EUROPEAN politicians will this week deal a new blow to Britain's culture of long working hours by moving to stop UK companies opting out of laws limiting an employee's working week to 48 hours.
They also want to extend the laws to include employees such as doctors, pilots or firefighters when they are on-call but not necessarily working.
The move is eagerly anticipated by trade unions and junior doctors but has attracted fierce criticism from business leaders and the NHS employers' organisation.
MEPs are to meet in Strasbourg on Wednesday to debate a revision of working hours aimed at "allowing a better compatibility between work and family life" across the EU.
At present, Britain is the only EU member to retain an optout to the European working time directive (EWTD) capping employees' hours at 48 per week. The opt-out is meant to be voluntary but there are concerns that some companies are forcing workers to sign away their rights. UK employees work the longest hours of any European country bar Latvia.
Proposals to end the opt-out and extend the legislation to include "on-call" time are almost certain to be approved and passed to the Council of Ministers for a decision.
Scots Tory MEP Struan Stevenson, who has chaired a working group on the issue, said: "It will mean losing Britain's opt-out. On-call working times will be deemed as working time, so [that applies to] doctors or firemen on the golf course.
"I have had a hell of a lot of lobbying on this from people saying, 'You guys in Brussels want to crucify us with this.'" Among them are the Confederation of British Industry (CBI), which has expressed alarm at the likely parliamentary vote in favour of tightening up the legislation.
James Fothergill, senior policy advisor to the CBI, said:
"The evidence that's being bandied about that there's largescale abuse in the UK over the opt-out is simply not true, and it's unfortunate that a number of MEPs' judgement has been clouded over the evidence put forward."
Employees, he insisted, "very much value the choice they have to work longer hours".
He added that complying with the legislation will cause severe problems in industries with traditionally long working hours, especially staff shortages and "not being able to replace people because they have worked their maximum hours".
The CBI concedes that the parliamentary vote is not likely to go its way and is placing its hopes with the Council of Ministers and the UK government's "very firm assurances that they stand firmly behind retaining the opt-out".
The issue has arisen as a result of two European court cases which set precedents on on-call hours and compensatory rest time. The European Commission, which was due to conduct a review of EWTD anyway, wanted these rulings watered down in parliament, but MEPs have thus far resisted.
The text to be put to parliament this week states: "The opt-out provision should be abolished as soon as possible since it is in flagrant contradiction to the objectives and provisions of the [working time] directive and with the fundamental principles of the protection of health and safety."
It continues that the opt-out "contradicts all the evidence that indicates that working time without limits poses a serious risk to workers' health and safety, as well as to the reconciliation of family and professional life".
The parliamentary vote also threatens to cause a split between the re-elected Labour government, which opposes the move, and Labour MEPs, many of whom are expected to back the measures.
David Martin, a senior Labour MEP, told the Sunday Herald: "Parliament is likely, if it follows committee, to end the individual opt-out which I understand the British government is opposed to. It would be a reasonable assumption that the Labour members will vote with the majority in the parliament on this issue. And that's unlikely to entirely please the government."
Martin said that a compromise had been reached to "keep some flexibility" by increasing from four to 12 months the reference period over which an average 48-hour week was measured. The UK government argues that allowing companies to ask employees to choose to opt out ensures greater workplace flexibility, so boosting employment.
However, trade unions believe there are more people in Britain working 48 hours or more than when the legislation was introduced.
Dave Watson, policy officer with Unison Scotland, said many companies had sought to get round the legislation and pointed to a growing problem of "presenteeism", whereby employees leave jackets on the back of chairs, or take in two briefcases and leave one lying around to try and fool employers into thinking they are at work all hours of the day.
"Although it's a very difficult thing to enforce, I would hope [the revised EWTD] may help change the culture of long working hours in the UK."
The British Medical Association, which represents doctors, also backs the EWTD, which first came into force in its original form in 1998. It was extended to junior doctors in August last year after a delay caused by the fact "the NHS relied on their excessive working hours to deliver services".
However, it currently limits hours to a maximum 58 a week, dropping to 56 hours from 2007 and 48 hours from 2009.
In a policy statement, the BMA says: "The EWTD has clearly forced innovative developments that are beneficial for doctors and safer for patients. Despite some problems, evidence shows that, with some exceptions, it is working in Scotland."
That view is not shared by NHS Employers, a body which represents NHS trusts in England, which said the two court cases updating EWTD had caused "huge difficulties" for the health service.
"We would rather see some relaxation of that ruling because it makes planning and covering rotas very difficult, " said Alastair Henderson, NHS Employers' deputy director.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article