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

[beorhthelm]

"The court said its judgement was about protecting the "health and safety" of workers"

Seems reasonable to me.

though it affects neither. they use H&S to submarine legislation past national governments, the EU does itself little favours by doing so especially when the verdict is something wildly accepted.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Errm .... small point .... HMRC has recognised this for years by allowing you to claim business mileage from home in these instances so I'm not sure why people are getting their knickers in a twist over this decision.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

"One of its main goals is to ensure that no employee in the EU is obliged to work more than an average of 48 hours a week."

Seems reasonable to me.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

"All British rhubarb must be straight"

Seems reasonable to me.

 

[drew]

Seems a lot of people are getting unnecessarily angry over this. The European Working Directive is there to prevent exploitation of employees. It's not ideal because most employers just get their employees to sign an opt out. For those people that are, for example, salesman, who aren't on an hourly rate, ie they get a basic salary plus sales commission, this isn't going to really change anything for them. They will still do the same amount of travelling and, provided they have 'opted out' their pay won't change.

As for the argument about a change benefiting one side and being the detriment to another, well that applies to almost everything. Take taxation. Cut the level of tax and the rich get better off and less is spent on society. Raise the tax level and the rich are worse off (relatively speaking) but more is spent on society. Living wage. Pay the living wage then your employees are better off but the employer and/or customers are worse off. That is life.

 

[Machiavelli]

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.

In response to your various points:

-- The previous post to yours asks me about unintended consequences. The consequence -- and it's not even an unintended one -- of the (non)legislation prior to this ruling was that care workers, among others, get paid for the 15 allotted minutes they spend with those they care for, but not the period they spend travelling. This means, as [MENTION=6011]sid[/MENTION]cupSeagull points out, that they're often paid for four hours when they actually work eight (at minimum wage rates). This in my view is exploitation, which comes about by bullies.

-- The post wasn't neutral because it was taking a specific position on an issue. To think that there is such a thing as neutrality in politics -- or political issues -- is an indication that you don't understand what politics is.

-- To make this worse, you then go on to invoke Pareto, that famous elitist, who is also more generally politically aligned with fascism (which I'm not associating you with). See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vilfredo_Pareto#Fascism_and_power_distribution

-- And politics is also messy, which means that there aren't any simple answers, but I prefer those that are oriented towards equality and justice.

 

[Cian]

I managed to mostly come to this arrangement (I was never scheduled to a site more than an hours drive before 10am, and would often stage there the night before and charge for a hotel) in my last job, but even then if there's any case of back claims they still probably owe me an hour a day for 5 years. *phones solicitor*

 

[OGH's Libido]

In response to your various points:

-- The previous post to yours asks me about unintended consequences. The consequence -- and it's not even an unintended one -- of the (non)legislation prior to this ruling was that care workers, among others, get paid for the 15 allotted minutes they spend with those they care for, but not the period they spend travelling. This means, as [MENTION=6011]sid[/MENTION]cupSeagull points out, that they're often paid for four hours when they actually work eight (at minimum wage rates). This in my view is exploitation, which comes about by bullies.

-- The post wasn't neutral because it was taking a specific position on an issue. To think that there is such a thing as neutrality in politics -- or political issues -- is an indication that you don't understand what politics is.

-- To make this worse, you then go on to invoke Pareto, that famous elitist, who is also more generally politically aligned with fascism (which I'm not associating you with). See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vilfredo_Pareto#Fascism_and_power_distribution

-- And politics is also messy, which means that there aren't any simple answers, but I prefer those that are oriented towards equality and justice.

Your first point; don't think you will find anyone on here, including me, who thinks that that is a fair position for care workers to be in.

Second point; Ok well if you are going to get all 'I think so therefore I am' about it than yes, politics touches everything. Perhaps I should have said 'the left and right and everyone in between and outside push a piece of policy without thinking about it'. That's what I meant and I'm sure you know that. No need to patronize.

Third point, I made a lazy reference to what he is most known for, Pareto equilibrium. I think you knew that too. But the link is fantastic, and I appreciate the read - I didn't know any of that.

Fourth point. Please don't claim equality and justice as your possession and not mine. Forgive my saying, but that kind of thinking is somewhat elitist! Remember, in my first post I talked about my fears of people becoming worse off.

These rules apply to my work life and I can see they have major flaws. My conviction is twofold: care workers need protection and support and this is not the best way to do it WHILE considering everyone else it would touch: innovate or simplify.

So, after calling me a bully and bringing up fascism, we find out that we want the same thing, but just disagree on how to get there. Good job.

 

[BensGrandad]

The other angle to this is when I worked for a stocking company some 35 years ago I would drive to one of the hotels to do their stocktake do a days book work then drive back home some times this was from north of Birmingham.

 

[BensGrandad]

Sorry that should be stocktaking company not as I typed it stocking company.

 

[Billy the Fish]

There are so many professions and scenarios this will cover, some might get a better deal out of it but I'd imagine if there's a blanket enforcement then many people will lose out.

I do ICT tech support, in a break/fix environment you don't know when or where things are going to go wrong and what the engineer coverage is going to be like at any given time. The company is usually very fair with the travelling side of things, there's a bit of give and take - sometimes you could finish at 4 and not be far from home and sometimes you might have to get something fixed late in the day and be a two hour drive from home and that's fine, it's no different to commuting.

The flip side to this ruling is that people lose their jobs or pay is devalued because productivity drops and companies can't afford to cover the lost hours. I'm happy to work a bit longer sometimes, that's just part of the job and it's what I signed up for.

I can't see anything changing to be honest.

 

[Becktheman]

When my Mother lived at home with dementia a carer told me that she was only paid for the time of the visit - not her travelling time between patients.

Totally unacceptable.