Working Time Act: Time for the nanny state to grow up?

[Purple]

No because you have the choice to work in a job that has an exception from it.

So if you are an accountant and want to work the amount of overtime you choose you must take a job you are now skilled to do? That's not logical.

That makes no sense. Thats like saying is there a law that limits the number of hours I don't work in a day. There is a law for the minium amount of holidays.

Taking holidays puts extra stress on the people you work with. Should the government introduce legislation to counter this?

Overtime wa/is abused. Unless you conceed that, then it will never make sense to you.

Noone should be forced to work overtime, there are always options.

Its bit like saying I can smoke and it does no one else any harm. So we didn't have to agree to smoking bans. Etc.

Smoking has health implications for those around you. I have yet to see the study which shows that spending more than 48 hours a week in work can give your co-workers cancer.

Mainly a UK issue. AFAIK. I don't know the current status of this.

So it's hear-say.

The crux of the issue is should the government have the right to tell people how long they are allowed to work.
I accept that there is potential for coercion by employers (and employees) but freedom has drawbacks and well and benefits. I do not think that the restriction on free choice that this law imposes is justified by the potential for coercion. We are free to disagree on this (until the directive that restricts this as well).

 

[Purple]

Equally often overtime is the result of bad practices and is only feeding the symptoms and solving not the problem that required the overtime in the first place.

Can you back that up please?

 

[aircobra19]

So if you are an accountant and want to work the amount of overtime you choose you must take a job you are now skilled to do? That's not logical.

Ditto moving jobs if the conditions are unfair.

....If I didn't like it I knew where the door was.

Taking holidays puts extra stress on the people you work with. Should the government introduce legislation to counter this?

So you don't think people need holidays now.

Noone should be forced to work overtime, there are always options.

Like leaving the job. See above?

Smoking has health implications for those around you. I have yet to see the study which shows that spending more than 48 hours a week in work can give your co-workers cancer.

http://www.ilo.org/public/english/region/asro/bangkok/public/releases/yr2007/pr07_24.htm
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=22819&Cr=labour&Cr1=
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0167527304004632

Common sense will tell you if someone works excessive hours, their health will suffer in the long run, they'll makes mistakes, which can cost money or at worst kill someone. Take the example of someone driving excessive hours. Are they likely to make mistakes. A bus driver, etc.

So it's hear-say.

As much as what you've posted. At least I've posted links you've posted none.

The crux of the issue is should the government have the right to tell people how long they are allowed to work.
I accept that there is potential for coercion by employers (and employees) but freedom has drawbacks and well and benefits. I do not think that the restriction on free choice that this law imposes is justified by the potential for coercion. We are free to disagree on this (until the directive that restricts this as well).

You mean like should a doctor be allowed to do surgury after being up for 48 hours? A pilot fly a plane after 4 long distance flights. Operate a heavy machine? A crane? Etc.

Can you back that up please?

Quite usual in IT to see people working long hours, weekends, all night for extended period of times to rush a project to completion only to find so many errors and mistakes, that it takes longer to fix than it would have done to do it right in normal working hours the first time. Usually lots of people (unfmailar with the project) get thrown on to the project which leads to even more mistakes than if you'd just let the original team just get. on with it. Seen this in contruction projects quite often aswell.

On one project which normaly would take a month to do. Was outsourced, to a company that work all hours to complete it. It came back in 2 weeks. But it took another 4 weeks to fix it.

One place I was in they had a process/task that took a team of 6, 2 extra hours beyond their normal day to complete. They did this about once or twice a week. it was time critical in that it had to be done by a specific time in the morning. We looked at it, changed the process and wrote some software so the same task could be completed by 2 people in 15/20mins.

How many times have you seen someone like Eircom dig up a road, put it back, only for someone like ESB to dig it right back up a few weeks later. Crews working through the night to minimise disruption.

Example are endless.

 

[Purple]

Ditto moving jobs if the conditions are unfair.

No, you can move jobs to one within your existing field. To be clear, it is not OK to change the pay or conditions of an employee. I am of the opinion that if someone takes a job knowing that overtime is the norm they should not then moan about something that they freely engaged in.

So you don't think people need holidays now.

No, I am applying your logic that people should be restricted from making their own decisions because it may impact on others. I have no problem with people taking as many holidays as they like as long as they agree it with their employer.

Like leaving the job. See above?

See above.

Common sense will tell you if someone works excessive hours, their health will suffer in the long run, they'll makes mistakes, which can cost money or at worst kill someone.

I agree. Some hours are set because of public safety issues (pilots, bus drivers etc). Are you suggesting that 48 hours constitutes excessive for everyone else?

You mean like should a doctor be allowed to do surgury after being up for 48 hours? A pilot fly a plane after 4 long distance flights. Operate a heavy machine? A crane? Etc.

See above

Quite usual in IT to see people working long hours, weekends, all night for extended period of times to rush a project to completion only to find so many errors and mistakes, that it takes longer to fix than it would have done to do it right in normal working hours the first time. Usually lots of people (unfmailar with the project) get thrown on to the project which leads to even more mistakes than if you'd just let the original team just get. on with it. Seen this in contruction projects quite often aswell.

