NHS Trust allowing harassment of staff via parking charges
Discussion
Gavia said:
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.
If the car park is chronically full, so as to make this a problem, then there's simply inadequate parking - hardly the fault of the employees.What about the employee who, having driven 40 miles to work, arrives a bit late only to find the car park's full, and no other practical parking within miles?
What if they only discover when they arrive that they've accidentally left their permit at home?
What are they to do? Go home an lose a day's pay, or park 'illegally' and lose half a day's pay?
Yes, you do get the odd p-taker who causes problems for others, but I would suggest that for every one of those there are another ten who have valid excuses.
But the PPCs need to go after the latter to make it worth their while.
Pete317 said:
Gavia said:
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.
If the car park is chronically full, so as to make this a problem, then there's simply inadequate parking - hardly the fault of the employees.What about the employee who, having driven 40 miles to work, arrives a bit late only to find the car park's full, and no other practical parking within miles?
What if they only discover when they arrive that they've accidentally left their permit at home?
What are they to do? Go home an lose a day's pay, or park 'illegally' and lose half a day's pay?
Yes, you do get the odd p-taker who causes problems for others, but I would suggest that for every one of those there are another ten who have valid excuses.
But the PPCs need to go after the latter to make it worth their while.
Gavia said:
I've no idea how to chop things up like you've done, so it's hard to reply.
Copy and paste the beginning and end quote formatting (the bits in brackets) before and after each intermediate block of text you want to respond to. Gavia said:
It may be a privilege, but how do you reach the stage of taking the swipe card away?
The same way you deal with rule breaking in other areas of responsibility. However, this one is not a matter of life and death.If you're dealing with (presumably) intelligent adults it shouldn't require a cumbersome and complicated procedure/process.
Gavia said:
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.
It comes back to the first line of my earlier post. I would have less of a problem with this solution if it weren't for the fact that the job is being farmed out to an industry in which many practitioners have few ethics and no sense of fairness. All they want is as much cash as they can get away with extracting because that's the way their standard business model works. Gavia said:
I can't believe you spent time discussing the use of the word "fine". Did it really make my comments so unworthy?
It has nothing to do with any perception of worth which is a value judgement. However, when people consistently make errors of fact, getting the message across can assist others who lack understanding. If you have rules and the consequences visited on those affected involve being subject to legislative sanction, words and definitions matter. Failing to understand the difference between civil and criminal penalties is not beneficial to those on the receiving end.Countdown said:
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?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 HR rep?
How much line manager/HR/Union time should be spent on this?
Why should everybody else bend over to accommodate the employee?
In this situation you would remove their parking rights.
But, as I've said it before, if line managers can't make their reports follow the rules then you have an issue.
Gavia said:
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.
No I'm not.I'm suggesting that the first course of action is a quick word. If they repeatedly fail to follow the rules the final sanction would be to remove their right to park at work. A disciplinary process does not have to result in loss of a job, it is simply a formal process to record why sanctions have been taken against the employee.
I'm suggesting that they should lose their job if when this is discussed with them they reposnd with abuse, or at least in the first instance get a formal warning.
Yes I did say that if as a company you cannot make a memeber of staff follow the rules then you do need to consider whether or not you want them working for you at all. Even if they are an otherwise good employee you have to consider the impact that they have on their fellow workmates, the impact they have on the authority of said managers etc. You also have to consider that if they are ignoring you on this, what else are they ignoring you on.
Edited by Devil2575 on Thursday 6th October 12:10
loafer123 said:
Pete317 said:
Gavia said:
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.
If the car park is chronically full, so as to make this a problem, then there's simply inadequate parking - hardly the fault of the employees.What about the employee who, having driven 40 miles to work, arrives a bit late only to find the car park's full, and no other practical parking within miles?
What if they only discover when they arrive that they've accidentally left their permit at home?
What are they to do? Go home an lose a day's pay, or park 'illegally' and lose half a day's pay?
Yes, you do get the odd p-taker who causes problems for others, but I would suggest that for every one of those there are another ten who have valid excuses.
But the PPCs need to go after the latter to make it worth their while.
What if there isn't another car park?
And why should people always have to pay for making small mistakes?
Especially if they're already paying for the privilege of having staff parking
Devil2575 said:
No I'm not.
I'm suggesting that the first course of action is a quick word. If they repeatedly fail to follow the rules the final sanction would be to remove their right to park at work. A disciplinary process does not have to result in loss of a job, it is simply a formal process to record why sanctions have been taken against the employee.
I'm suggesting that they should lose their job if when this is discussed with them they reposnd with abuse, or at least in the first instance get a formal warning.
Yes I did say that if as a company you cannot make a memeber of staff follow the rules then you do need to consider whether or not you want them working for you at all. Even if they are an otherwise good employee you have to consider the impact that they have on their fellow workmates, the impact they have on the authority of said managers etc. You also have to consider that if they are ignoring you on this, what else are they ignoring you on.
Your solution continues to fail to address the core issue over whom is policing the car park to find the transgressions. The NHS have no desire to pay for the policing themselves. I'm suggesting that the first course of action is a quick word. If they repeatedly fail to follow the rules the final sanction would be to remove their right to park at work. A disciplinary process does not have to result in loss of a job, it is simply a formal process to record why sanctions have been taken against the employee.
I'm suggesting that they should lose their job if when this is discussed with them they reposnd with abuse, or at least in the first instance get a formal warning.
Yes I did say that if as a company you cannot make a memeber of staff follow the rules then you do need to consider whether or not you want them working for you at all. Even if they are an otherwise good employee you have to consider the impact that they have on their fellow workmates, the impact they have on the authority of said managers etc. You also have to consider that if they are ignoring you on this, what else are they ignoring you on.
Edited by Devil2575 on Thursday 6th October 12:10
You need to address this point as catching the errant Parker is the start of the process
Pete317 said:
If the car park is chronically full, so as to make this a problem, then there's simply inadequate parking - hardly the fault of the employees.
What about the employee who, having driven 40 miles to work, arrives a bit late only to find the car park's full, and no other practical parking within miles?
What if they only discover when they arrive that they've accidentally left their permit at home?
What are they to do? Go home an lose a day's pay, or park 'illegally' and lose half a day's pay?
Yes, you do get the odd p-taker who causes problems for others, but I would suggest that for every one of those there are another ten who have valid excuses.
But the PPCs need to go after the latter to make it worth their while.
Maybe take some ownership of their mistakes. What about the employee who, having driven 40 miles to work, arrives a bit late only to find the car park's full, and no other practical parking within miles?
What if they only discover when they arrive that they've accidentally left their permit at home?
What are they to do? Go home an lose a day's pay, or park 'illegally' and lose half a day's pay?
Yes, you do get the odd p-taker who causes problems for others, but I would suggest that for every one of those there are another ten who have valid excuses.
But the PPCs need to go after the latter to make it worth their while.
It is also not the employers fault that a car park is full. Does your employer provide parking for every member of staff? You're extremely lucky if it does.
Gavia said:
Devil2575 said:
No I'm not.
I'm suggesting that the first course of action is a quick word. If they repeatedly fail to follow the rules the final sanction would be to remove their right to park at work. A disciplinary process does not have to result in loss of a job, it is simply a formal process to record why sanctions have been taken against the employee.
I'm suggesting that they should lose their job if when this is discussed with them they reposnd with abuse, or at least in the first instance get a formal warning.
Yes I did say that if as a company you cannot make a memeber of staff follow the rules then you do need to consider whether or not you want them working for you at all. Even if they are an otherwise good employee you have to consider the impact that they have on their fellow workmates, the impact they have on the authority of said managers etc. You also have to consider that if they are ignoring you on this, what else are they ignoring you on.
Your solution continues to fail to address the core issue over whom is policing the car park to find the transgressions. The NHS have no desire to pay for the policing themselves. I'm suggesting that the first course of action is a quick word. If they repeatedly fail to follow the rules the final sanction would be to remove their right to park at work. A disciplinary process does not have to result in loss of a job, it is simply a formal process to record why sanctions have been taken against the employee.
I'm suggesting that they should lose their job if when this is discussed with them they reposnd with abuse, or at least in the first instance get a formal warning.
Yes I did say that if as a company you cannot make a memeber of staff follow the rules then you do need to consider whether or not you want them working for you at all. Even if they are an otherwise good employee you have to consider the impact that they have on their fellow workmates, the impact they have on the authority of said managers etc. You also have to consider that if they are ignoring you on this, what else are they ignoring you on.
Edited by Devil2575 on Thursday 6th October 12:10
You need to address this point as catching the errant Parker is the start of the process
Gavia said:
Pete317 said:
If the car park is chronically full, so as to make this a problem, then there's simply inadequate parking - hardly the fault of the employees.
What about the employee who, having driven 40 miles to work, arrives a bit late only to find the car park's full, and no other practical parking within miles?
What if they only discover when they arrive that they've accidentally left their permit at home?
What are they to do? Go home an lose a day's pay, or park 'illegally' and lose half a day's pay?
Yes, you do get the odd p-taker who causes problems for others, but I would suggest that for every one of those there are another ten who have valid excuses.
But the PPCs need to go after the latter to make it worth their while.
Maybe take some ownership of their mistakes. What about the employee who, having driven 40 miles to work, arrives a bit late only to find the car park's full, and no other practical parking within miles?
What if they only discover when they arrive that they've accidentally left their permit at home?
What are they to do? Go home an lose a day's pay, or park 'illegally' and lose half a day's pay?
Yes, you do get the odd p-taker who causes problems for others, but I would suggest that for every one of those there are another ten who have valid excuses.
But the PPCs need to go after the latter to make it worth their while.
It is also not the employers fault that a car park is full. Does your employer provide parking for every member of staff? You're extremely lucky if it does.
It shouldn't mean having to shell out a sizeable chunk of your day's pay to some intransigent leech!
And my employer, indeed most reasonable employers, do provide adequate staff parking facilities when and where needed.
If you can't look after your employees' basic workplace requirements then don't hire them.
Pete317 said:
Taking ownership of one's mistakes, in this context, used to mean parking up somewhere and having a word with the site manager.
It shouldn't mean having to shell out a sizeable chunk of your day's pay to some intransigent leech!
And my employer, indeed most reasonable employers, do provide adequate staff parking facilities when and where needed.
If you can't look after your employees' basic workplace requirements then don't hire them.
Too much hyperbole in that first sentence. It shouldn't mean having to shell out a sizeable chunk of your day's pay to some intransigent leech!
And my employer, indeed most reasonable employers, do provide adequate staff parking facilities when and where needed.
If you can't look after your employees' basic workplace requirements then don't hire them.
As for the rest, I have never worked for a company that provided a parking space for everyone. You've attempted to dodge the question with your choice of words. So let's have another attempt.
Do you believe that an employer should provide a parking space for every member of staff? If not, how to you define "adequate staff parking facilities"?
Devil2575 said:
If the errant parking is causing a problem then someone has spotted it and can report it.
I've i idea where you've worked, but most people try to avoid reporting their colleagues as much as possible, no matter how inconvenient things can be. This is especially true when it can lead to disciplinaries and the ultimate sanction. Gavia said:
Pete317 said:
Taking ownership of one's mistakes, in this context, used to mean parking up somewhere and having a word with the site manager.
It shouldn't mean having to shell out a sizeable chunk of your day's pay to some intransigent leech!
And my employer, indeed most reasonable employers, do provide adequate staff parking facilities when and where needed.
If you can't look after your employees' basic workplace requirements then don't hire them.
Too much hyperbole in that first sentence. It shouldn't mean having to shell out a sizeable chunk of your day's pay to some intransigent leech!
And my employer, indeed most reasonable employers, do provide adequate staff parking facilities when and where needed.
If you can't look after your employees' basic workplace requirements then don't hire them.
As for the rest, I have never worked for a company that provided a parking space for everyone. You've attempted to dodge the question with your choice of words. So let's have another attempt.
Do you believe that an employer should provide a parking space for every member of staff? If not, how to you define "adequate staff parking facilities"?
The fundamental problem with the business model of Parking Eye (and other PPC) is that they only make money when they collect "penalty" charges. They place their equipment for free at the various hospitals and retail parks, and need to get some return on investment.
It is in their own interest to maximise the opportunities where people get caught out, and using an ANPR system that is highly prone to operational failure is in their advantage, as is offering more permits for parking than available parking spaces, and in hospitals they will have ANPR cameras placed to catch people who are still driving around looking for a parking space. I have seen dozens of tickets for hospital sites issued for periods of less than 30 minutes, and I'm pretty certain that many of them were not actually parked.
The law that covers parking on private land is properly flaky, and very easy to contest. I've yet to find a PPC that adheres to it 100%, and even if I did, there are still a number of avenues of appeal available, and not just for people who leave their car at Aldi all day while they go to work.
In the last 3 years for the fleet I manage, we have received just short of 40,000 private parking tickets. Total paid so far - zero.
It is in their own interest to maximise the opportunities where people get caught out, and using an ANPR system that is highly prone to operational failure is in their advantage, as is offering more permits for parking than available parking spaces, and in hospitals they will have ANPR cameras placed to catch people who are still driving around looking for a parking space. I have seen dozens of tickets for hospital sites issued for periods of less than 30 minutes, and I'm pretty certain that many of them were not actually parked.
The law that covers parking on private land is properly flaky, and very easy to contest. I've yet to find a PPC that adheres to it 100%, and even if I did, there are still a number of avenues of appeal available, and not just for people who leave their car at Aldi all day while they go to work.
In the last 3 years for the fleet I manage, we have received just short of 40,000 private parking tickets. Total paid so far - zero.
Pete317 said:
loafer123 said:
Pete317 said:
Gavia said:
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.
If the car park is chronically full, so as to make this a problem, then there's simply inadequate parking - hardly the fault of the employees.What about the employee who, having driven 40 miles to work, arrives a bit late only to find the car park's full, and no other practical parking within miles?
What if they only discover when they arrive that they've accidentally left their permit at home?
What are they to do? Go home an lose a day's pay, or park 'illegally' and lose half a day's pay?
Yes, you do get the odd p-taker who causes problems for others, but I would suggest that for every one of those there are another ten who have valid excuses.
But the PPCs need to go after the latter to make it worth their while.
What if there isn't another car park?
And why should people always have to pay for making small mistakes?
Especially if they're already paying for the privilege of having staff parking
40miles travel, always arrive late and no parking for miles when they get there?
Where they heck have you put these people????
Pete317 said:
Gavia said:
Pete317 said:
Taking ownership of one's mistakes, in this context, used to mean parking up somewhere and having a word with the site manager.
It shouldn't mean having to shell out a sizeable chunk of your day's pay to some intransigent leech!
And my employer, indeed most reasonable employers, do provide adequate staff parking facilities when and where needed.
If you can't look after your employees' basic workplace requirements then don't hire them.
Too much hyperbole in that first sentence. It shouldn't mean having to shell out a sizeable chunk of your day's pay to some intransigent leech!
And my employer, indeed most reasonable employers, do provide adequate staff parking facilities when and where needed.
If you can't look after your employees' basic workplace requirements then don't hire them.
As for the rest, I have never worked for a company that provided a parking space for everyone. You've attempted to dodge the question with your choice of words. So let's have another attempt.
Do you believe that an employer should provide a parking space for every member of staff? If not, how to you define "adequate staff parking facilities"?
The person originally being discussed is a low level employee. That's not being dismissive, it's saying that as a nurse on a ward there are a huge amount of them needed in a hospital and providing free parking for all levels is nigh on impossible.
Gavia said:
Devil2575 said:
If the errant parking is causing a problem then someone has spotted it and can report it.
I've i idea where you've worked, but most people try to avoid reporting their colleagues as much as possible, no matter how inconvenient things can be. This is especially true when it can lead to disciplinaries and the ultimate sanction. We had a warning email sent out just last week as two cars had parked in such a way as to block the adjacent space. This had been bought to the attention of the office secretary by who sent out a general email to all building occupants. This is typically how such issues are dealt with here. Repeat offending would be dealt with by the site Safety officer who is more than up to the job and if abuse followed it would either be dealt with there and then or a formal complaint would be made. Abuse of any kind for whatever reason is not tollerated and can ultimately result in termination of employment.
There is a points system in place, 2 points per offence, 10 and you are banned from site.
Anyone parked in such a way as to block access would be collared straight away and made to move their car.
I don't think anyone considers that another person could lose their job over it, because no one thinks that any normal person who get abusive if challeneged over it, or even ignore any warnings. The days of it being ok to get all shouty and sweary about such things are long since gone.
In the past we have had people who have been allowed to get away with things because of their percieved value to the company. However it's questionable just how valuable these people were especially given the negative impact their behaviour had on others.
The company does provide sufficient parking for everyone, but then there are no decent public transport links(Out of town industrial site)and the company expects a great deal of flexibility from it's staff. Expecting people to stay back for several hours at a moments notice because the s
t is hitting the fan but then not providing them with somewhere to park is a little bit unreasonable. What this system does allow is for personal circumstances to be taken into account and flexibility to be shown.
Edited by Devil2575 on Thursday 6th October 16:00
Devil2575 said:
In my experience people are sufficiently annoyed about bad parking that they are quite happy to report it.
We had a warning email sent out just last week as two cars had parked in such a way as to block the adjacent space. This had been bought to the attention of the office secretary by who sent out a general email to all building occupants. This is typically how such issues are dealt with here. Repeat offending would be dealt with by the site Safety officer who is more than up to the job and if abuse followed it would either be dealt with there and then or a formal complaint would be made. Abuse of any kind for whatever reason is not tollerated and can ultimately result in termination of employment.
There is a points system in place, 2 points per offence, 10 and you are banned from site.
Anyone parked in such a way as to block access would be collared straight away and made to move their car.
I don't think anyone considers that another person could lose their job over it, because no one thinks that any normal person who get abusive if challeneged over it, or even ignore any warnings. The days of it being ok to get all shouty and sweary about such things are long since gone.
In the past we have had people who have been allowed to get away with things because of their percieved value to the company. However it's questionable just how valuable these people were especially given the negative impact their behaviour had on others.
The company does provide sufficient parking for everyone, but then there are no decent public transport links(Out of town industrial site)and the company expects a great deal of flexibility from it's staff. Expecting people to stay back for several hours at a moments notice because the st is hitting the fan but then not providing them with somewhere to park is a little bit unreasonable.
What this system does allow is for personal circumstances to be taken into account and flexibility to be shown.
That's all well and good, but it continues to tie up the Site Manager on unnecessary paperwork. Your comment around getting sweaty comtinues to miss the point. A disciplinary process can result in dismissal without people being abusive. It normally involves 4 strikes and you're out. Verbal, written, final written, dismissal are the normal stages. I can't see Unison accepting that approach and I can't see the hospital administration wanting to be so brutal on staff either. However, a short sharp shock to the system with a fee / fine / penalty whatever you want to call it should be enough to stop those who are making errors from making them again in the future. We had a warning email sent out just last week as two cars had parked in such a way as to block the adjacent space. This had been bought to the attention of the office secretary by who sent out a general email to all building occupants. This is typically how such issues are dealt with here. Repeat offending would be dealt with by the site Safety officer who is more than up to the job and if abuse followed it would either be dealt with there and then or a formal complaint would be made. Abuse of any kind for whatever reason is not tollerated and can ultimately result in termination of employment.
There is a points system in place, 2 points per offence, 10 and you are banned from site.
Anyone parked in such a way as to block access would be collared straight away and made to move their car.
I don't think anyone considers that another person could lose their job over it, because no one thinks that any normal person who get abusive if challeneged over it, or even ignore any warnings. The days of it being ok to get all shouty and sweary about such things are long since gone.
In the past we have had people who have been allowed to get away with things because of their percieved value to the company. However it's questionable just how valuable these people were especially given the negative impact their behaviour had on others.
The company does provide sufficient parking for everyone, but then there are no decent public transport links(Out of town industrial site)and the company expects a great deal of flexibility from it's staff. Expecting people to stay back for several hours at a moments notice because the s
t is hitting the fan but then not providing them with somewhere to park is a little bit unreasonable. What this system does allow is for personal circumstances to be taken into account and flexibility to be shown.
Edited by Devil2575 on Thursday 6th October 16:00
Your process is far more flawed than the current approach. We're never going to agree though and no matter how much you believe it to be unfair, there are others on this topic who think it is fair.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff