Which eu law would you ditch first?

UK PROFESSIONAL DRIVERS FORUMS THE UK PROFESSIONAL DRIVERS FORUM (INTERACTIVE)
61

toonsy:

cooper1203:

rob22888:
Of any positives to come out of leaving the EU, the one I would really love to see the most is the absolute bombshell for transport planners up and down the country:

Abolition of the 9 hour reduced daily rest. 15 hour shifts, consigned to the history bin and not before time. I’d pay to see CCTV footage of that news being delivered to the Stobart planners and the like.

what are gb domestic hours then because if we get rid of the eu hours the gov wont bring in new hours that cost their mates money.

From hazy memory…

Can be on duty for up to 16hrs a day, but only 10 of those hours can be classed as work ie driving/other work :open_mouth:

10 hours off between shifts, can be reduced to 8.5hrs rest between shifts up to three times a week :open_mouth:

Must have a minimum of 24hrs off every two weeks :open_mouth: (In theory on domestic its possible to work 365 days a year!)

30 min break after 5.5hrs driving :open_mouth:

Or at 8.5hrs driving breaks TOTALLING 45 mins (note totalling, not in one go) :open_mouth:

Sounds loads better that…

Could go AETR? Problem being that those are now aligned with the EU drivers hours…

Look the current rules are not perfect but as you’ve alluded to the alternatives are either worse or non-existent.

Anyone hoping that a government who wants to erode workers rights to the point of repealing legislation that is designed to protect us will come up with a new set of rules that is better for the little man may be a tad disappointed.

That’s the GB domestic regs for PCVs, for HGVs it’s different

10 hours driving, no breaks required
11 hours duty, no breaks required
Only driving + other work count as duty, so no limit on shift length
No daily rest requirements
No weekly rest requirements
Although you are entitled to adequate rest
But you can work permanent 7 days a week

So anyone thinking the EU regs allow to to be at work too much isn’t gonna be a fan of the GB domestic

62

stevieboy308:

toonsy:

cooper1203:

rob22888:
Of any positives to come out of leaving the EU, the one I would really love to see the most is the absolute bombshell for transport planners up and down the country:

Abolition of the 9 hour reduced daily rest. 15 hour shifts, consigned to the history bin and not before time. I’d pay to see CCTV footage of that news being delivered to the Stobart planners and the like.

what are gb domestic hours then because if we get rid of the eu hours the gov wont bring in new hours that cost their mates money.

From hazy memory…

Can be on duty for up to 16hrs a day, but only 10 of those hours can be classed as work ie driving/other work :open_mouth:

10 hours off between shifts, can be reduced to 8.5hrs rest between shifts up to three times a week :open_mouth:

Must have a minimum of 24hrs off every two weeks :open_mouth: (In theory on domestic its possible to work 365 days a year!)

30 min break after 5.5hrs driving :open_mouth:

Or at 8.5hrs driving breaks TOTALLING 45 mins (note totalling, not in one go) :open_mouth:

Sounds loads better that…

Could go AETR? Problem being that those are now aligned with the EU drivers hours…

Look the current rules are not perfect but as you’ve alluded to the alternatives are either worse or non-existent.

Anyone hoping that a government who wants to erode workers rights to the point of repealing legislation that is designed to protect us will come up with a new set of rules that is better for the little man may be a tad disappointed.

That’s the GB domestic regs for PCVs, for HGVs it’s different

10 hours driving, no breaks required
11 hours duty, no breaks required
Only driving + other work count as duty, so no limit on shift length
No daily rest requirements
No weekly rest requirements
Although you are entitled to adequate rest
But you can work permanent 7 days a week

So anyone thinking the EU regs allow to to be at work too much isn’t gonna be a fan of the GB domestic

Ta I knew there was some differences but only used them in the world of PCV.

