Working Time Directive Threat of Social Dumping - Literature review Example

Working Time Directive (WTD), Its Importance, and the Threat of Social Dumping Details: al Affiliation: Date of Submission Working Time Directive (WTD), Its Importance, and the Threat of Social Dumping The Necessity of Working Time Directive (WTD) in Protecting Workers’ Health and Safety The ability to maintain a work-life balance remains one of the greatest challenges facing many workers the world over. The cliché of “time spent at work coming at the opportunity cost of time for rest or life” cannot be over emphasized, for work gives the financial strength to pursue interests outside of work. The challenge of work-life balance is, thus, to strike a compromise between the competing interests via managing the working hours. Introduced under the European Union treaties enabling the adoption of laws by qualified majority vote on issues concerning the health and safety of workers within the union, the Working Time Directive (WTD) was from the very outset a controversial law, with the United Kingdom in particular taking great exception to the extent of sabotaging its implementation through legal battles that threatened the foundation of the union itself. Against the tide of the contrary wishes of the UK government among other dissidents that saw the law as an imposition of Social Chapter-style obligations on sovereign states with targets to achieve through the back door, the directive (EWTD), nonetheless, came into force under the Working Time Regulations 1998 with a unanimous vote that recognized negative effects of excessive long working hours on health and safety of the general workforce of within the union (Geyer, Mackintosh and Lehmann, 2005). That apart from the provision for the statutory minimum rest-breaks, annual leave entitlements and working arrangements for those working at night, the Working Time Directive is but designed to moderate on a work-life balance that limits long hours of work, which is not only stressful at most, but extremely harmful health wise (Barnett and Scrope, 2008). Individuals have particular preferences for working hours to which their actual working arrangements may or may not match. There is, thus, bound to be a ‘working time problem’ should there be a mismatch. When workers work extremely longer than necessary, regardless of whether it is through their consent or that of the employer, there is bound to be negative results upon the health of the workers involved (Falkner, et. al., 2005). It is important to note from the very outset that the EWTD’s legal caps requirement with potentially sanctions that included heavy financial penalties on governments across the union was but an idea whose time wouldn’t have come at the time, for the justifications for excessive longer working hours may be destructive at best if not regulated. The Directive is more of a reprieve from oppressive work regulations hitherto in the hands of the employer, heralding an era of regulated work times that features, among other legal provisions, a maximum of 48 hours of work per week; 11 hours of continuous rest in a period of 24 hours; 24 hours of uninterrupted rest per week; a break of 20 minute in every 6 working hour period; a four-week annual leave; and for those working overnight night, an average of no more than 8 work hours in a period of 24 hours (Boulin, 2006; Geyer, Mackintosh and Lehmann, 2005). To reiterate, the main objective of the introduction of WTD was and remains the protection of workers against the health and safety risks associated with long and irregular working hours. The concept of health and safety must therefore be interpreted in a wide sense to embrace a host of interruptive factors, physical or otherwise, capable of undermining the health and safety of individual workers in their working environments. Right from the precarious working time arrangements, intensified and/or higher paces of work, to the unsocial working hours that include working time patterns that more than stand in the way of work-life balance often increases chances of individuals developing stress and/or illnesses related to lack of control over what individuals do at work and in their lives in general. Quite a huge chuck of literary research confirms with little doubt that driving while tired, for instance, bring out results that are more or less the same as those brought about by driving under the influence of alcohol; a confirmation that more than highlights the health and safety issues involved in the directive discussed herein. To be certain, it is very common for those forced to work longer hours to develop stress and associated illnesses such as headaches, muscular problems, sleeping problems, stomachaches, and/or general irritability (Lingard and Rowlinson, 2005). There is, therefore, no doubt whatsoever that the employees such as drivers, already mentioned will, to a greater extent benefit a great deal healthwise and on safety grounds, more so with regards to accidents that may end up destroying a host of careers. In the context of globalized labor markets, clear-cut minimum standards of working time arrangements are necessary to ensure fair competition and to shield workers from the increasingly permeable borders and markets. Protection against long and/or irregular working hours is important not only in protecting individual workers, in traffic, in health care, in manufacturing sector, etcetera, but also to safeguard against destructive competition from downgrading working conditions; decent levels of pay are but essential components for health and safety protection of the workforce. WTD, thus, serves as an important element that helps prevent undue pressure on workers towards accepting unhealthy and irrational working conditions. It is more of a fact that healthy living incorporates a host of variables; variables that include a commensurate balance between work and family obligations. The 48 hour work-week and the mandatory four-week annual leave, in particular, goes a long way in improving individuals’/workers health, for it not only freely times hitherto locked up into longer work hours, but does well to strengthen family ties. Suffice to say, time together helps a great deal in building commitment to family relations, in effect, weeding out unsuccessful unions (Wolfinger, 2005). With reduced stress over family issues, a worker definitely becomes even more productive, in terms of work efficiency. A more relaxed workforce does not only help improve familial relations dynamics and the associated health outcomes, but does well to better work relations between the employees themselves as well as that between them and their employers, which to a greater extent, improves communication, giving substance and satisfaction to work and work environment itself. Researches are in agreement with a range of perceived health and safety outcomes, noting that rather than introducing more ‘flexibility’, the law should be strengthened even further to safeguard the gains achieved with better protections against the health and safety risks of derogatory contractual arrangements affecting working time (TU Congress, 2008). The Directive Vis-à-vis the Singularization of the Labor Market Across the Union The opposition to the introduction of the Working Time Directive within the entire European Union demonstrates the shear struggles that the EU has endured in its quest to ensure a singular, cooperative block with influence over the member states. Noteworthy, the Social Charter of the union’s constitution has been contentious at best, with many countries opposing it due to the perceived Britain’s stature with regards to the propositions contained therein. The UK, in particular, has been at odds with regards the legalization of areas touching social policy; the Working Time Directive falling, albeit partly, under this area on grounds of the peoples’ welfare has been part of the contention. The UK’s arguments against the Directive, citing the principle of subsidiarity under Article 5 of the Maastrict Treaty, limiting the union’s action only to areas falling within its exclusive competence, has not been convincing. Contrary to the many dissidents’ voices, an agreement on a single economic and social policy is but a mandatory requirement if a single internal market is to be achieved within the union; and so fall within the jurisdiction of the EC as spelled out in Article 2 of the union treaty (Collins, Ewing and McColgan, 2012). It is in the interest of the EC, most notably, through the Working Time Directive (WTD), to effectively restrict what member states may specify in their national labor laws in accordance with the shared standards across the union. That although these restrictions may be considered intrusive to the internal operational dynamics of the respective states, the purpose of such interventions is to ensure that the preferences of workers are respected by employers within the union, thus, minimizing working time mismatches and/or areas of potential conflict, confusion and/or suspicion on certain explicit standards, in effect, helping members states focus their time and resources on core beneficial issues rather than peripheral working time matters (Cabrelli, 2014). The WTD clearly touches on matters of social policy, and that in keeping with the goal of integrating the member states towards a single internal labor market, it is arguably a justifiable and a necessary tool to achieve community goals. Fears of economic crisis as initially argued have proven unfounded and that of small businesses do not appear suppressed. If anything, the overall economy of the UK with the largest number of dissidents is even stronger. Working Time Directive and the threat of social dumping Tensions between the freedom to provide services and social rights within the European Union have been among the contentious issues that have often come to the fore whenever the issue of expansion of the union is muted, with a few cases such as the Laval and Viking cases ending up in the European Court of Justice over the same (Bell, Otterbach, and Sousa-Poza, 2011). In the cases, the above mentioned included, the bone of contention revolves around the existence of lower wages and inferior working conditions that more than gives the expression of cost advantage, hence the ‘social dumping’ intention. To be explicit, the idea is driven by the consequential effects of liberalization of trade flows in the member states with the growing integration of low and high-wage countries, giving low-standard country actors access to higher market share, consequently depressing job prospects and lowering earnings in high-wage countries (Belous and Lemco, 1993). Coming from different backgrounds with differing levels of remunerations, social protection, as well as degrees of actual implementation of necessary labor laws, the threat of the implementation of the EUs Working Time Directive undermining the construction of a single European labor market by allowing some social dumping has been, without a doubt, real and continues to hamper cooperation in key areas within the union, with key leaders such as the former French President Nicolas Sarkozy loudly expressing his discontent with ‘disloyal competition’ practices in his Toulon speech on 1 December 2011 (Economist, 2011); sentiments echoed by the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) almost at the same time through their campaign ‘against wage and social dumping’. References Barnett, D. and Scrope, H. (2008) Employment Law Handbook, Cornwall: MPG Books. Bell, D., Otterbach, S. and Sousa-Poza, A. (2011) ‘Work Hours Constraints and Health’, Institute for the Study of Labor IZA Discussion Paper No. 6126, Bonn.  Belous, R.S. and Lemco, J. (1993) ‘Introduction’, in: R.S. Belous and J. Lemco, NAFTA as a Model of Development. The Benefits and Costs of Merging High and Low Wage Areas, Washington D. C.: Washington Office of the Friedrich Ebert Foundation. Boulin, J. (2006) Decent Working Time: New Trends, New Issues. Geneva: ILO. Cabrelli, D. (2014) Employment Law in Context: Text and Materials. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Collins, H. Ewing, K. and McColgan, A. (2012) Labour Law, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Economist (2011) ‘The Euro Crisis. One Problem, Two Visions (part II)’, http://www.economist.com/blogs/charlemagne/2011/12/euro-crisis-0 (5/12/2011). Falkner, G., Treib, O., Hartlapp, M., and Leiber, S. (2005) Complying with Europe: EU Harmonisation and Soft Law in the Member States, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Geyer, R. Mackintosh, A. and Lehmann K. (2005) Integrating UK and European Social Policy: The Complexity of Europeanization, Oxford: Radcliffe. Lingard, H. and Rowlinson, A. (2005) Occupational Health and Safety in Construction Project Management, New York: Spon press. TU Congress. (2008) “Changing Times Newsletter No.95”, http://www.tuc.org.uk/workplace-issues/welfare-and-benefits/ct-newsletter/changing-times-newsletter-no95 Wolfinger, N. H. (2005) Understanding the Divorce Cycle. The Children of Divorce in Their Own Marriages, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.   Read More