Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

[Misc] Travelling to work 'is work', European court rules...



Bozza

You can change this
Helpful Moderator
Jul 4, 2003
55,575
Back in Sussex
...if you do not have a fixed office:

Time spent travelling to and from first and last appointments by workers without a fixed office should be regarded as working time, the European Court of Justice has ruled.

It means firms including those employing care workers, gas fitters and sales reps may be in breach of EU working time regulations.


More: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34210002
 






redneb

Active member
Oct 28, 2009
1,701
Burgess Hill
Great. So companies will be over keen to employee people who live nearer meaning if you live in Worthing for example, you have no chance of getting a job in Crawley.
 


BensGrandad

New member
Jul 13, 2003
72,015
Haywards Heath
Great. So companies will be over keen to employee people who live nearer meaning if you live in Worthing for example, you have no chance of getting a job in Crawley.

Would only work if you have a permenant base in Crawley to start from if you was eg a builder or sevice engine as they would obviously ymake his first and last job nearest to his home.
 




OGH's Libido

New member
Nov 30, 2014
154
Classic.

This is what happens when people with no clue about economics/the world are allowed to make policy. These people are dangerous. This will have an impact on things they either couldn't be bothered to consider, or are too dimwitted/blinded by their ideology to understand.

I'd wager anything that this has the opposite effect that they had intended: this will make people worse off.

Reminds me of the story about when Australian authorities tried to curb drink driving. Their solution was to install breathalyzers in pubs. And of course, every one tried to beat everyone else's score and everyone got ratted, further muddying peoples ability to make responsible decisions.

This post is politically neutral, instead, its against idiocy among under qualified and over idealistic policy makers.
 


Herr Tubthumper

Well-known member
NSC Patreon
Jul 11, 2003
59,199
The Fatherland
Great. So companies will be over keen to employee people who live nearer meaning if you live in Worthing for example, you have no chance of getting a job in Crawley.

This only applies to those "who do not have a fixed office". So how can you "live nearer?"
 


Pistol Pete

New member
Aug 15, 2015
15
I am a mobile worker going to different address,s every day throughout the South and South East and on average spend 10-15 hours travelling to and from home to my 1st and last appointments every week. This is all unpaid time that I have agreed to by signing my contract of employment, while I secretly love this idea and would love to be paid for this time, I don't see how this would be cost effective for my company if I was to travel in their time I would only get around half my appointments completed. This could well cut down the area we cover to reduce overheads. Oh and I love my job and would hate for this ruling to change my current role.
 




beorhthelm

A. Virgo, Football Genius
Jul 21, 2003
35,265
my thoughts were why does this affect travelling to non-fixed place of work and not a fixed place? then you read it again and realise its related to a fairly specific scenario where the company has changed from fixed to non-fixed, i.e. a force change in working conditions. so it probably wont affect many.
 




Machiavelli

Well-known member
Oct 11, 2013
16,560
Fiveways
Classic.

This is what happens when people with no clue about economics/the world are allowed to make policy. These people are dangerous. This will have an impact on things they either couldn't be bothered to consider, or are too dimwitted/blinded by their ideology to understand.

I'd wager anything that this has the opposite effect that they had intended: this will make people worse off.

Reminds me of the story about when Australian authorities tried to curb drink driving. Their solution was to install breathalyzers in pubs. And of course, every one tried to beat everyone else's score and everyone got ratted, further muddying peoples ability to make responsible decisions.

This post is politically neutral, instead, its against idiocy among under qualified and over idealistic policy makers.

You're a bully and, like most bullies, you claim that you're politically neutral. There are a whole lot of care workers that have been exploited by bullies, and this judgment will mean that such exploitation can't carry on in the future.
 








OGH's Libido

New member
Nov 30, 2014
154
You're a bully and, like most bullies, you claim that you're politically neutral. There are a whole lot of care workers that have been exploited by bullies, and this judgment will mean that such exploitation can't carry on in the future.

Hold up.

I'm forthright, at least in this case, but to call me a bully is name calling and unjustified. To bring this to point, please point out where I have called for the exploitation of anyone?

Also, I claimed my post was neutral. I didn't mention my political views.

A win for some doesn't mean it is good for everyone (along the lines of Pareto equilibrium, perhaps) which is at the heart of my previous post. This strikes me as a messy solution to a problem that deserves a simpler answer - I'm sure we both wish we knew what that would be.
 




Herr Tubthumper

Well-known member
NSC Patreon
Jul 11, 2003
59,199
The Fatherland
"Employers may have to organise work schedules to ensure workers' first and last appointments are close to their homes."

Seems reasonable to me.
 


SIMMO SAYS

Well-known member
Jul 31, 2012
11,702
Incommunicado
I have been self-employed for forty years (man & boy) :eek:
I charge the customer from the moment I start picking up their materials to carry out their job.
On a busy morning I can spend an hour in several merchants before I get to their location.
The job may take half an hour but I have been running around for one hour.
Therefore I charge for one & half hours.
 


severnside gull

Well-known member
May 16, 2007
24,540
By the seaside in West Somerset
Well that bit of news got around quickly!
I rang my wife's occasional carer this afternoon as I have to go to a meeting next week and she said she'd soon be having to charge me extra for travelling time. :lolol:
 


Murray 17

Well-known member
Jul 6, 2003
2,159
There are a whole lot of care workers that have been exploited by bullies, and this judgment will mean that such exploitation can't carry on in the future.

I was just going to mention care workers. I understand that they don't get paid for travelling between clients, just for the time that they are in each client's house. This means that their working day could be 8 hours, but they may only be paid for 4. Very unfair.
 




W.C.

New member
Oct 31, 2011
4,927
I am a mobile worker going to different address,s every day throughout the South and South East and on average spend 10-15 hours travelling to and from home to my 1st and last appointments every week. This is all unpaid time that I have agreed to by signing my contract of employment, while I secretly love this idea and would love to be paid for this time, I don't see how this would be cost effective for my company if I was to travel in their time I would only get around half my appointments completed. This could well cut down the area we cover to reduce overheads. Oh and I love my job and would hate for this ruling to change my current role.

Are you a cowboy???

(a real one, I'm not Prince Phillip)
 


Herr Tubthumper

Well-known member
NSC Patreon
Jul 11, 2003
59,199
The Fatherland
"The court said its judgement was about protecting the "health and safety" of workers"

Seems reasonable to me.
 



Paying the bills

Latest Discussions

Paying the bills

Paying the bills

Paying the bills

Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here