In message
, at
04:27:46 on Tue, 7 Oct 2008, Boltar remarked:
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.

It depends what they were led to expect when they took the job.
Obviously there are many jobs that require a great deal of flexibility.
You mentioned airline pilots (who fly a ridiculously low number of hours
each month, as it happens) and there's an expectation that you'll be
sent to all sorts of odd places on a "tour" of duty. But I don't think
the airline could hire you to be based at Heathrow, and then
unilaterally say "Surprise, now you need to report to Liverpool each
morning".
--
Roland Perry

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.

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

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

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

In message
, at
05:35:55 on Tue, 7 Oct 2008, Boltar remarked:
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.

But only if it's what you signed up to in the beginning.

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.

So a bus driver who takes a job at the Romford garage (because he lives
in Romford) can be told that suddenly he has to report for work in
Croydon?

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.

But you knew that was the deal when you signed up.
--
Roland Perry

On Oct 7, 10:43*am, 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 ****.

B2003

I live in Watford and took a job in Stevenage. A week into the job
they told me to go to the office in Portsmouth. They considerately
provided a car and paid for petrol but after a month they realised it
would be cheaper not to provide the car and that I would use my car
but only get milage up to the equiavalent of getting a hire car.
Now some LU staff are belly aching about relocating to other places
within London for God's sake, whingers.

Kevin

On Oct 7, 10:46*am, Boltar wrote:
On Oct 6, 4:35 pm, John B wrote:

If you live in Upminster, book on in Upminster, but are suddenly told
your new booking-on point is Heathrow, do the extra three hours you're
spending getting to Heathrow and back every shift get classed as part
of your working day? If not, then it's not too hard to see why it
might make people grumpy.

So they have to travel around the M25 at 4 in the morning when theres
bugger all traffic? So what? Besides, I think its highly unlikely that
would happen anyway but I don't see why a driver booking on at
upminster shouldn't be expected to drive to amersham if the job
requires it. But then this is LU Driver World we're talking about, not
the real world. Anyone would think they were being asked to drive a
train to john o groats , not the other side of a city.

B2003

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.

Kevin

On Tue, 7 Oct 2008, Kev wrote:

On Oct 7, 10:43*am, 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 ****.

I live in Watford and took a job in Stevenage. A week into the job they
told me to go to the office in Portsmouth. They considerately provided a
car and paid for petrol but after a month they realised it would be
cheaper not to provide the car and that I would use my car but only get
milage up to the equiavalent of getting a hire car. Now some LU staff
are belly aching about relocating to other places within London for
God's sake, whingers.

Why didn't you quit the job and get one that doesn't involve working for
cocks?

tom

--
Wikipedia topics: lists of trains, Mortal Kombat characters, one-time
villains from Mario games, road intersections, boring suburban schools,
garage bands, cats, webcomics, Digimon, Bionicle characters, webforums,
characters from English soap operas, and Mortal Kombat characters that
don't exist -- Uncyclopedia

On Tue, 7 Oct 2008, 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.

Anyone who considers Upminster to Neasden a reasonable commute needs their
head examined.

tom

--
Wikipedia topics: lists of trains, Mortal Kombat characters, one-time
villains from Mario games, road intersections, boring suburban schools,
garage bands, cats, webcomics, Digimon, Bionicle characters, webforums,
characters from English soap operas, and Mortal Kombat characters that
don't exist -- Uncyclopedia

On Oct 7, 5:41*pm, Tom Anderson wrote:
I live in Watford and took a job in Stevenage. A week into the job they
told me to go to the office in Portsmouth. They considerately provided a
car and paid for petrol but after a month they realised it would be
cheaper not to provide the car and that I would use my car but only get
milage up to the equiavalent of getting a hire car. Now some LU staff
are belly aching about relocating to other places within London for
God's sake, whingers.

Why didn't you quit the job and get one that doesn't involve working for
cocks?

I've got a guess for this one, but it might be considered
uncharitable.

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