive working time on any individual. However - we need to retain an element of flexibility - if only to enable the UK to compete on equal footing with other EC member states. In this country we have to abide by the letter of the law - or be found guilty of an offence. In most EC member states, the law is written in absolute terms, but enforcement takes a proportionate approach - the courts will not penalise any employer who acts 'reasonably'. Our 'proportionality' (is that a proper word?) can only be achieved by writing into the law weasel words like 'so far as is reasonably practicable' or 'unless both sides agree to waive their protections'... So - I think we need to either find a way to enforce / achieve equal standards across the EU - or we need to retain the 'opt out' and enforce the 'voluntary' element that is supposed to be there to protect workers from unscrupulous slave master employers. Certainly an area to watch as the Govt seeks a way to respond to the Euro parly's recent decision. Steve

Posted By Lyndon Sutcliffe Apologies Steve, 'we' was not correct and it was done in the correct manner. Most employees opted out.

Posted By John Richards The 17 week reference period can be 52 weeks by consent. Which gives a 52 hour week (taking hols into consideration) approximately. Your company works a 36 hour week by average... So even with a 17 week period your employees are 12 hours short...so even if you need them to work 50 hour weeks they have enough time. I fail to see the point of this thread: Explain ? The opt-out will go in time. The petition will have no effect, the WTD is an eu regulation. Sorry, I forgot the holiday provisions of same. Yes, I can see that many employers would wish to reduce the holiday periods. The same employers who wish the minimum wage reduced to 50P/hr (maximum) Probably the same employers who pay the directors 18 million a year to cock the world up.

Posted By justgossip I am not to sure about the WTD and all the other legislation that enables people to work and get paid so as to maintain a good life / work balance. When I look at the UK, we are so un competitive that millions of jobs have gone to other countries. As a nation we seem to be well on track to legislating for everyone being out of work. I would consider the WTD if applied to my job as a negative. If my boss wants me to work more hours then I want to then I would hand in my notice, freedom of choice. Not much of it about as the zealots want and legislate that I live my life according to what they percieve is the correct way. So in the middle of this credit crunch , in order to deliver some good news and happiness to the workers, opt out, work the hours, not be highly paid, but it is better than having no job at all. just a thought garry

Posted By John Richards Large amounts of workers have no option, the opt-out does not exist for them. As one who HAD to work 12-hour shifts (6-on, 6-off) I support the WTD. As for uncompetitive...you think that working large hours for low wages is a basis for society ? You wish us to pay people 100 quid a month ? The WTD is part of H&S legislation....presumable you want that to be ended as well...(I know the small biz associations do...and the medium biz...and the large biz) Well, GOOD NEWS ! The gov is getting-rid of it via the back door...no enforcement equals no law... This country has many problems....absolutely crap management is one of them......look at the car industry (what there is)....the same workers do a good job under foreign management.... When you've seen workers in a large retail warehouse trying to meet a pick-rate of 1200 an hour, to meet a target set by some drip, when it involves scurrying across the floor with an armful of cans..... This country has lots of problems, management is all of them...what there is..

Posted By JimE Forgive me if I am wrong here is this more a HR issue than H&S ? If Joe Bloggs has more than one job, he will have WTD's for each job. How long he works in one won't be relevent to any other job so retained firefighters won't be affected. please correct me if I am wrong. Thanx JimE

Posted By John Richards If you have two jobs, and work a combined hours total of more than 48 hours in BOTH jobs, then you will have to sign the opt-out in at least one job. Not too difficult really, since you will not get a job if you do not sign the opt-out. http://www.direct.gov.uk...rsAndTimeOff/DG_10029426 Note that unpaid leave and holidays do not count towards your hours total. That means that your working time per well can be way over 48 hours without signing anything.... Since the directive was enacted as part of H&S regulation it is part of H&S.... Enforcement is split between different authorities. The limits and health assessments (if a night worker), are enforced by the Health and Safety Executive, local authority environmental health departments, the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA),the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency (VOSA) and Office of Rail Regulation (ORR).The entitlements to rest and leave are enforced through employment tribunals. The Employment Tribunals Service can also help you with information about making a claim or about Tribunal procedures.

Posted By steve e ashton The UK Govt transposed the EC Working Time Directive (expressly introduced under Community H&S provisions, against the wishes of the UK Govt) into Domestic law under the Employment Rights Act. This reflects the Govt view that work hours are an employment issue and not a H&S issue. UK Govt at the time (and since, regardless of party in power) have consistently failed to accept that working time is H&S issue despite the preamble to the Working Time Directive. It seems that some (in Government, and on this forum) believe that fatigued workers killing themselves and others is an employment / HR matter, and not a H&S matter. I personally do not subscribe to this viewpoint, and will continue to believe that a competent H&S professional should understand and be able to interpret the Working Time Regs on behalf of his/her employer or clients. If the employer or client has a professional HR department, who are aware of the Regs, and committed to the control of excessive working time, then I am happy to let them get on with it. Unfortunately, I have worked with several who do not view it as an important issue, and some who are quite happy to engineer serious breaches of the regs without understanding or appreciating the potential consequences. In such situations, I believe it is incumbent on IOSH professionals to offer strong advice and support. It is overly simplistic to say 'this is HR its nothing to do with me...' We could equally say 'this is production...' or 'this is engineering...' or 'procurement'. We must be Jack of all trades and master of ... well maybe one or two. In my opinion we cannot afford to wash our hands of an issue just because it's awkward and someone else may have a handle on it. Steve

Posted By ScotsAM Individuals can opt out of the section of the WTD regarding maximum hours. They can also opt in again at any time without suffering any detriment for doing so.

Posted By steve e ashton Temporary reprieve apparently for the opt-out? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8022095.stm Steve

Posted By Colin Reeves "I certainly support liberty, but not the freedom to work excessive hours, leading to increased ill health and the indirect drain on our health services/economy." Lyndon Whilst I agree with what you have said, it is a bit simplistic. Can I suggest you look at my post on 20 February. Colin

Posted By Lyndon Sutcliffe Colin I looked at the scenario given as an example in your post of 20/02/09. I agree, I am looking at this in general/simplistic terms. I hate to be drawn into this, but I did look at your example of retained firemen in a remote area. How could they conceivably exceed the average 48 hrs over a 17 week reference period?

Posted By Nigel Bryson The Working Time Directive is one of the most contentious issues around: paid hours of work always has been. References from the munitions factories in the First World War highlight how cutting hours from, 16, 14 and to a maximum 12 hours [linked with stopping Sunday work] improved productivity and quality hugely as the War went on. In the 1970s a three-day-week was implemented for numerous workplaces as a National Miner's dispute led to electricity cuts. Many found they could produce more in a three day week than they previously did in five days. The principle mistake after the 'normal' working week resumed was thinking workers could just maintain an intense pace forever. The recommended rest breaks in the Display Screen Equipment Regs were based mainly on productivity requirements not health and safety. By maintaining an opt-out British business is hysterically demanding to retain a known inefficient way of working that, in addition, has well documented ill-health/safety effects. While berating employees to be more 'flexible', 'efficient' and 'adaptable' to the challenges of the modern world, the Government and business organisations themselves hang on desperately to the outmoded, discredited 19th Century way of working. As for individual choice, there are two key aspects: 1 Most people are employed on a contract of employment that is based on a seventeenth century concept of master servant relationship, where the 'master' holds the 'servant's' livelihood. In the several hundred years of industrial development the workers - through historical action of their unions - have managed to be able to take a tribunal case if they are unfairly dismissed. In those cases where it is established that they were unfairly dismissed, hardly any get their job back. So workers tend not to challenge their employer directly. 2 Unemployment also brings health and safety issues with them, which again, is well documented. So to obtain a decent income a balancing between ill-health/safety associated with being employed and unemployed can be facilitated. As the Black Report established in the 1980s - the richer you are, the healthier you tend to be. Wealth is health. The WTD is required to limit excess. It needs to be revised so that it actually protects workers on the one hand and encourages employers to seek methods of work that are efficient, on the other. Working people longer than 48 hours a week - on average - should not be an option. Otherwise why don't we make machinery guarding 'optional'? The irony is that when we compare ourselves - efficiency wise - to the countries we aspire to compete with, demanding employees just keep working longer hours tends not to be part of their national strategy. There is little wonder the UK tends to be at the bottom end of productivity tables ..... and stress is such a current workplace health issue! Oh yes, just in case it was missed, the European Court confirmed that hours of work is a health and safety issue. Shame that the Ministers who go to Brussels to maintain hazardous working practices do not understand what is behind the signs on the motorway that state 'Tiredness Can Kill. Take a break.' Cheers. Nigel

Posted By Colin Reeves Lyndon To quote from an MP about retained firefighers - "being available for anything up to 120 hours of “inactive on-call” time a week." These "on call" hours are included in the WTD, hence the problem. It is very rarely (at least locally) that they actually work much as a retained firefighter, but the WTD does not make allowances for this. A far more eloquent argument can be found in Hansard at http://www.publications....h0001.htm#09021167000010 Colin

Posted By Paul Durkin Hi All, Sorry if I did not make it clear, but my son is only paid for 40 of his 80h.No Unions either Nigel. Regards,Paul