The end of paid holidays ?

[Nick]

As an employer, I know there is no such thing as paid holidays. A percentage is taken of the salary to pay for these PAID holidays. I get paid nothing when I don't work but it's factored into the rates I charge, preemptive holiday pay.

[Thomas]

Yes, we dodged a bullet there.
What it is and what it was originally intended to be are quite different.

The loony left EU one would have really screwed me over.

i know baff. Thats the point im arguing with our labour party looney lefty momentum supporter here.

He is the one arguing its a necessary piece of important eu legisaltion , im simply pointing out how toothless it was and remains , and the "perception " on the shop floor labour were about to trade away our right to opt out in 2006 , whihc of course they eventually didnt  , much to the annoyance of lefties like srb steve above.

Labour sided at the time with big business and workers like us , and stuffed the unions.

The looney left and the eu would have screwed me and many like me over at the time too had they enforced the WTD and ended the opt out.

[Baff]

most folk dont have any issue with it.

I was talking about back in the early 2000 when the opt out was being re negotiated under labour and the unions were hoping it would stop people doing massive amounts of overtime , not the current perspective baff.

Your very post backs up what im sayng further , in how in reality it is nothing more than a useless piece of legisaltion easily got around by both employee and employer.

In short , nothing more than a tick box excercise for brussells beaurocrats.

Yes, we dodged a bullet there.
What it is and what it was originally intended to be are quite different.

The loony left EU one would have really screwed me over.

[Thomas]

I agree.

However much others might try to twist it into something that impairs workers' rights, a system that allows us to still work as many hours as we choose to but merely prevents employers from being able to force us to work more than 48 hours against our will seems like a reasonable protection for workers.

As someone who regularly chooses to work long hours, I have no issue with it either. It doesn't prevent me from choosing to do so.

Isnt it amazing how you will jump into bed with those very "right wing brexiters" when it suits to bolster a flagging argument of yours?

I havent hinted at any of this.

The  working time directive and opt out as i recall came in with the conservatives under major signing up to maastricht in 1993.

Over the next decade , contrary to your earlier point you made to me ,

What it does is prevents my employer from forcing me to or making excessive hours above this level contractual. As someone forced to sign up to a contracted 60 hour week in the 80s, I see virtue in that.

..the working time directive was simply seen by many  , both on the left and by unions , as a toothless piece of eu legislation that didnt stop emloyers forcing people to work long hours or stop the ingrained culture of long hours working in the uk that it was designed to do.

In fact so much so , the very opt out the tories under major had secured was seen as the escape valve for unscrupulous employers that those of you on the left were complaining about.

The  EU  Working  Time  Directive  has  so  far  had  little  impact  on  an  ingrained culture of  long-hours  working  in  the  UK.    Case  studies  suggest  that  the  use  of individual opt-outs from the 48-hour limit on weekly working time is a principal reason  for  this.

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/7151461.pdf

Above was one of the many article and part of the wider debate that had been raging about how useless the WTD was with the get out clause for the uk of the opt out.

Here was the union position , in this case the TUC...

The end is nigh? The European Commission has been conducting a review of the Working Time Directive (WTD) since 2004. After a long delay, this review is now close to its conclusion. The most controversial issue is the UK's longstanding individual opt-out from the EU's limit of 48 hours on the average working week.

in particular , the TUC said..

This TUC report shows that the WTD is an important piece of health and safety legislation and that the opt-outs have serious negative consequences.

https://www.tuc.org.uk/sites/default/files/extras/48houroptout.pdf

So the general argument of the time ( early 2000`s) as i said i recalled , was the WTD was useless with the continuance of the opt out , and the worry for workers doing the long hours and wanting overtime was the uk labour government was about to scrap their ability to work long hours by ending the opt out.

...and what happened?

Britain keeps working hours opt-out

Britain last night won the right to continue allowing employees to work more than 48 hours a week as talks to reach a compromise failed.

Alistair Darling, the trade and industry secretary, said at talks in Luxembourg that the government was not prepared to give up the right for UK workers to opt-out of the EU working time directive. It sets a limit on how many hours people can be asked to work each week.

Mr Darling said employee choice and business flexibility were at stake if the opt-out was removed

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2006/jun/02/business.worklifebalance

So the labour party , much to the fury of unions and those on the left , negotiated the continuance of this opt out , negating this worthless piece of eu beurocracy at the time , which was , and remains , my point to you.

[srb7677]

I only take low paid work when loads of hours are available. Otherwise I don't meet my weekly targets for myself.
Workers time directive gives employees the ability to refuse extra hours, without ruining my ability to take as many as I can get.
I have no issue with it.

I agree.

