[Metrobeans]

B453 - Workplace Intervals Bill, TSR Labour

Workplace Intervals Bill

An act to tackle unfair hours on consecutive work, this is a particular problem in fast paced retail work where staff are often forced to remain on the sales floor for six consecutive hours.

BE IT ENACTED by The Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and by the authority of the same, as follows:-

1. Offence of scheduling shift patterns without breaks

(1) It is an offence to ask an employee to work a shift exceeding four hours without a break of a minimum of fifteen minutes, unless expressed consent of the employee is obtained.

(2) It is an offence for an employer to discriminate against an employee who exercises his or her right to a break.

(3) For the purposes of this Act-

(a)"Shift" means the work undertaken in one single day of Labour.
(b)"Ask" means a verbal or written request for the employee to work the offending shift.
(c)"break" is a period during the shift in which the employee is permitted to cease working and cannot be required to partake in any form of Labour.

(4)The employer is not required to pay the employee for time spent on mid-shift intervals

2. Enforcement and Punishment

(1) The enforcement of this Act should be the sole responsibility of the police forces of the UK.
(2) Violation of this Act should be punishable by a fine not exceeding £1,000

3. Exemption

(1) The Secretary of State will be granted the power to make further exemptions to this Act as he finds necessary by Order.

4. Commencement, short title and extent

(1) This Act may be cited as the Workplace intervals Act 2012

(2) This bill shall extend to the United Kingdom; and

(3) Shall come into force one month following Royal Assent.

[Mr Dangermouse]

Aye.

[MacDaddi]

Kitkat will have a field day.

[obi_adorno_kenobi]

A couple of stylistic things really:

1. In clause 1.1, it would be better if you rendered it "It is an offence to require an employee..."
2. It's a little odd - not to mention incorrect English - to render labour (i.e. the verb) with a capital letter (i.e. Labour) as if it were a pronoun.
3. Given this effectively changes the Working Time Regulations (1998) Act, would it not be a good idea to at least refer to that piece of legislation somewhere.
4. Why the police? Would it not be better to get the Health and Safety Executive to do it. I mean, welfare at work is their general responsibility.
5. I would render 3.1 as follows in order to avoid the incorrect modal verb and the use of gendered language: The Secretary of State shall be granted the power to make by order such further exemptions to this Act as are found necessary.
6. 4.2: Bill replaced by Act.

[Mr Dangermouse]

(Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
A couple of stylistic things really:

1. In clause 1.1, it would be better if you rendered it "It is an offence to require an employee..."
2. It's a little odd - not to mention incorrect English - to render labour (i.e. the verb) with a capital letter (i.e. Labour) as if it were a pronoun.
3. Given this effectively changes the Working Time Regulations (1998) Act, would it not be a good idea to at least refer to that piece of legislation somewhere.
4. Why the police? Would it not be better to get the Health and Safety Executive to do it. I mean, welfare at work is their general responsibility.
5. I would render 3.1 as follows in order to avoid the incorrect modal verb and the use of gendered language: The Secretary of State shall be granted the power to make by order such further exemptions to this Act as are found necessary.
6. 4.2: Bill replaced by Act.

I wrote this bill and it was my first go at writing a piece of legislation, I'm happy to do a second reading to polish up the details.

[internetguru]

I don't see the need for it we don't exactly have sweatshops and work houses.

[Birchington]

I do agree with this, but my employment experience suggests this is largely followed by employers anyway.

[stanlas]

Aye! I welcome the extra protection for employees.

(Original post by internetguru)
I don't see the need for it we don't exactly have sweatshops and work houses.

Its partially thanks to legislation such as this that we don't have sweatshops and work houses. Even if it won't apply to many people, its always important to have safeguards; besides, I think that there are still some jobs where over four hours work without a break may be expected from you.

[xXedixXx]

Definitely aye!

[JPKC]

Good bill.

This is definitely a major issue for employees in low-paid temporary work placements where unions don't have any sway, particularly call-centres and farms. Adorno's pretty much covered all that can be improved upon, all I'd question is the (up to) £1000 fine - what guidelines are there to determine how much is charged if it can be any amount below this?

[Moleman1996]

If an employer asks someone to work longer, they refuse and the employer accepts this, then are they still to be fined?

[MacDaddi]

This has many flaws though. Emergency servise? Policemen during the riots? Firefighters during a massive blaze

Soldiers?

[stanlas]

(Original post by MacCuishy)
This has many flaws though. Emergency servise? Policemen during the riots? Firefighters during a massive blaze

Soldiers?

3. Exemption
(1) The Secretary of State will be granted the power to make further exemptions to this Act as he finds necessary by Order.

I assume all of those proffesions would be covered by the exemptions bit

[Mechie]

(Original post by Moleman1996)
If an employer asks someone to work longer, they refuse and the employer accepts this, then are they still to be fined?

No, that's not the intention. 1(1) could be taken that way, but it's really not what's intentioned, that's why "unless expressed consent of the employee is obtained" is in there. It's just a bit of wording, it will be rectified for the second reading

[jesusandtequila]

I'm not sure this is the right way to go about it. I think it's a matter for employee and employer to determine. We should focus on levelling the negotiating field (which we've already done a huge amount to do), not enacting more and more regulation.

[Keckers]

To be honest I'm not really sure how much this will change for anyone.

(Original post by davidmarsh01)
No, that's not the intention. 1(1) could be taken that way, but it's really not what's intentioned, that's why "unless expressed consent of the employee is obtained" is in there. It's just a bit of wording, it will be rectified for the second reading

Instead of
"(1) It is an offence to ask an employee to work a shift exceeding four hours without a break of a minimum of fifteen minutes, unless expressed consent of the employee is obtained."

Would it not be better to word it

"(1) It is an offence to require an employee to work a shift exceeding four hours without a break of a minimum of fifteen minutes, unless expressed consent of the employee is obtained."

If that is your intention.

[RoryS]

Aye.

[TopHat]

Aye.

[obi_adorno_kenobi]

(Original post by Keckers)
To be honest I'm not really sure how much this will change for anyone.



Instead of
"(1) It is an offence to ask an employee to work a shift exceeding four hours without a break of a minimum of fifteen minutes, unless expressed consent of the employee is obtained."

Would it not be better to word it

"(1) It is an offence to require an employee to work a shift exceeding four hours without a break of a minimum of fifteen minutes, unless expressed consent of the employee is obtained."

If that is your intention.

I love it when libertarians copy precisely the thing I've said hours before...

[Mr Dangermouse]

By the way, the current figure is six hours for over eighteens, I'm just trying to standardise it because four is really long enough particularly in retail where you don't have access to food, water or toilets.