Why? If the worker doesn't want to work more, he will just tell his boss "go to hell, if you are not happy we go on strike." and unions will be all too happy to take their red flags and picket untill the director apologize.
The worker works under written contract and if the contract states that he has to work 48h, he has no obligation to accept to work more under any circumstance and he/she can't be fired before the termination of the contract.

Why it would boost employement?
First by turning legal black workers (seasonal workers, foreign construction workers etc)
For the "Polish plumber" the 60h week is already a matter of fact.
I agree that this is not creating jobs, just legalizing. But as statistics and social security are concerned, jobs are being created.

Second by allowing flexibility, some jobs that were until now too expensive to be created because they would require two persons working 40 or 48 hours each, can now be offered.
I imagine some low duty work such as sitting on a chair reading a magazine until a monitor beeps, mowing lawn and gathering leafs etc
But more specificaly there could situations when one ned somebody 60 hours a week: Under the current legislation this has to be done through two 3/4 times of 30h which is more expensive and more complicated than one full time +1/4.

The only problem is if the hourly salary depreciate.
We can imagine that on the long term, long weeks become the norm and finaly the basic salary which coupled with inflation, is the same than a 48h week salary a few years before.

I don't think we will get there soon but I agree it's worth watching.

I don't now.

My point is that as long you will ask a certain population to vote, there will be a high chance of "No".
Irish voted because they knew that they were splitted over this topic hence the negative turnout.

Democracy is not following leaders, it's about trusting them for what they do.
And if these leaders say "we must ratify this treaty", you assume that they are right because you know their political program, the promises they have made before being elected and their political color. And more importantly because you choosed them.
If you voted for them, it's not to vote again to go against their decisions.

And the leaders know that if they don't take decision in the interest of the population, they won't rule on the next term.
The problem with a referendum is that the said leaders will follow a decision taken by the population which can be the wrong one but when the negative effect of this decision will surface, the leaders will take the blame.
It's also a sign of weakness, lack of decision taking power.

The Irish didn't get it: You don't make a referendum for such a thing, it's bound to fail.
Everybody is proud of their nationality and if you ask The Poeple wether they want to be a little bit less of themselves, they will say "NO" of course.
IMO, the EU affairs are too complicated to ask the opinion of millions of poeple. We live in a democracy and in a democracy you trust your leaders. So if the leaders YOU elected decide to instore an european constitution why opposing it?


article

I don't realy understand this article:
First it states that the weekly limit will be 60h, then that it will be 65 (without explanantion), then that the dayly limit would be 13 hours thus a 6 days week would total 78 hours!
I can't sort out this non-sens, but ok.

The 60 hours week takes effect only after mutual agrement on a personal basis between the employer and the worker. Nobody is forced to work that long to make a living.
It only allows poeple who want to work more than 48h to earn more money. It can be 50h, 55h etc.
The big diference is that these extra hours won't have to be in black. It will safe, taxed and insured good working time under a legal contract with all the protection for the workers.
But the most important is that these extra hours won't be doubled-taxed as it's the case now.

For seasonal jobs it might be extremely useful.
I can imagine that it can be useful also for poeple who realy need money quickely and who are ready to work that much for a few weeks.

The on-call duty when the worker is living in the company facility is also an excellent idea for foreign workers who don't have a place where to live anyway. They will be very happy with such arrangement.

From the employer side, this flexibility will allow to legaly engage more workers than before and help reduce unemployement.

I think I can sort of answer both in one reply if I may?

Scotland was a country and is a country and yet is being ruled by another country. To me that is anathema. Scotland, Wales and Ireland - ALL of Ireland - have the right to be independent of the rule of another country because they were countries before they fell under the control of a third country.

The Basque "Region" - I note they have started to call it a country now even though it isn't - never was another country. It is part of a country and separating out is also anathema to me. The Basque terrorists - or separatists as they fashion themselves, ignoring the bombings they undertake to terrorize, are only miffed because they are not in total control. Tough!

I feel the same way about Quebec. Quebec is part of Canada and the Quebec terrorists - or now, separatists (not much in the way of bombing so I can cut them some slack in the "name" department) - have no right to separate from Canada simply because the land isn't theirs...it belongs to the people of Canada. But that was the fault of the British who, after defeating the French, instead of doing what other countries of the time might have done and eliminating them altogether, allowed the French to stay to help build Canada...and they did.

Actually, during the 80's I accepted the separation of the French if they wanted, but there had to be restrictions. For example, since the St. Lawrence Seaway is an integral and very important part of Canada, they of course could not have or live within say 500 miles of the St Lawrence Seaway. If they wanted to "separate" they would have to move part and parcel away from that part of Canada so they could be independent. They of course could also not have any control over the electricity network in Quebec that feeds the N. E. part of the States as that belongs to Canada. They could of course negotiate fees for buying electricity from Canada, but they would need to be far enough away from the existing power stations so that a now "foreign" country could not damage that Canadian network.

Ridiculous of course, and it was intended to be.

A country that historically was a country wants to break free from the control of another country, the people in that country should have that right; but when just a group of people that want to be in control of the whole, and are pouting because they will never be in control of the whole, then try and take something away from the whole so those pouting can feel like they are now somebody...to me that is just wrong.

The Scots can become independent any time they want.  They just need to gain an SNP majority in the Scottish parliament and vote in a referendum for independence.

Simple as.

I think I can sort of answer both in one reply if I may?

Scotland was a country and is a country and yet is being ruled by another country. To me that is anathema. Scotland, Wales and Ireland - ALL of Ireland - have the right to be independent of the rule of another country because they were countries before they fell under the control of a third country.

The Basque "Region" - I note they have started to call it a country now even though it isn't - never was another country. It is part of a country and separating out is also anathema to me. The Basque terrorists - or separatists as they fashion themselves, ignoring the bombings they undertake to terrorize, are only miffed because they are not in total control. Tough!

I feel the same way about Quebec. Quebec is part of Canada and the Quebec terrorists - or now, separatists (not much in the way of bombing so I can cut them some slack in the "name" department) - have no right to separate from Canada simply because the land isn't theirs...it belongs to the people of Canada. But that was the fault of the British who, after defeating the French, instead of doing what other countries of the time might have done and eliminating them altogether, allowed the French to stay to help build Canada...and they did.

Actually, during the 80's I accepted the separation of the French if they wanted, but there had to be restrictions. For example, since the St. Lawrence Seaway is an integral and very important part of Canada, they of course could not have or live within say 500 miles of the St Lawrence Seaway. If they wanted to "separate" they would have to move part and parcel away from that part of Canada so they could be independent. They of course could also not have any control over the electricity network in Quebec that feeds the N. E. part of the States as that belongs to Canada. They could of course negotiate fees for buying electricity from Canada, but they would need to be far enough away from the existing power stations so that a now "foreign" country could not damage that Canadian network.

Ridiculous of course, and it was intended to be.

A country that historically was a country wants to break free from the control of another country, the people in that country should have that right; but when just a group of people that want to be in control of the whole, and are pouting because they will never be in control of the whole, then try and take something away from the whole so those pouting can feel like they are now somebody...to me that is just wrong.

Okay, when Labour came into power, they (by which I mean Gordon Brown) brought in a 10% tax band, between about £4000 and I think about £17000 income a year. So the poor paid less taxes (before then, that band was at the 20+ rate). I'm not sure about the exact numbers. But anyway, that was the lowest tax band, then above that you paid 22%, up to about £35000 a year, after that you paid 40%. But recently, Gordon Brown lowered the 22% rate to 20% but abolished the 10% rate, so from about £5000 to about £35000 (I think) you pay 20% income tax. So all the low-paid workers pay more tax. Now, he also raised benefits for low-paid parents and others who get income support, and is raising the minimum wage, but if you're a normal, childless, low-paid worker, you're paying a few hundred more pounds of tax a year, maybe a thousand. However, middle-class proffesionals are paying a bit less tax. So to most people, it looked like Gordon Brown was trying to buy middle-class votes at the expense of the working class, by abolishing a policy that he himself brought in 11 years ago. It's a very un-Labour policy. So as you can imagine, many Labour back-benchers, as old socialists and trade unionists, were very unhappy about this. And the Conservatives, who of course present themselves as a low-tax party, have been going around saying to working class people that Brown is raising their taxes. I note that the Tories have said that, if elected, they aren't promising to change the rates back... they wouldn't want to raise middle-class taxes, now would they!

Seems just a tad contradictory there DIEGO. Asking someone that is "British" what a Scot would think about Independence is like asking an Iraqi if they enjoy the Rape of Iraq to steal their water (yes, I did write water, because the water in Iraq is more important to Israel than the oil).

Scots - my ancestors on my grandmother's side - have been trying to gain independence from England ever since the English invasion of Scotland and the murder of many thousands of Scots.

Scotland wants independence for many reasons, and the use of Scottish territory by the English for the testing of the so-called "depeted" uranium nuclear weapons being used by America and England in the Rape of Iraq is only one of the reasons.

As well, citing English govt, mouthpiece website to try and ascertain how Scots feel about independence is like believing The Bush Regime's con that Iraqis would toss flowers at the American invasion forces.

Ask a Scot. Go to a Scottish website. Cite a Scottish website.

You can also check with the people of Ireland and Wales since they have wanted to be free from the English for centuries as well. Perhaps also check with some Australians who have been trying to get rid of the idiocy of their being ruled by a monarchy. The Republic of Australia has been on the front burner for some time.

No, i was responding to Diego's post in which he mentioned Basque independance.  I didn't raise the issue, merely showing an interest.