New subsurface trains
 

On 7 Oct, 17:42, Tom Anderson wrote:
Anyone who considers Upminster to Neasden a reasonable commute needs their
head examined.

Down the A12 and around the A406. Whats the big deal? Plenty of people
commute far longer distances.

B2003

New subsurface trains
 

On 7 Oct, 14:11, John B wrote:
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.

Perhaps you would , but firms are perfectly entitled to shift people
around so long as their new location is within a reasonable commuting
distance. 3 hours each way is not a reasonable commute , 1 hour is and
when I had the misfortune of having to use the tube to get to work I'd
think myself lucky if it only took an hour in the rush hour.

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.

We're not talking about a complete change of working conditions,
simplhy a different place to book on. If people in this country are so
bloody bone idle they'd want to go on strike about having to travel a
few extra miles to work it rather demonstrates why half a million jobs
have gone to Polish immigrants in the last few years,.

B2003

New subsurface trains
 

On 7 Oct, 16:37, Kev wrote:
And they haven't even begun to intimidate TfL and the Government over
the Olympics yet. I can see it now in return for working "NORMALLY"
during the 2 weeks of the Olympics they want a 20 hour week and a 50%
pay increase and 3 months holiday a year and retire at 55 on a non
contributary pension. About sums it up I think.

Quite. I'm damn sure the RMT will do their best to stuff the Olympics
a short time before its open with strike threats based on completely
unreasonable demands. Though being optimistic perhaps Bob Crowe will
have buggered off by then to count his money and a moderate will have
taken charge - but I won't hold my breath.

B2003

New subsurface trains
 

John Rowland wrote:
Boltar wrote:
On Oct 6, 4:44 pm, Roland Perry wrote:
In message
,
at 08:27:07 on Mon, 6 Oct 2008, Boltar
remarked:

Why? Surely you're just paid to drive trains , not quibble about
where FFS. As long as you're trained on the stock and taxis are
provided to/ from home late/early in the day whats the problem?
Is the commute in your proposal part of the working day?
Huh?
A free taxi is one thing, but riding in it in your own time is
another.
Well, see in the real world commuting isn't part of the working day.
My working day starts at 9am. That means I have to be at my desk at
9am , not getting out of bed at 9am. The commuting is something I have
to do to get to work. I'm sorry if the poor darlings at LU have an
issue with having to do the same but it seems to me thats a case of
tough ****.

In the real world you know your place of work when you choose where to live
and vice versa. If your company has a habit of finishing your shift all over
the city, you would normally be on paid time until you get back to your
normal place of work (but not back to your house).

My last three jobs have all had a clause in the contract stating "Your
normal place of work is X. However, the employer is based on sites X, Y
and Z and your normal place of work may be reallocated to sites Y or Z",
so I don't have much sympathy for that argument.

New subsurface trains
 

Dave Newt wrote:
John Rowland wrote:

In the real world you know your place of work when you choose where
to live and vice versa. If your company has a habit of finishing
your shift all over the city, you would normally be on paid time
until you get back to your normal place of work (but not back to
your house).

My last three jobs have all had a clause in the contract stating "Your
normal place of work is X. However, the employer is based on sites X,
Y and Z and your normal place of work may be reallocated to sites Y
or Z", so I don't have much sympathy for that argument.

But Y and Z are really near to X. Imagine if you had to work at A or B!

New subsurface trains
 

Boltar wrote:

We're not talking about a complete change of working conditions,
simplhy a different place to book on. If people in this country are so
bloody bone idle they'd want to go on strike about having to travel a
few extra miles to work it rather demonstrates why half a million jobs
have gone to Polish immigrants in the last few years,.

"A few extra miles" in the case of tubes is just a few stops - Upminster to
Barking at a stretch. That's a different thing from a long haul across (or
around) London at a time when the main public transport isn't running and
when the driver is living close to their normal starting point precisely
because of this. Also a tube driver may not necessarily have a car
available - either due to not owning one because public transport is
sufficient for their needs or because their significant other needs the sole
car deemed necessary for the household.

New subsurface trains
 

In message , at 21:34:51 on Tue, 7
Oct 2008, Dave Newt remarked:
My last three jobs have all had a clause in the contract stating "Your
normal place of work is X. However, the employer is based on sites X, Y
and Z and your normal place of work may be reallocated to sites Y or
Z", so I don't have much sympathy for that argument.

