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

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

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

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.

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!

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.

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

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

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.

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