In preparation of developing a coherent process for a subsidiarity audit on the EU regulations, which is a tremendous undertaking, Schuman2030 has started with a “manual” procedure, analysing selected regulations and directives with the aim of finding the right criteria. What competences are supra-national, what competences are better exercised by the member states and how to split shared competences?
One of the first to be analysed is the Working Time Directive 2003/88/EC that regulates working hours across Europe (all member states had to adopt it) but also stipulates the stringent use of a time recording mechanism. The analysis results are multiple:
- The directive was de jure correctly issued and amended according to the EU treaties
- While there was strong opposition from the UK (pre-Brexit), the Directive was passed under QMV (Qualified Majority Voting), later on endorsed by the European Court of Justice.
- However, it is clear that the legal basis for the Directive was faulty. The justification that this was a health issue (a fundamental right) is clearly not correct or at least not fundamental. The stringent terms of the directive are not in line with the health objectives as working time measurement is shown not to be an adequate metric for it.
- On the ground of the analysis, one can argue that while worker’s health is a legitimate goal, it does not reflect the diversity of working conditions that vary across member states and the actual occupations of working people. The exceptions allowed in the
- Directive confirm this. In addition, memberstates already have labour laws in place and many companies already use time-registration.
- The specific case of Belgium that has a disproportional level of long-term sickness or incapacitated to work (10% of the active population) confirm as well the missing link between the working time directive and health of workers.
- The analysis points to a deeper issue. While it is widely recognised that the EU suffers from regulation overreach (in various aspects), it also asks the question if these regulations and directives are sufficiently justified on objective arguments. The UK for example considered the matter as a “social” one which would have required unanimity. The EU however regulated it as a human rights issue, which means that QMV voting was sufficient.
Read the full analysis in attached document.
Review of Directive 2003:88:EC