Voting on working time
This is an important week for Malta as the European Parliament's plenary session will hold the first reading and vote on a report regarding the revision of the Working Time Directive. This directive is essentially the one that governs working hours...
This is an important week for Malta as the European Parliament's plenary session will hold the first reading and vote on a report regarding the revision of the Working Time Directive.
This directive is essentially the one that governs working hours within European Union member states. Putting it simply, the present directive states that any one employee cannot work more than an average 48 hours weekly. In other words, there is a cap on overtime. Nevertheless, the present directive includes an opt-out clause. This allows workers to grant their employers permission in writing to have them engaged for more than the average 48 hours weekly.
When the directive was first adopted in 1993, all parties involved bound themselves to revise it regularly. The main rationale behind encouraging such a decision was that the opt-out should be viewed as a transition measure and could not be a permanent part of the directive.
As part of this revision process, the European Commission came up with a balanced solution, whereby it proposed tighter controls on the use of the opt-out in order to reduce abuses by employers, especially in non-unionised environments. At the same time, the opt-out would still remain an option, especially in cases where a collective agreement can be negotiated.
A number of member states, namely France, Sweden, Spain and Greece are for the phasing out of the opt-out. The United Kingdom leads another group, which includes Malta, which are in favour of the Commission proposal. There is also a third group, which includes Ireland, the Czech Republic and Luxembourg, that favours the opt-out only within the context of a collective agreement.
There were also a number of other considerations under review, including the reference period over which the average working hours is calculated and the issue of whether "on-call time" can be counted as "working time".
In April, the European Parliament's employment and social affairs committee voted against the retention of the opt-out clause. The report on this matter, which will be discussed in plenary this week, was penned by Spanish Socialist Alejandro Cercas.
The reduction of working hours is a noble cause and one would endorse it in normal circumstances. Nevertheless, this cannot be done given the current economic and social situation in Malta.
Unfortunately, many local households have come to depend on overtime to sustain their standard of living. One should not forget that Malta does not have a proper rent market and that practically all families, especially the younger ones, have a mortgage. Capping overtime could have disastrous implications on mortgage repayments and the standard of living for these families. If the EU decides to go ahead with this cap, the likely result will be that members of these families will have to start resorting to the black economy to make up for the potential loss of income.
This is not to say that the system should not provide the necessary safeguards against abuse. There are instances where workers do not want to work more than 48 hours weekly but find themselves obliged to sign a waiver clause, many times when signing their employment contract. These workers have to be protected.
This is the balanced approach proposed by the European Commission and which I endorse. The Group of European Socialists is aware that this is the line of thought that both the Malta Labour Party and myself have been advocating in a consistent manner. We had signalled this problem prior to Malta's accession to the European Union.
The vote risks being tight, given that practically all the political groups are internally divided on a number of issues. My best guess is that Mr Cercas's proposal to do away with the opt-out will go through. What is important is that the report does not secure a large majority since a qualified majority is necessary in an eventual second reading. At the same time, one hopes the blocking minority in the Council of Ministers holds its grounds.
Mr Muscat is a Labour member of the European Parliament.
www.josephmuscat.com