Labour MEPs to defeat Brown?
When MEPs' fingers hover above their voting buttons today other fingers in Downing Street will be crossed. 
Gordon Brown risks a humiliating defeat at the hands of Labour members of the European Parliament, many of whom want to make sure that people in Britain don't work more than 48 hours a week. It's all the more embarrassing for Mr Brown that the Conservatives and the Lib Dems are backing his government's position.
The parliament in Strasbourg will vote today on a proposal to get rid of Britain's 15-year-old opt-out from the Working Time Directive. The Confederation of British Industry (CBI) says more than three million people would be stopped working overtime if the opt-out goes. Open Europe, a think-tank that is very critical of the EU, claims it would cost Britain around £60bn by 2020: an average of £2,300 per household.
But Socialists say it's about being able to work to live, not live to work. They say there should be the same rules across the European Union because it's a common market and the opt-out gives Britain an unfair advantage.
The debate has already taken place, but the vote will be tight. The Labour group is split and so are two of the big political groupings. Apart from some Labour MEPs most of the Socialist group will vote to get rid of Britain's opt-out. The Labour MEP leading the rebellion, Stephen Hughes, says most workers want shorter hours.
Much, but not all of the centre-right, including the Tories, will vote to keep the opt-out. Their leader Philip Bushill-Matthews told the parliament that he recently met a Portuguese woman whose husband had lost his job and who had to work 12 hours a day, seven days a week. He asked "What hope do you offer her? Either, you say you can't do it, so you're going to have to give up one of your jobs, give up your children, your house. I was elected to look after the people I serve - until I stand down I will stand up for the people who elected me to help them, not to stand in their way."
The Independent MEP from Northern Ireland Jim Allister said he would "refute the right of this parliament of the attempt to rob my country of that entitlement. Control of working hours in my book is a matter exclusively for national control, not for Brussels dictate. If British workers are permitted by their own elected government to work more than 48 hours a week, then why should it matter to those from countries whose governments are more prescriptive? Frankly - it should be none of your business."
Most of the Liberal group, including the Lib Dems, will also vote to keep it, but the French and Italians may take a different view.
The Labour MEPs are split and some sound rather tortured about their decision. Formally they have a meeting at 0900 before the vote a couple of hours later, but I think many will do what they want to do, whatever the group decides as a whole. One told me it was one issue that was raised by people on the doorstep, who told them that they didn't want "Brussels" (or presumably, Strasbourg) interfering with their overtime. Another said he felt it was an issue like poverty pay in the 1970s and society had to move towards giving people a better balance between their work and their life.
Jean Lambert from the Greens said in the debate it was all about health and safety and that tired workers were dangerous workers. "If you are asking people to work long hours, be aware it's a problem - productivity and creativity goes down, which isn't good for a knowledge-based economy. And it certainly doesn't add a lot of quality to work-life balance for people who are too tired to read to their kids when they get home."
So if the MEPs vote against the British opt-out is that it? Overtime banned in Britain from tomorrow? Come off it, this is the European Union. The opt-out would go in 2012, but there's a lot of jaw-jaw before that happens. MEPs appointed by the parliament, rapporteurs in the jargon, would first negotiate with employment ministers from the EU's 27 countries. If they do a deal it is likely to be worse than the status quo, from the British government's point of view. But 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.
I’m Mark Mardell, the BBC's North America editor. These are my reflections on American politics, some thoughts on being a Brit living in the USA, and who knows what else? My 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~49~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
if "legally binding" opt outs can be rescinded by a vote, then what is the point of the "legally biding" guarantees offered to the Irish to vote yes on the Lisbon Treaty? Irish voters take note.......
Complain about this comment
Then should you not say that this piece is by the BBC, which is very flattering of the EU ?
That rather implies that the EU parliament only sits in Strasbourg. Is that true now ?
Have they decided that they only sit in one place and that they do not spend a huge amount of money travelling between two sites, Brussels and Strasbourg ? And the parliament's Secretariat, where does that live ? Oh Luxembourg and Brussels... and travels between the two ? Oh, er, yes.
It's good to see the EU has a decisive parliament.
I certainly hope they are decisive about this working time issue and they vote to end the opt out. It will have no effect whatsoever in the 'real' world of course - as their expensive machinations rarely do - but it will have a huge political effect in the UK.
Complain about this comment
Have i missed something? the world is in economic freefall, yet the EU and al the MP's and MEP's want us to be unable to pay our bills? if it wasnt for the possibility of doing more than 48 hours a week bills would be un payed, the government and EU needs to see that they cant have it both ways, in regard you cant get people spending more if they cant work enough hours to get the disposable cash in the first place!
Complain about this comment
I for once am strongly for the 'opt-out' to be abolished. I am sick of greedy employers who slip you the otp-out form to sign together with your employment contract. Yes, in theory you have the freedom to refuse, however if you do that you will not last longer in your job than the probation period.