On one project which normaly would take a month to do. Was outsourced, to a company that work all hours to complete it. It came back in 2 weeks. But it took another 4 weeks to fix it.

One place I was in they had a process/task that took a team of 6, 2 extra hours beyond their normal day to complete. They did this about once or twice a week. it was time critical in that it had to be done by a specific time in the morning. We looked at it, changed the process and wrote some software so the same task could be completed by 2 people in 15/20mins.

And all of them can and should be addressed by agreement between employees and employers. We are one off the most regulated countries in the world, there are more than enough structures in place to deal wit this.

How many times have you seen someone like Eircom dig up a road, put it back, only for someone like ESB to dig it right back up a few weeks later. Crews working through the night to minimise disruption.

This is a good example of why the working time act is a bad idea. If the guy filling in the hole is an hour from finished should he down tools and disrupt traffic for the next day if things have run over time and he is about to exceed his overtime allowance for that three month period?

I have been an employee and an employer. This law has little impact on me as an employer but would have has a hugely detrimental effect on me when I was an employee.

 

[aircobra19]

No, you can move jobs to one within your existing field. To be clear, it is not OK to change the pay or conditions of an employee. I am of the opinion that if someone takes a job knowing that overtime is the norm they should not then moan about something that they freely engaged in.

Why only see the least common scenerio here. Whats more common is someone starts a job only to to realise that overtime, unofficial or official is expected. Have you never had a job where the spec, or the conditions of employment are very different to whats in the description, or common practise in that company. Its not always as simple to just get another job.

No, I am applying your logic that people should be restricted from making their own decisions because it may impact on others. I have no problem with people taking as many holidays as they like as long as they agree it with their employer.

You applying no logic other than it doesn't suit your situation, so lets ignore any other scenerio. Like I said you've no problem with people taking no holidays. What you're saying here doesn't exclude that.

I agree. Some hours are set because of public safety issues (pilots, bus drivers etc). Are you suggesting that 48 hours constitutes excessive for everyone else?

Is there a difference in physiology?

And all of them can and should be addressed by agreement between employees and employers. We are one off the most regulated countries in the world, there are more than enough structures in place to deal wit this.

Yet people still abuse it. So obviously the EU felt there was a need for regulation and the govt agreed. Perhaps from what they were seeing in the labour courts and similar.

This is a good example of why the working time act is a bad idea. If the guy filling in the hole is an hour from finished should he down tools and disrupt traffic for the next day if things have run over time and he is about to exceed his overtime allowance for that three month period?

If there isn't enough people on the job to finish a job within the schedule thats not the acts fault. You don't suddenly realise you won't finish as you run out of time at the deadline. You must know its going to be tight at least the day before. What if that guy has other commitments outside of work, an hour later, should he drop those because the job wasn't scheduled properly. The fault in your example is bad management, bad practises, not the act.

I have been an employee and an employer. This law has little impact on me as an employer but would have has a hugely detrimental effect on me when I was an employee.

Why didn't you say before? Of course your needs take piority over everyone else who finds the act a positive effect.

The act has no impact on me, as I've either been self employed or worked where theres no paid overtime (officially).

 

[Purple]

Why only see the least common scenerio here. Whats more common is someone starts a job only to to realise that overtime, unofficial or official is expected. Have you never had a job where the spec, or the conditions of employment are very different to whats in the description, or common practise in that company. Its not always as simple to just get another job.

I agree that it's not that simple. I disagree that it's more common that hours and job description are very different to what people sign up for. If it is then it's a breach of contract.

Like I said you've no problem with people taking no holidays.

You are incorrect in your conclusion about my opinion. I know 'cause it's my opinion.

Is there a difference in physiology?

Are you suggesting that a security guard sitting in a hut with a TV for the night will be an physically or mentally tired as a brain surgeon or a pilot working for the same period of time?

Yet people still abuse it. So obviously the EU felt there was a need for regulation and the govt agreed. Perhaps from what they were seeing in the labour courts and similar.

If the abuse still takes place then the restriction on our freedom of choice was for nothing.

If there isn't enough people on the job to finish a job within the schedule thats not the acts fault. You don't suddenly realise you won't finish as you run out of time at the deadline. You must know its going to be tight at least the day before. What if that guy has other commitments outside of work, an hour later, should he drop those because the job wasn't scheduled properly. The fault in your example is bad management, bad practises, not the act.

So there should be a load of extra people on the job "just in case". SIPTU must love you.

Why didn't you say before? Of course your needs take piority over everyone else who finds the act a positive effect.

When did I say that?

The act has no impact on me, as I've either been self employed or worked where theres no paid overtime (officially).

So as long as your freedom is not restricted you don't care about your fellow citizens? That's very selfish!

 

[aircobra19]

I agree that it's not that simple. ....

Hurrah, flags and bunting waved!

