Are you sick to the E.U.?

[kestrelx]

Originally Posted by Wynonie Harris

Shouldn't that be "Are you sick of the EU?" No matter. Yes, of course, I am, just like the majority of people in this country. But our fine, upstanding democratic politicians won't give us a vote on the subject, because they're terrified of what the answer will be!

Yes it was meant to be "of" but I think I may have coined a new phrase -"Are you sick to the EU!" know what I mean

Next thing they want to bring in is a banking supervisor and they want the banking union. That means EU controlling all countries budgets.

Anyone noticed that one of the logo's for EU is a single eye!

[cmonstanley]

i dont agree with the wastage but they did contribute towards blackpool which is looking good.dont know if the tories would have contributed

[Wynonie Harris]

Originally Posted by cmonstanley

i dont agree with the wastage but they did contribute towards blackpool which is looking good.dont know if the tories would have contributed

We are one of the very few net contributors to the EU - ie, we pay more in than we get out. So it doesn't matter what grants they've awarded the UK for various "improvements", we're losing out massively on this deal.

One good thing Thatcher did was to handbag the other EU leaders into giving us a sizeable rebate to make up for the fact that we're paying through the nose to be in this rotten, corrupt club. Unfortunately, that odious creature, Blair (who doubtless you voted for), gave away a considerable portion of that rebate in return for vague promises on CAP reform which naturally have never been kept.

[Guinness]

Originally Posted by cmonstanley

You dont know european law then ,any employer can give an opt out clause for an employee to sign.

You know the old chestnut..give an infinite amount of monkeys an infinite amount of typewriters and one of them will produce the complete works of Shakespeare...

Same with the EU...with all the nonsense laws they pass it stands to reason that sooner or later they will get one right. The Working time directive is one they got right.

You cannot be forced to work more than 48 hours a week, the opt out is for you not the company...it's so that you can work overtime if you choose, even if you have signed an opt out the company cannot force you to work more than 48 hours a week.

[Margaret Pilkington]

Originally Posted by Shurm

All I know is at my company we sign away any right to a 48 hour week before we're given a job and my Wife signed one as well and she works for the NHS.

Like I said earlier these directives are probably in place to help employees and Company's just make you sign something so it's useless really.

I don't think these bits of paper have any standing in the law.
The Health and Safety Executive(HSE) enforce the WTD rules......as I said previously employers cannot force their employees to work more than 48 hours per week - but also that this is averaged out over 17 weeks...so if you worked more than 48 hours by choice for some of those weeks(as long as when averaged out over 17 weeks the total did not exceed 48 per working week) then you would not have been deemed to have contravened the regulations.

I worked for the NHS when these regulations came in, and I was required to ensure that my staff did not contravene the regs...this was sometimes difficult because of the shift patterns - but sometimes it meant that staff had to have 'unscheduled time off' to avoid falling foul of the regulations.

[Shurm]

Thanks for the previous 2 posts if that's the case I've learned something, funny they don't explain it that way to you when you sign.

[Margaret Pilkington]

No they won't do...but if you check out the HSE site it is quite clear.

It used to give me nightmares checking the monthly duty rotas and making sure we were within the regs.
I have neen left the NHS for 10 years now, but they were slavish in the adherence to the regs and I can't see it having changed.

That is what gets me about the EU......the frech pick and choose which rules they will follow and which they won't...but the UK is slavish to the rules.

As for what we get out...it is very little. I don't think the front at Blackpool is a great bargain for the billions we have paid in. Definitely not good value for money....especially when there isn't any money to spare.

[DaveinGermany]

As you're aware I live in the heartland of the EUSSR, they're quick enough to pass laws & regs, but in reality there's always a get out clause somewhere in amongst all the burocrateese. Prime example is the WTD of no more than 48 hrs per week, sounds fine until you read the rest of it, or upto 60hrs in the week so long as it averages out & here's the kicker, over 4 months/16 weeks.

That's how it applies to me as a wagon driver, but I believe it goes for other trades too. As it is I'm pushing between 50-60 working hours quite regularly without getting overtime or time in lieu, the reason given is always "That's the way it is in this branch, don't like it go somewhere else !" Nice ain't it.

So to a point I can understand those who say no thanks but my times up I'm offski if they aren't compensated, but at the same time I know the frustration of being on the receiving end of such treatment & the sense of dismay this brings. I suppose a lot of it is down to the way firms/employers treat their workforce & the individuals personal & moral code .

[StevenWaling]

So tell me, what exactly is the difference between being run by a bunch of super-rich Hooray Henries lining their own and their rich mates' pockets in Whitehall and being run by Herman the German super-rich liner of his and his rich mates' pockets?

The working-class still get screwed; but hey, that's alright, they're screwing you with a British accent!

[Margaret Pilkington]

Originally Posted by DaveinGermany

As you're aware I live in the heartland of the EUSSR, they're quick enough to pass laws & regs, but in reality there's always a get out clause somewhere in amongst all the burocrateese. Prime example is the WTD of no more than 48 hrs per week, sounds fine until you read the rest of it, or upto 60hrs in the week so long as it averages out & here's the kicker, over 4 months/16 weeks.

That's how it applies to me as a wagon driver, but I believe it goes for other trades too. As it is I'm pushing between 50-60 working hours quite regularly without getting overtime or time in lieu, the reason given is always "That's the way it is in this branch, don't like it go somewhere else !" Nice ain't it.

So to a point I can understand those who say no thanks but my times up I'm offski if they aren't compensated, but at the same time I know the frustration of being on the receiving end of such treatment & the sense of dismay this brings. I suppose a lot of it is down to the way firms/employers treat their workforce & the individuals personal & moral code .

I have an inkling that the WTD does not apply to mobile workers.

[DaveinGermany]

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

I have an inkling that the WTD does not apply to mobile workers.

I've been led to believe it does (due to the compulsory lectures I'm obliged to attend at certain week-ends ) although what actually happens in practice as opposed to theory ..................

Transports Friend - Working Time Directive

[Margaret Pilkington]

The Working Time Regulations
Maybe I have read the linked document wrongly then, but (and I hadn't read your link)I thought that the regs only applied to non mobile workers...but you are at the sharp end so I defer to your knowledge.

I know that we had this legislation preached at us, times without number when it came in(and of course I was working) so I had to know it...being out of circulation for 10 years has meant I could kiss it goodbye.......but it awakened some powerful (not good) memories for me.

[DaveinGermany]

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

I thought that the regs only applied to non mobile workers.

It's across the board Ma, there was resistance from various transport bodies saying they'd loose out while others gained an advantage & that's why it's supposedly applied to all equally, but as has been highlighted by other posters on here & from my own personal experience, a lot of it is just given lip service & not actually actioned.

Sad but true.

[cashman]

Originally Posted by DaveinGermany

Sad but true.

The real sad but true, thing is the fact that no brit will probably "EVER" be given the chance to say so by ballot, cos we have already been informed from a valid source, that most of us don't give a stuff.

[Margaret Pilkington]

I think the person who made that comment will be, by now, regretting that he ever mantioned it.

I'm sure he can see that the 95% do give a stuff.