I need not express again, blogreader, my love for Employment Law. For the present at least, it has no boundaries.
Recently I have been looking at the Working Time Regulations 1998. There has not been much written about their use in the UK. Well, not to my knowledge anyway; which is quite surprising I think when you consider the importance of the provisions contained within them. Most importantly, there is the limit on the maximum number of hours in the working week, which is set at 48 hours. In addition, the regulations provide for various entitlements to breaks on a daily, weekly and annual basis.
The regulations, I have found, can be criticised on many levels. There are some poorly defined and unspecific exceptions which are often used as a defence by employers. Elsewhere, employers have attempted to circumnavigate some important requirements through changing the procedure by which they pay their workers.
All very interesting and I could go on and on.
There is an important point that I wish to make though. I have been drawn to thinking about practising law in this area and how an area like the 1999 regulations provide a fertile area for lawyers to thrive and do interesting work. However, the more I think about it, the more I don't like admitting to that. In short, what I mean is: I should value the regulations more for the positive effect they have on workers' work-family lives and on providing them a safe environment in which to work. Not, on the other hand, for producing uncertainty and scope for lawyers to get more work.
This point may come across with a rather fine edge; however, I should warn you that it is as a result of reading some harsh accounts of employment conditions in modern Britain.
As I understand it - and I may be wrong on this - but many large law firms require their new trainees to exempt themselves from the application of the regulations. In particular, this 48-hour maximum weekly working limit. For me at least, the usefulness of the regulations means more because of the idea of working for so long - not getting enough rest and suffering from a work-induced illness as result.
No, blogreader, whilst I may have (ironically) worked in excess of the 48hr-limit this week when studying the regulations*, I am not interested in becoming a casualty of its mis-application! And, if I am ever required to sign my rights aways, I will pause and think...
*I've checked but I don't think I can find a loophole in the regulations to bring a claim for breach against anybody. Shame.
4 comments:
My Dear Lackie,
You are to be commended for your bravery in tackling the Working Time Regulations, and, indeed, for your all around enthusiasm when it comes to the Law of Employment.Would that I shared this enthusiasm, but I am still suffering post traumatic shock having been exposed to this area of law as an Amanuensis which compelled me to sit through three lectures a week delivered by a woman so uptight and retentive that, were you to insert a lump of coal in a particularly sensitive place of hers, in 6 weeks you'd have a DIAMOND.....
Well that's a shame. On the other hand, having listened (through your podcast with Charon QC)with interest about your on-going studies in international law, I regret not having chosen that particular module when it was offered! There's only so much that you can do mind and its inevitable that there's somethings that you aren't going to do, that you wish you did; as well as, subjects that you have studied, that you really wish you didn't have to! (or at least, you hoped would be more interesting).
Have added you to my blogroll, LL. Nice to see another blawg entering the fray.
BTW: Good ol' istockphoto, eh. ;-)
Thank you...very much.
Will reciprocate by adding you to my blawgs list.
Post a Comment