I think 48 hours per week is enough for most people, but there should be exceptions in certain industries or professions where longer hours are the norm or are required to attain the necessary qualifications. The point is that working the excess should be voluntary, either because you want to or because it is established practise in your chosen field. Given that we are being urged to work on to our 70s to get a decent pension, why not combine both arguments and limit working hours to free up capacity for people wishing to work to supplement their pensions? Edward Charles, Wickford

The issue is perhaps more complex than simply just restricting the number of working hours to 48 per week. I work a 24 hour, seven day a week, shift pattern, which means I work a minimum of six days, or 54 hours, before any days off and up to 63 hours some weeks. As we become an even more 24-hour society, ever increasing numbers are being required to work more unsociable and demanding working hours. This puts not only a great strain on family life but also one's body, as sleep deprivation and irregularity sets in. It is clear the legislators are trying to ensure that employees are not forced to work hours that over a period of time will be damaging to thier health and social well-being. However, it is too simplistic to simply regulate the number of hours worked or even the minimum hours between shifts. The length of the working week needs to be looked at in the context of the length of the working day, the start and finish times of those days and the accumulative effect of rotating shift patterns to ensure that nobody, whatever thier profession, is required to work longer than is good for thier health or well being. Flexibility and negotiation are the key issues with employers respecting the needs of individual members of thier workforce rather than a carte blanche approach which may not be suitable for all. John Lumbard, North Yorkshire

As someone who took on a second job to allow me to buy a house and continue to have a comfortable standard of living, I would have to make serious changes to my current lifestyle if I was restricted to working 48 hours per week. It is my choice to work extra hours to allow me to have the standard of life I want and almost all my colleagues in my second job also has a main job. Some of them depend on the extra income to support their families and would suffer severe hardship if they were forced to give up the extra income. I have no debts (apart from my mortgage), enjoy a comfortable lifestyle and because I work these additional hours, think I make better use of my free time and holidays. It is my choice to work these additional hours and I plan to continue my second job until such times as I no longer need the income. Name and address withheld

This directive would be fine if everyone earned £10 an hour or more, but we are not all earning that amount. I am earning just half that - 48 hours would barely cover my weekly bills. I am married with two teenage boys - I work the extra overtime to pay for the extras that a family needs. The people that voted for this are on a princely sum compared to mine. How dare they try and tell me I cannot work beyond a certain limit to better my standard of living - this is for me and my employer to decide, not some European politician. Jonathan Sayer, Goole

If anyone thinks that working long hours equates to more efficiency and productivity for business, they are completely blind. It has been proven that the human brain can only work effectivly for a certain number of hours a day. It is complete nonsense to suggest that people staying in the office and doing overtime are working effectively. If it is office culture and pressure from the boss that makes people stay longer, workers tend to artificially prolong doing a job just so they can fill their time. It has nothing to do with productivity. On the contrary, people work more efficiently when they know they can have a life outside of work. Name and address withheld

Personally, I don't see how working more than 48 hours a week can be more productive. Scientific research and experiments have consistently shown that total productivity is at a maximum when employees work, on average, 40 hours a week. Employers, it seems to me, are harming themselves by allowing (or forcing) their employees to work long weeks for extended periods. This article on working long hours in the games industry is an interesting read: www.igda.org/articles/erobinson_crunch.php
Axel Hallez, Ghent, Belgium

I believe that 70 hours a week - ten hours a day - is a good, safe maximum working week. I did it in my 20s and thoroughly enjoyed it. I could not do it now in my 40s - it would practically kill me. In fact, even back then it was too much for most to keep up with. I would say that it was the most intense time of learning and professional development that I have ever made, a type of immersion training. The key point is that the hours were voluntary. Compulsory long hours (like trainee doctors), compulsory overtime (in many blue collar jobs) and expectations from a wide range of employers that lead to overwork are good for nobody. Let people voluntarily opt in and have penalties available to those who exert pressure to work over long hours. How could anyone object to that? David Pengilly, London

There is an issue of personal freedom to be considered. If I should wish to work more than 48 hours on average, why should I not be allowed to do so? My employer cannot compel me to sign an opt-out, or treat me unfavourably if I do not sign one. Signing an opt-out cannot be a condition of employment. But if I wished to sign one in order to work longer hours I should be free to do so. Or if I wished to have a second job with the consequence that my combined working hours would exceed 48, why should I be prohibited from doing so? It is astounding that an MEP from another country should introduce legislation that affects workers in the UK, taking away their freedom to work the hours that they wish. Alec Robinson, Cobham

There are always exceptions to the rule. While generally limiting hours and therefore an employer's ability to abuse employees is commendable, I work in a profession where long hours are both traditional and, in my opinion, a pre requisite to adequate training. As a surgeon in training, working in excess of 48 hours per week allows greater exposure to the kind of work that ultimately will equip me, and other consultants of the future, with the ability and experience to navigate myself out of the occasional tight spot. Surgery is an apprenticeship. We need long hours of work, like pilots need flying time. The Government is already shortening our training, now it wants to cut total hours further. Jason Eyre, Leeds

I think the main issue is not whether we should retain our opt-out or not, but who should decide. What is the point in electing a UK government, if in practise these sorts of decisions will be made by MEPs and the European Commission? Surely our own MPs should decide what is in the UK's best interests, not people who may have a vested interest in keeping our competitiveness as low as possible? Andrew Harris, Droitwich

From recent personal experience of the directive to reduce all workers to less than a 48 hours week, there are many people that I know who would not be able to make ends meet and would have no other choice than to throw themselves on the mercy of the state. Is this what the EU really wants, to prevent people from working hard, working long hours, trying to better their lives and the lives of their families by forcing them to depend on the largesse of the EU? I hope not, but I fear so. Mark Dorson-King, Laeken, Belgium

I think the opt-out clause is fine for people without families and who genuinely want to work long hours. The problem arises from the long-hours culture that this perpetuates and the negative spill-over effects for employees who do want a better work/ life balance. These people then find themselves at a disadvantage compared to those who are prepared to sleep under their desks and must choose between their home lives or their careers. Undoubtedly, sometimes longer hours are required in an age where innovative firms have to work to tight deadlines - but consistently working 48 plus hours a week surely cannot do much to aid efficiency and productivity and ultimately leads to burn-out. Sarah Fuller, Cambridge