Working Hours

  laurie53 10:08 10 Jun 08
Locked

Is it not sad that a Labour administration has obtained a "concession" that the UK can continue it's high working hours culture, rather than the more civilised and non-Victorian culture now more normal on the mainland?

click here

  interzone55 10:59 10 Jun 08

It really isn't as simple as saying "everyone should work less hours" (I hate the term "shorter hours" they're all 60 minutes long, no matter how many you work).

The public expects shops to be open, businesses expect other businesses to work the same hours.

In order for companies to provide the same levels of service staff will have to work different hours - some doing 9-4, others doing 10-5, 11-6 etc.

The other option is for businesses to operate for fewer hours.

From experience of dealing with French companies, I would assume they use the second model, because they're the most inflexible people I've ever come across - orders to be placed by 10am, no orders can be placed on Fridays, 16 public holidays a year, and no-one works the holidays.

We either have a system with high levels of service, or we have a so-called European model. I can't see a way to have both without a seismic shift in peoples working patterns.

  belfman 11:35 10 Jun 08

High Working Hours culture. Some people need the extra hours to make ends meet - like me.

I'll work less if Brussels supplements my loss in income.

  johndrew 11:37 10 Jun 08

Many people either need (for the money) or want (for the job) to work more hours. The constraints placed by Europe on personal choice are wrong in this respect.

It is reasonable to say that a person cannot be forced to work more than a specific number of hours in an overall time frame, but to restrict choice is a bit dictatorial in my opinion.

Added to this, the current legislation on making employers provide flexible working hours for parents at the expense of those same hours for childless people is also wrong. People choose to have children and take on the responsibility of being available to look after them; it is not the employers` responsibility or that of childless work colleagues. This latter group are expected to cover to parents who need to collect children from school, can only go on holiday at specific times, need to take time off at little or no notice and similar situations.

Perhaps a return to times when children generally had two parents and the mother stayed at home to look after them until they reached the age of 16 years would be a good thing. After all it was, again generally, the mother who initiated schooling by reading and teaching other skills and also social values. To enable this child allowance and family credits were introduced. The government seems to have forgotten this in its rush to get the whole population back to work.

  interzone55 14:08 10 Jun 08

You contradict yourself in your posting...

"Many people either need (for the money) or want (for the job) to work more hours"

"Perhaps a return to times when children generally had two parents and the mother stayed at home to look after them until they reached the age of 16 years would be a good thing"

In most cases, those two statements are not compatible.

Families were both parents work don't usually do so for the joy of work, rather it's the only way to pay the mortgage.

  newman35 14:14 10 Jun 08

"In most cases, those two statements are not compatible."

Maybe - but not contradictory - and the second 'statement' was just actually saying "Perhaps.....would be a good thing".

  johndrew 15:11 10 Jun 08

I try to post in accurate English and believe I did so in this case. It is unfortunate that some people apply a cursory examination of some posts and misinterpret the content.

If you read the content I believe you will find the statements are not contradictory or incompatible. Whether you support or oppose the suggestion posed in the final paragraph is your option as it is mine to suggest it.

  laurie53 17:40 10 Jun 08

Even sadder then, to work in a so-called Socialist governed country where people have to work overtime to make a living wage, and many women have to go out to work whether they want to or not (and not all do, even in this day and age), just to make ends meet.

  Forum Editor 17:47 10 Jun 08

I'm struggling to understand the reasoning behind your comment that it's sad that "many women have to go out to work whether they want to or not (and not all do, even in this day and age), just to make ends meet."

I invite you to tell me what's wrong with women having going out to work to make ends meet - whether they want to or not. I have to go out to work whether I want to or not - what's the difference between me and a woman in that respect? My daughters have to go to work to make ends meet, although I'm quite sure they would rather not.

Why should a socialist government be any different to a capitalist government as far as the need for women to earn their own living is concerned?

  laurie53 19:04 10 Jun 08

My apologies, my remark does appear sexist, and such was not my intention.

Having been brought up in another age it was traditional in many, if not most, cases for married women to have their needs taken care of by their husbands, although in some of "dark satantic mills" areas this was never the case.

At that time many wives went out to work because they wanted to. Now many wives go out to work because they have to.

  oresome 19:05 10 Jun 08

I expect it's still the case in the majority of households that the woman does more of the housework, cooking and child rearing.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Intel Coffee Lake 8th-gen Core processors release date rumours

1995-2015: How technology has changed the world in 20 years

Apple MacBook Pro with Touch Bar review

Best iPhone games 2017 | Best iPad games 2017: 162 fantastic iOS games that you need to play right…