IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cbr/cbrwps/wp282.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Opting Out Of The 48-Hour Week – Employer Necessity Or Individual Choice? An Empirical Study Of The Operation Of Article 18(1)(B) Of The Working Time Directive In The UK

Author

Listed:
  • Catherine Barnard
  • Simon Deakin
  • Richard Hobbs

Abstract

The EU Working Time Directive has so far had little impact on an ingrained culture of long-hours working in the UK. Case studies suggest that the use of individual opt-outs from the 48-hour limit on weekly working time is a principal reason for this. However, removal of the individual opt-out (currently under consideration at EU level) is unlikely to make much difference to UK practice in the absence of a wider review of working time policy. In particular, the UK’s individualised system of workplace bargaining is currently ill-placed to adapt to a continental European model of working time regulation.

Suggested Citation

  • Catherine Barnard & Simon Deakin & Richard Hobbs, 2004. "Opting Out Of The 48-Hour Week – Employer Necessity Or Individual Choice? An Empirical Study Of The Operation Of Article 18(1)(B) Of The Working Time Directive In The UK," Working Papers wp282, Centre for Business Research, University of Cambridge.
  • Handle: RePEc:cbr:cbrwps:wp282
    Note: PRO-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cbr.cam.ac.uk/fileadmin/user_upload/centre-for-business-research/downloads/working-papers/wp282.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    More about this item

    Keywords

    working time; labour standards; collective bargaining; European Union;

    JEL classification:

    • J53 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Labor-Management Relations, Trade Unions, and Collective Bargaining - - - Labor-Management Relations; Industrial Jurisprudence
    • J81 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Labor Standards - - - Working Conditions
    • K31 - Law and Economics - - Other Substantive Areas of Law - - - Labor Law

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cbr:cbrwps:wp282. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Ruth Newman and Georgie Cohen). General contact details of provider: http://www.cbr.cam.ac.uk .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.