Brexit (Old)

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Not an obsession. But a bit strange that on a day when he's found to be breaking the law, Brexiiters suddenly become interested in the Working Time Directive.

I think you will find that the Working Time Directive was quoted at the time of the referendum as an example of legislation that was unhelpful to employers.

It's far more relevant to the debate than Aaron Banks - that is just a side-show designed to undermine the result of the referendum. It won't work.

[Angua]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

My point is that employers want employees to be totally flexible to their needs and that, whilst this law does exist and will help some people, most will ultimately have no choice.

Which employers though? I have worked shifts and in shops, now office based.

A huge number of employers still want Monday to Friday in some form or another. Most people I know work Monday to Friday including delivery drivers and care home workers.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Two.

You can’t count. I see none, as usual. But please do keep wittering on about sod all.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Angua

Which employers though? I have worked shifts and in shops, now office based.

A huge number of employers still want Monday to Friday in some form or another. Most people I know work Monday to Friday including delivery drivers and care home workers.

My brother works Monday to Friday but in the 8 weeks leading up to Christmas he has to work the Saturday morning as well.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Angua

Which employers though? I have worked shifts and in shops, now office based.

A huge number of employers still want Monday to Friday in some form or another. Most people I know work Monday to Friday including delivery drivers and care home workers.

... of which statistically 52% voted to leave the awful, hegemonic EU.

Originally Posted by Angua

Which employers though? I have worked shifts and in shops, now office based.

A huge number of employers still want Monday to Friday in some form or another. Most people I know work Monday to Friday including delivery drivers and care home workers.

Healthcare and or care home workers don't work just Mon - Fri, they work Sat and Sunday's as well, patients/residents don't suddenly go home for the weekend, they require round the clock care, 24/7, seven days a week, 365 days a year.

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by Pierre

A complete history here

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full...23263X18760547

Knock yourself out, once you’ve Read it, any chance of doing us a quick appraisal?

Thank you so much for such a good source! It's fairly dry but I have certainly read dryer journal articles...

OK, so a quick appraisal of the article then (these are just my thoughts and interpretations);

• The initial proposal came from the commission as a Health and Safety proposal. The WTD does of course cover both social and Health and Safety policies. It's not clear how the initial proposal was decided to be one or the other. I have managed to find the original transmission to the Council of Ministers here - https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-cont...PC0317&from=EN
• Including 'on call' time in the working hours is a tough one. Ideally, I would pro rate the 'on call' hours but what fraction would you assign to this on call time? Being able to pick up the phone to answer a quick question requires a whole different level of commitment to being ready to perform emergency surgery for example. Who decides the on call fraction?
• The aim to try and enforce the WTD on a 'per person' rather than 'per contract' by the commission during the attempted reviewing of the directive would have reinforced this as an H&S directive
• A 'per contract' enforcement of the WTD is more favourable to highly collective labour forces such as Germany and France, hence the feedback from consultations of works councils and lack of overall agreement on the setup of the WTD
• Like many EU directives, the WTD is a bit of a fudge, balancing local customs and the need for harmonisation. The 'fudging' allowed a number of opt outs that have been used to a greater or lesser extent by member states and some of these have needed reinterpretation by CJEU

Having to need the courts to refine laws is of course nothing new. From that paper, it does look like the WTD is a pretty 'loose' law, needing quite a lot of judicial clarification. However, I don't know if this is a normal level of intervention for EU or UK laws to be honest and it would be interesting to find out.

---------- Post added at 10:42 ---------- Previous post was at 10:33 ----------

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

That link will do. The French thing is well known by those watching it at the time; they are also the ones that opposed the Services Directive for the same reasons.[COLOR="Silver"]

I still haven't found evidence that the French were responsible for making this an H&S directive rather than a social one. I have only found the original proposal from the commission where it was already an H&S one. Was it at the Commission level? Assuming it was in the Second College of the Delors Commission, the commissioner in charge of Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion was Vasso Papandreou from Greece

[Bircho]

Originally Posted by jonbxx

Thank you so much for such a good source! It's fairly dry but I have certainly read dryer journal articles...

OK, so a quick appraisal of the article then (these are just my thoughts and interpretations);

• The initial proposal came from the commission as a Health and Safety proposal. The WTD does of course cover both social and Health and Safety policies. It's not clear how the initial proposal was decided to be one or the other. I have managed to find the original transmission to the Council of Ministers here - https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-cont...PC0317&from=EN
• Including 'on call' time in the working hours is a tough one. Ideally, I would pro rate the 'on call' hours but what fraction would you assign to this on call time? Being able to pick up the phone to answer a quick question requires a whole different level of commitment to being ready to perform emergency surgery for example. Who decides the on call fraction?
• The aim to try and enforce the WTD on a 'per person' rather than 'per contract' by the commission during the attempted reviewing of the directive would have reinforced this as an H&S directive
• A 'per contract' enforcement of the WTD is more favourable to highly collective labour forces such as Germany and France, hence the feedback from consultations of works councils and lack of overall agreement on the setup of the WTD
• Like many EU directives, the WTD is a bit of a fudge, balancing local customs and the need for harmonisation. The 'fudging' allowed a number of opt outs that have been used to a greater or lesser extent by member states and some of these have needed reinterpretation by CJEU

Having to need the courts to refine laws is of course nothing new. From that paper, it does look like the WTD is a pretty 'loose' law, needing quite a lot of judicial clarification. However, I don't know if this is a normal level of intervention for EU or UK laws to be honest and it would be interesting to find out.

