The Working Time Directive and Labour Force - Literature review Example

THE WORKING TIME DIRECTIVE AND LABOUR FORCE by Introduction The Working Time Directive (WTD) of the European Union is a contemporary representation of the greater effort by the EU to safeguard the overall safety and health of its workers. As a Directive of the EU, it provides its workforce with the right to a set of provisions, i.e. the right to a maximum of a 48-hour working week, rest breaks and a minimum number of holidays on a yearly basis. Others include a required day off after a week’s working schedule, restriction on excessive night work, and the right to rest for at least 11 hours in any given working day. Accordingly, the EU Directive requires EU member states to continuously guarantee the aforementioned rights, as well as other requirements pertinent to ensuring universal safety and wellbeing of the EU workforce. The Working Time Directive: Concept and Concerns Initiated and subsequently adopted in 1993, the WTD legislation was introduced towards enabling laws pertinent to workers’ safety and health while at the workplace. Blake (2010) avers that the directive introduced under an article of the different treaties was adopted by the existing qualified majority of member states. This was despite having been controversial from the very onset, with the UK having been particularly vocal, in terms of both the legality behind the Directive’s adoption, and the EU’s overall adoption of such a measure (Blake, 2010/ Peterson, 1995:64). A notable aspect here is that EU member states have the leeway to allow their working force to voluntarily exceed the aforementioned 48-hour working week. This is however only possible under the direct request of employees, and when pertinent records are kept of such exceptions (Blake, 2010). While the UK was the only nation to utilize this derogation, the majority of EU member states have gradually adopted the same. This is through varying laws, which utilize existing provisions as provided under this derogation (BMA, 2014). Accordingly, across the EU it is estimated that roughly 9% of the workforce present exceeds the regulated 48-hour working week ideal. However, of concern is that in some of these member states, the rate is higher thus the need for an overall reduction of these working hours. Fundamentally, both legal and political arguments and debate have consistently eclipsed the ‘moral ideal’ behind the concept. This has been mainly through legal challenges brought forth to the European Court of Justice (European Commission, 2014). Two major cases have, therefore, fundamentally influenced the effective operationalisation of this Directive, thereby extending its overall scope (European Commission, 2014). These were the SIMAP Case (SIMAP v CSCGV (2000) C-303/98) and the Jaeger Case (Landeshauptstadt Kiel v Jaeger (2003) C-151/02). The SIMAP Case was a challenge brought up by the UK, in terms of the legal procedure utilized by the EU when proposing the Directive, and its adoption on the basis that it did not aptly comply with the treaty’s subsidiary provision. However the UK was to lose both counts as brought before the ECJ in 1996 (Greer, 2006:137). Secondly, concern was based upon the definition of the working time schedule of doctors and health workers in general (Black, 2006:182). In the Jaeger Case, the ECJ was to rule that Dr. Jaeger legally was working all the hours that he was in hospital and that these should be included in his overall working schedule. By having a bed in the hospital he worked in, and despite being permitted to rest in this place several hours a day, the court ruled that his work log should be inclusive of the rest hours also. Furthermore, the court also ruled that compensatory rests breaks were necessary to follow on directly after the work period. As Morris‐Stiff et al. (2005) elude, both cases significantly affected existing EU’s healthcare providers, with a number of member states, which had not formerly operated the voluntary derogation introducing it subsequently. Notably, the impact of both cases was of major impact to overall healthcare provision, especially in the UK based upon four core reasons. Morris‐Stiff, et al., 2005:297) These reasons regard the fact that the UK possessed a lower volume ratio number of doctors per head of its overall population, that it placed greater reliance on its hospitals being staffed by doctors in training and that it possessed proportionately fewer doctors regarded as having attained senior levels (based upon the factors of input, knowledge and experience). It also regard the fact that its doctors in training were spread out to different hospital settings, as opposed to being aptly concentrated in fewer centres (Peterson, 1995:70). The WTD: Working Conditions and Environments The Directive is aimed at ensuring that member state workers are able to enjoy an optimal environment in which they work in. Fundamentally informing the provisions provided within is the input of research, as Waurick et al. (2007) present. Indications are of fact that excessive working time is often cited as a core causal factor of illness, stress and depression in various workforces. This in turn influences the economic output of various nations, invariably affecting geo-political aspects. Thus, primary concern is focused on both the safety and health of workers. In terms of provisions, the Directive provides a number of entitlements as well as derogations (Waurick, R et al., 2007:577). Jarman and Scott (2012) present the entitlements provided to include a minimum of daily rest of 11 consecutive hours per 24-hour working days. It also included rest breaks when working for more than 6 hours at a go and a whole 24 hours break period in after every seven-day work period (which is in addition to the aforementioned mandatory 11-hour breaks). It also included and a general restriction of a working week’s duration to 48 hours, which should be inclusive of overtime. Furthermore, workers should be able to access health checks on a regular basis, especially when performing night work (Jarman & Scott, 2012:262/ Peterson, 1995:65). In addition, such night workers are restricted to work for an average 8-hour working day/ night, in any given 24 hour work period. Greer (2006) provides that this is especially so for those involved in heavy physical work that is both physically exerting and time consuming. The Directive further contains a number of either derogations, which exempt in part or whole, groups of workers from its provisions as aforementioned. Accordingly, the most inclusive of exemptions are applicable to four groups of workers mainly (Greer, 2006:136). These are family workers, the self-employed, ministers of religion and managing executives. All these workers were initially exempt from the provisions of restrictions concerning maximum working hours i.e. night working hours and the maximum working week. However, they were not to be paid for health checks either during their night work schedules or during annual leave (Black, 2006: 1182 / Greer, 2006:137). Informative to the discussion is that other sectors are exempted from all pertinent requirements, except for night work restrictions, maximum working hours, annual paid leave and weekly rest periods. These sectors comprise of workers working in agriculture; specific railway responsibilities; airport and dock workers; prison staff, care workers and health service workers; those in utilities, and fire and ambulance services (European Commission, 2014/ Peterson, 1995:66). The WTD: Influences, Impact and Effects across the EU Single Labour Market Enhanced integration across the EU’s single labour market is achievable in a number of ways according to my view. To be noted, however, is that a number of issues are still pending, necessitating further debate and consensus. In terms of benefits to the single labour market, integration is possible through a number of avenues. This is in terms of the direct benefits to be gained by the workforce present, thereby presenting favourable working conditions for all workers, despite their nationality (BMA, 2014/ European Commission, 2014). Furthermore, the presence of derogations as well as pertinent amendments i.e. the 2004 European Commission proposals to the Directive, displays continued interest in the outcomes of this noble ideal. In addition, the continued interaction of employer bodies and pertinent worker unions will be greatly aided through provision of a legislated platform on which workers’ concerns are adequately debated and addressed (Smillie, Hilary & Sandra, 2006). Accordingly, I am of the opinion that the reality of the greater implementation of the WTD within the EU does not threaten to undermine the construction of a single labour market arena. This does not however imply that there has, and will be major differences, opinions and opposition (Waurick et al., 2007:576). Informative to my opinion are a number of factors, based upon the continued review of the Directive 2003/88/EC by the European Commission. This is based upon a 2-stage consultation of EU-level employers’ and workers’ representatives (Greer, 2008:221). This is in addition to the systematic conduct of a detailed impact assessment. In the first stage of these consultations (2010, March), as presented by Blake (2010), both employers’ and workers’ organizations in the region agreed that there was need for review of the EU rules on working hours. While the resulting views differed i.e. with workers’ unions wanting more effective protection vis-à-vis business representatives calling for more flexibility, this presented a favourable opportunity in which both sides could conclusively air their views (Blake, 2010: Peterson, 1995:67). The second stage of the consultation (in 2010, December) had a main outcome. Here, all key cross-sectoral representatives of workers and employers favoured the option of negotiating the ‘Working Time review’ themselves. This option was as set out in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), Article 155 (EUbusiness, 2014). While extensive talks that were held throughout the year 2012 did not yield any direct results and agreements, I am of the view that the European Commission is going to decide aptly on all contentious issues. Conclusion As stated above, the Working Time Directive (WTD) of the European Union is a contemporary representation of the greater effort by the EU to safeguard the overall safety and health of its workers. The WTD Initiative is a great opportunity through which workers in the greater EU will be able to have their safety, general health and wellbeing catered to accordingly. This is crucial for the greater EU, in terms of not only enhancing greater integration of its labour market arena, but also more so concerning streamlining pertinent rules, regulations and safety measures vital for optimal worker output. Accordingly, I am of the opinion that this directive, once all contentious issues are sorted out, will be greatly beneficial; especially given the fact that the EU is on a journey of greater regional integration. This is vitally in terms of economics and monetary policies, security, politics and social inclusion. References Black, P. (2006). The European Working Time Directive. British Journal of Ophthalmology, 90(9): 1082-83. Blake, H. (2010, Jun 09). The EU Working Time Directive in detail. The Telegraph: World News -Europe, retrieved from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/7813258/The-EU-Working-Time-Directive-in-detail.html BMA. (2014). European Working Time Directive. BMA – Practical support at work: European Working Time Directive, retrieved from http://bma.org.uk/practical-support-at-work/ewtd EUbusiness. (2014, Jun 07). European Working Time Directive. EUbusiness – Employment: European Working Time Directive, retrieved from: http://www.eubusiness.com/topics/employment/working-time-directive European Commission. (2014, Dec 01). Working Conditions - Working Time Directive. European Commission (Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion), retrieved from: http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=706&langId=en&intPageId=205 Greer, SL. (2008). Choosing paths in European Union health services policy: a political analysis of a critical juncture. Journal of European Social Policy, 18(3): 219-31. Greer, SL. (2006). Uninvited Europeanization! Neo-functionalism and the EU in health Policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 13(1): 134-52. Jarman, H. & Scott, G. (2012). Managing risks in EU health services policy: Spot markets, legal certainty and bureaucratic resistance. Journal of European Social Policy, 22(3): 259-72. [Landeshauptstadt Kiel v Jaeger (2003) C-151/02] Case Morris‐Stiff, GJ et al. (2005). The European Working Time Directive: one for all and all for one? Surgery, 137293–297.297. Peterson, J. (1995). Decision-making in the European Union: Towards a framework for analysis. Journal of European Public Policy, 2(1): 63-93. [SIMAP v CSCGV – Sindicato de Medicos de Asistencia Publica v Conselleria de Sanidad y Consumo de la Generalidad Valenciana - (2000) C-303/98] Case Smillie, S., Hilary, O & Sandra, H. (2006, Nov 06). Q&A: Working Time Directive. The Guardian: Work-life balance, retrieved from: http://www.theguardian.com/money/2006/nov/06/workandcareers.europeanunion The Working Time Directive. (2014). euromove (Publications: Expert Briefings), retrieved from: http://www.euromove.org.uk/index.php?id=15293 Waurick, R et al. (2007). The European Working Time Directive: effect on education and clinical care. Current Opinion in Anesthesiology, 20(6): 576-79. Read More