Engineer reader display a mixed attitude towards regulations 
Last week’s poll gave us some mixed messages. Although several comments were in support of regulations – with some even pinpointing an advantage we hadn’t mentioned in our response options, their contribution to environmental protection – the largest group of the 281 respondents, 38 per cent, chose the option stating that there are too many useless regulations. The next group, on 33 per cent, said that they valued regulations contribution to ensuring product standards. This was a closer result than it might appear, with only eight votes separating first and second place.
There was then a big gap to the next respondents. Down on 11 per cent was a group appreciating regulations’ protection of fair trading, while 9 per cent said that regulations were too costly. Just 5 per cent valued regulations for their employment equality assurance, and four per cent declined to pick an option.
Please continue to send us your opinions on this subject.
Since EU regulations are defined almost entirely by the industry that they regulate (the so-called “New Approach” that’s been in use for 30 years) it’s for the industry to clear out the useless ones. Talk to your trade body, and get it to talk to its European counterparts.
They are important for quality, employment and environmental protection.
The trouble with labeling some regulations as useless is that it depends on where you stand for a lot of them. The Working Time Directive is a good example of this; when you read the summary of it on Wikipedia then it is a very important document that protects basic workers rights. Companies in the UK however seem to en masse have a low opinion of it, and I have had to sign an opt-out for the last 4 employers I’ve had – frequently as a section of my contract of employment. So in the end something intended to provide a work/ life balance is seen or cast as a hindrance to getting the job done, ignoring the fact that tired and demotivated workers make mistakes, or simply work slower.
We need to get past the perception that regulations stop us from getting the job done. In the vast majority of cases they are there simply to ensure the job is done correctly.
Nah. My employer asked me to voluntarily sign out of it, HR was surprised when I didn’t but that was it. They told me: you didn’t sign it. I replied: yes, that’s correct.
Case closed.
All except None of the above!
As a one-man business I have found that the EU reduces so called “red tape” – when exporting to EU countries it’s such a relief not to have to fill in multiple copies of customs forms, as I still have to do for the US etc. – the advantage of a large ‘home market’ – I can only assume that ‘brexit’ politicians have never had to actually export anything!
If you think regulations are an unnecessary burden then take a look at the number of industrial deaths per annum in China. I am glad that Europe and most of the first world is subject to strict regulation, without it there would be many more fatalities. Oh and the cost of a fatality can also be very expensive unless of course you are in China.
There is clearly no single answer to this. Some are clearly well intentioned, but poorly implemented. Some are a bad idea full stop. Others are absolutely essential (like environmental protection which is not listed in the options). On the EU issue there is no perfect solution. The EU has many faults, but then so does the UK government, so leaving doesn’t necessarily make things better or different other than removing a layer of bureaucracy but also a layer of accountability. One of the strongest cases for the leave campaign is the lack of democracy – they argue that we as a nation seem to have very little say in the shaping and decisions around the creation and modification of EU laws. But in practice, in the UK, most laws and policy decisions are made by government with very little reference to all but the 1% and powerful lobbyists (and certainly with barely any regard to election manifesto promises), so is it really any different?
option 1, 2 & 3!
My view is that a good general manager can do a fair better job than a bunch of regulations. If they run their outfit in firm and fair style, then they win hearts and minds and get cooperation and loyalty in return and won’t have to over regulate. Over regulation will build bureaucracy and hamper efficiency.
Maybe, but after 4 years a new general manager is elected by the staff and he wants plugs have square pins.
I don’t understand the constant references to lack of democracy. Decisions are taken by elected Ministers. What’s different from a national government? Maybe the Brexit campaigners yearn for the good old days when Britannia ruled the waves and Johnny foreigner did what we told him. Now we have real democracy, so there is vote of all of the members. Sometimes the majority votes for something that we don’t want – that’s democracy.
This is sadly not the case. The EU Commission are neither elected nor accountable. They decide what laws are required, write them and decide the punishment for those who don’t obey . There are very few checks and balances – the EU Parliament can suggest an amendment to a legislative text. The National governments who pay have very little power.
The Commissioners seem to be encouraged to introduce new laws but impact assessments are frequently fudged or even totally missing
The Commission have not had their accounts signed off for decades and have no concerns about over-spending. There will be another increase immediately after the UK Referendum.
I have lived in mainland Europe for most of my working life, I have owned or managed several businesses in European countries and considered the EU a great operation when it was a free trade area. Sadly I find it to be a total mess now and we should leave before we have to contribute ever-increasing sums to cover the massive debts within the EU system.
The first few parts of Ian Duncan’s statement are correct – the Commission decides what laws are needed and drafts them. In that it is much like any civil service. However, laws may only be adopted by the Council of Ministers, with a complex democratic oversight by the European Parliament. A common phrase when I used to hang around Brussels was “the Commission proposes, the Council disposes”.
Also like a civil service, the Commission imposes penalties on those who breach the laws, similar to the role of regulators in the UK. However the ultimate arbiter is the independent European Court of Justice.
As I pointed out earlier in this thread, the concept of the New Approach is that the law is light and the detailed regulations are made by the industry itself and blessed by the Commission and Council.
I am running an engineering company in Switzerland. We really do have no democracy, because Switzerland has no seat in the Council. Swiss industry has to go along with whatever EU industry and the Council decides. Fortunately, if UK votes for Brexit, that will not be a problem because a condition of the free trade area is free movement of people, and the Leave campaign will never agree to that. Even Gove agrees that we will be out of the EU free trade area and, in his words, will be able to form our own free trade area with Ukraine, Serbia, Bosnia and Albania. There’s a tempting prospect.
Of course the EU is flawed – it’s a public body that tries to balance the demands of 500 million people and, as Ian Duncan points out, cannot even balance its own books, but the alternative? Walk away from the the most effective international cooperation in the world? Sounds like cutting off your nose to spite your face.
I’m not a fan of Brexit and think there are some real benefits of the EU. However I think as I have inferred earlier that bureaucracy hampers innovation and causes lethargy and worse in staff and workers. I worked for the a large car manufacture in the 1970 and you could see this behaviour played out. People coming into work and hardly doing a stoke of work, but happy to take their wages.
The rule of law or the rulings of lawyers? Sadly too often we seem to get the worst aspects of both!
If those ‘Ten’ Commandments were/are enough for a happy and care-free life (one page,double spaced) why do the EC regulations on the size, shape of cauliflowers run to 63 pages? How about all ‘Laws’ having a built-in anti-lunacy button! [Press here- when the implementation in ‘my’ case is stupid. ] But its usually not about ‘regulation’ but CONTROL. Many years ago, whilst working for a multi-national in the USA I came across a ‘form’ you filled-in “when you wanted to start a new form!” Thuink about that! I opined that whoever controlled the issue of that form had absolute control over the firm!
Actually, being a bit pedantic: the ‘tape’ shown in your picture is not the ‘red-tape’ of concern. That was (since Georgian times) used to ‘tie-up’ bundles of evidence, pleadings for delivery to Courts: and it was what is termed ‘narrow-fabric’ woven: what you portray is ‘slit tape’ -from a wide ‘roll’ of extruded film! So there!