The Brexit Thread

[jon81uk]

When I go back to work Monday I start a run of 7 days at work that will total 84 hours if I get off on time every day, which I probably won't... I don't have any choice in this. Admittedly my employment is not typical and I do not have a lot of the rights afforded to others.

Yes I assume you knew when choosing a career in policing that the maximum working hours laws didn't apply to police.

Erosion of workers rights is generally a bad thing, but I'm sure there are also some arbitrarily rules which restricts some peoples choices. Zero hours is one that always comes up as evil and should be banned, but for my wife who fits her shifts around my irregular and unpredictable pattern they are a godsend. She could never get a fixed hours contract we could both work.

But it is possible to get a minimum hours with flexible shifts that isn't zero. For example being guaranteed 15 hours a week. I think banning zero hours is sensible for most people as a minimum above zero should be better, even if it is just 7 hours a week.

 

[pluk]

Yes I assume you knew when choosing a career in policing that the maximum working hours laws didn't apply to police.

Yes, I did, and I'm not complaining about it (well I am a little because after I joined a lot of the package we recieve to compensate us which was written into law was destroyed by Tom Windsor, but that's another matter really). Point is though, it works for me and my employer. If I were to suddenly decide now it doesn't work for me any more that wouldn't work for my employer. If in other industries it works for both parties why not allow it? To have the emploee holding all the cards to change any agreement to opt out of any over hours agreed to when taking a job isn't fair either.

 

[pluk]

But it is possible to get a minimum hours with flexible shifts that isn't zero. For example being guaranteed 15 hours a week. I think banning zero hours is sensible for most people as a minimum above zero should be better, even if it is just 7 hours a week

Which still wouldn't work for us at all, it is unlikely to work for anyone who is arranging life around someone in the family not working a 7 day rolling rota, which is a hell of a lot of people. In this upcoming week for example, she'll barely be able to pick up any shifts, if any at all. Then next Tuesday I start 3 days off in row when she can pick up work. Some weeks zero hours is exactly what people want or are able to work.

 

[jon81uk]

Yes, I did, and I'm not complaining about it (well I am a little because after I joined a lot of the package we recieve to compensate us which was written into law was destroyed by Tom Windsor, but that's another matter really). Point is though, it works for me and my employer. If I were to suddenly decide now it doesn't work for me any more that wouldn't work for my employer. If in other industries it works for both parties why not allow it? To have the emploee holding all the cards to change any agreement to opt out of any over hours agreed to when taking a job isn't fair either.

That is broadly the whole point of workers rights, to ensure that employees are holding enough of the cards so that they can life a safe, healthy, happy life. Also there is evidence that working more than 40 hours a week makes people less productive, therefore 48 hours (on average over 17 weeks) doesn't seem an unreasonable maximum. Many employees probably don't actually realise how many rights they have and how many cards they hold.

Which still wouldn't work for us at all, it is unlikely to work for anyone who is arranging life around someone in the family not working a 7 day rolling rota, which is a hell of a lot of people. In this upcoming week for example, she'll barely be able to pick up any shifts, if any at all. Then next Tuesday I start 3 days off in row when she can pick up work. Some weeks zero hours is exactly what people want or are able to work.

While that is true for you and yes would mean a minimum hours contract wouldn't work for your family, it does get hard for some people who may get weeks without any hours being given to them at all, which was the main issue with zero hours a few years ago. Currently of course most places are understaffed so that isn't really an issue, but I can't imagine what it might have been like for some people who couldn't predict how much money they would have in two weeks time and how they would pay their bills.
But yes a true ban on zero hour contracts probably wouldn't be helpful and realistically would probably just result in a lot of people on seven hour contracts which isn't much better!

 

[pluk]

That is broadly the whole point of workers rights, to ensure that employees are holding enough of the cards so that they can life a safe, healthy, happy life. Also there is evidence that working more than 40 hours a week makes people less productive, therefore 48 hours (on average over 17 weeks) doesn't seem an unreasonable maximum. Many employees probably don't actually realise how many rights they have and how many cards they hold.

