Worker protections enshrined in EU law — including the 48-hour week — would be ripped up under plans being drawn up by the government as part of a post-Brexit overhaul of UK labour markets.
The package of deregulatory measures is being put together by the UK’s business department with the approval of Downing Street, according to people familiar with the matter. It has not yet been agreed by ministers — or put to the cabinet — but select business leaders have been sounded out on the plan.
The proposed shake-up of regulations from the “working time directive” will delight many Tory MPs but is likely to spark outrage among Britain’s trade union leaders.
The move would potentially mark a clear divergence from EU labour market standards but the UK would only face retaliation from Brussels under the terms of its new post-Brexit trade treaty if the EU could demonstrate the changes had a material impact on competition.
The main areas of focus are on ending the 48-hour working week, tweaking the rules around rest breaks at work and not including overtime pay when calculating some holiday pay entitlements, said people familiar with the plans.
The government also wants to remove the requirement of businesses to log the detailed, daily reporting of working hours, saving an estimated £1bn.
[...]
A change in the calculation of holiday pay could be “a significant monetary loss” for a low-paid worker often forced into overtime to make ends meet, the TUC official said.
It is also not clear that business, which is already adjusting to Brexit and battling the fallout from the Covid-19 pandemic, is currently clamouring for a fundamental overhaul of workers’ rights.
I imagine the Red Wall Leave Switchers and Lexiteers are hugging themselves in the delight at the prospect as they were told this was EXACTLY what they would be voting for.
This place is not a place of honor, no highly esteemed deed is commemorated here, nothing valued is here.
What is here was dangerous and repulsive to us.
This place is best shunned and left uninhabited.
It's going to be interesting when the government has to argue to the EU that this isn't making a material difference to competition, because that raises the question of why do it at all.
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.
Bird on a Fire wrote: Fri Jan 15, 2021 12:15 pm
It's going to be interesting when the government has to argue to the EU that this isn't making a material difference to competition, because that raises the question of why do it at all.
Spite can never be ruled out.
This place is not a place of honor, no highly esteemed deed is commemorated here, nothing valued is here.
What is here was dangerous and repulsive to us.
This place is best shunned and left uninhabited.
Bird on a Fire wrote: Fri Jan 15, 2021 12:15 pm
It's going to be interesting when the government has to argue to the EU that this isn't making a material difference to competition, because that raises the question of why do it at all.
It could be argued that the main effects are to be found in industries that aren't in competition with EU based firms - eg healthcare or retail. It'll take a few years before we can work out the effects.
I didn't quote it but an interesting aspect of the article was that business didn't seem to be enthusiastic. It looked like they would prefer a bit of stability.
(As ever, the FT link appears paywalled but copy/paste the headline in to Google and hey! presto! you can read it without subscribing.)
Meanwhile over on Reuters the government rushes to assure us that whatever crushing of our workers rights they're plotting will most assuredly be labelled as "improvements" so that'll be fine.
I mean, imagine how tiresome it is to have to tick an entire box to opt out of your protections under the working time directive. Some workers might welcome the government sweeping away the onerous task of voluntarily giving up their rights.
Bird on a Fire wrote: Fri Jan 15, 2021 12:15 pm
It's going to be interesting when the government has to argue to the EU that this isn't making a material difference to competition, because that raises the question of why do it at all.
It could be argued that the main effects are to be found in industries that aren't in competition with EU based firms - eg healthcare or retail. It'll take a few years before we can work out the effects.
I didn't quote it but an interesting aspect of the article was that business didn't seem to be enthusiastic. It looked like they would prefer a bit of stability.
The decent enployers have got used to it and dont want to have to compete on this vs the schmucks. The utter scoundrels who are currently cheating this dont want to compete against the legal-but-cruel tranche above them.
Plus, people who work in industries where the regulations would apparently be burdensome, like bars and restaurants, are already culturally expected to sign their rights away anyway. I expect the evidence of the rules actually causing problems is pretty minimal.
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.
It's interesting, because UK productivity is apparently already pretty poor. This might be due to the sheer number of spivs we seem to encourage rather than worker laziness.