Either way the point we both make is that they’re crap and are not the answer to those who already cry the hours are too long/rests too short

63

cooper1203:

Franglais:
Seems to me there is some muddled thinking going on here. If the EU rules on driving/working aren`t strict enough, i.e. they allow too short rest periods etc, then they need strengthening, not banning!
If we as workers are exploited, within the law, then we need to use unions, and/or MPs to change the laws.
If politicians listen to businesses more than workers, then vote in a different bunch of politicians.
.
In or out of the EU, we are in a regulated industry, and only law changes will improve things for the majority. There are certainly honourable employers out there, but not enough compared to big, penny pinching, businesses.

Thing is I cant think of a single party that didn’t have an mp that wanted to remain for their own benefit despite their constituents voting to leave. They are all self serving imbeciles. The government and businesses have had it too easy for the last 10-15 years with a surplice of workers willing to do long days for little money. forcing everyone else to compete for the same jobs.

I was kind of in the same boat. would I like a job that I only work x number of hours for good money of course I would but as a new pass I have to work for the companies that are willing to take on new passes which I do realise makes it harder for those that have experience to get a fair wage. Best anyone can do is do the rough work for a couple of years then get the better/ easier / more money job. Unfortunately its the way it has been for decades. Everyone started off at the bottom of the ladder doing the long shifts and donkey work before working their way up.

Personally I think there has to be a balance of power between drivers and the companies if either one has too much some will exploit the other to the letter of the law.

Without accepting with the first part of your post, (I wont argue on this thread) the last sentence is absolutely correct: so long as law allows a loophole, or a more legitimate way for exploitation, someone will use it. Not all companies are bad, but some are. Where I work, I pretty much choose all my start times etc, if Im a few hours out on a Thursday eve I may choose to do a short rest for an early start and early finish on the Friday. Trouble is an employer may use that option to score extra work from another driver.
So, although short daily rests may benefit me personally, It seems I`d need to forgo that to protect others. Such is life.

64

The reality is there is even less chance of the UK driving reform of the EU drivers hours if it outside the EU.

legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2019/596/made

Plus the AETR rules for European nations outside the EU (Norway, Switzerland and out as far as Russia) are written-over from the EU rules .

Sorry to disappoint everyone.

65

GasGas:
The reality is there is even less chance of the UK driving reform of the EU drivers hours if it outside the EU.

legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2019/596/made

Plus the AETR rules for European nations outside the EU (Norway, Switzerland and out as far as Russia) are written-over from the EU rules .

Sorry to disappoint everyone.

But now that the UK has left perhaps the EU are more likely to reform them, without the British stopping them or making up some loophole like poa.

And then we end up following the AETR rules, just without getting a say in making them anymore

66

Franglais:
Without accepting with the first part of your post, (I wont argue on this thread) the last sentence is absolutely correct: so long as law allows a loophole, or a more legitimate way for exploitation, someone will use it. Not all companies are bad, but some are. Where I work, I pretty much choose all my start times etc, if Im a few hours out on a Thursday eve I may choose to do a short rest for an early start and early finish on the Friday. Trouble is an employer may use that option to score extra work from another driver.
So, although short daily rests may benefit me personally, It seems I`d need to forgo that to protect others. Such is life.

I realise there are good and bad companies out there I have seen it in other work I have done over the years. The job I have at the moment is a 40 hour week on an hourly wage if I work less than 40 hours I still get 40 hours if I work more than 40 hours I get paid for the hours I work ie 43 for example.

lets say I work 8 hours mon tue and fri but finish 2 hours early on Wednesday and do an extra 2 hours on thurs I would get the basic 40 hours to me that is fair enough its swings and roundabouts however I get the feeling that some employees in general would make sure they didn’t get back to the yard until 7.5 hours of work so they weren’t asked to help with something likewise I can see an employer in general making the rounds so that you got back before the 8 hours and could do more work knowing it would put you over.

the trouble with legislation is that it limits those that are willing to work with in the bounds of common sense and a little give and take but allows the bad apples to work their workers to the limit

67

cooper1203:

Franglais:
Without accepting with the first part of your post, (I wont argue on this thread) the last sentence is absolutely correct: so long as law allows a loophole, or a more legitimate way for exploitation, someone will use it. Not all companies are bad, but some are. Where I work, I pretty much choose all my start times etc, if Im a few hours out on a Thursday eve I may choose to do a short rest for an early start and early finish on the Friday. Trouble is an employer may use that option to score extra work from another driver.
So, although short daily rests may benefit me personally, It seems I`d need to forgo that to protect others. Such is life.