Hmmm. If the working arrangement is agreed by both parties though, why should there be such a limit that can be applied if the employeesimply changes their mind? What shouldn't be allowed is one party enforcing change on the other, be that employee or employer in either direction. Its just inherently unfair and can be devastating to a busines, especially a smaller one, but currently that's exactly what can happen.

 

[jon81uk]

Hmmm. If the working arrangement is agreed by both parties though, why should there be such a limit that can be applied if the employeesimply changes their mind? What shouldn't be allowed is one party enforcing change on the other, be that employee or employer in either direction. Its just inherently unfair and can be devastating to a busines, especially a smaller one, but currently that's exactly what can happen.

If a small business is reliant on overworking employees then I don’t think it’s the best business plan, employing two members of staff would be better.
Most people only work 35-40 hours a week, 48 on a regular basis is not standard.

 

[pluk]

overworking

That's not defined though, is it? As it my case those hours are not there to be typical. My hours this week are completely atypical because multiple operations are running at once including the obvious massive one that will will happen a couple of times in a lifetime. Other businesses have these sorts of events to respond to, it's not unique to policing. The police could not be resourced to cope with such demand at all times, the same will be the case for businesses.

If the employee is happy with taking a job where contractually hours can be increased to x on x number of occasions in x time period, then why should that not be allowed?
Someone cannot be overworked if the work they are doing is within their capability and what they want to do.

 

[BigT]

You don't need to ask, you submit in writing that you are cancelling your opt-out, needs seven days notice unless you agreed to give more notice (up to three months) in the original written opt-out. They cannot sack you for that reason, so you could then go to tribunal. And personally if I was working for a company which might behave like that I wouldn't want to be employed by then anyway. https://www.gov.uk/maximum-weekly-working-hours/weekly-maximum-working-hours-and-opting-out

Of course if you are in the police, armed forces or other similar jobs the maximum working hours doesn't apply, but I expect you knew that when choosing that career. https://www.gov.uk/maximum-weekly-working-hours

That would be even worse, she would ram it where the sun doesn’t shine.
I think you missed the point who my boss is when I said I’d be looking for a new home.

 

[jon81uk]

If the employee is happy with taking a job where contractually hours can be increased to x on x number of occasions in x time period, then why should that not be allowed?
Someone cannot be overworked if the work they are doing is within their capability and what they want to do.

And if it is what they want to do then they can opt out of the maximum working hours law and work more.
But it also makes sense that there is a base where in general employees cannot be forced to work more unless they choose to and can rescind that with an agreed amount of notice.

 

[pluk]

And if it is what they want to do then they can opt out of the maximum working hours law and work more

The problem being that the employee can change their mind, effectively renegade on their agreed contract, and opt back in after an employer has built their workforce around an agreement outside of that. That's the point, not that an hours limit is there, but that it can be enacted by the employee alone and regardless. Both parties should be able to sign a contract and rely on that contract in perpetuity.

 

[rob666]

That would be fine if the employee knew what was going to happen for the rest of their working lives!
Things happen, commitments change, parents get sick, disability happens, children come along.
I used the 48 hour rule repeatedly against abusing managers, finishing my working week after a full 48 hours at work, in a single shift, because my incompetent manager refused to get cover for a sick colleague.
I would quit for the week on Wednesday lunchtime, and make myself completely unavailable...great when you have no mobile.
That gave the manager big issues with covering a full weekend, without an officer in charge, because I had the legal right to walk away.
The abuse of goodwill by incompetent management stopped very quickly when the whole staff team stuck to the 48 hour rule.

 

[pluk]

That would be fine if the employee knew what was going to happen for the rest of their working lives!
Things happen, commitments change, parents get sick, disability happens, children come along.

... and at that point the employee can ask to change their contract, give and take, something mutually beneficial, agreed benefits and renumeration. Or if that's likely to be a problem in the future don't sign up to an over hours contract in the first place. I just don't think either party should be able to impose contractual a change on the other, the current regs allow for just that.

 

[Benzin]

... and at that point the employee can ask to change their contract, give and take, something mutually beneficial, agreed benefits and renumeration. Or if that's likely to be a problem in the future don't sign up to an over hours contract in the first place. I just don't think either party should be able to impose contractual a change on the other, the current regs allow for just that.