You are incorrect in your conclusion about my opinion. I know 'cause it's my opinion.

Its not a conclusion . Its what you said. "no problem with people taking as many holidays as they want". So if they say 0 or 1 day holidays you don't have a problem with that.

Are you suggesting that a security guard sitting in a hut with a TV for the night will be an physically or mentally tired as a brain surgeon or a pilot working for the same period of time?

Whats the metric this is being measured by? Will they be tired yes. Will they be as effective or effcient as when they are not tired. No.

Its also an occupation that specifically listed as an exception to the act in the links I posted above.

If the abuse still takes place then the restriction on our freedom of choice was for nothing.

Why take this so literally. It probably reduces the abuse of it. Do you think its useful to dismiss it something entirely if it doesn't achieve 100% compliance?

So there should be a load of extra people on the job "just in case". SIPTU must love you.

Why replace one person with a load of extra people? That makes no sense to me can you explain why you'd do that. Why would you not just plan the work properly. If people constantly running out out of time on project is a problem. Its sounds like the typical under resourcing projects and expecting others to take up the shortfall.

 

[Purple]

Hurrah, flags and bunting waved!

Its not a conclusion . Its what you said. "no problem with people taking as many holidays as they want". So if they say 0 or 1 day holidays you don't have a problem with that.

I know many people (not those who work for me) who take less than 20 days a year off. If they do so of their own free will I see no problem with this. I also know people who take 6-8 weeks a year off. I also have no problem with this. They are adults and so make their own decisions.

Why take this so literally. It probably reduces the abuse of it. Do you think its useful to dismiss it something entirely if it doesn't achieve 100% compliance?

Not at all, I bring it back to the core issue that this law restricts freedom of choice and this diminution of liberty is not worth the return.

Why replace one person with a load of extra people? That makes no sense to me can you explain why you'd do that. Why would you not just plan the work properly. If people constantly running out out of time on project is a problem. Its sounds like the typical under resourcing projects and expecting others to take up the shortfall.

Do you accept that on occasion it is necessary for people to work late/ longer in order to complete a time critical task (such as finishing road works before morning rush-hour)? This may be due to all sorts of unforeseeable issues.

By the way, you nearly have me worn down; I don’t think I’ll last more than another page

 

[aircobra19]

...Not at all, I bring it back to the core issue that this law restricts freedom of choice and this diminution of liberty is not worth the return.

If you only look at a very narrow view point. If you work in an industry where working excess overtime is the norm then you might be glad of it.

.
Do you accept that on occasion it is necessary for people to work late/ longer in order to complete a time critical task (such as finishing road works before morning rush-hour)? This may be due to all sorts of unforeseeable issues.

In that example no. In Germany they work on critical roads at night not the day so as to minimise disruption. All this working long hours achieves is mistakes IMO. Some occupations are exempted.

 

[Purple]

If you only look at a very narrow view point.

So it’s OK to restrict the freedoms of some people, just so long as you don’t do it to everyone?

If you work in an industry where working excess overtime is the norm then you might be glad of it.

You might or you might not. Your right to choose has been taken away. That’s what I have a problem with.

In that example no. In Germany they work on critical roads at night not the day so as to minimise disruption. All this working long hours achieves is mistakes IMO. Some occupations are exempted.

So if the guys in Germany are just about finished and morning traffic volumes are starting to increase and their JCB breaks down you think they should just clock off and not wait for a replacement part/ JCB to finish the job?

I am not taking a position on this as an employer; it does not affect my business one way of the other. I simply have a problem with laws that restrict our freedoms and take away choice that we, as adults, should be left to make.

 

[aircobra19]

How about you take it up with your local politicians, and post back their response.

 

[room305]

How about you take it up with your local politicians, and post back their response.

That could be quite interesting. Most politicians work incredibly long hours including nights and weekends. So essentially they are insisting that their constituents comply with an EU directive that they themselves have no intention of ever honouring, not least because it would damage their prospects for re-election and with consequent effects for their career. Do they feel any compunction about damaging the career prospects of those in other professions?

 

[Purple]

How about you take it up with your local politicians, and post back their response.

Why the snide comment?
In all of your posts you have not once given your opinion. Do you think the government should restrict our right to make our own decisions in this way? I would be interested in your answer.

 

[aircobra19]

How is it snide.

If they knew that long hours were expected when they took the job and they made the decision to take it anyway then what's the problem? When I started work I knew that the job required 6.5 days (65-68 hours) a week. Knowing this I still took the job so I was not entitled to moan about it being unfair. If I didn't like it I knew where the door was.

If you want to do overtime, pick a job that has it.

 

[Purple]

If you want to do overtime, pick a job that has it.

Like what?
If someone on a low income wants to work hard to get extra income are you suggesting that they apply for a job as a doctor?

 

[aircobra19]

Yes that makes perfect sense.

On a point of info, Doctors are not exempt from OWT, there was a phasing period to allow its introduction in hospitals. I am not sure if Ireland is compliant yet but the law does apply to Doctors.