Timeline for What does "salaried" vs. "hourly" mean in a European (?) context?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 6, 2023 at 12:38 | comment | added | Steve | @cbeleitesunhappywithSX, surely the employer can delegate. There are clearly many situations where only the worker themselves knows when they are on the clock and when they aren't - and some kinds of staff work can involve blurred lines even for the worker. In terms of there being some kind of requirement to centrally collate records, for records to be regularly reviewed and approved independently, or for the records to be resistant to tampering, I think that's going beyond the general rule. In my view, the judgement requires an appropriate system, not a specific form of system. | |
| Apr 6, 2023 at 10:52 | comment | added | O. R. Mapper | ... and, if this wasn't happening before, anyway, collects those timesheets. This way, employees have documentation for their working times, should they want to request e.g. overtime compensation, and employers cannot claim they did not know because they are now obliged to collect the timesheets. But then, I guess this means the "full legal responsibility" is not just with the employee, but actually, with the employer, by obliging them to collect the timesheets. | |
| Apr 6, 2023 at 10:52 | comment | added | O. R. Mapper | @cbeleitesunhappywithSX: I'm not so sure about that: The primary purpose of the regulations around timesheets seemed to be that the employee has some recorded proof of their working times to use against the employer - be it to request overtime compensation, or to prove exactly what you point out, that they had to work beyond legal work limits. Therefore, after the initial panic about what the court decision might mean, from what I have seen and heard from others, common practice appears to be that any place with "Vertrauensarbeitszeit" has employees fill out their own timesheets ... | |
| Apr 6, 2023 at 9:56 | comment | added | cbeleites | @Steve: AFAIK (for Germany) the employer cannot simply delegate their full legal responsibility here to the employee. The German-language report I linked says that the employer needs to know beginning and end of work in a timely manner because they are required to check that the employee doesn't violate labor law. That check AFAIK cannot be delegated by "you make sure to obey labor law". IMHO a diary would be legal, but would need to be tamper-proof. Employer regularly signing off the diary, and corrections getting both employee + employer signatures should work. | |
| Apr 5, 2023 at 16:09 | comment | added | Steve | @cbeleitesunhappywithSX, that's certainly an interesting judgment, but what if the employer simply delegates the responsibility to the employee themselves, and the records reside with each employee (such as in a personal diary)? | |
| Apr 5, 2023 at 16:05 | comment | added | Mark Rotteveel | @cbeleitesunhappywithSX Thanks | |
| Apr 5, 2023 at 12:50 | comment | added | cbeleites | working hours. Also, the record must be transparent and objective in the sense that the employee can verify the records. If you read German, here's a detailed discussion on the implications and options for compliant recording: hugo-sinzheimer-institut.de/faust-detail.htm?sync_id=8857 | |
| Apr 5, 2023 at 12:48 | comment | added | cbeleites | @MarkRotteveel: AFAIK you are right in that the EU directive does not specify tracking. However, there's an ECJ decision (eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62018CJ0055) that clarifies that working hours must be recorded in a fashion enabling proof at a court of whether the regulation was violated or not. Violations are not only daily and weekly limits of working hours, but also minimum rest times (e.g. proove that the rest between end of work and beginning was > 11h). The court also says that you cannot prove correct recording of overtime without first recording regular | |
| Apr 5, 2023 at 12:27 | comment | added | Steve | @MarkRotteveel, agreed. In practice, an employer can meet their obligations by simply issuing a rule to staff that excessive hours are not to be worked, that attendance is to be limited to 5 days, and meaning it. It's very hard to exceed either the 60 hour limit in one week, or 48 hours on average, without something else being seriously out of whack - especially as breaks and dinnertimes don't count. | |
| Apr 5, 2023 at 10:50 | comment | added | Mark Rotteveel | @cbeleitesunhappywithSX Citation needed. As far as I'm aware, there is no hard requirement in the EU directive to track it (see also my reply to your other comment). It is just that employers must ensure that employees do not exceed 60 hours per week (peak), or 48 hours per week on average over (IIRC) 5 weeks. That can be done by fostering a workplace culture that doesn't promote excessive overwork, looking out for your employees, or by bureaucracy of keeping timesheets or the like. | |
| Apr 5, 2023 at 7:34 | comment | added | Steve | @cbeleitesunhappywithSX, yes, the legal requirement that certain working hours limits are not exceeded is one example. The need to maintain a fire register, and the existence of access control systems, are more examples where effectively the modern "staff" have their hours systematically recorded and are monitorable in ways that formerly only the "workforce" suffered. | |
| Apr 4, 2023 at 19:06 | comment | added | cbeleites | In the EU, it is required to track working hours for almost all salaried employees. | |
| Apr 4, 2023 at 18:33 | history | answered | Steve | CC BY-SA 4.0 |