If people want to have two jobs and they have the time to do it, the abolition of the opt-out would not mean that they will not be able to do that. It is to prevent people being exploited to work long hours when they do not want it.
Complain about this comment
Too often in the UK people are rushing off home at the end of a "truly exhausting debillitating mind numbing" 35 to 40 hour week, all too ready to bitch and moan if asked to do an extra half hour to finish some urgent task.
When I had occasion to work in London, I travelled in from lodgings on a commuter train, the daily boring conversations around me were about how awful it was to have to spend one to two hours a day commuting each way from the south coast and how terribly expensive it was to do so, even with company subsidised season tickets.
I once asked why not live in the city during the work week or get a job nearer home - the answer was they wanted the extra money from the London Weighting Allowance. Words failed me.
What I did not tell them was I travelled free as I worked for the rail company and the many delays were caused by the engineering upgrade works I was managing.
Complain about this comment
Isenhorn at #4 describes clearly the problems with this opt-out.
But abolishing the opt-out would mean one minor step more into the EU and that's what the British MEPs will be voting against.
Complain about this comment
I once read that the UK has the longest working hours is Europe, but one of the poorest productivity rates per worker. Must say something. Has Open Europe taken this into account?
Personally, I'm pretty happy to work long hours for good pay, but sometimes wish I could go home earlier.
But I understand how people on an hourly rate may not be happy with this.
Complain about this comment
#4 presents a very valid point...
Anyone who thinks that it be given right for employers to demand almost 10 hour working days from their employees OR a six day working week plainly needs their head checking.
A 48 hour working week covers the back of employers only. I can't believe our government says that such a thing is for our own good.
Complain about this comment
In these difficult economic times the flexibility for workers to work extra hours is crucial. For example a company has increased orders (perhaps due to the favourable exchange rate!) but they are not sure whether such orders will stay at that higher rate. At the monent they can ask their work force to work overtime to meet that demand.
If the opt out goes, they will have to make a decision. Do they employ a couple of more people, and probably have to let them go a few weeks later, with all the administration that involves. Do they say they cannot fill that order and decline it. In the mean time countries outsiode of the E.U will take on the work and we lose more orders.
The E.U. has to recognise we are competing in a global market, if we are not prepared to meet the demand some one else will.
Complain about this comment
In #9, jordanbasset wrote "Do they employ a couple of more people, and probably have to let them go a few weeks later, with all the administration that involves."
People invented temporary employment agencies to solve this problem.
Furthermore he wrote "The E.U. has to recognise we are competing in a global market, if we are not prepared to meet the demand some one else will. "
Is this a proposal to reduce labour law and wages to Vietnamese levels?
Complain about this comment
Do you really think that applying a rule that works well for 26 countries will make the 27th collapse altogether? That is lacking trust in the British economy...
Complain about this comment
Reducing the number of hours that the British can work for to the continental level will only work if their wages are increased to the continental level. The British suffer from low wages and high costs of living, which forces many people to work overtime.
Complain about this comment
#4 Isenhorn
This from the CIPD rather refutes what you say.
#11 Matthieu123
The UK is the only country to use the opt-out across all sectors of employment but other EU countries use it on a sector-specific basis
Complain about this comment
Re post 10, Johame, no I do not think reducing the level of wages to a vietnamese level is necesary. But the argument is about the ability of employers to offer over time to their employees and for those employees to take up that offer.
The U.K. and other E.U countries can only compete with third world countries by offering high quality products, which involves having skilled persons to take on that work. The suggestion you can find such people readily at temporary employment agencies is laughable and shows a lack of understanding of the employment market. Such organisations are usful for supplying fairly low skilled labour at short notice, but struggle, as I know from personal experince, to find 3 skilled welders, for example at a days notice for perhaps two weeks work.
Re other posts concerning the other 26 countries having no problem with this, I believe you are wrong. It does cause problems. Some times the regulation is just ignored and the person works on for cash in hand, other times it will damage the organisation. If we carry on overloading industries with unecessary regulations we will as a region be uncompetitive. European higher wages is more reason to be competitive in other ways, not less. I do appreciate Germany is still doing relatively well but this will not last if they continue to be wrapped up in red tape.
Complain about this comment
The French Bank, Societe Generale, who lost Euros5 billion to a rogue trader and failed to notify Presednet sarkozy of this for three days, then lost Euros 400 million to the sub prime crisis and now have profits reduced by 84% seem to me to have problems of governance. I was their client and left this year after appaling service including unauthorised fund removal excused by plain untruths. After closing my account they refused to let me access my online bank statements which ran a month in arrears. Unfortunately a cheque valued Euros 20 had not been presented before the account was closed however when presented they did not pay it but arranged to have my new bank accounts frozen, saying I was a person who could not be trusted to write cheques.. They gave me no notice of this, and acted as accuser, judge and jury. They had lost nothing, had acted unprofessionally, showed no fairness, and it seems rich that such a poorly organised bank can have the temerity to freeze my bank accounts leaving me without funds until threatening legal action. Beware Societe Generale as an investment or a supplier of services.
