From this biased report you can see tell exactly what the BBC’s
policy is! They skate over the fact nobody at present can be forced
to work over the 48 hour limit. It is entirely a matter of choice for
the worker, him or herself. It also fails to mention that The
British government made a deal with the ‘other side’ that Britain
would drop its opposition to the Agency/Temporary Workers Directive
in return for being permitted to keep the working week opt-out.
Britain kept its side of the bargain but now that the unholy alliance
of Greens, Socialists, and Christian Democrats have their pound of
flesh in the bag they break their promise and tear up the deal.
NOT A WORD FROM THE BBC about this!
Take one practical example. Junior doctors in hospitals “on call”
but resting have the hours they rest counted as part of the working
week. This means that they put in less working hours than they used
to . As a result more doctors have to employed and doctors don’t
grow on trees. All these doctors will get less medical experience
and will be less qualified to practice unsupervised. So that in 10
or more years time the new generation of consultants will be less
skilled and less qualified. I’ll be gone by then but beware the
surgeon’s knife from 2020 onwards.
xxxxxxxxxxxxx cs
=========================
BBC ONLINE 17.12.08
EU voting on working week opt-out
The future of Britain's opt-out of European laws limiting the working
week to 48 hours is the subject of a key vote in the European
Parliament later.
Labour MEPs may vote to end the opt-out against the wishes of Prime
Minister Gordon Brown who wants to keep it.
The European Commission has said the opt-out should stay arguing it
is now used by at least 14 other countries.
Thousands of trade union members marched on the European Parliament
to urge an end to the opt-out.
And leaders of the UK's biggest union, Unite, urged British MEPs to
"stop the UK's long hours culture".
A vote is expected at about 1130 GMT.
'Maximum flexibility'
But on Monday Business minister Pat McFadden told the BBC it would be
a mistake to end the opt-out during an economic downturn when people
might need to work extra hours.
The exemption from the working time directive was negotiated by the
Conservative government in 1993 and is used to some extent by other
member states, for members of the medical profession for example,
although the UK is the only country which has opted-out of it
altogether.
But in the debate later British Labour MEPs may side with trade
unions and back an amendment to review the opt-out in five years' time.
Trade unions and businesses have been lobbying MEPs up to the last
minute. Labour MEPs met in Strasbourg on Tuesday night to decide
whether to continue their opposition.
BBC Europe editor Mark Mardell said they were split on the issue "and
some sound rather tortured about their decision".
Labour MEPs are currently meeting to decide how they will vote but Mr
Mardell said: "I think many will do what they want to do, whatever
the group decides as a whole."
Gary Titley, leader of the Labour group in the European Parliament,
said: "We are looking at how the different sides of the argument can
be brought together and are trying to find a way to allow for British
workers to have maximum flexibility while ensuring the health and
safety of workers and consumers alike."
'Obstruction'
Conservative and Liberal Democrat MEPs say the opt-out should
continue but Plaid Cymru MEP Jill Evans said she would vote against
it and the Green Party's two British MEPs are also expected to vote
against it.
Open Europe, which campaigns for EU reform, estimated ending it in
2011 - as some MEPs want - would cost the UK economy between £47.4bn
and £66.45bn by 2020. [All that spare cash I suppose. What other
things we really need will have to be sacrificed to meet this
madness. -cs]
CBI deputy director general John Cridland said European Parliament
amendments which would stop people being able to choose to work more
than 48 hours would "replace opportunity with obstruction".
"If your partner has lost their job, should Brussels stop you from
putting in extra overtime to support your family?," he said.
But the unions argue it is a health and safety issue. Unite joint
general secretary Tony Woodley said: "Tired, overstretched workers
are not productive workers and are putting themselves and others at
risk, such as in the transport industry where we know, for instance,
that tired drivers are more dangerous than drunk drivers."
Even if MEPs vote to scrap the British opt-out, it would go on until
2012 and there would be further negotiation between the European
council of ministers and the British government.
Writing in his blog, Mark Mardell said: "If British ministers and
others won't budge that means it's back to the drawing board. As far
as I can see that means Britain would keep the opt-out for a good
while, although exactly what would emerge in the end is very uncertain."
