On Oct 7, 12:59 pm, John B wrote:
On Oct 7, 12:27 pm, Boltar wrote:

That's fine when you took a job at a specific premises. But when your
employer suddenly says you'll be working from somewhere else, then
relocation or transport options are normally provided.

You think truck drivers get relocation expenses if they're asked to
deliver to manchester one day instead of birmingham? Or if a pilot has
to fly to hong kong instead of dubai? Get real. Any job in the
transport industry involves travelling , if they don't like it they
should bog off and get another sort of job.

Eh? The comparison isn't whether the pilot is flying *to* HK or Dubai,
it's whether he's flying *from* Gatwick or Stansted. And in real life,
airline unions do, rightly, have exactly the same issues with
relocation of home airport as rail unions.

Theres a slight difference between moving to stansted from gatwick
than say moving from upminster to neasden. The latter sort of distance
is what most people would consider a reasonable commute. If you take a
job on a transport system in a city I don't see whats unreasonable
about being expected to have to travel to different places every day
within that city. In another life I was an on site engineer and I had
to travel around the south and the midlands and be at customer sites
first thing in the morning. I wonder how it would have gone down with
my boss if I'd had a hissy fit and stomped my foot and refused to be
anywhere else at 9am other than the company office. I'd have been
fired within the month.

B2003