I realise there are good and bad companies out there I have seen it in other work I have done over the years. The job I have at the moment is a 40 hour week on an hourly wage if I work less than 40 hours I still get 40 hours if I work more than 40 hours I get paid for the hours I work ie 43 for example.

lets say I work 8 hours mon tue and fri but finish 2 hours early on Wednesday and do an extra 2 hours on thurs I would get the basic 40 hours to me that is fair enough its swings and roundabouts however I get the feeling that some employees in general would make sure they didn’t get back to the yard until 7.5 hours of work so they weren’t asked to help with something likewise I can see an employer in general making the rounds so that you got back before the 8 hours and could do more work knowing it would put you over.

the trouble with legislation is that it limits those that are willing to work with in the bounds of common sense and a little give and take but allows the bad apples to work their workers to the limit

A basic humanitarian uncoupling from the gradgrind dynamics of yore is what’s required,being a part of European feudalistic practices hasn’t seen any respite from this slave driver mentality ,just an extra stick to beat us with tbh.Not only should transport be more 9 to 5 ish,there should be an overarching reappraisal of the health challenges that have slipped under the radar for way too long,ie,sitting for far too long and the outrageously dysfunctional parking&food provision shortfalls of this septic isle. :imp:

68

And then we end up following the AETR rules, just without getting a say in making them anymore
chrisdalott

And that’s the beauty of Brexit!!!

Still get the rules, but no say in their drafting.

“Take Back Control!”

Funny how we don’t hear anyone actually saying that any more, isn’t it?

69

GasGas:
And then we end up following the AETR rules, just without getting a say in making them anymore
chrisdalott

And that’s the beauty of Brexit!!!

Still get the rules, but no say in their drafting.

“Take Back Control!”

Funny how we don’t hear anyone actually saying that any more, isn’t it?

Because brexit was never anything more than a divide and conquer project,the usual game played out for centuries.Judging by the vitriol this whole farrago has generated across the land.Mission accomplished with nobs on.

70

I’d ditch the EU law that outlawed the selling of giant Rolos. I loved them. Surely that was some Brussels chicanery responsible for that?

71

the maoster:
I’d ditch the EU law that outlawed the selling of giant Rolos. I loved them. Surely that was some Brussels chicanery responsible for that?

I feel your pain pilgrim.Not sure if this is an eu edict pe se,but I wouldn’t be at all suprised.

72

Winseer:
Compare how “serious” the crime of “being on duty 6hrs and 5 mins before going on break of 30 minutes” compared to “driving 4hrs 35 before taking a 45 break”…

At the moment - they seem to be treated equally as per “tacho infringements”. I would argue that driving over 4.5hrs without a break is quite SERIOUS, whereas being on duty over 6 hours before being able to park up and take a break (if you’ve been stuck in traffic, for instance…) - is just a pain in the arse rule that we could all do without.

No, they are not treated equally at all. A Drivers Hours infringement renders you, the driver liable to a FPN (or worse) if picked up at a roadside check, as well as potentially creating grief for the operator. A WTD infringement has no such consequences for the driver, but still renders the operator liable to have enforcement sanctions applied (beginning with Improvement Notices, moving on through Prohibitions and possibly even going as far as fines and up to 2 years in jail for persistent/deliberate non-compliance). This is why most operators are rather keen to ensure that their drivers are compliant.

I would argue that if we’re not careful - we’ll lose the UK “worker flexibility” in favour of this crappy EU worker’s so-called rights thing where you cannot do this, cannot do that - and basically are in trouble if you don’t toe the line on such rules.

