NHS Trust allowing harassment of staff via parking charges

[Devil2575]

Countdown said:

It's not that they don't know how to follow rules. It's more arrogance than anything else. When I worked in the NHS Consultants were a law unto themselves. They would quite happily park on double yellows / yellow hatched areas. One numpty even parked in the ambulance bay outside A&E and nobody is going to discipline a consultant because he parks like a muppet. The only difference between a Consultant and God is that God doesn't think he's a Consultant!

That's even worse then, a comple disregard for the rules. The problem here I suspect is more one of just how valuable that consultant is.
The thing with people like this though is that if they are indespensible then give them their own space but if not them remove parking privillages. This still sounds like a failure to manage a staff member, for whatever reason.

Countdown said:

Devil2575 said:

By employing a parking firm you are effectively getting them to manage employees who break the rules. If you need a 3rd party company to come in and manage your employees in this way then you need better managers IMHO.

We'll have to agree to disagree Getting a parking firm in is cheaper/more efficient. Not sure why it's needed if access is restricted though. I'm only going off past personal experience. Nobody likes playing traffic warden at work with their mates so its less hassle all round if an external firm is doing it.

Proper management isn't always the cheapest option, but IMHO it will pay off in the long run.

I suspect that this kind of situation is both symptomatic and part of the problem that the NHS currently finds itself in.

[The Surveyor]

Devil2575 said:

Countdown said:

It's not that they don't know how to follow rules. It's more arrogance than anything else. When I worked in the NHS Consultants were a law unto themselves. They would quite happily park on double yellows / yellow hatched areas. One numpty even parked in the ambulance bay outside A&E and nobody is going to discipline a consultant because he parks like a muppet. The only difference between a Consultant and God is that God doesn't think he's a Consultant!

That's even worse then, a comple disregard for the rules. The problem here I suspect is more one of just how valuable that consultant is.
The thing with people like this though is that if they are indespensible then give them their own space but if not them remove parking privillages. This still sounds like a failure to manage a staff member, for whatever reason.

Countdown said:

Devil2575 said:

By employing a parking firm you are effectively getting them to manage employees who break the rules. If you need a 3rd party company to come in and manage your employees in this way then you need better managers IMHO.

We'll have to agree to disagree Getting a parking firm in is cheaper/more efficient. Not sure why it's needed if access is restricted though. I'm only going off past personal experience. Nobody likes playing traffic warden at work with their mates so its less hassle all round if an external firm is doing it.

Proper management isn't always the cheapest option, but IMHO it will pay off in the long run.

I suspect that this kind of situation is both symptomatic and part of the problem that the NHS currently finds itself in.

Just to add my thoughts. Primarily the NHS is a Health Provider, they are not a parking management company and they shouldn't be getting distracted from their core activities by the management of parking spaces. These are the sort of services that should be run by proper private companies.

The use of private parking companies also disassociates the NHS as an employer from parking issues such as the arrogant Consultant mentioned by Devil2575. When the numpty gets his car towed away, clamped, fined or covered in embarrassing stickers its no longer a disciplinary issue, its just a simple parking matter.

[Gavia]

Devil2575 said:

Gavia said:

You've got a view and I've got a different one, neither of us is right and neither is wrong necessarily. However, the idea that all staff are entitled to free parking is flawed. I doubt there are many companies operating today who have sufficient parking available for all staff to be guaramteed a parking space.

I think that were there is sufficient space availible Hospital staff should be given free parking. I never said entitled.

Gavia said:

That's the key starting point. If there are too many staff and too few spaces, then rules need to be applied, how that is subsequently enforced is down to the actions of those benefitting from the spaces and whether management can spare the time to deal with those breaking the rules. The idea that staff should be able to ignore the rules is a recipe for anarchy and not the responsibility of the hospital administration to resolve. The simple solution (and one I've seen applied, but not done so myself) is to remove the benefit from all. It removes the burden on an already overstretched administration in that area at least.

