On Oct 7, 1:35*pm, Boltar wrote:
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.

GMaps reckons 1h24 drive from Stansted to Gatwick, and 0h57 drive from
Upminster to Neasden. I'm not sure that puts the two in radically
different brackets. If I took a job that featured a daily 15min
commute each way from home, and was relocated without consultation to
a job that featured an hour each way, I'd be livid.

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.

Because your contract says you're based wherever you're based and
start your work day there.

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.

Indeed, and in my role as a strategy consultant (for another 3 days,
hurrah!) my managers would take exactly the same view.

That's why, when I took the job, I signed a release saying that I
understood I'd have to report to varying offices in the UK and
internationally at varying times to meet my professional requirements,
and that I waived my rights under the EU working time directive. And
in exchange, they agreed to pay me quite a lot and grant me quite a
lot of flexibility on when I took hours whenever there weren't
specific client commitments.

If, having taken that role, my employers had instead required me to
work a regimented shift pattern on a weekly basis including
nightshifts and subjected to a rigorous physical fitness and alcohol
testing regime, that would have been constructive dismissal.

The same applies for Tube staff, but the other way round.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org