The same applies to this rule about “night workers not being able to work more than 10 hours without a union-signed agreement to opt-out it” - which isn’t much good if you’re a full timer at a workplace that HAS no Union there…

It has next to nothing to do with Trade Union representation. The regs recommend Union involvement/representation where it exists, but even if there is no Union on site the employer is required to ballot the workforce anyway (and implement the majority decision).

Sometimes - AGENCY happens to be better for the built-in opt outs it has - than most give it credit for.

But there is no such built-in opt-out for agency workers - it all hinges on a workforce agreement being in place and that applies to ALL workers at that site doing that job, regardless of how they are employed. There is no option to opt-out on an individual basis.

We’ve not done that though, until we stop paying the money, and openly enforce UK law over EU law, for example - confiscating a foreign fishing vessal in the channel, or deporting illegal immigrants fished out of the same channel to the mainland continent, no qualms about “infringing their yuman rights”.

The European Convention on Human Rights has NOTHING (nada, zilch, zero) to do with membership of the EU, and we (as members of the European Council and signatories to said Convention) continue to be bound by it.

But apart from that - good post!

73

Winston Churchill called for ‘Human Rights Charter’ in the aftermath of World War II. He spoke about the strength derived from our sense of common values, and the Charter being “guarded by freedom and sustained by law” which ensured that “people owned the government, and not the government the people” (speech at The Hague , 1948).

74

the maoster:
I’d ditch the EU law that outlawed the selling of giant Rolos. I loved them. Surely that was some Brussels chicanery responsible for that?

Giant Rolos banned by the EU?
Wanna buy some to bait your fishing hook?

:smiley:

75

I would go along with longer hours ONLY IF THE TACHCO AND ALL OTHER RECORDING DEVICES WERE REMOVED.I liked log books with my own pen … in was more well you know… :neutral_face:

76

…open to personal creativity?

as Einstein said: time is relative…and overtime is lucrative. :smiley:

77

GasGas:
Winston Churchill called for ‘Human Rights Charter’ in the aftermath of World War II. He spoke about the strength derived from our sense of common values, and the Charter being “guarded by freedom and sustained by law” which ensured that “people owned the government, and not the government the people” (speech at The Hague , 1948).

If that’s the case he should of repelled the 1666 Cestui Que Vie, which still hasn’t been repelled or replaced.

78

dbk23:

GasGas:
Winston Churchill called for ‘Human Rights Charter’ in the aftermath of World War II. He spoke about the strength derived from our sense of common values, and the Charter being “guarded by freedom and sustained by law” which ensured that “people owned the government, and not the government the people” (speech at The Hague , 1948).

If that’s the case he should of repelled the 1666 Cestui Que Vie, which still hasn’t been repelled or replaced.

legislation.gov.uk/aep/Cha2/18-19/11
“There are currently no known outstanding effects for the Cestui Que Vie Act 1666.”

And although it is still on the statute books it was effectively replaced by The Presumption Of Death Act 2013
legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/201 … 013_en.pdf

79

Did Chuck Berry write that one…and the old folks wished them well sela vie…da de da :neutral_face:

80

Franglais:

dbk23:

GasGas:
Winston Churchill called for ‘Human Rights Charter’ in the aftermath of World War II. He spoke about the strength derived from our sense of common values, and the Charter being “guarded by freedom and sustained by law” which ensured that “people owned the government, and not the government the people” (speech at The Hague , 1948).

If that’s the case he should of repelled the 1666 Cestui Que Vie, which still hasn’t been repelled or replaced.

legislation.gov.uk/aep/Cha2/18-19/11
“There are currently no known outstanding effects for the Cestui Que Vie Act 1666.”

And although it is still on the statute books it was effectively replaced by The Presumption Of Death Act 2013
legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/201 … 013_en.pdf

It’s still relevant today, as anyone who has accessed there account to pay utilities or any other things can testify.