EU law to ban overtime to cost the UK £8 billion a year - 10 UK workers explain why new rules would spell disaster
16 March 2009
There are currently over 3 million people in the UK working more than 48 hours a week. The right to choose flexible working hours is seen as fundamental part of the British economy, and now paramount to help businesses, the public sector and individuals to cope with the recession.
However, on Tuesday 17 March, formal talks will begin in Brussels between the European Parliament and EU ministers which could threaten this right. On the agenda is the so-called Working Time Directive and the future of the UK's opt-out from the provision in this Directive which limits the working week to 48 hours - which the European Parliament voted to abolish back in November 2008. If the UK Government loses, working more than 48 hours a week will become illegal in the UK.
The outcome of these talks is unpredictable. The UK could lose, as it did in 2000 on a proposal capping working hours for junior doctors - the effect of which was tantamount to losing between 4,300 and 9,900 junior doctors, according to the British Medical Association.
On the eve of the negotiations, Open Europe publishes new anecdotal and quantitative evidence showing why ending the right to flexible working hours would be devastating for the UK. 10 people from right across society explain what losing the opt-out would mean to them and their industry.
In addition, we estimate that the Working Time Directive as it currently applies in the UK is already costing the economy between £3.5 billion and £3.9 billion every year. Through a series of unfortunate amendments and court cases, the cost of this Directive has risen steadily year-on-year since its introduction in 1998.
Should the UK Government lose in the negotiations starting this week in Brussels, we estimate this cost could rise to between £9.2 billion and £11.9 billion a year by 2011.
Open Europe's Research Director Mats Persson said:
"The decision whether or not to work flexible hours should rest with individuals and families - not remote politicians in Brussels. This law combines the worst of all worlds. It's absurdly prescriptive, hugely expensive and takes no account of individual circumstances. It should have been confined to the dustbin a long time ago. "
"Taking away the right to choose flexible working hours at this point in time would be disastrous. Given the enmourmos cost of this law and the state of our economy, the UK should make clear to its partners in Europe that this is a cost it is not prepared to accept."
The case summarised:
In January, the Government admitted that losing the opt-out would "cost the UK billions both in costs to industry and lost earnings. As a result, it could also only have a negative impact on overall employment levels."[1] However, despite these costs and the fact that the opt-out is in a late stage in the EU's negotiation process, the UK Government has still not produced an Impact Assessment for the potential impact of what losing the right to flexible work might mean for the British economy.
In fact, extraordinarily, a BERR official told Open Europe that an IA had never been produced because "no one expected the opt-out to come up for negotiation."[2] An answer to a Freedom of Information request also revealed that the Government plans to produce such an assessment only after the negotiations are finished and the proposal is passed.
However, to illustrate what this cost will mean in practice, we have asked ten people from across different sectors of industry - from the health services to the construction sector to the legal professions - to explain the consequences of ending the opt-out for their industry as well as for them personally.
These accounts tell a very clear story. Taking away the right to flexible work would land a heavy blow to real people in the real economy - at a time when we can least afford it.
The arguments summarised:
Mary Piper, an NHS Nurse in London, says the important practice of ensuring patients see the same nurse could be threatened by a maximum 48 hour week. "It is common sense", she says "that there will be nurse shortages once all the nurses have worked their maximum permitted number of hours."
Allan Gallagher, a Hotel Supervisor and Night Porter in Fort William, says he is "shocked that any government body thinks this is a feasible option". He says: "Working in the hospitality industry means that I am required to be as flexible as possible in my work, often working long hours in the height of the season, and less through quiet times."
James Sloane, a Foreman and Steel Erector in Dorset, explains why the flexible working hours are crucial for the specific nature of steel. He argues, "All sorts of things affect our working week, sometimes we get delays that we have to overcome by working longer, sometimes we can sit in our van or a cabin for days due to inclement weather waiting for it to improve and of course we have to work longer to be able to try and recover some of the lost time." He says, "If we were to have restrictions on our working hours it would significantly reduce our earning potential and also probably damage our company which could mean some of us losing our jobs. As you can imagine this would be disastrous for our families."
David Dalziel, Secretary of the Chief Fire Officers Association in Scotland, looks at the potential impact on the fire services, warning that "The potential loss of the individual opt-out in the UK would have catastrophic effects. 91% of the UK landmass is protected by firefighters on the retained duty system (RDS). These men and women provide the national resilience and emergency response to natural and man made disaster, major incidents and other emergencies crewing 2 out of every 3 fire stations in the country." He continues, "They hold other jobs in their local communities and also provide around 120 hours availability every week of the year to deliver a local fire and rescue service. Any adverse impact on that would expose this country to an unacceptable level of risk."
Barry Trevers, a Senior Rigger at Cable & Wireless in Suffolk, says: "With a rigidly enforced maximum 48 hour week ruling, we could not continue to operate a business model anywhere close to its current level of efficiency."
Steven Duncan, a Human Resources Consultant in Gosforth warns that the loss of flexibility could do substantial damage to businesses across the UK: "Many companies take the view that it is more cost effective to employ a core number of staff and to balance out the working week's peaks and troughs by asking people to be flexible when it comes overtime or reducing their hours."
Karl Watson, a Nursing Assistant in Wolverhampton, explains that losing the right to work flexible hours would make it hard for him to cope financially. "I take home after tax etc around £850 per month. I top this up with working extra shifts when available. ...The country is in deep trouble as it is, people are struggling to make ends meet; please do not take away our other income."
Ruth Pott, Director of Employment Affairs at the Road Haulage Association looks at the inconclusive evidence with regard to the impact of long hours on safety and accidents. She notes, "Research actually finds that individual motivation and attitude play a significant role in well being, and equally importantly, there is no evidence that work itself is bad for individuals. For most, it is acknowledged to be a positive contributor to health and well being." She concludes that "there is no evidence to suggest there is a problem that needs addressing."
Steve Cooper, a Forklift Truck Driver from Cumbria, says that "Being restricted to 48 hours would cost me roughly £3,000 a year, leaving me on £15,000 a year, which I could not pay my mortgage and bills with."
Peter Shutt, a Lawyer in London, explains that "The increasingly globalised nature of high finance requires UK-based legal firms to provide their services around the clock." Ending the opt-out, he argues, "would only lead to a further deterioration in confidence in the UK financial services industry."
Notes for editors
1) To read the full briefing please click the link below:
http://www.openeurope.org.uk/research/wtdoptout2.pdf
2) For more information please call Mats Persson on 0207 197 2333 or 07799 460691.
3) Open Europe is an independent think-tank calling for reform of the European Union. Its supporters include: Sir Stuart Rose, Executive Chairman, Marks and Spencer plc; Sir Crispin Davis, Chief Executive, Reed Elsevier Group plc; Sir David Lees, Chairman, Tate and Lyle plc; Henry Keswick, Chairman, Jardine Matheson Holdings Ltd; Lord Sainsbury of Preston Candover KG, Life President, J Sainsbury plc; Sir John Egan, Chairman, Severn Trent plc and Lord Kalms of Edgware, President, DSG International plc.
For a full list, please click here:
http://www.openeurope.org.uk/about%2Dus/supporters.aspx