OK, who's reading this from work..

My boss just sent me an online form to confirm whether I want to opt out
of the EU working time directive.

 

I have new contract. It actually states in it "agreement to this contract
implies agreement to opting out of the working time directive"

So basically for people who don't read it, they sign out of it without even
knowing...

Sneaky

 

Put a line through it, sign it and send it back. What are the odd that
*they* bother reading every one?

 

Does he give you any reasons why he might want you to do such a thing? Or,
indeed, offer any convincing inducements?

 

No, but I willingly offered a lot of convincing arguments as to why I'm
not opting out right now.

 

LOL. Reminded me of this :-
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/07/29/bofh_2004_episode_24/

"Your contract gives the company the right to vary acceptable behaviour
policies."

"Not my contract," I say

"I think you'll find it does," the HR Guy responds.

"No, mine was sent as an electronic document, so I just cut out the clauses
I didn't like, added a couple of my own, printed two copies and signed them.
Then your guy signed them too - probably without checking. Or maybe he liked
the idea of clause F.3 that I'm allowed to call Managers... 'knobface'."

"I.." the HR Guy says, then ducks out the door to check something.

.. two hours later . . .

"It's true," the HR Guy says. "There is a clause saying he can call you
knobface."

 

In any event, EU law enshrines your right to opt back into the WTD with or
without your employer's agreement [1] - it's a right, not a privilege. What
you have to watch out for though, is staff associations, unions (likely...?)
opting out on your behalf - a collective agreement *can* over-ride an
individual's right to the maximum working week. Also, the 48 hours can be
averaged over a *very* long time...

At my employers, they're very cagey about the other aspects of the WTD,
particularly the statutory minimum break of 11 hours (in any 24) between
periods of work, as a lot of us do call-outs in the night, and they don't
want us taking t he next day off. The company position was that we should
have an 8-hour break from leaving site to turning up the next day...

I found they shut up after our call-centre rang me 9 hours into the rest
period, and I said "Oh dear, that's broken my 11-hour *uninterrupted,
continuous*[2] rest period - call me again in another 11 hours"

Dave H.
(The engineer formerly known as Homeless)

[1] Submit notice in writing, I believe a month in the norm.
[2] Precise wording of the WTD!

 

You can not suffer any "detriment" as a result of a refusal to opt out.

Not under the WTD - collective agreements can vary breaks and break times
it can also agree changes to the sample period but cannot 'collectively'
opt out of the 48 hour week.

Most workers it is based over 17 weeks - some sections such as 'mobile'
workers it can be 26 weeks but no more. Personally that doesn't fit my
definition of a *very* long time.

(It gets complicated when based around *agreed* annualised contracts -
but that's one of the exemption/grey areas)

Maximum notice an employer can force you to give is three months - IME
this is the norm...

 

sweller wrote

I love you lot I really do. You have no real appreciation of how
fortunate you are. There is a real world of exploited working classes
out there that does not join unions anymore because they never do
anything for them except go on strike.

 

Yeah, I should have used "You should not" rather than "You can not".

However, the union should fund the IT if you do suffer detriment.
Although in the circumstances you describe these are always somewhat
Pyrrhic victories.

 

sweller wrote

Well of course. One of the benefits of trade union membership is access
to free lawyers who know labour laws but then you know this already.

Really? Pyrrhic you say. Who'd have thought it eh?