I never said staff should be able to ignore the rules and the majority will not as long as the system is properly managed. Removal of a benefit from all because of the actions of a few is not good management. It's effectively an absence of management. This issue should be dealt with through line management and it wouldn't be too time consuming once everyone had seen that the rules were being enforced.

It's not absenc eof management, its focussing management on the primary purpose of the company. They are the NHS and should be managing performance within the NHS, not the car park. The NHS, along with most businesses, subcontract many areas in which they don't have the expertise of those specialising in that area. All of those businesses with the subcontracts expect to make money too.

[herewego]

Perhaps they tried controlling it in house but after a while could not find anybody prepared to take the abuse handed out to anybody who tries to tell people where, when or how to park.

[otolith]

The place my wife used to work had a major lack of parking problem and used to clamp people who parked where they shouldn't. No fine, just the inconvenience of having to get your car released and a memo to your manager.

[Devil2575]

herewego said:

Perhaps they tried controlling it in house but after a while could not find anybody prepared to take the abuse handed out to anybody who tries to tell people where, when or how to park.

Yes but abusing other staff members is a straight up disciplinary offence. If this was a problem then the answer isn't a parking company, its sacking the people responsible.

[Hol]

majordad said:

She and her coleagues should down tools and go on strike.

Which is something any civil servant would likely do, if somebody tried to manage one of them out of their role for violating some parking rules.


Which.... Is .....potentially an argument to bring in a third party organisation for staff to share their anger against.


Union action or Parking Co???

[Gavia]

Devil2575 said:

Yes but abusing other staff members is a straight up disciplinary offence. If this was a problem then the answer isn't a parking company, its sacking the people responsible.

You're seriously suggesting that discipline people for actions following parking offences is preferable to dishing out small fines for small tramsgressions in the way they park.

Unbelievable. Your hatred of PPCs has blinded you to common sense.

[1ians]

In the days when it was safe to ignore the PPC demands, I saw a letter from a health trust to staff that it was a disciplinary offence to not pay the fine.

[Countdown]

Devil2575 said:

Yes but abusing other staff members is a straight up disciplinary offence. If this was a problem then the answer isn't a parking company, its sacking the people responsible.

Ok so let's consider the options

Employee parks selfishly.
Employee gets ticket from colleague and abuses colleague
Colleague submits grievance
Management hold grievance hearing (attended by mgmt, employee, abuse recipient, union rep, HR)
HR write to employee informing him of outcome of grievance hearing
Employee appeals
Mgmt review appeal and dismiss appeal.
Employee gets slap on wrist
Employee vandalises colleagues car for ticketing him

OR
Employee parks selfishly
Employee gets fined.
End.

[Devil2575]

Countdown said:

Ok so let's consider the options

Employee parks selfishly.
Employee gets ticket from colleague and abuses colleague
Colleague submits grievance
Management hold grievance hearing (attended by mgmt, employee, abuse recipient, union rep, HR)
HR write to employee informing him of outcome of grievance hearing
Employee appeals
Mgmt review appeal and dismiss appeal.
Employee gets slap on wrist
Employee vandalises colleagues car for ticketing him

OR
Employee parks selfishly
Employee gets fined.
End.

No. Employee breaks parking rules.
Employee's line manager is informed.
Employee is made aware of problem and asked to follow rules by line manager.
Reapeat until employee lose parking pass.

You could replace Line manager with HR rep.

This is not about ticketing each other, it is about line managers managing their staff.

[Devil2575]

Gavia said:

Devil2575 said:

Yes but abusing other staff members is a straight up disciplinary offence. If this was a problem then the answer isn't a parking company, its sacking the people responsible.

You're seriously suggesting that discipline people for actions following parking offences is preferable to dishing out small fines for small tramsgressions in the way they park.

Unbelievable. Your hatred of PPCs has blinded you to common sense.