However much others might try to twist it into something that impairs workers' rights, a system that allows us to still work as many hours as we choose to but merely prevents employers from being able to force us to work more than 48 hours against our will seems like a reasonable protection for workers.

As someone who regularly chooses to work long hours, I have no issue with it either. It doesn't prevent me from choosing to do so.

[Thomas]

I only take low paid work when loads of hours are available. Otherwise I don't meet my weekly targets for myself.
Workers time directive gives employees the ability to refuse extra hours, without ruining my ability to take as many as I can get.
I have no issue with it.

most folk dont have any issue with it.

I was talking about back in the early 2000 when the opt out was being re negotiated under labour and the unions were hoping it would stop people doing massive amounts of overtime , not the current perspective baff.

Your very post backs up what im sayng further , in how in reality it is nothing more than a useless piece of legisaltion easily got around by both employee and employer.

In short , nothing more than a tick box excercise for brussells beaurocrats.

[Thomas]

Again you insist upon the wilful misinterpretation. I was in no way playing the victim.

That you cannot debate reasonably without stooping to such ill informed misrepresentation is one reason for so much rancour between us.

You seem incapable of discussing the issues without trying to get personal

Time for you to bore off again, methinks.

I tried.

We will have to agree to disagree then , becuase i stand by my point there was no reason whatsoever for you to talk about anyone being a money grabbing employee from what i can see in this thread except as some ill disguised dig. So i stand by my view.

You often play the victim card on this forum , and attempt to tar eveyone with the same brush if they dont agree with your views.

We dont even have to drag up all your past example like accusing the majority of the uk being "racist" ........it was only on here yesterday you were yet again making jibes and falsely tarring people as "right wing" which even cromwell picked you up over on the universal credit thread.

Well citing right wing jerk circle is an easy jibe to make

https://pol-tics.com/index.php?topic=2805.msg56152;boardseen#new

You do it al the time steve , make bleating jibes and play the victim when people dont agree with you. Many people on this forum arent "right wing" or part of a "right wing jerk circle". Cromwell isnt. I was calling him a liberal softie not that long ago on here. Deppity dawg isnt. Im not. All three of us are former labour voters  , and two of us are fairly centrist in our views (i have been called an snp communist supporter on these forums) so what are you talking about?

Everytime you are either losing the argument , or find yourself in a minority of one with your labour views , you attempt to engage in these tactics of closing down debate by screaming all the empty platitudes mentioned.

I keep saying to you steve , while labour and their followers like you continue to engage in these sort of tactics , you are going to continue out of power until eventually in my opinion your party will disappear.

Part of your problem in england anyway is you still seem to think along the lines of two party politics. Either with you or against you , and anyone who isnt with you is a tory.

You should realise by now that isnt the case. In scotland , not only do the snp regualrly disagree with labour , but the scottish greens and liberals too , none of whom are right wingers by a long stretch.

The laughable thing is , the current labour leadership you seem very quiet about is more right wing than many of the parties i mentioned , and if the likes of anas sarwar gets the job as labour branch manager in scotland , one of the biggest right wingers in scottish politics and blairite through and through , it will merely confirm labour as being back to where they were under murphy and milliband , the very people who lost labout the majority of their seats in scotland.

[Baff]

Colloquial language? I have done loads of hours ( and still do) along with many other people in factories etc much of my adult life and i  have never heard anyone anywhere , either in scotland or england , describe themselves "colloquially" as a money grabbing employee when doing so.

On top of that ,i am sticking up for people who did/do loads of hours in this very thread , and rubbishing the working time directive as i pointed out it was origianlly seen as a pice of legislation that stopped people doing loads of hours.

So what are you talking about?

I suspect it was you playing the victim , which you then attempted to sideswerve once i had explained my position further.

I will leave it at that steve. Here we are again .

All i will say further i think you on the left , especially labour , had better up your game dramatically.

If its not victimhood , or woke arguments , then across most forums or social media i come across the only people listening to you are those in your jerk circle.

Without fail , many of you are running off forums in tantrums because the majority dont agree with you on the bread and butter daily issues never mind constitutional issues like scot indy or brexit.

If it carries on much further , i think you are going to be in the political wilderness for years to come.

I only take low paid work when loads of hours are available. Otherwise I don't meet my weekly targets for myself.
Workers time directive gives employees the ability to refuse extra hours, without ruining my ability to take as many as I can get.
I have no issue with it.

[srb7677]

So what are you talking about?

I suspect it was you playing the victim , which you then attempted to sideswerve once i had explained my position further.

Again you insist upon the wilful misinterpretation. I was in no way playing the victim.

That you cannot debate reasonably without stooping to such ill informed misrepresentation is one reason for so much rancour between us.

You seem incapable of discussing the issues without trying to get personal

Time for you to bore off again, methinks.

I tried.

[Thomas]

What makes you think I was bleating or playing the victim?I was merely using colloquial language to describe myself as someone who chooses to do lots of hours for the money

Colloquial language? I have done loads of hours ( and still do) along with many other people in factories etc much of my adult life and i  have never heard anyone anywhere , either in scotland or england , describe themselves "colloquially" as a money grabbing employee when doing so.

On top of that ,i am sticking up for people who did/do loads of hours in this very thread , and rubbishing the working time directive as i pointed out it was origianlly seen as a pice of legislation that stopped people doing loads of hours.

So what are you talking about?

I suspect it was you playing the victim , which you then attempted to sideswerve once i had explained my position further.

I will leave it at that steve. Here we are again .

All i will say further i think you on the left , especially labour , had better up your game dramatically.

If its not victimhood , or woke arguments , then across most forums or social media i come across the only people listening to you are those in your jerk circle.

Without fail , many of you are running off forums in tantrums because the majority dont agree with you on the bread and butter daily issues never mind constitutional issues like scot indy or brexit.

If it carries on much further , i think you are going to be in the political wilderness for years to come.

[srb7677]

i didnt call anyone a money grabbing employee steve , or hint it.

This is generally why threads you get involved in with me deteriorate to a slagging match when you play the bleating victim card.

What makes you think I was bleating or playing the victim?I was merely using colloquial language to describe myself as someone who chooses to do lots of hours for the money. As so often, you are reading more into my words than is actually there. This too is a reason so many of our threads have developed into slanging matches. Misunderstandings, seeing stuff that isn't there or even intended, and I seem to recall frequent mis-rememberings as well.

But let's not make this personal again shall we? I in no way intended my words as you seem to have interpreted them.

[Thomas]

That is because the UK forced the EU to provide a one way street option. No employer can force a employee to work more than 48 hours, but every employee has the right to opt out of it and work in excess of 48.

As a medical researcher, I used to work the same hours as the junior doctors. It amazed me how few patients died...

totally agree john.

I used to work variable shift patterns......double days and continental.

The three 12 hour shifts were the best though , and often depending o nthe shift pattern and if you did overtime , to could find yourself with the best part of 2 weeks off due to the variance in shift rotation.

I too , although contracted to 36 hour week (or 37half d/d) often did 50 / 60 hour weeks , and on accasion have donw over 90 hours , purely down to my own choice and desperation for the overtime rate and money which unions wanted to take away.

[Thomas]

In my experience as a money grabbing employee,

i didnt call anyone a money grabbing employee steve , or hint it.

This is generally why threads you get involved in with me deteriorate to a slagging match when you play the bleating victim card.

the working time directive has never prevented me from choosing to work more than 48 hours if my employer is willing to offer me the work.

I didnt say it did steve , you need to look at the nuance of my post.

My point was the working time directive was deeply unpopular when unions tried to enforce it in the early 2000`s. As ever , it was merely a useless bureaucratic directive , that on the surface looked good , but was aimed at a tiny tiny fraction of unscrupulous employers across the entire eu , who could get around it anyway.

As john said , the uk retained the right for uk workers to opt out , and if i remember rightly , it was the labour government who negotiated the continuance of the uk opt out. Much to the fury of unions.

Before i came to work for myself , i too was an employee like you steve. On top of that , i was also a union official in various factories as a deputy F.O.C , for unions such as the GPMU , amicus and unite.

It wasnt too long ago i eventually let my membership lapse , and i well remember as i said how deeply unpopular , not to mention completely uselss the working time directive actually was.

When the opt out was continued , it became an irrelevant policy easily side stepped.

There are many good and bad employers steve , just as there are employees. Contrary to the lefty bible, its not your station in life that makes you a bad person........it often down merely to your own nature as a person.

[papasmurf]

I used to work the same hours as the junior doctors. It amazed me how few patients died...

Usually because a nurse spots the mistake before a doctor makes it.

[johnofgwent]

In my experience as a money grabbing employee, the working time directive has never prevented me from choosing to work more than 48 hours if my employer is willing to offer me the work. What it does is prevents my employer from forcing me to or making excessive hours above this level contractual. As someone forced to sign up to a contracted 60 hour week in the 80s, I see virtue in that.

In my experience I am still free to work as many hours as I want. I simply cannot be forced to work more than 48 against my will. Good, I say. And I oppose any removal of it. I voted against Brexit precisely because I knew it would leave such rights at the mercy of a Tory government.

That is because the UK forced the EU to provide a one way street option. No employer can force a employee to work more than 48 hours, but every employee has the right to opt out of it and work in excess of 48.

As a medical researcher, I used to work the same hours as the junior doctors. It amazed me how few patients died...