That's OK as long as that clause was there when you started. The issue
at stake here is the employer *adding* a clause like that later.
--
Roland Perry

New subsurface trains
 

On Oct 8, 8:26 am, "Tim Roll-Pickering" T.C.Roll-
wrote:
"A few extra miles" in the case of tubes is just a few stops - Upminster to
Barking at a stretch. That's a different thing from a long haul across (or
around) London at a time when the main public transport isn't running and

It PT isn't running then its obviously very early in the morning , in
which case most of the roads will be traffic free. I commute around
the north circular every morning in the rush hour and I still get to
work in 45 mins and at quiter times I've done it in 30 mins. I really
don't see what the problem is.

when the driver is living close to their normal starting point precisely
because of this. Also a tube driver may not necessarily have a car
available - either due to not owning one because public transport is
sufficient for their needs or because their significant other needs the sole
car deemed necessary for the household.

AFAIK LU provide taxis' for just this eventuality.

B2003

New subsurface trains
 

On Tue, Oct 07, 2008 at 02:47:43AM -0700, Boltar wrote:
On Oct 6, 6:56 pm, (Neil Williams)
wrote:
How commute can be a part of the working day???
Quite easily if you are not working in your base location.
There are a number of people on this group who seriously need a
reality check.

Looks like my boss needs the same reality check then, as do the HR
department here. Because if I have to work away from my normal
location, I get compensated for any extra time spent travelling and any
extra money spent on travel.

--
David Cantrell | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david

Eye have a spelling chequer / It came with my pea sea
It planely marques four my revue / Miss Steaks eye kin knot sea.
Eye strike a quay and type a word / And weight for it to say
Weather eye am wrong oar write / It shows me strait a weigh.

New subsurface trains
 

On Oct 8, 11:58 am, David Cantrell wrote:
Looks like my boss needs the same reality check then, as do the HR
department here. Because if I have to work away from my normal
location, I get compensated for any extra time spent travelling and any
extra money spent on travel.

So if your normal journey is 5 miles and you had to travel 10 to
another office you'd get paid for that extra 5 miles when normally you
wouldn't be paid at all for the trip? Thats a very generous company
you have.

B2003

New subsurface trains
 

On Oct 8, 2:13*pm, Boltar wrote:
On Oct 8, 11:58 am, David Cantrell wrote:

Looks like my boss needs the same reality check then, as do the HR
department here. *Because if I have to work away from my normal
location, I get compensated for any extra time spent travelling and any
extra money spent on travel.

So if your normal journey is 5 miles and you had to travel 10 to
another office you'd get paid for that extra 5 miles when normally you
wouldn't be paid at all for the trip? Thats a very generous company
you have.

It should simply be the extra expense incurred. If I go somewhere for
work that's covered by my travelcard (if I've got one) I don't claim
anything. If it's a shorter distance in the opposite direction it
costs me extra for going out of my zones, so I'd claim expenses.

New subsurface trains
 

On Oct 8, 2:13*pm, Boltar wrote:
Looks like my boss needs the same reality check then, as do the HR
department here. *Because if I have to work away from my normal
location, I get compensated for any extra time spent travelling and any
extra money spent on travel.

So if your normal journey is 5 miles and you had to travel 10 to
another office you'd get paid for that extra 5 miles when normally you
wouldn't be paid at all for the trip? Thats a very generous company
you have.

From my employers' expenses policy:

1)
Your "base office" or "permanent workplace" is the place you regularly
go to in order to carry out the duties of your employment. A staff
member working for 40% or more of their time in a new location away
from their normal base office for a period expected to be longer than
two years is seen by HMRC to have a new workplace.

2)
You can claim the cost of business travel, that is, journeys away from
your normal base office while undertaking the firm's business. You
should claim any actual additional costs you incur, above what you
would normally spend for commuting to work (which you cannot claim as
a business expense).

The only relevant exception is:

3)
Staff in London who have a rail season ticket which enables them to
use the underground can only claim for travel between London offices
if they incur extra expense and can provide a receipt as proof of the
expense.

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

New subsurface trains
 

On Wed, 8 Oct 2008 07:45:54 -0700 (PDT), John B
wrote:

2)
You can claim the cost of business travel, that is, journeys away from
your normal base office while undertaking the firm's business. You
should claim any actual additional costs you incur, above what you
would normally spend for commuting to work (which you cannot claim as
a business expense).

Quite interesting - the companies I've worked for that might involve
that (only two, I admit) would pay *full* expenses from travelling
from home to a non-base location and would not require the normal
commuting cost to be subtracted. This is permitted by the tax rules,
BTW, so long as you aren't making a journey to your normal place of
work and *then* onto another destination.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

New subsurface trains
 

In article
,
(John B) wrote:

You can claim the cost of business travel, that is, journeys away from
your normal base office while undertaking the firm's business. You
should claim any actual additional costs you incur, above what you
would normally spend for commuting to work (which you cannot claim as
a business expense).