David Brown
Complain about this comment
#10 JohaMe
Perhaps not Vietnam but how about the USA, Japan and Australia ?
Complain about this comment
#13
Chill0,
Are the CIPD research results based on the number of signed opt-out forms in UK? As I know from my own experience, a lot of workers sign the opt-outs because they fear that they might loose their jobs if they refuse to do so. In a previous job a lot of my collegues used these opt-outs as an excuse to claim a few hours overtime everyday, when in fact they were chatting, making personal telephone calls or having breakfast at their work-places during the normal working hours.
To put it differently- so you think it is OK to be told by an employer 'Want more money? Then work longer hours!'? I tend to disaggree. I am doing my job well during a 40-hours week and I want my salary to be increased based on that and not on the number of hours I spend in the office.
Complain about this comment
#7 notagainagain
Possibly UK productivity has changed since you read about it
Complain about this comment
#17 Isenhorn
The same research says
You are lucky (as am I) to have a job which allows you flexibility in the time you take to do it. If you work in a call centre or on a production line or in most of the retail sector then you will have to 'be there' regardless of what you do.
Complain about this comment
Re 14: No problem finding good programmers through temporary emloyment here... being in a university town might be a factor, though.
Re 16: When looking at labour productivity figures, most countries you mention score quite low. Only the Scandinavian and the Low Countries tend to score really well - which also happen to be the countries with the lowest values for "Average hours worked per person".
Labour productivity figures by country can be found on the OECD site:
http://tinyurl.com/5eg5ad
Complain about this comment
#20 JohaMe
You did not look at GDP per capita for which Wikipedia pulls together many sources which show the USA below Norway but above all of the EU nations except Luxembourg - which probably has to do with Luxembourg's rather specialised economy.
It also shows the UK above Belgium, Germany and France but below Holland and Ireland.
The point was about your original remark about reducing labour law and wages to Vietnamese levels. That does not seem to be a requirement for a high GDP but economic flexibility does.
Complain about this comment
To JohaMe (20):
God hates people who use GDP PPP, Power Purchasing Parity, figures instead of GDP nominal. The economists in OECD are doomed! Doomed I say!
The list would look this if GDP nominal (by IMF) was used...
Country, GDP in US dollars / hours worked = GDP per worked hour
France, 2593779 / 39399 = 65,83
Sweden, 454839 / 7303 = 62,28
Germany, 3320913 / 57003 = 58,25
United Kingdom, 2804437 / 48775 = 57,49
United States, 13807550 / 262200 = 52,66
Japan, 4381576 / 115132 = 38,05
So lets look at the average working hours and GDP per capita (by IMF)
France, 1533 / 42034
Sweden,1615 / 49603
Germany, 1433 / 40400
United Kingdom, 1670 / 46099
United States, 1705 / 45725
Japan, 1785 / 34296
If we look at these figures, the best place to work would be Sweden where you can work enough, but not too much, and get the best pay at the end of the day.
What we can also see from these both figures is that somewhere along the line working more hours just becomes efficient.
Complain about this comment
To myself (22):
In the last paragraph it should have been inefficient not efficient... god also hates people who can't write English! I'm doomed!
Complain about this comment
Re post 23, Jukka, can you give the link to your preferred figures given by IMF, as Johame did in post 20 re OECD figures (many thanks Johame) The OECD figures make it clear that there is little correalation between working long hours and reduced productivity.
Your IMF figures suggest little difference between Germany and the U.K. in terms of productivity, despite the UK having an opt out and working long hours. Does seem to suggest the UK has it about right, if we are around equal to Germany in terms of productivity per hour and we work an average of 240 hours extra that has to be good news, doesn't it?
What is also interesting is that France works longer hours than Germany and has much better productivity.
The U.S. and Japan, according to your figures, only work a maximum of 115 hours extra than the UK, but the productivity (especailly of Japan) seems to be extremely low. Hard to think the UK (and other contries) have such a higher prouctivity than Japan) - but if true has to be good news :-)
Complain about this comment
To jordanbasset (24):
I recalculated the figures, using working hour data from the OECD table and used the GDP nominal data from Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita
I would say my point is that there is an optimal balance between working hours and productivity. Germans don't work enough. British work too much. The Swedish seem to be in balance and thus get the best results.
The thing, I think, that is partly motivating the EU in work time legislation is that if working hours are not limited then companies have less incentive to automatize or make their processes more efficient.
