It's not over yet

Philip Camilleri asks: What exactly went on last week on the working time directive and what was the outcome of the vote? Before the referendum we were told that our right to overtime would not be affected by membership. What is the position now?

Under EU law, in principle, we should restrict the working week to 48 hours, inclusive of overtime, for health and safety reasons. But workers who want to work longer hours can do so, provided they give their consent and that the extra hours do not put at risk their health and safety or that of their fellow workers. This means that it is up to workers to say "yes" or "no" to overtime beyond 48 hours.

This is known as the "opt-out" because it permits workers to opt out of the 48-hour-week principle and work longer hours.

This was the position prior to the referendum and this remains the position today.

Prior to the referendum opponents of membership claimed that if we joined the EU, workers would lose their right to work overtime. This was incorrect then and it remains incorrect now. One year on, Maltese workers who work more than 48 hours a week would not be doing so if this were not the case.

Last autumn, the European Commission published a set of amendments to update the working time directive. The Commission did not propose to remove the opt-out. It merely sought to tighten its application because it was being abused. For instance, in some countries, employers were "inviting" employees to sign a consent form on overtime at the time of the signing of the contract of employment. Since the bargaining power of employees is limited at the time of employment, it goes without saying that workers who were faced with this option were effectively signing off their right to choose freely on whether to work overtime or not.

This practice is abusive and renders meaningless the right of workers to decide on overtime. I agree that abuse should be curbed.

In its proposal, the Commission also proposed that no later than five years after the entry into force of the amended law, that is some time after 2010, it would prepare a report on the application of the amended law and it would "propose any appropriate amendments, including, if necessary, a phasing out" of the opt-out.

I disagree with this wording because it puts the possibility of the removal of the opt-out on the agenda, albeit in five years' time. If at all, the removal of the opt-out should only be up for discussion when our salary levels and standard of living become comparable with EU levels. Yet, it is fair to say that the Commission proposal does not make the removal of the opt-out after 2010 a fait accompli. It merely puts the possibility on the agenda.

When the Commission proposal came to the European Parliament, things took a new twist.

The Party of European Socialists' rapporteur on this law, Alejandro Cercas, claimed that the Commission proposal did not go far enough and that the opt-out should be removed altogether within three years.

As irony would have it, the Malta Labour Party that fomented so much confusion on overtime before the referendum is now part of the Party of European Socialists that wants to remove it.

But let bygones be bygones.

Last week in Strasbourg I intervened in the plenary to object to Mr Cercas' proposal. I argued that in countries such as Malta, where the standard of living and pay levels fall well below the EU average, workers are often constrained to work longer hours to supplement their income. So we should not take away their right to work longer hours if they want to do so.

The vote on the opt-out article was carried by 378 votes in favour of removing the opt-out, 262 against and 15 abstentions. Of the Maltese MEPs, David Casa, Joseph Muscat and myself voted against, whereas Louis Grech and John Attard Montalto abstained.

To his credit, Mr Muscat was one of just five Socialists who voted against, although Mr Grech later corrected his vote into a vote against.

The vote on the final resolution was also carried, this time by 355 votes in favour of Mr Cercas's report, 272 against and 31 abstentions. Of the Maltese MEPs, Mr Casa, Mr Muscat, Mr Grech and myself voted against, whereas Dr Attard Montalto abstained.

The voting record is a public document.

So the vote was lost by those who, like me, want to keep the opt-out. But it must be clear that this is not the end of the story.

This was the first reading of the European Parliament and there is still the second reading to go where the overall majority required on the final resolution must be at least 367 votes - which was not achieved last week.

Moreover, the matter now goes to the Commission as well as the Council of Ministers. The Commission has already stated that it does not agree with the European Parliament's stand on the removal of the opt-out. That is good news.

More importantly, within the Council of Ministers there appears to be a blocking minority of countries holding out against the removal of the opt-out. Malta is among them.

The Strasbourg vote was clearly not what we wanted.

But it's not over yet.

Readers who would like to raise issues or ask a question are invited to send an e-mail to Dr Busuttil, making reference to this column, to contact@simonbusuttil.com