Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Personnel Today

Register
Log in
Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Personnel Today

UK needs clarity over the opt-out for working time

by Personnel Today 29 Jun 2004
by Personnel Today 29 Jun 2004

Rather than arguing over whether the UK’s 48-hour opt-out should stay or go,
perhaps now is the time to consider some kind of voluntary system

For parents and anyone in education, the end of
term is in sight. In workplaces, this brings to mind the Working Time
Directive, currently under scrutiny by the European Commission.

The directive already requires all employers in the UK to ensure that
workers, including temporary agency staff, are afforded 20 days’ a year paid
holiday accruing from their start date (although this can include public
holidays). However, the most controversial recent measure concerns limiting the
number of weekly working hours to 48 on average over any 17-week period. The UK
is the only EU member that lets people opt out of this maximum restriction. But
the commission is currently considering forcing the UK to amend or withdraw its
opt-out system.

UK views on the opt-out system are polarised. The CBI wants the opt-out
retained, while the TUC advocates the abolition of the opt-out.

The CBI argues on the basis of individual choice. In its view, the Working
Time Directive is overly bureaucratic and imposes a heavy burden on small
businesses to monitor their employees’ working time. No doubt the CBI will be
heartened by recent statements from France, where the Government is
reconsidering the 35-hour-a-week maximum, introduced in 1997. The experiment
has been hailed as a financial disaster, costing France billions and
demoralising the workforce.

The TUC, meanwhile, has produced a report on the issue which makes
interesting reading. The TUC thinks employers abuse the opt-out, usually by
making it an acceptable part of business bureaucracy. It considers the
enforcement regime in the UK weak, and argues that the issue is a health and
safety one. Many, claims the TUC, are pressured into accepting opt-out
agreements.

It also argues that employees do not understand that they do not have to
sign an opt-out agreement, and that by agreeing to opt out, they restrict the
development of collective bargaining on working time. The long working hours
culture in the UK, states the TUC, reinforces the glass ceiling and poses
problems for those who want, or may have, commitments outside work.

Employment lawyers and HR practitioners will recognise some force in the TUC
argument that employees may feel pressured into accepting the opt-out and may
not be aware of their legal right to withdraw from it. Common practice includes
an agreement to opt out in a standard employment contract. The clause will also
normally refer to the employee’s right to withdraw their consent, but usually
only because this enables the employer to obtain a longer notice period before
the withdrawal becomes effective.

In practice, very few employees do withdraw their agreement to work over the
48-hour average. That is surprising as it is increasingly common to hear people
in the UK talk about concerns over their work-life balance.

There is, however, a real awareness that working hours in the UK are higher
than in other countries. According to Eurostat, we in the UK are twice as
likely to work long hours as other EU citizens. But the complete loss of the
opt-out would be perceived as unfair by those hardworking employees who choose
to maintain their standard of living by running two jobs, or frequently working
overtime. While the TUC recognises that long hours are bad for health, it does
not mention the financial worries that can also cause great stress. Many of us
value our freedom to negotiate and choose our own working arrangements. So what’s
the alternative?

When Sunday working was permitted, employees had to be given a written
statement in a prescribed form explaining the effect of an-opt out notice in
clear and simple terms (unequivocally: the right to withdraw from Sunday
working and the right to complain to an employment tribunal).

Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance

Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday

OptOut
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Is the way forward now to set out in a separate document for employees their
rights in relation to working time and opt-outs? This would make it clear to
employees that the opt-out was not something they were bound to agree, and it
would still give them the freedom to choose. There is a strong case for the
opt-out to be retained in the UK, but its voluntary nature should be reinforced
in a manner more akin to the Sunday working requirements.

By Nicola Walker. Employment partner, Hogan &
Hartson

Personnel Today

Personnel Today articles are written by an expert team of award-winning journalists who have been covering HR and L&D for many years. Some of our content is attributed to "Personnel Today" for a number of reasons, including: when numerous authors are associated with writing or editing a piece; or when the author is unknown (particularly for older articles).

previous post
Incapacity claimants paid benefits for more than five years
next post
NHS Trust fined after nurse develops occupational asthma

You may also like

Five misconceptions about hiring refugees

20 Jun 2025

Forward features list 2025 – submitting content to...

23 Nov 2024

Features list 2021 – submitting content to Personnel...

1 Sep 2020

Large firms have no plans to bring all...

26 Aug 2020

A typical work-from-home lunch: crisps

24 Aug 2020

Occupational health on the coronavirus frontline – ‘I...

21 Aug 2020

Occupational Health & Wellbeing research round-up: August 2020

7 Aug 2020

Acas: Redundancy related enquiries surge 160%

5 Aug 2020

Coronavirus: lockdown ‘phase two’ may bring added headaches...

17 Jul 2020

Unemployment to top 4 million as workers come...

15 Jul 2020

  • AI is here. Your workforce should be ready. SPONSORED | From content creation...Read more
  • Preparing for a new era of workforce planning (webinar) WEBINAR | Employers now face...Read more
  • 2025 Employee Communications Report PROMOTED | HR and leadership...Read more
  • Prioritising performance management: Strategies for success (webinar) WEBINAR | In today’s fast-paced...Read more
  • Retaining Female Talent: Four Ways to Reduce Workplace Drop Out PROMOTED | International Women’s Day...Read more

Personnel Today Jobs
 

Search Jobs

PERSONNEL TODAY

About us
Contact us
Browse all HR topics
Email newsletters
Content feeds
Cookies policy
Privacy policy
Terms and conditions

JOBS

Personnel Today Jobs
Post a job
Why advertise with us?

EVENTS & PRODUCTS

The Personnel Today Awards
The RAD Awards
Employee Benefits
Forum for Expatriate Management
OHW+
Whatmedia

ADVERTISING & PR

Advertising opportunities
Features list 2025

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Linkedin


© 2011 - 2025 DVV Media International Ltd

Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+