=====================
CONSERVATIVE HOME Blog 17.12.08
Martin Callanan MEP: Now is not the time to be limiting our working time
Martin Callanan is Conservative MEP for North East England.
Many thousands of people who had jobs at the start of 2008 will be
facing up to the prospect of being without work in 2009. In a time of
serious and deepening recession we should be doing all we can to help
those who want to work to do so. However, in the European Parliament
that philosophy is quite thin on the ground, even though some MEPs
will themselves be out of a job after the European election in June.
This week the parliament, sitting in Strasbourg, will once again be
debating the Working Time Directive opt-out, which allows employees
who want to work more than the statutory 48-hour weekly maximum the
chance to do so. Since the opt-out was introduced ten years ago it
has been constantly under attack from socialists.
The Labour Government, seeking to portray itself in a business-
friendly light, was committed from the outset to maintaining the opt-
out. Ironically, the foremost opponents in the European Parliament of
the Government’s position have been Labour MEPs. Back in 2005, Tony
Blair held a meeting with Tory MEPs in his role as holder of the
Council presidency, during which he implored us to support his
Government’s policy because he couldn’t count on his own party’s
representatives to do so.
For several years the Council has been deadlocked over this issue,
despite the European Parliament voting in 2005 to abolish the opt-
out. Britain has led a blocking minority of countries opposed to
ending the opt-out. The impasse was resolved in the summer but it
came at a high price. France, the current holder of the presidency
and a leading voice in favour of scrapping the opt-out, agreed to
preserve the opt-out if Britain would remove its objections to the
Agency Workers Directive.
Gordon Brown succumbed to this ‘deal’, which effectively grants temps
exactly the same employment rights as permanent workers. But no-one
seemed to have asked the hundreds of thousands of people who work as
temps, or their employers. The result will surely be a contraction of
the temporary labour market just at the time when thousands of jobs
are being lost. Temping can no longer be part of the recovery of the
labour market.
We have lost the flexibility that temping affords our economy, we
have effectively denied people who want to work the chance to do so
and we have undermined employers who would like to create
opportunities. Once again, the EU has shown its true colours. The
only jobs worth creating seem to be jobs for the boys.
Back to the Working Time Directive. Because of the deal earlier this
year, the opt-out should be safe, but that’s not necessarily the
case. If a majority of MEPs votes in favour of abolishing the opt-out
the European Parliament and the Council will have to enter a
conciliation procedure which is likely to result in the opt-out being
ditched, either immediately or in a phased manner. Even if the
parliament backs the Council’s compromise, there will still be a 60-
hour maximum working week averaged over three months.
Britain is one of 14 EU countries (out of 27) that either make the
voluntary opt-out available to workers or are seeking to introduce it
into national legislation. Predictably, many of those countries are
new member states that see labour market flexibility and productivity
gains as advantages rather than embarrassments.
The Working Time Directive is typical of the EU’s prescriptive and
uniform approach to workplace regulation. It’s also just one of many
hundreds of damaging health and safety rules emanating from Brussels
that act as a brake on our economy. Thankfully David Cameron is
committed to withdrawing Britain from the Social Chapter from which
John Major won us an opt-out in 1992 but to which Tony Blair signed
us up in 1997. This is an essential step if we are ever to break free
from the debilitating effects of EU regulation on our country.
There are, of course, opponents of the opt-out in Britain – not just
Labour MEPs but their union paymasters too. Words like ‘Dickensian’
and ‘exploitation’ are bandied around in a cynical fashion.
Naturally, unions are keen on job protection, not job creation – that
is their raison d’être. They know that the opt-out weakens their
position, undermines their authority and might even oblige their
members to work a little harder.
However, there are already plenty of safeguards in place in UK and EU
law to protect people in the workplace, and they will remain even
when we abandon the Social Chapter. It is not only naïve for
politicians to assume that people aren’t capable of understanding
when they’re being exploited, it is morally questionable for us to
place limits on people’s lawful activity.
At a time of economic crisis the last thing we should be doing is
further restricting the right to work and earn money.
policy is! They skate over the fact nobody at present can be forced
to work over the 48 hour limit. It is entirely a matter of choice for
the worker, him or herself. It also fails to mention that The
British government made a deal with the ‘other side’ that Britain
would drop its opposition to the Agency/Temporary Workers Directive
in return for being permitted to keep the working week opt-out.
Britain kept its side of the bargain but now that the unholy alliance
of Greens, Socialists, and Christian Democrats have their pound of
flesh in the bag they break their promise and tear up the deal.
NOT A WORD FROM THE BBC about this!
Take one practical example. Junior doctors in hospitals “on call”
but resting have the hours they rest counted as part of the working
week. This means that they put in less working hours than they used
to . As a result more doctors have to employed and doctors don’t
grow on trees. All these doctors will get less medical experience
and will be less qualified to practice unsupervised. So that in 10
or more years time the new generation of consultants will be less
skilled and less qualified. I’ll be gone by then but beware the
surgeon’s knife from 2020 onwards.
xxxxxxxxxxxxx cs
=========================
BBC ONLINE 17.12.08
EU voting on working week opt-out
The future of Britain's opt-out of European laws limiting the working
week to 48 hours is the subject of a key vote in the European
Parliament later.
Labour MEPs may vote to end the opt-out against the wishes of Prime
Minister Gordon Brown who wants to keep it.
The European Commission has said the opt-out should stay arguing it
is now used by at least 14 other countries.
Thousands of trade union members marched on the European Parliament
to urge an end to the opt-out.
And leaders of the UK's biggest union, Unite, urged British MEPs to
"stop the UK's long hours culture".
A vote is expected at about 1130 GMT.
'Maximum flexibility'
But on Monday Business minister Pat McFadden told the BBC it would be
a mistake to end the opt-out during an economic downturn when people
might need to work extra hours.
The exemption from the working time directive was negotiated by the
Conservative government in 1993 and is used to some extent by other
member states, for members of the medical profession for example,
although the UK is the only country which has opted-out of it
altogether.
But in the debate later British Labour MEPs may side with trade
unions and back an amendment to review the opt-out in five years' time.
Trade unions and businesses have been lobbying MEPs up to the last
minute. Labour MEPs met in Strasbourg on Tuesday night to decide
whether to continue their opposition.
BBC Europe editor Mark Mardell said they were split on the issue "and
some sound rather tortured about their decision".
Labour MEPs are currently meeting to decide how they will vote but Mr
Mardell said: "I think many will do what they want to do, whatever
the group decides as a whole."
Gary Titley, leader of the Labour group in the European Parliament,
said: "We are looking at how the different sides of the argument can
be brought together and are trying to find a way to allow for British
workers to have maximum flexibility while ensuring the health and
safety of workers and consumers alike."
'Obstruction'
Conservative and Liberal Democrat MEPs say the opt-out should
continue but Plaid Cymru MEP Jill Evans said she would vote against
it and the Green Party's two British MEPs are also expected to vote
against it.
Open Europe, which campaigns for EU reform, estimated ending it in
2011 - as some MEPs want - would cost the UK economy between £47.4bn
and £66.45bn by 2020. [All that spare cash I suppose. What other
things we really need will have to be sacrificed to meet this
madness. -cs]
CBI deputy director general John Cridland said European Parliament
amendments which would stop people being able to choose to work more
than 48 hours would "replace opportunity with obstruction".
"If your partner has lost their job, should Brussels stop you from
putting in extra overtime to support your family?," he said.
But the unions argue it is a health and safety issue. Unite joint
general secretary Tony Woodley said: "Tired, overstretched workers
are not productive workers and are putting themselves and others at
risk, such as in the transport industry where we know, for instance,
that tired drivers are more dangerous than drunk drivers."
Even if MEPs vote to scrap the British opt-out, it would go on until
2012 and there would be further negotiation between the European
council of ministers and the British government.
Writing in his blog, Mark Mardell said: "If British ministers and
others won't budge that means it's back to the drawing board. As far
as I can see that means Britain would keep the opt-out for a good
while, although exactly what would emerge in the end is very uncertain."
=====================
CONSERVATIVE HOME Blog 17.12.08
Martin Callanan MEP: Now is not the time to be limiting our working time
Martin Callanan is Conservative MEP for North East England.
Many thousands of people who had jobs at the start of 2008 will be
facing up to the prospect of being without work in 2009. In a time of
serious and deepening recession we should be doing all we can to help
those who want to work to do so. However, in the European Parliament
that philosophy is quite thin on the ground, even though some MEPs
will themselves be out of a job after the European election in June.
This week the parliament, sitting in Strasbourg, will once again be
debating the Working Time Directive opt-out, which allows employees
who want to work more than the statutory 48-hour weekly maximum the
chance to do so. Since the opt-out was introduced ten years ago it
has been constantly under attack from socialists.
The Labour Government, seeking to portray itself in a business-
friendly light, was committed from the outset to maintaining the opt-
out. Ironically, the foremost opponents in the European Parliament of
the Government’s position have been Labour MEPs. Back in 2005, Tony
Blair held a meeting with Tory MEPs in his role as holder of the
Council presidency, during which he implored us to support his
Government’s policy because he couldn’t count on his own party’s
representatives to do so.
For several years the Council has been deadlocked over this issue,
despite the European Parliament voting in 2005 to abolish the opt-
out. Britain has led a blocking minority of countries opposed to
ending the opt-out. The impasse was resolved in the summer but it
came at a high price. France, the current holder of the presidency
and a leading voice in favour of scrapping the opt-out, agreed to
preserve the opt-out if Britain would remove its objections to the
Agency Workers Directive.
Gordon Brown succumbed to this ‘deal’, which effectively grants temps
exactly the same employment rights as permanent workers. But no-one
seemed to have asked the hundreds of thousands of people who work as
temps, or their employers. The result will surely be a contraction of
the temporary labour market just at the time when thousands of jobs
are being lost. Temping can no longer be part of the recovery of the
labour market.
We have lost the flexibility that temping affords our economy, we
have effectively denied people who want to work the chance to do so
and we have undermined employers who would like to create
opportunities. Once again, the EU has shown its true colours. The
only jobs worth creating seem to be jobs for the boys.
Back to the Working Time Directive. Because of the deal earlier this
year, the opt-out should be safe, but that’s not necessarily the
case. If a majority of MEPs votes in favour of abolishing the opt-out
the European Parliament and the Council will have to enter a
conciliation procedure which is likely to result in the opt-out being
ditched, either immediately or in a phased manner. Even if the
parliament backs the Council’s compromise, there will still be a 60-
hour maximum working week averaged over three months.
Britain is one of 14 EU countries (out of 27) that either make the
voluntary opt-out available to workers or are seeking to introduce it
into national legislation. Predictably, many of those countries are
new member states that see labour market flexibility and productivity
gains as advantages rather than embarrassments.
The Working Time Directive is typical of the EU’s prescriptive and
uniform approach to workplace regulation. It’s also just one of many
hundreds of damaging health and safety rules emanating from Brussels
that act as a brake on our economy. Thankfully David Cameron is
committed to withdrawing Britain from the Social Chapter from which
John Major won us an opt-out in 1992 but to which Tony Blair signed
us up in 1997. This is an essential step if we are ever to break free
from the debilitating effects of EU regulation on our country.
There are, of course, opponents of the opt-out in Britain – not just
Labour MEPs but their union paymasters too. Words like ‘Dickensian’
and ‘exploitation’ are bandied around in a cynical fashion.
Naturally, unions are keen on job protection, not job creation – that
is their raison d’être. They know that the opt-out weakens their
position, undermines their authority and might even oblige their
members to work a little harder.
However, there are already plenty of safeguards in place in UK and EU
law to protect people in the workplace, and they will remain even
when we abandon the Social Chapter. It is not only naïve for
politicians to assume that people aren’t capable of understanding
when they’re being exploited, it is morally questionable for us to
place limits on people’s lawful activity.
At a time of economic crisis the last thing we should be doing is
further restricting the right to work and earn money.
Posts
