Quote:
Originally Posted by jonbxx
What's wrong with the working time directive and Transfers of Undertakings Directive? They seem pretty good at preventing exploitation of workers to me. I guess employers would like to have the right to not provide holidays, rest breaks, etc. or give pay cuts on takeovers but I bet employees don't.
|
The EU directives are often far too restrictive and complicated, and these are two prime examples of that. You don't have to have this type of complex, inflexible legislation to ensure that people are protected in employment.
We did have holidays before we joined the EU, you know!
---------- Post added at 17:54 ---------- Previous post was at 17:50 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1
They're not necessarily bad for employers as they give staff the reassurance not to walk out of the door in the event of a takeover/divestment thereby increasing the valuations of companies. Working time directive lots of companies require you to sign a contract against it so not too relevant in the UK.
|
I challenge you to get your head around all the clauses of the Acquired Rights Directive and the associated case law, Andrew. It is a perfect example of all that is wrong with this bureaucratic institution. At least we are able to write laws that make sense.
By the way, it is unlawful to require your workers to 'sign a contract against it' as you put it. You can opt out of certain clauses but it must be voluntary.