A new campaign against long working hours was launched by the UK's Trades Union Congress (TUC) in September 2003. It focuses on the incidence of the so-called 'individual opt-out' from the 48-hour weekly limit on average working time. The TUC claims that many employees are not aware of their rights or are coerced into working longer hours than they would like.
A new campaign against long working hours, It’s about time, was launched by the Trades Union Congress (TUC) on the eve of its annual conference (UK0309104F) in September 2003. A key objective is to end the scope under the EU working time Directive (93/104/EC), currently under review, for Member States to enable employees to 'opt out' of the 48-hour average weekly limit. More generally, the initiative aims 'to put long hours and work-life balance at the top of the workplace agenda'. It includes a new TUC telephone hot line and website for workers to report abuses and problems.
Launching the campaign, TUC general secretary Brendan Barber said: 'Today we declare war on Britain’s long hours culture with the launch of the TUC’s It’s about time campaign. We work the longest hours in Europe, yet other countries are more productive and earn more. The long hours disease grips too many workplaces. European rules meant to limit working time to 48 hours a week have made little difference. More people work longer than 48 hours a week than before the working time regulations were introduced.' Mr Barber said that this was not because of individual free choice but because: relatively few people know their working time rights; employers often choose to ignore the law; and the individual opt-out provision, which only UK law incorporates, encourages employers to persuade or force workers to agree to long working hours. He said that this was bad for business as well as workers: 'What makes me angry is that people cannot see that the UK’s very long hours is a symptom of something sick about our workplaces. Long hours are a symptom of badly organised, unproductive workplaces. It’s an easy way out for incompetent managers.'
Research findings
Supporting the launch of its campaign, the TUC presented findings of a specially-commissioned telephone survey of over 1,000 workers, together with analysis of data from the national Labour Force Survey (LFS). The TUC poll reported that:
- only one employee in three knew that there was a statutory 48-hour limit on average weekly working hours;
- two out of three people who regularly work more than 48 hours a week have not been asked to sign an opt-out from the limit; and
- one in four people who have signed were given no choice about it.
Analysis of the LFS also showed that:
- 4 million people work more than 48 hours a week on average (700,000 more than in 1992); and
- seven out of 10 people working more than 48 hours a week want to work fewer hours.
The TUC also reported research by the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) that implied that long working hours contribute to illness through stress. The DTI research also found that 16% of the workers surveyed (one in six) worked over 60 hours a week, compared with just 12% (one in eight) of all UK workers in 2000.
Employers’ views
The TUC’s claim of widespread employer abuse was disputed by the director general of the Confederation of British Industry (CBI), Digby Jones. Commenting on the TUC’s campaign, he said: 'I find the TUC’s figures hard to believe. DTI research has found little evidence that employers are abusing the working time rules and tribunals have received few complaints. Interestingly the number of people working over 48 hours a week has actually fallen every year since 1999. Removing the opt-out to the working time Directive would stop thousands of people working overtime and remove a vital flexibility for employers. What gives the TUC the right to interfere with the freedom of choice of the individual?'
The CBI has also published findings from a survey of 550 companies conducted in May 2003 (UK0310102N). It found that 39% of employers said that losing the opt-out would have a serious impact on their business, compared with 27% that said it would have no impact. The survey also suggested that 19% of all employees regularly made use of the individual opt out. The CBI said that 'removing this right would take away their opportunity to earn extra and damage companies’ competitiveness'. In June 2003, it published a report arguing that retention of the opt-out was a matter of freedom of choice and a vital part of companies’ strategies for competitiveness (UK0307102N).
Commentary
The TUC’s new campaign over excessive working hours is the latest in a long and honourable tradition within the British labour movement. In 1923, the TUC general council declared that reduced working hours was 'the principal advantage secured by over 60 years of trade union effort and sacrifice ... the most important achievement of industrial organisation' (see 'The struggle over working time in 19th- and 20th-century Britain', Arrowsmith, Historical Studies in Industrial Relations, 2002). Interestingly, too, the UK government three times committed itself to a statutory 48-hour week as early as 1919 when it signed the Labour Charter of the Treaty of Versailles, accepted the joint recommendation of the National Industrial Conference, and signed the 'Washington Hours Convention' at the inaugural conference of the International Labour Organisation. However, nothing came of this in the face of sustained opposition from employers.
Today, employer groups such as the CBI remain hostile to the further regulation of working time, and in particular have mounted a vigorous defence of the individual opt-out from the average 48-hour limit on the grounds of individual choice, flexibility and competitiveness. Yet it is hard to see how the widespread and continued reliance on excessive working hours is in the long-term interests of British business. Long working hours raise all sorts of problems in terms of productivity and health and safety. They can also limit the development of other, more innovative strategies for performance management, from recruitment and selection to training and development and re-examination of the wider organisation of work.
Removing the opt-out provision from the EU working time Directive would not impose an absolute ceiling on weekly working hours since the 48-hour limit is merely an average over a reference period of from 17 to 52 weeks. Employers would be free to devise and agree all sorts of flexible practices with their employees, including annualised-hours contracts. However, the removal of the opt-out would provide the government with an opportunity to state clearly that it takes it own work-life balance campaign (UK0102115F) seriously. (J Arrowsmith, IRRU)