You could of course be paid the latter. It's just that it will have to be
taxed as a perk.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

New subsurface trains
 

In message , at 15:56:31
on Wed, 8 Oct 2008, remarked:
You can claim the cost of business travel, that is, journeys away from
your normal base office while undertaking the firm's business. You
should claim any actual additional costs you incur, above what you
would normally spend for commuting to work (which you cannot claim as
a business expense).

You could of course be paid the latter. It's just that it will have to be
taxed as a perk.

Some companies, however, take the view that they only want to pay you
expenses that *won't* be taxed as a perk, because it simplifies their
paperwork enormously. (Although they have then fallen into the trap of
being an unpaid tax inspector).
--
Roland Perry

New subsurface trains
 

In article , (Roland
Perry) wrote:

In message , at
15:56:31 on Wed, 8 Oct 2008,
remarked:
You can claim the cost of business travel, that is, journeys away
from your normal base office while undertaking the firm's business.
You should claim any actual additional costs you incur, above what
you would normally spend for commuting to work (which you cannot
claim as a business expense).

You could of course be paid the latter. It's just that it will have to
be taxed as a perk.

Some companies, however, take the view that they only want to pay
you expenses that *won't* be taxed as a perk, because it simplifies
their paperwork enormously. (Although they have then fallen into
the trap of being an unpaid tax inspector).

And others think otherwise.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

New subsurface trains
 

Boltar wrote:

AFAIK LU provide taxis' for just this eventuality.

LU have an extensive network of staff taxis running at stupid o'clock in
the morning.

Destinations served other than LU stations/buildings include Elstree,
Epsom Downs, Yiewsley, West Drayton, West Croydon, Eltham (Yorkshire
Grey), Edmonton Green, Enfield Town, Enfield Lock and Waltham Cross Bus
Station.

Cheers,

Barry

New subsurface trains
 

On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 01:34:17 +0100, Barry Salter
wrote:

Boltar wrote:

AFAIK LU provide taxis' for just this eventuality.

LU have an extensive network of staff taxis running at stupid o'clock in
the morning.

Destinations served other than LU stations/buildings include Elstree,
Epsom Downs, Yiewsley, West Drayton, West Croydon, Eltham (Yorkshire
Grey), Edmonton Green, Enfield Town, Enfield Lock and Waltham Cross Bus
Station.

Care to explain?

New subsurface trains
 

Fig wrote:

Care to explain?

To enable London Underground staff to get to/from work late at night and
early in the morning, there are a number of scheduled staff taxi
services linking LU stations, depots and offices to various areas around
(and just outside) Greater London.

The full list is on the LU Intranet, with updates being published in the
weekly Traffic Circular (which we get copies of at work).

Cheers,

Barry

New subsurface trains
 

On Wed, Oct 08, 2008 at 06:13:29AM -0700, Boltar wrote:
On Oct 8, 11:58 am, David Cantrell wrote:
Looks like my boss needs the same reality check then, as do the HR
department here. Because if I have to work away from my normal
location, I get compensated for any extra time spent travelling and any
extra money spent on travel.
So if your normal journey is 5 miles and you had to travel 10 to
another office you'd get paid for that extra 5 miles when normally you
wouldn't be paid at all for the trip? Thats a very generous company
you have.

I get compensated for the difference in cost between my normal commute
and the cost of the different journey. That's not generous at all,
that's just them covering expenses. Every single company I've ever
worked for did that.

--
David Cantrell | Minister for Arbitrary Justice

Us Germans take our humour very seriously
-- German cultural attache talking to the Today Programme,
about the German supposed lack of a sense of humour, 29 Aug 2001

New subsurface trains
 

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 21:34:51 on Tue, 7
Oct 2008, Dave Newt remarked:
My last three jobs have all had a clause in the contract stating "Your
normal place of work is X. However, the employer is based on sites X,
Y and Z and your normal place of work may be reallocated to sites Y or
Z", so I don't have much sympathy for that argument.

That's OK as long as that clause was there when you started. The issue
at stake here is the employer *adding* a clause like that later.

Indeed, though the fact that my last three jobs have had it made me
think (perhaps erroneously, I admit!) that it wasn't unusual.

New subsurface trains
 

On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 05:37:17 -0700 (PDT), Jamie Thompson wrote:

I was having a moment of curiosity last night about the train lengths,
and vaguely recalled (and seemed to find mentions of) platform
lengthening as part of the upgrade...but no details. Don't suppose
anyone knows any?

IIRC there was talk of Notting Hill Gate, Bayswater, Edgware Road, and
Baker Street (Circle) being lengthed from 6 to 7 cars, to allow 7-car
trains on the entire Circle. But did someone suggest it had been
canned?