EU working time directive

I read with interest the comments by Louis Galea, minister responsible for employment, and Simon Busuttil, MEP, in relation to the EU working time directive (WTD) and the impact this would have on the Malta employment market. Much discussion and debate centres around the maximum numbers of hours an employee may be allowed to work and the purported negative effect this would entail.

However, no credence seemingly has been countenanced with regard to the primary, indeed sole, reason for these limitations in the working hours being introduced - this being to protect the health and safety of workers at the workplace. Also, in all the discussions taking place, I fail to locate the Malta government's acquiescence regarding article 7 of the WTD which states that every worker is entitled to a minimum paid annual leave of at least four weeks. Is this workers' statutory right also going to be the subject of a challenge by our government and when may we expect implementation of this entitlement?

Undoubtedly, we are going in the wrong direction when Dr Busuttil stresses that "one cannot afford to cut off the possibility of workers increasing their take home pay by permitting them to work more than currently allowed (48 hours)". For if one is dependent or reliant upon procuring overtime payments to secure a more realistic and essential remuneration for services rendered then perhaps it may be considered that the stipend for that particular employment is insufficient or inferior to sustain an adequate or appropriate standard of living. Or are we confusing greed with need?

By increasing the opportunity for excessive overtime allowances are we not circumventing the real issue yet again as would it not be more germane to employ more people to assist in performing the tasks that are only able to be undertaken at present by employees working overtime?

As stated the laws on the maximum number of hours one may work in any given week are designed to protect the health and safety of workers. Surely by submitting arguments against this critical aim we are compromising this objective! Should we not be working towards further safeguarding the number of hours we work, and decreasing such, rather than perversely trying to increase such under the guise of restrictions in take-home pay possibilities?

I venture to suggest that the government devote more energy to the true delineation of the WTD for this would undoubtedly provide more job opportunities for those people who are indirectly out of work because of the excessive number of overtime hours worked. More jobs, fewer hours, more pay should be the mantra of the government. Or is that a non-viable option when financial considerations are so obviously paramount, rather than the fundamental health and safety aspects of the WTD?