You are making assumptions that are incorrect. If you were to look at my past posts you would see that I no not have any hatred of PPCs. I have no problem with them at all.

Yes I am suggesting that people are disciplined for abusing other members of staff. It's happened where I work where gate security staff were verbally abused for doing more thorough checks following a security alert. People were formally disciplined. The reason it happens is irrellevant, it's unacceptale, or at least it should be.

Common sense? You mean like an otherwise good employee getting a fine for inadvertently breaking a rule in the car park rather than a quiet from their boss.

Edited by Devil2575 on Wednesday 5th October 22:16

[Countdown]

Devil2575 said:

No. Employee breaks parking rules.
Employee's line manager is informed.
Employee is made aware of problem and asked to follow rules by line manager.
Reapeat until employee lose parking pass.

You could replace Line manager with HR rep.

This is not about ticketing each other, it is about line managers managing their staff.

What happens when Employee ignores line manager?
What happens when Employee ignores HR rep?
How much line manager/HR/Union time should be spent on this?

Why should everybody else bend over to accommodate the employee?

[Countdown]

Devil2575 said:

Common sense? You mean like an otherwise good employee getting a fine for inadvertently breaking a rule in the car park rather than a quiet from their boss.

Edited by Devil2575 on Wednesday 5th October 22:16

The "rules" tend to be pretty well signposted tbh, especially if you're parking there every day.

[Downward]

spaximus said:

Gareth1974 said:

Lease cars used to be a good option, they were subsidised, in the last 18 months or so, the subsidy element seems to have been removed - I looked at it for my wife (with help from the lease deals thread) and found much better deals on the open market. If you have a lease car, the allowance is reduced to a flat 12p a mile, so you need to get 45mpg to even cover the cost of fuel (more if the this allowance is taxable, which I think it is).

It is a lease that is financed by salary sacrifice so you lose out on the pension I am led to believe as you have reduced your salary. In the past essential car users got a company car but that was stopped as there was the usual outcry against what was seen as a perk.

It is a problem for many who work at multiple locations parking.

With the new 2015 pension scheme I would look into how much pension you lose from entering into any salary sacrifice scheme in th NHS.

It's put me off and a lot of Finance directors are not keen on them anymore. Well the ones that care that they affect pensions anyway.

[Downward]

Pete317 said:

Devil2575 said:

Why does an employer need to use the services of a private parking company to enforce rules in a staff car park? Do you think that is a reasonable thing for an employer to do? I don't.

At last, a topic on which you and I agree wholeheartedly

Many PFI builds have a partnership with these car parking companies.
They make millions in profit from the NHS staff and sick patients and visitors.

It's a strange situation but I suppose no different to any other private company making a profit whether it's overpriced WH Smith's in the hospital or medical and pharmaceutical companies.

[Gavia]

Devil2575 said:

Gavia said:

Devil2575 said:

Yes but abusing other staff members is a straight up disciplinary offence. If this was a problem then the answer isn't a parking company, its sacking the people responsible.

You're seriously suggesting that discipline people for actions following parking offences is preferable to dishing out small fines for small tramsgressions in the way they park.

Unbelievable. Your hatred of PPCs has blinded you to common sense.

You are making assumptions that are incorrect. If you were to look at my past posts you would see that I no not have any hatred of PPCs. I have no problem with them at all.

Yes I am suggesting that people are disciplined for abusing other members of staff. It's happened where I work where gate security staff were verbally abused for doing more thorough checks following a security alert. People were formally disciplined. The reason it happens is irrellevant, it's unacceptale, or at least it should be.

Common sense? You mean like an otherwise good employee getting a fine for inadvertently breaking a rule in the car park rather than a quiet from their boss.

Edited by Devil2575 on Wednesday 5th October 22:16

Your suggestion is that an otherwise good employee should get a disciplinary for inadvertently breaking a rule in the car park. In fact you're suggesting they should lose their job for repeat parking offences, which have zero impact on their ability to do their role. You suggested that route prior to the comment around the abuse as well, in bold below made yesterday afternoon.

Devil2575 said:

My point is that if the company gets to the point where they feel the need to employ a private parking firm to police a staff car park including issuing fines/charges then they have a bigger problem.

I'd understand if the space was shared with the public, that would make sense because you do not have a relationship with the public like you do with your staff.

If they have a genuine problem with staff persistently breaking the rules then there are other/better ways to deal with it rather than bringing in a system where first time offenders can be penalised for what might have been a mistake. To be honest if you have persistent offenders then you should be using appropriate measures to manage them out of the organisation. We have a points system on our site, but there are no fines and it is operated in a reasonable fashion.

I agree that management should want a happy and reasonable workforce but that does not mean that their actions always result in one.

[Downward]

otolith said:

I don't know why you're still blathering on about the cost to the NHS of providing adequate parking provision for staff and patients, it's bugger all to do with that.

It's this, and particularly where facilities for patients are concerned, it's monstrous;

Downward said:

Not allowed.
Have to have a Green Travel plan.
The council won't give permission to build car parks over a certain level.


Core elements of an active travel plan will
• Set targets for reducing the number of single occupancy car journeys to your NHS site, in line with your Trust’s overall sustainable development action plan.
• Encourage more sustainable forms of travel to the site, for example cycling, walking, car sharing or using the bus or train.
• Reduce the amount of travel undertaken for work by encouraging alternatives e.g. web, video and tele conferencing.
• Introduce a at rate for business mileage - regardless of the mode of transport and encourage the use of Band A ef cient vehicles.
• Provide the supporting infrastructure e.g. Lockers, showers, secure bike storage.
• Improve cycle and route safety by installing better lighting and signing.
• Collaborate with staff, local community, businesses and transport providers to develop a travel solution that
is tailored to your area.
• Promote the new approach to travelling for all staff, patients and visitors via your communications depart-
ment e.g. produce maps marked with active travel options.

Big problem in this area due to 2 hospitals and the university

http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/health/queen-...

It's fact.
When they built the hospital in the link above there were major stipulations on transport links.
This included building a bus hub thing, improving the local roads and closing off the rat run roads to move the traffic off to the main road.

The car parks all newly built were not allowed to be built big enough accommodate the number of staff and patients and visitors who chose to park.

Also new bike lanes and pedestrianised areas around the site were built.

[Red Devil]

Gavia said:

Red Devil said:

I have yet to see anyone explain/justify why a PPC whose only motive is profit is required to police a car park where entry is controlled by a swipe card operated barrier and those cards are exclusive to staff (see the original post). The business model operated by the majority of PPCs relies for the bottom line on ticketing people so there is an incentive to create as many rules as possible, many really petty, to boost their takings. The standard form of contract frequently vests total power with the PPC. Unless the principal (i.e. the NHS Trust) has the final say on whether a PCN is to be cancelled the wheel is rigged. If the Trust does have that power you need admin staff to deal with appeals so you're right back to square one.

Most businesses exist to make profit, so let's not demonise that element of the PPC.

I will continue to criticise an industry which cannot self regulate properly and does little to impose effective sanctions on members which behave unethically.

Gavia said:

Here's an explanation, as to why they may be needed. You have 500 staff working rotational shifts on a 24/7 basis. That means that at any point you're only going to have a portion of the 500 working. Sometimes you'll have lots working, sometimes fewer. All of these staff have a swipe card to access the staff car park on a first come, first parked basis. However, all are expected to park within a recognised space only and nowhere else within the car park. The car park can fit 150 cars in there. I've made the numbers up to make the point, so don't focus on that aspect.

When the car park is full, it only takes a few of the "entitled generation" to ignore the rules and park there anyway and it can make things awkward for those parking correctly. The hospital administration can then either mess about with disciplinary sanctions, which is your idea and way too draconian IMO, or simply start to apply a small fine via a PPC. Continued breaches could result in disciplinary action though.

I do wish you and those with a similar mindset would stop referring to fines (and offences as another poster did). They are not. No PPC has any such power. Only a court can impose a fine. A fundamental difference between criminal and civil law. You don't need a law degree to understand this.

Maybe £40-£60 a pop is small beer to you. Others may see it differently especially those who don't command a huge pay packet.

I don't see what is so draconian about taking away a swipe card for a period of time. Free parking is a privilege not a right.

Gavia said:

It's all about actions and consequences and quite fair IMO.

I'm not disputing that. Just the method of dealing with the situation. Using a third party which is incentivised to find all possible ways of extracting money is unacceptable in my view. If the Trust has the final say in whether a ticket should be enforced then fair enough. I am willing to bet most don't though as that would require someone in house to do so. Much easier to adopt a Pontius Pilate approach and not care about the ethics of those to whom they outsource the task of managing that facility.

[Gavia]

Red Devil said:

Gavia said:

Red Devil said:

I have yet to see anyone explain/justify why a PPC whose only motive is profit is required to police a car park where entry is controlled by a swipe card operated barrier and those cards are exclusive to staff (see the original post). The business model operated by the majority of PPCs relies for the bottom line on ticketing people so there is an incentive to create as many rules as possible, many really petty, to boost their takings. The standard form of contract frequently vests total power with the PPC. Unless the principal (i.e. the NHS Trust) has the final say on whether a PCN is to be cancelled the wheel is rigged. If the Trust does have that power you need admin staff to deal with appeals so you're right back to square one.

Most businesses exist to make profit, so let's not demonise that element of the PPC.

I will continue to criticise an industry which cannot self regulate properly and does little to impose effective sanctions on members which behave unethically.

Gavia said:

Here's an explanation, as to why they may be needed. You have 500 staff working rotational shifts on a 24/7 basis. That means that at any point you're only going to have a portion of the 500 working. Sometimes you'll have lots working, sometimes fewer. All of these staff have a swipe card to access the staff car park on a first come, first parked basis. However, all are expected to park within a recognised space only and nowhere else within the car park. The car park can fit 150 cars in there. I've made the numbers up to make the point, so don't focus on that aspect.

When the car park is full, it only takes a few of the "entitled generation" to ignore the rules and park there anyway and it can make things awkward for those parking correctly. The hospital administration can then either mess about with disciplinary sanctions, which is your idea and way too draconian IMO, or simply start to apply a small fine via a PPC. Continued breaches could result in disciplinary action though.

I do wish you and those with a similar mindset would stop referring to fines (and offences as another poster did). They are not. No PPC has any such power. Only a court can impose a fine. A fundamental difference between criminal and civil law. You don't need a law degree to understand this.

Maybe £40-£60 a pop is small beer to you. Others may see it differently especially those who don't command a huge pay packet.

I don't see what is so draconian about taking away a swipe card for a period of time. Free parking is a privilege not a right.

Gavia said:

It's all about actions and consequences and quite fair IMO.

I'm not disputing that. Just the method of dealing with the situation. Using a third party which is incentivised to find all possible ways of extracting money is unacceptable in my view. If the Trust has the final say in whether a ticket should be enforced then fair enough. I am willing to bet most don't though as that would require someone in house to do so. Much easier to adopt a Pontius Pilate approach and not care about the ethics of those to whom they outsource the task of managing that facility.

I've no idea how to chop things up like you've done, so it's hard to reply.

It may be a privilege, but how do you reach the stage of taking the swipe card away? Someone needs to police it and either a cash strapped NHS does it themselves at a cost, or it subs it out to someone who will do it for free to the NHS and recovers their costs via the transgressors. There is nothing wrong with that at all in my eyes.

I can't believe you spent time discussing the use of the word "fine". Did it really make my comments so unworthy?