Based on its calculations, the European Transport Workers Federation arrived at a maximum possible working time for HGV and bus drivers of more than 80 hours. Such a high workload is not only detrimental to the drivers’ health; it also puts road safety at risk. The labour representatives also repeatedly criticised that this would distort competition on the roads: this move could force employed drivers into self-employment, enabling them to also get the maximum out of working time. Although the Commission integrated pseudo-employed drivers into the Working Time Directive, in practice, however, it is difficult for the controllers to distinguish between employed and self-employed drivers, which makes this passage ineffective.

The argumentation of AK EUROPA and the trade unions definitely influence the thinking of the MEPs, who had rejected the draft Proposal already in the Employment Committee. The rapporteur Edit Bauer (European People’s Party )in charge, however, ignored the decision of the Committee and entered, without having a mandate of the European Parliament, into negotiations with the Council.

Bauer then presented the compromise draft, which she had negotiated with the Council at the plenum. This compromise draft still provided the option to exempt self-employed drivers from the scope of the Working Time Directive in Road Transport. This approach was not appreciated by the European Parliament and the amendment application of the Employment Committee on rejecting the Directive proposal was finally supported with 368 against 301 votes. More than a third of her own parliamentary group opposed Bauer and also came out in favour of rejecting the draft Directive.

The Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats (S&D), the Greens and the European United Left (GUE) de facto voted unanimously for the rejection. They were followed by more than a third of the European People’s Party (EPP), a small number of Liberals (ALDE) and about half of the independent MEPs (NI). In particular, the EPP, ALDE, the European Conservatives (ECR), the Europe of Freedom and Democracy (EFD) Group in the European Parliament, half of the independent MEPs and a Hungarian S&D MEP were against the rejection.

The debate prior to the vote already gave an indication as to how the Austrian MEPs would vote. MEP Eva Lichtenberger of the Greens criticized that employed drivers would be forced into becoming self-employed. Karin Kadenbach of the Social Democratic Party of Austria SPÖ condemned MEP Bauer’s lack of understanding of the concept of democracy, because she had negotiated with the Council without having a mandate. She regards the idea of exempting self-employed drivers from the Directive as a retrograde step for the prosperity of society. The MEP Paul Rübig of the Austrian People's Party ÖVP, however, voiced a completely different opinion: competitiveness had to be increased, among others also against the background of the economic crisis; the driving times and rest periods defined in the Regulation (EC) 561/2006 would be sufficient. He even provided a comparison with the work of MEPs: they would get into their cars and drive home after a 15-hour day; this would no longer be possible if this Directive would also apply to them.

The MEPs of the Social Democratic Party of Austria SPÖ, Hans-Peter Martin List HPM in short and the Greens unanimously voted in favour of the rejection of the Commission proposal. Concerning the ÖVP, only Othmar Karas voted against the Directive proposal; all other MEPs shared Bauer‘s opinion. Unfortunately, the Freedom Party of Austria FPÖ also voted against the rejection of the Directive proposal.

Immediately after the vote, the European Parliament asked the Commission whether it would now withdraw its proposal. The reply of Transport Commissioner Siim Kallas was rather cryptic: they would now debate how to proceed in the Commission cabinet and publish their decision later. There is, however, not much the Commission can do now as the Parliament also committed itself in its final vote (legislative resolution), which followed the statement of the Commission, clearly with 383 to 263 votes to its point of view. One can, however, not rule out that the Commission will now revise the text of the Directive and present both the European Parliament and The Council with a new Proposal.