“24-hour working week… no thanks we"e;re British”

Now that the EU consultation has proposed abolishing the "e;s right to the opt-out clause of the working time directive, British business will be forced to assess what this means to them. The arguments both for, and against, are very persuasive but ultimately it seems that business will have little choice in the debate.

The European Commission"e;s proposals to change various provisions of the Working Time Directive took place on the 11^th May, with the members voting to adopt an alternative legislative report that will have the effect of

During the debate, the author of the report that was adopted, Alejandro Cercas, called for the opt-out to be scrapped without exceptions, saying that there must be the same legal base in all Member States. He said “The opt-out runs counter to the goals of worker health and safety, and violates the fundamental principles of the Constitutional treaty and the Charter of Fundamental Rights”.

The CBI and the UK Government are united in resisting this. The last CBI Employment Trends Survey revealed that 80 per cent of companies that use the opt out believe that their business flexibility would be undermined if it was removed. The Government estimates that there are 1.7m people in the who work in excess of 48 hours a week.

Tony Blair, prime minister of the , believes he has enough allies to save the 's exemption from the European working time directive - which imposes a maximum 48-hour working week.

Arguments against removal of the opt-out

If the opt-out were removed, untold problems would be created for many areas of British industry. Many companies rely on the opt-out to meet production demands, whilst maintaining staffing levels. If unable to use this facility, they would have to employ more workers, or agency staff, to meet output levels, which would increase the cost per production unit. On an economic level, this cost would either have to be borne by the business, or passed on to the consumer. Consumer loyalty is not likely to be high if prices are increased dramatically, which means the potential fall in business would make it even more difficult for the company to survive in an ever more competitive economic environment. When you consider that manufacturing, and its associated services (such as distribution) still counts for 33-35% of the British economy the knock-on effects of the removal of the opt-out facility wouldn"e;t be worth thinking about.

Industry Specific

EEF, the manufacturers' organisation, says it fears that proposed changes to this Directive and the abolishment of the individual opt out removes a vital component of flexibility in the UK labour market. It believes that any changes that are made to the Working Time Directive must retain the right of individuals to opt out of the average 48 hour working week and allow working time to be averaged over 52 weeks without conditions that impose costs and administrative burdens on employers.

Specific industries such as the hospitality sector, comprising over 7% of the UK workforce, is typified by low-paid workers, working long hours to generate a decent level of income, and a high staff turnover. Approximately 12% of all unfilled job vacancies are in the hospitality sector, which rises to 17.1% in areas with a high concentration of hospitality establishments. This situation necessitates a large proportion of workers to consistently work over 48hrs per week, covering for staff shortages – and this is mostly done by the use of the opt-out agreement.

Removal of the opt-out would merely compound the existing problems faced by the hospitality industry. With staff limited to working 48hrs or less per week, affected establishments would be forced to take on more staff, or agency workers. Yet in a sector already affected so badly with staff, and skills, shortages, these companies would find it increasingly more difficult to do this. As a result, costs would be pushed up; the already struggling industry would see more loss of hotels, restaurants, pubs and clubs, with the resultant loss of jobs. Those that did survive would be forced to increase costs, and pass those on to the public, and service levels would be likely to decline due to staff shortages.

These are just examples of some of the issues facing the UK economy regarding the opt-out. In a recent survey by the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) and Pertemps, 60% of businesses said that removal of the opt-out would have a ‘significant"e; or ‘severe"e; effect on their business, which further emphasises the fact that most business would suffer in one way or another.

Arguments for removal of the opt-out

On the other hand however, you"e;ve got organisations campaigning for the removal of the opt-out – most significantly the Trades Union Congress (TUC). Working over 48hrs per week is a health and safety issue. Tired employees are more likely to have accidents at work, or make mistakes, which otherwise could have been prevented. Some of these accidents and mistakes could have critical consequences. Does this therefore mean that business has a moral and ethical obligation to prevent employees exceeding 48hr working weeks? Should the opt-out be removed, exempting managers from even making this choice?

While organisations such as the Work Foundation, the TUC, and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation are campaigning for better work-life balance, how will those affected employees cope if their available working hours are reduced to 48 per week, with the obvious reduction in pay that will result? There"e;s no escaping the fact that many low-paid workers, for example in the manufacturing and construction industries, work long hours to substitute their income, bringing their wages up to an acceptable level that they can survive on. How will they feel if they are effectively forced to take a pay cut? Does this not limit their right to choose when they want to work, and the hours they want to work?

No correlation between the hours people work and productivity

The 1998 Working Time Regulations were widely seen as providing a stimulus to major change, and improving performance and competitiveness. But despite this, the UK still retains its pole position for the longest hours worked in Europe, whilst productivity levels lag behind those of our European neighbours. Clearly there is little correlation between the hours people work and how productive they are. Yet the longer they do work, the more prone to workplace accidents they are, and the more mistakes are made.

The arguments both for, and against, the removal of the UK"e;s right to the opt-out facility are very persuasive, and can be viewed both from the employees, and employers, perspective. On the one hand, the removal could have disastrous consequences for many businesses and sectors of the economy, but on the other hand, employees should have the opportunity to balance their work and personal lives, and the limit on working hours to 48hrs per week should give them the facility to do this. The issue arises though, when those hourly paid employees effectively have a cap put on their earnings potential through not being able to work over this limit, and businesses need to employ more people to maintain levels of production, thereby increasing overheads and overall costs.

The limit on working hours to encourage work-life balance is a great ideal, but there is no denying the fact that in a country with an extremely high cost of living, many people simply cannot afford this. Those that want the limit imposed should have this right, but ultimately it should be about freedom of choice – employees should be allowed to work over 48hrs per week if THEY want to. Companies should be able to have employees working longer hours – but only at the employees"e; agreement. Perhaps they shouldn"e;t have to opt out of the constraints of the Working Time Regulations – maybe those employees that want to be covered should have to opt in.