Opting out of an EU health and safety safeguard
One of the reasons why Malta joined the European Union was to get closer to values which had evolved in the union more than they had done in Malta. Some of those in favour of accession used to cite the need to lock into the EU's democratic values. It...
One of the reasons why Malta joined the European Union was to get closer to values which had evolved in the union more than they had done in Malta. Some of those in favour of accession used to cite the need to lock into the EU's democratic values. It helps to be part of a large bloc of countries which looks upon democracy as its lynchpin. But in that regard, there was little that Malta could learn from the EU and could even boast of better democratic lineage than some of the old members.
An area where Maltese practices were well developed without requiring shoring up with the EU acquis was that of freedom of association at the work place. Pioneer Maltese workers, influenced by British colleagues serving in the local military establishments, militated for the right to unite and to bargain collectively during the years when Malta was an integral part of Britain's spread of colonies.
That was not to say that, in this type of sector too, there was not much that Malta could take on board to deepen the commitment to and meaning of workers' rights. Among other things, at the time of Malta's accession a debate was going on in the union about reviewing what is popularly known as the working time directive.
The directive has at its heart the health and safety of workers. If workers work too many hours, both their health and their safety could be threatened. The trade union movement in the EU, therefore, was in the vanguard of the movement in favour of a directive which set a limit to the working week, including overtime.
Put simply, the directive and the trade union movement were for a working week that did not exceed 48 hours, on a strictly defined average. With the basic week generally set at 40 hours that effectively capped overtime at an average of eight hours a week.
The rule was popular with most trade unions, but far less so with employers and their associations. Various governments, responding to the government lobby, kept opposing the directive and insisting on limiting the range of its implementation. They managed to obtain an opt-out from the directive. Governments insisting the opt-out be retained included our very own among them.
Not only that but, the Maltese trade union movement itself joined local employers in backing the government in its determined stand against an EU law which would have done away with the opt-out option.
In brief, the government, employees and the trade unions wanted Maltese workers to continue to put in as much overtime as could be worked, irrespective of the implications to their health and safety arising out of tiredness. None of them put it that way, of course. The unions explain the opt-out option as a fundamental right of the workers to supplement their basic wage with as much overtime earnings as they can get. The government and employers talk about the need for flexibility.
Under that gloss, however, the fact remains that the opt-out from the working time directive stipulating the maximum of a 48-hour week pays no respect whatsoever to the health and safety of the workers. Our island has stringent regulations about health and safety at work, but in so far as the threat of tiredness is concerned, that is to be left out of the equation.
At its most extreme the opt-out effectively meant that employers could request workers to put in as much overtime as is deemed required, since overtime is obligatory. Such reasoning is understandable coming from employers who put production first, with not enough understanding of the negative implications of long hours of work on productivity, not to mention the inherent threat to health and safety coming from tiredness and work stress.
It is quite amazing coming from the trade unions, who exist to protect their members' best interests, including in the field of health and safety. Trade unions do put health and safety near the top of their agenda but, evidently, not enough so when defined in terms of working hours.
Last week, four years of arduous negotiation in Brussels finally yielded a compromise. The EU's social ministers agreed on a deal which secured an amended directive to continue to regulate the number of hours an employee can work each week, including overtime.
There was much satisfaction over here. This newspaper put it rather bluntly in reporting the compromise deal (June 11). It said the island had fought tooth and nail to retain the so-called opt-out clause which currently permits Maltese workers to do as much overtime as they liked, independently of the maximum 48 hours a week set by the directive. That will be qualified by a cap of 60 hours - unless an employer and his workers' union agree otherwise.
The saving factor in the decision was that the agreement was based on a compromise which gives workers a choice. They can work more than an average of eight hours a week overtime, but cannot be forced to do so by their employers. The amended Working Time Directive, if approved by the European Parliament will give them the right for the first time to refuse to work more than 48 hours.
"We have managed to safeguard our interests," a spokesman for the government told The Times. That interest was defined in terms of the employment market requiring a more flexible working attitude, particularly in the health, tourism and security sectors.
Despite the choice given to workers to refuse to work for more than 48 hours a week in all, the European Trade Unions Confederation (ETUC) immediately declared that the deal was not in the interest of the workers. John Monks, its very articulate British secretary general, described it as highly unsatisfactory and unacceptable to the ETUC, particularly in respect of the continuation of the opt-out. Rather interestingly, the ETUC includes both of Malta's largest trade unions, the General Workers' Union and the Union Ħaddiema Magħqudin.
