Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2004
My understanding is that travel to work does not count as "work" when you are travelling to your normal place of work. Thus, if you are office based, work starts when you arrive. If you are required to make a site visit, travelling to and from that site IS work (assuming it's further away from home than the office).
If you are employed as site staff, the site is your normal place of work and thus travel to and from site from home is NOT work. This applies even when the actual site changes. Conversely if you are called into the office (perhaps to be congratulated on your excellent work?
) then that IS travel.
You may work at several sites. For example, a social worker doing outreach work or something (and the normal place of work is not the office). Travel from home to the first site is not work. Travel between sites is work. Travel from the last one in the day to home is not work.
We owe the dead nothing but the truth.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2005
Whether being 'forced' to work long hours is oppressive or not depends on how you are paid. People often want to work long hours if they are getting paid overtime on an hourly rate.
As I understand it, the UK's 'opt-out' and amendments to the directive were put in place because of the unpopularity of the directive in this country, where it was perceived as putting compulsory restrictions on your income. I believe that, in its un-modified form, the Directive means that you can't work more than 48 hours in any individual week, even if you want to; and I think it is implemented in that form in many EU countries. In France, there was a law that compulsorily restricted working hours to 35 - with fines for individuals who worked longer (not for their employers!). Not sure if this is still in place.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2005
1man, it is in the nature of waged labour that the individual appears to be 'free' and has the illusion of choice, but the reality of low pay is that it does force people to work longer hours whenever possible to get by. People (the sane ones) only want overtime because they aren't being paid enough in the first place.
The fact that the government included the option to opt out of the Working Time Directive (with certain conditions) was arecognition that many people are not paid enough. Certain professions are also exempted from the provisions of the Directive such as security work. Ostensibly this is because long hours are needed for the nature of the job; in reality it is because the job is so horrendously low paid that nobody would do it unless they could work long hours to bring the money in.
Working long hours (especially on site) is extremely bad for the health. The fact that some people 'choose' to do it should not be celebrated, but should be seen as a fitting comment on the low wages in archaeology (as well as other sectors of the economy).
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2004
I agree, Real Job. I would add that there are other, more subtle, pressures on many people in relatively well paid jobs too - the English work ethic, peer pressure and all that. I have known many instances of people pressured to work late and at weekends - unpaid - and who do it (guilty myself) due to the "long hours" culture that we have. There is even criticism from colleagues - "old so-and-so always slopes off at 5.30..." I have generally tried to resist this and defended the sloper-offers, but it can be difficult in a professional give and take situation - sure, you can always nip out to the dentist or whatever, no-one is silly about that sort of thing, but the snag is that it always seems to end up all give and no take.
We owe the dead nothing but the truth.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2006
Quote:quote:Originally posted by kevin wooldridge
The point I was trying to make was that the law insists workers have 11 hours rest between shifts. Do you think that an hour (or maybe more) of travelling at either end of a 12 hour working day adequately qualifies as a 'rest period'?
No, Kevin, I don't think that adequately qualifies as a rest period. Unfortunately I don't make the law and as it stands the 11 hours of 'rest' between shifts counts from "clocking off" to "clocking on" as it were, and not the time spent at home relaxing with the cat. (which will of course become a compulsory part of everyones day when I run the country - cue maniacal laughter
)
"a pound of shelled peanuts was handsome pay by any apes standards" Pratchett 1998
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2004
Am currently one of those doing 6 day 12 hour shifts.Company I work for is an IFA RAO so I am completely convinced that all the spectacular archaeology we are uncovering will be professionally dealt with within all guidelines and ethics.[:o)][:o)][:o)][:o)][:o)][:o)][:o)][:o)][:o)][:o)][:o)][:o)][:o)][:o)][:o)][:o)][:o)][:o)][:o)]
..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2005
10th April 2006, 12:44 AM
I suspect that you'll find the the working hours directive is aimed at people operating machinery in the main, although there is a general move towards reducing working hours!!
deep
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2005
Troll, did you really end up working 6 days a week and 12 hours a day on the scheme you mentioned? 72 hour working week?
What breaks did you get? and were they paid breaks?
Was this excavation work or just machine watching?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2006
Can anyone tell me what the Europeans are doing about this? I mean, we all know that the British work longer hours in general. But are European archaeologists working better hours or is this an industry problem?
Ian
http://www.getatrowel.co.uk - trowels for archaeological excavators
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2005
As people appear to be working long hours for one or two archaeological companies - 6 days a week , 12 hour days - do you not or should you not have to sign a waiver to sya that you are prepared to opt out from the European Working Time Directive?
Or is it that because the working hours have been stated in the emloyment contract (which you sign and agree to), that you have signed away any rights with regard to this directive?