Great idea, but that relies on the company being run by sensible human beings who are understanding and empathic.

Unfortunately in the likes of Retail and F&B you are completely at the mercy of having a capable manager who would try and work with staff to ensure their situations are covered and understood in the correct manner.

 

[pluk]

Great idea, but that relies on the company being run by sensible human beings who are understanding and empathic.

Unfortunately in the likes of Retail and F&B you are completely at the mercy of having a capable manager who would try and work with staff to ensure their situations are covered and understood in the correct manner.

Does that not remain the case regardless? Talking specifically about amending the working time regulations, changes in circumstances that require some meeting in the middle are unlikely to be resolved by simply reducing down to x hours but will need other concessions not covered by legislation.

People often seem to forget that be being a decent employee is likely going to result in an employer wanting to be accommodation to retain your services. Certainly what I've found as an employee, and how I've approached things as a manager.

 

[rob666]

Jeez mate, you are just so wrong.
My wife's employer loses decent employees on a weekly basis, and they do not give a damn.
Plenty more willing to work for a tenner an hour to replace them.
Major employer in a major industry.
Gone on for a decade, and they don't give a flying flip about retention.

 

[jon81uk]

Does that not remain the case regardless? Talking specifically about amending the working time regulations, changes in circumstances that require some meeting in the middle are unlikely to be resolved by simply reducing down to x hours but will need other concessions not covered by legislation.

People often seem to forget that be being a decent employee is likely going to result in an employer wanting to be accommodation to retain your services. Certainly what I've found as an employee, and how I've approached things as a manager.

But you can be a decent employee and cancel your opt out.
For example if someone has a child and therefore no longer wishes to work more than 48 hour weeks, they could give a few months notice of that. Or they could get a new job and give a months notice to leave. Both situations leave the employer in similar circumstances.

 

[pluk]

But you can be a decent employee and cancel your opt out

Absolutely never said you couldn't? Point is employer is more likely to be accommodating on employment terms (far in excess of any statutory minimum) if you are a good worker.

For example if someone has a child and therefore no longer wishes to work more than 48 hour weeks, they could give a few months notice of that. Or they could get a new job and give a months notice to leave. Both situations leave the employer in similar circumstances.

Nope, one leaves the employer making a decision as to whether they facilitate new terms (and not with any notice, legally), one where they have to regardless of the wider impact on the business.

I'm not saying anyone should have to sign up for any maximum or minimum hours when they take on a job, they should only commit to what they are happy to I terms of hours and flexibility. I certainly would not commit to anything much above 40 hours in perpetuity or without serious renumeration. But if an employee then changes their mind about how they want to work their hours that should not be something they can impose on their employer, it should be time to negotiate or move on if an agreement cannot be made.

 

[rob666]

But 48 hours is a reasonably set maximum, to allow for a healthy whole life balance for the employee.
Asking any employee to work above those hours on a regular basis is unreasonable, if the employee opts out.
It isn't an overtime ban, it isn't a work to rule, it is a safe, reasonable, healthy limit.
Many employees will be forced into a no choice situation economically without continued legal protection.

 

[pluk]

You seem to think I'm arguing for something I'm not.

If I've not been clear. The current legislation allows for the employee to sign up for one thing, then renegade on that and leave the employer knackered. That's not fair, it's wrong, it shouldn't be allowed and a change in legislation could be a good thing. In the same breath the employer shouldn't be allowed to force overtime outside of agreed contract, so if it's not agreed to in the first place working time directive isn't necessary anyway.

 

[rob666]

Standard working hours are set in contract terms, or should be.
This is an extra limit of a maximum ten hours overtime for most people, losing one of two rest days, on top of regular hours.
Pulling back from a sixty or seventy hour working week (which I was often expected to work on a regular basis by my local government employer), to a legally enforced maximum 48 hour week meant my employer had to employ more staff, or close the establishment.
They employed more staff, because they could no longer exploit the staff they already had, because of the working time directive.
It really was that simple, and the legislation works, healthier staff with a work life balance.
Many employers exploit their staff through overwork.
If the employer has sufficient staff overall, and does not routinely exploit staff regarding working hours, it should not be an issue.