Working time opt-out under threat
THE European Parliament voted today to scrap the UK Government's fiercely guarded opt-out from the EU's 48-hour maximum work week, reopening a long-running ideological battle with London.
The European Union's legislature voted by 378 to 262, with 15 abstentions, to tighten Working Time Directive rules and phase out the opt-out over three years.
The opt-out, under which workers voluntarily opt to work more than the 48-hour Working Time Directive maximum, is used primarily by the UK. It was won by John Major 12 years ago and has been a bone of contention in Europe ever since.
The Government and employers claim it is good for competitiveness. Unions however say the opt-out, although voluntary in theory, is abused by employers who coerce workers into signing it and working longer hours.
British representatives voiced dismay but said the vote was only a stage in a complex legislative process and the proposals would now go back to the executive European Commission for revision.
'We are disappointed. We believe the working time opt-out is important for several member states. It allows choice for individuals and gives flexibility to labour markets,' a British spokeswoman said.
'It will only be agreed if parliament, the member states and the Commission can agree on the same version,' she added.
Member states must approve the final version in the EU Council by a qualified majority, so Blairite Euro-MPs will need to put together a blocking minority of several countries to preserve the opt-out. They will hope for support from the recently communist countries of eastern Europe who oppose stricter labour laws.
The Trades Union Congress says something like 3.75m people in Britain work more than 48 hours a week. It wants the opt-out abolished.
Among those who work the longest hours are junior hospital doctors in the National Health Service, truck drivers and workers on North Sea oil rigs, as well as many Britons in managerial jobs.
Business groups such as the Confederation of British Industry say abolition would be an economic disaster.
