Working Time Directive

Its still ongoing……

Two weeks on the ocean wave
Oct 11th 2007
From The Economist print edition

A row over working hours could spiral out of control

OFFSHORE oil is a tough business. The work is dirty and dangerous, North Sea weather is often unpleasant and violent, and the hours are long. Twelve-hour shifts are common, and, because the platforms are so far from land, many workers spend a fortnight aboard in return for two full weeks ashore.

There are advantages too: the wages are good and some workers like the idea of trading two weeks of hard work for two weeks of leisure. But not everyone is convinced that the tradeoffs are just. Offshore workers in Norway’s bit of the North Sea often get three weeks off for two weeks on. On October 8th an Aberdeen tribunal sat down to hear cases brought by several trade unions, which argue that Britain’s offshore employment practices violate the Working-Time Directive—European rules that the British government signed into law in 1998.

At issue is the question of what exactly counts as work. Under the directive, workers are either at work, at rest or on holiday. Employees are guaranteed 11 hours of rest in every 24, and are entitled to four weeks holiday every year. The contractors argue that workers are resting on their oil rigs when they are not on shift, and that, since they spend as much time onshore as off, they already get the equivalent of 26 weeks’ holiday a year.

Not so, say the unions. Even asleep in their bunks, they assert, employees cannot spend their time as they wish. “Unlike most people, these guys are not free to go for a pint or take the dog for a walk when they clock off,” says Jake Molloy, the boss of OILC, one of the unions involved. “And if they get woken up and told they’re needed to carry a stretcher or fight a fire, they can’t very well refuse.” Real rest time is deferred until the workers go back onshore, leaving no time for holidays. So workers should get four weeks’ proper holiday in addition to the time they already spend onshore.

What makes the tribunal especially interesting is the Damoclean shadow cast by two controversial European rulings, collectively referred to as the Jaeger principle. These established that workers on call (doctors, for instance) are “at work” for the purposes of working-time rules. The oil industry fears the unions’ arguments are tantamount to claiming the same thing for offshore jobs. If that is so, says Oil & Gas UK (OGUK), the industry’s trade association, it would cause chaos. The directive says no worker has to put in more than 48 hours a week, so oil workers would be limited to just two days offshore every week. “It would create a shortage we simply couldn’t fill,” says Chris Allen, a director at OGUK. “There aren’t enough skilled workers out there. Large chunks of production would just have to shut down.”

Unions insist they want nothing to do with Jaeger—yet. “Why would we risk the industry that employs all our workers?” asks Mr Molloy. But he adds that, if employers refuse to budge, then he will have no other choice. That is probably a negotiating tactic, but it is one that could blow up in everyone’s face. Mr Allen points out that Jaeger is enshrined in law. The tribunal could decide it applies, regardless of either side’s wishes.