We have celebrated our fourth anniversary of EU membership. Clearly there is still a long way to go before the refreshing breeze expected from the bloc has its effect.
An area where Maltese practices were well developed without requiring shoring up with the EU acquis was that of freedom of association at the work place. Pioneer Maltese workers, influenced by British colleagues serving in the local military establishments, militated for the right to unite and to bargain collectively during the years when Malta was an integral part of Britain's spread of colonies.
That was not to say that, in this type of sector too, there was not much that Malta could take on board to deepen the commitment to and meaning of workers' rights. Among other things, at the time of Malta's accession a debate was going on in the union about reviewing what is popularly known as the working time directive.
The directive has at its heart the health and safety of workers. If workers work too many hours, both their health and their safety could be threatened. The trade union movement in the EU, therefore, was in the vanguard of the movement in favour of a directive which set a limit to the working week, including overtime.
Put simply, the directive and the trade union movement were for a working week that did not exceed 48 hours, on a strictly defined average. With the basic week generally set at 40 hours that effectively capped overtime at an average of eight hours a week.
The rule was popular with most trade unions, but far less so with employers and their associations. Various governments, responding to the government lobby, kept opposing the directive and insisting on limiting the range of its implementation. They managed to obtain an opt-out from the directive. Governments insisting the opt-out be retained included our very own among them.
Not only that but, the Maltese trade union movement itself joined local employers in backing the government in its determined stand against an EU law which would have done away with the opt-out option.
In brief, the government, employees and the trade unions wanted Maltese workers to continue to put in as much overtime as could be worked, irrespective of the implications to their health and safety arising out of tiredness. None of them put it that way, of course. The unions explain the opt-out option as a fundamental right of the workers to supplement their basic wage with as much overtime earnings as they can get. The government and employers talk about the need for flexibility.
Under that gloss, however, the fact remains that the opt-out from the working time directive stipulating the maximum of a 48-hour week pays no respect whatsoever to the health and safety of the workers. Our island has stringent regulations about health and safety at work, but in so far as the threat of tiredness is concerned, that is to be left out of the equation.
At its most extreme the opt-out effectively meant that employers could request workers to put in as much overtime as is deemed required, since overtime is obligatory. Such reasoning is understandable coming from employers who put production first, with not enough understanding of the negative implications of long hours of work on productivity, not to mention the inherent threat to health and safety coming from tiredness and work stress.
It is quite amazing coming from the trade unions, who exist to protect their members' best interests, including in the field of health and safety. Trade unions do put health and safety near the top of their agenda but, evidently, not enough so when defined in terms of working hours.
Last week, four years of arduous negotiation in Brussels finally yielded a compromise. The EU's social ministers agreed on a deal which secured an amended directive to continue to regulate the number of hours an employee can work each week, including overtime.
There was much satisfaction over here. This newspaper put it rather bluntly in reporting the compromise deal (June 11). It said the island had fought tooth and nail to retain the so-called opt-out clause which currently permits Maltese workers to do as much overtime as they liked, independently of the maximum 48 hours a week set by the directive. That will be qualified by a cap of 60 hours - unless an employer and his workers' union agree otherwise.
The saving factor in the decision was that the agreement was based on a compromise which gives workers a choice. They can work more than an average of eight hours a week overtime, but cannot be forced to do so by their employers. The amended Working Time Directive, if approved by the European Parliament will give them the right for the first time to refuse to work more than 48 hours.
"We have managed to safeguard our interests," a spokesman for the government told The Times. That interest was defined in terms of the employment market requiring a more flexible working attitude, particularly in the health, tourism and security sectors.
Despite the choice given to workers to refuse to work for more than 48 hours a week in all, the European Trade Unions Confederation (ETUC) immediately declared that the deal was not in the interest of the workers. John Monks, its very articulate British secretary general, described it as highly unsatisfactory and unacceptable to the ETUC, particularly in respect of the continuation of the opt-out. Rather interestingly, the ETUC includes both of Malta's largest trade unions, the General Workers' Union and the Union Ħaddiema Magħqudin.
We have celebrated our fourth anniversary of EU membership. Clearly there is still a long way to go before the refreshing breeze expected from the bloc has its effect.