Should the time spent traveling to and from work be considered work time?
The question became a subject of debate in Spain in 2011. A Spanish security company called Tyco, which installs and maintains security systems, closed its regional offices across the nation that year, leaving its headquarters in Madrid the only office.
This changed the ways its employees worked. Instead of going to the office to clock in first, employees were asked to travel directly to their first customer from their own homes.
The company also redefined working time as the period from the moment the employees met their first customer until the time they left their last customer.
In practice, since Tyco’s customers are located all over Spain, employees spend various amounts of time traveling to meet them. In the most extreme case, one employee traveled for three hours to reach their first appointment.
Employees argued that the time spent traveling to a customer’s home or business should be regarded as work time, but the company disagreed and refused to alter its policy. The debate eventually made its way to the European Court of Justice.
According to the court, when traveling to their first customer of the day, employees were acting on the instructions of their employer, who might change the order of the customers to be visited or cancel or add an appointment. As a result, while traveling to a customer, employees are not able to use their time freely and pursue their own interests — they are at their employer’s disposal.
The court also said that Tyco was responsible for the decision to close its regional offices, which meant employees could not choose to live close to their place of work, and that placing the entire burden resulting from that decision on the employees was not right.
The court therefore ruled that the time employees spent traveling each day between their homes and the premises of their first and last customers as designated by their employer constituted working time.
Although the nature of traveling to work discussed in the lawsuit might be different from that of typical commutes, which have been the focus of discussion about job commutes in Taiwan, it could still be useful to look at the way the European Court of Justice defined work time and where it regards commute time as work time.
Pai Yi-hsuan is a master’s degree student in the political science department at National Chengchi University.
Translated by Tu Yu-an
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing