48 hr hour week: To opt in or out

European workers should be limited to a 48 hour week', this was the view of the majority of MEPs at the Employment and Social Affairs Committee held Wednesday 5 November. However will this limit a ruthless employer's power to exploit workers, or simply limit an individual's ability to work extra hours in the economic slowdown?

The fierce debate centres on a proposed Europe-wide directive stating that the working week in the EU should continue to be limited to a maximum of 48 hours (calculated over 12 months), except where a country invoked a non-participation (“opt-out”) clause.
 
This opt-out would have allowed workers to agree to work longer, subject to certain limits. It specified no more than 60 hours a week on average when calculated over a period of three months or 65 hours where there is no collective agreement and “when the inactive period of on-call time is considered as working time.”
 
This is a field where Employment Ministers meeting in the Council and MEPs in Parliament decide on an equal footing. In this case given the diverging views has meant the draft legislation has been deadlocked for years.
 
The debate has generated conflicting opinion in the Parliament. At the Committee stage, amendments were passed to the bill with a strong majority; however the full Parliament must also give its backing. For the legislation to pass, it must receive a 393 vote majority. Speaking to two key MEPs at the Committee, the polarisation of opinion becomes apparent. 
  
Spanish MEP Alejandro Cercas of the Socialist PES group voiced why he strongly opposes the opt-out option currently in place; “The opt-out can lead to social dumping in the EU, opening the possibility that countries with more unfair laws compete with an advantage over countries with more socially advanced laws.”
 
He went on to say; “The proposal of the Council attacks the project of Europe of citizens and of social Europe, empties the contents of laws and international conventions and destroys collective negotiation as a fundamental instrument of social dialogue.”  
 
Speaking in her own capacity, British Liberal Liz Lynne of the ALDE group voiced her support for the opt-out clause citing individual choice a key driving force behind working longer hours.
 
Ms Lynne told us that: “The retention of the opt out from the working time with more stringent conditions on its use is vital; anyone whose work does not have a direct consequence on life and death decisions should have a free choice as to what hours they work, so long as this is truly voluntary.”
  
The Liberal Democrat MEP also believes that with the economic slowdown, people should be given the freedom and flexibility to earn more income: “Scrapping the opt out would be a bitter pill to swallow for businesses and many hard working people who are tightening their belts and who want to boost their earnings in difficult economic times.”
 
The bill will now face further negotiation rounds between the Council and the Parliament. The vote in plenary will take place in December in Strasbourg.
 
The working time directive was originally adopted in 1993, amended in 2000. In 1993, the UK was granted an “opt-out” clause, which allows States not to respect the 48 hour limit under certain conditions.