Editor's view: A work in progress

Planned changes to the Working Time Directive (WTD) have pitted employers' groups head-to-head with trade unions, but a détente on the matter could be vital if the directive is to work.

The WTD opt out is a controversial piece of legislation which has polarised opinion throughout the working world, but some kind of consensus mus be reached if progress is to be made.

Hackles are up on both sides of the WTD debate, with bosses in the UK pledging to fight "tooth and nail" to retain it and unions vowing to dismantle it.

Under a clause in European law secured by Britain in 1993, managers are allowed to request that staff waive their right to a 48-hour week. In principle, the opt out gives workers the flexibility to put in longer hours when work piles up, and ease off during quieter moments.

In practice, however, the legislation has been exploited by a minority of slave-driving bosses who require staff to work consistently long hours. Honest managers, meanwhile, lose time and money complying with the regulations.

So it's time for a re-think, businesses and employee groups agree.

What they cannot agree on, however, is the nature of the change, and whether rules should be relaxed or tightened.

Businesses argue that they have been hit with spiralling levels of red tape and proportionally mountainous costs in recent years. A great many rules have come from Europe, and employers will see a tougher WTD as further encroachment on their business and one more step towards a European 'mega-nanny state'.

Trade unions, on the other hand, say businesses exaggerate the burden of employment, pay and tax paperwork. They believe that regulations covering the minimum wage, flexible working and discrimination are all justifiable moves to stamp on inequality and are fair checks on employers' powers.

So this week's plea by the European Commission (EC) for unions and businesses to smooth out their differences and come to a compromise over the opt out and other aspects of the directive will almost certainly fall on deaf ears.

In the UK, the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) says it will fight to hold on to the opt out, while the Trades Union Congress (TUC) has criticised the government for pandering to businesses. It says that the EC's promise to consider dropping the clause is a "defeat" for both.

So it is not surprising that that the CBI thinks an agreement is an "unlikely prospect". More likely, in fact, is that there will be very little contact between warring parties throughout Europe during the six-week period allocated for 'talks'.

If no agreement is reached the EC will come up with its own ideas and deliver them to Commissioners - this is clearly the most likely outcome, bu risks resulting in a set of compromises which miss the point of the update in the first place.

So isn't discussing the opt-out just a waste of time? Surely (where this is concerned, at least) the WTD should be left alone.

The TUC freely admits that the vast majority of employers do no exploit the rules and that it is a few rogue employers who are to blame. In general terms, the CBI agrees with this assessment.

In many cases, the type of business person who flouts accepted guidelines over when people should be allowed to go home, or who forces people to stay at work on pain of the sack, will also ignore more concrete rules like those governing health and safety or gender discrimination, for example.

So stripping European businesses of their opt out would make very little difference to workers who are being exploited in this way.

Instead, it would force up compliance costs for businesses, already estimated by the British Chambers of Commerce to total £13 billion a year in the UK.

It would also remove employees' chance to stand out from other colleagues by putting in extra hours when it is needed, or, for that matter, to earn overtime when they are short of cash.

The truth is the opt out works well as it is, despite being vague and airy. It helps bosses hit deadlines and gives employees a chance to shine.

Ministers should forget about this as a method of beating tyrannical bosses, because it won't stop them. Instead, they should target the bullies directly with specific and hard-hitting measures.