---------- Post added at 10:42 ---------- Previous post was at 10:33 ----------



I still haven't found evidence that the French were responsible for making this an H&S directive rather than a social one. I have only found the original proposal from the commission where it was already an H&S one. Was it at the Commission level? Assuming it was in the Second College of the Delors Commission, the commissioner in charge of Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion was Vasso Papandreou from Greece

More to do with nmw rather than wtd but Whittlestone v BJP Home Support Ltd is the case law you need. Basically a care worker on duty overnight was to be paid even if sleeping as they were required to be on duty. By the same process the wtd would therefore also apply.

[OLD BOY]

As you may deduce from the above posts, the Working Time Directive, along with much other employment related legislation (such as the Acquired Rights Directive and the General Data Protection Regulation) is an employer's nightmare.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Dave42

says the man that don't understand all treaty cease mean in article 50 and cut the abuse out I never abused you and not gonna stope to your level

Go for the ball, not the man. You weaken your subsequent points by your unnecessary put-down.

Why don't you just stick to the facts and avoid the personal attacks?

Just calling it how I see it.

[pip08456]

The Government has responded to the "Stop possible second referendum on E.U. membership" petition.

A clear majority of the electorate voted to leave the European Union. We must respect both the will of the British people, and the democratic process which delivered this result.

The Government is clear that we will respect the result of the 2016 referendum, and that we will not hold a second referendum.

A clear majority of the electorate voted to leave the European Union in the 2016 referendum. Almost three quarters of the electorate took part in the referendum, resulting in 17.4 million votes to leave the European Union. This is the highest number of votes cast for anything in UK electoral history. This was the biggest democratic mandate for a course of action ever directed at any UK Government.

Parliament then overwhelmingly confirmed the result of the referendum by voting with clear and convincing majorities in both of its Houses for the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill.

In last year’s General Election, over 80% of people then also voted for parties committing to respect the result of the referendum - it was the stated policy of both major parties that the decision of the people would be respected. The Government is clear that it is now its duty to implement the will expressed by the electorate in the referendum - respecting both the will of the British people, and the democratic process which delivered the referendum result.

The British people must be able to trust in its Government both to effect their will, and to deliver the best outcome for them. As the Prime Minister has said: “This is about more than the decision to leave the EU; it is about whether the public can trust their politicians to put in place the decision they took.” In upholding that directive to withdraw from the European Union, the Government is delivering on that promise. We recognise that to do otherwise would be to undermine the decision of the British people, and to disrespect the powerful democratic values of this country and this government.

The Government therefore continues to be committed to delivering on the instruction given to us by the British people: working to overcome the challenges and seize the opportunities this brings to deliver an outcome which betters the lives of British people - whether they voted to Leave or to Remain.

The people of the United Kingdom gave a clear instruction and the Government is committed to seeing that through. We will leave the European Union on 29 March 2019.

Department for Exiting the European Union

(My bold)

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

As you may deduce from the above posts, the Working Time Directive, along with much other employment related legislation (such as the Acquired Rights Directive and the General Data Protection Regulation) is an employer's nightmare.

Oh absolutely but to not have these protections would be a employees nightmare.

Some EU countries go well beyond the directives, especially with employees rights and data protection - try backing up Belgian employee information on a US server or generating employee identifiable metrics in Germany and see how far you get! It tends to be that the countries with the best union/works council representation have the strictest regulations - you can get away with much more in the UK than Germany for example.

https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/st...88180178186241

BREAKING: Cabinet ministers have been invited to read a copy of the draft Brexit Withdrawal Agreement this afternoon. Emergency Cabinet meeting to sign it off set to happen either tomorrow or Monday, say Whitehall sources

[Dave42]

Originally Posted by Damien

https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/st...88180178186241

No10 sources say draft Withdrawal Agreement does not include Irish backstop, as that has not yet been agreed. Email to Cabinet ministers does not make that clear. Emergency meeting now looking like next week.

https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/st...91512678621186

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jonbxx

Oh absolutely but to not have these protections would be a employees nightmare.

Some EU countries go well beyond the directives, especially with employees rights and data protection - try backing up Belgian employee information on a US server or generating employee identifiable metrics in Germany and see how far you get! It tends to be that the countries with the best union/works council representation have the strictest regulations - you can get away with much more in the UK than Germany for example.

I would prefer much more straight forward UK legislation where it is needed. EU legislation is incredibly complex. So much so that even lawyers struggle with it and are not at all sure which way cases will go.