I would also like to note that 115 hours, when working day is 8 hours or 10 hours, means the difference of 14,4 to 11,5 working days. So 115 hours is a big deal.
Complain about this comment
Jukka, 115 hours, if an avaerge person works 8 hours and 230 days per year, that means an average of 30 minutes per day, does not seem a lot to me.
Also re wiki, only as good as the last person who editted it
Complain about this comment
In 1979 I read book called the 'Collapse of work' by Clive Jenkin, a British Trade Union leader. It was not widely read but it us certainly worthy of attention in the context of this EU legislation. The critical fact is whether hours = productivity and whether a workforce which is knackered is going to be any good. Philosophically, I do not believe we should be told how many hours you can work, but unfortunately, I find the ground loosened beneath me by the evidence of abuses suffered by doctors and others in the service and vocation fields.
In many ways, I am appalled that an issue like this has not been dealt with by localised dialogue between managments and unions and even individual employees, but since we have this EU parliament they might as well do something useful and this is one issue where, providing there is no evidence that our international trading competitiveness is harmed yet further, then it is probably worthy legislation.
As to the figures quoted for potential losses to employers, as a manager, I view these figures as pure bunkum which serve to discredit management further, though again the events of the past year have probably done this as comprehensively as any rampant Marxist would have wished already, I am sad to say.
In short, we entrepreneurs and managers need to renew our acquaintanceship with words like standards, responsibility, effort and leadership. The age of posing has to end right now. Our employees need to start believing in us again and this legislation might be a good place to begin that process anew.
Complain about this comment
I left England many years ago, because I didnt want to be part of the EEC when it was mooted. I have always considered the EEC as being what Hitler rteid with the gun and is now being performed with diplomacy. Germany has remained the strongest of the EEC. What has my or any other joe soap out there got? Surely no one can be forced to work more or less, that is up to the company and the employee to decide. If a company offers me three times the money I get to work a 60 hour week instead of a 40 or 45 hour week, I would accept. Why is it that BIG BROTHER tells us constantly what we can and cant do. Is it any wonder we are making a pigs ear of everything
Complain about this comment
Philip Bushell-Matthews is not the leader of the Conservative MEPs, and has not been for some time - it is Timothy Kirkhope, now in his second stint at the job. For a man who spends much of his working life in the European Parliament Mr Mardell doesn't appear to have much of a grip of what goes on there...
Complain about this comment
I think that EU Parliament has forgotton one thing and that is the UN charter on Human rights and that is the right to choice,
if I want to work overtime and that is ok with an employer then I want to exercise that right to do so I do not want some bunch of idiots telling me that I cannot do this by my own choice.
The legislation would have been better if it gave the employee the right to say nay or yea, not dictate to everyone that you cannot
the EU gets more like the old soviet union every day
Complain about this comment
swotfly @ #29 wrote:
"For a man who spends much of his working life in the European Parliament Mr Mardell doesn't appear to have much of a grip of what goes on there..."
Who does have a grip on what goes on within the EU? Perhaps Santa Claus does?
I would be more perturbed if Mark did know more about the comings and goings of all of the various factions of EU MEPs because I'd think he might have superhuman powers and know some reindeer with the ability to fly very fast!
Complain about this comment
Having read the majority of the above comments it is clear that most of you that have posted don’t actually work more than forty-eight hours a week. I for one do, I do it for financial gain, I do it to have a better life, better travel and on top of this I still have a social life. I am not chained to my desk; I have the choice whether to work excess hours or not.
The company I work for has sixty other people with the same attitude as me, call us greedy, call us deluded but the choice is OURS.
Counter arguments could be, if I want the money that much why not take a second job, but will a second job pay me the same hourly rate as if I worked OT at 1.5 times my hourly rate – NO.
Would my standard of life improve by having more free time, what would I do with all those excess hours maybe write a book, maybe learn to play the guitar? Well I do those things anyway with my so-called excessive hours. Maybe I’ll just sit on my fat backside and watch TV – highly productive, highly beneficial – NOT.
The company I work for depends on a degree of OT by its employees; it is not the best payer in the world, neither is it the worst. The WIT directive will in effect reduce the performance of the business and will eventually lead to the company being relocated to Dubai…
Where’s the benefit to the economy in that you do gooders? Where is the benefit in reducing a person’s ability (through their own choice) to earn a decent living wage and above the norm?
I don’t see why MEP’s with there over inflated salary have right to determine my right to work the hours I want. Stephen Hughes (MEP) used the adage “Health and Safety” that comment seems to get thrown in when there is nothing else worthy to use as a defense. Then again Mr Hughes if I was paying my wife 30,000-40,000 pounds a year out of the EU coffers then I too wouldn’t have to concern myself with the amount of hours a week I work.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS