Can you be forced to drive at work?
Discussion
It's all down to what the contract says. And if says nothing, that's that.
To those who think it wouldn't be unreasonable to make her drive, whether for time saving reasons or otherwise, dwell on this: suppose she (or you) had a motorcycle licence, but hadn't ridden for several years. Your employer tells you that you're going to have to do 60+ mile round trips regularly and skip using the train. Bike possibly provided by your employer, but maybe you'll have to buy your own.
To those who think it wouldn't be unreasonable to make her drive, whether for time saving reasons or otherwise, dwell on this: suppose she (or you) had a motorcycle licence, but hadn't ridden for several years. Your employer tells you that you're going to have to do 60+ mile round trips regularly and skip using the train. Bike possibly provided by your employer, but maybe you'll have to buy your own.
Tattle is rife and comments made re her not driving.
That hints at problems with staff, possible bullying, s
t stirrers, personality clashes etc..
Has your wife commented on the atmosphere in work, nastiness, bickering, comments about her productivity due to no car.....
It could be a case of weak management not dealing with these types of issues and avoiding their duties by telling your wife she needs to drive.
What is the situation with other employees who drive getting expenses?
How does this compare to public transport cost, time of travel ?
Are the managers stand off and never seen?
That hints at problems with staff, possible bullying, s
t stirrers, personality clashes etc..Has your wife commented on the atmosphere in work, nastiness, bickering, comments about her productivity due to no car.....
It could be a case of weak management not dealing with these types of issues and avoiding their duties by telling your wife she needs to drive.
What is the situation with other employees who drive getting expenses?
How does this compare to public transport cost, time of travel ?
Are the managers stand off and never seen?
joebongo said:
Thanks for all the opinions. It is a confidence thing and there is nothing in her contract. She has been there nearly 3 years or more now.
If there is nothing in her contract about using a vehicle to get to clients etc then she is under no obligation to use a car, hers or a company car.You said that you wouldn't even send her to the shops driving let alone a 60 mile round trip? Surely you should be going out with her to build her confidence? When my wife first passed, I pretty much forced her to drive with me sitting in the passenger seat so she could build her confidence up, 9 months later she's very confident and enjoys driving.
Yipper said:
Assuming there is nothing in her contract, and those are the full details, this is vehiphobic discrimination, the employer is breaking the law, and it would be a prosecutable action.
I've heard of laws preventing discrimination on grounds of race, sexuality, gender, but never on driving or the lack of. When did they sneak that in? If I were expected to drive for work I'd expect a vehicle to be provided for this, unless I'd accepted a job which clearly stated from day 1 that applicants were expected to possess and use their own vehicle, which clearly isn't the case here.
On the positive side, if a vehicle was provided she could start to gain experience and confidence in the knowledge that any scrapes wouldn't impact on her own finances. Seems like a 'win' in that respect.
On the positive side, if a vehicle was provided she could start to gain experience and confidence in the knowledge that any scrapes wouldn't impact on her own finances. Seems like a 'win' in that respect.
Sheepshanks said:
S11Steve said:
As an employee, technically their should be business use insurance cover, but it's rare that this is in place, and if it is, costed for by the employer.
It's generally no more expensive than SD&P.(Whether 40p/mile still covers the full extra costs of fuel, maintenance, depreciation, insurance etc that come with using your car for work is questionable these days - it depends on what car you drive I guess - but officially it's supposed to, and certainly it covers more than just petrol if you drive anything vaguely sensible)
Sheepshanks said:
S11Steve said:
As an employee, technically their should be business use insurance cover, but it's rare that this is in place, and if it is, costed for by the employer.
It's generally no more expensive than SD&P.S11Steve said:
Similarly, there are no fleet checks on the grey fleet - how does the fleet manager for the employer know if the car is safe to be on the road?
That's a sweeping statement. My employer certainly checks.I take it she uses public transport to get to work and doesn't currently have a car? If so then unless the company provide a car for her then she's under no obligation to buy one.
However, if she refuses there's the possibility that they could more her to a different role that doesn't require travel.
However, if she refuses there's the possibility that they could more her to a different role that doesn't require travel.
Aretnap said:
And even if it does cost a bit extra (it raised my cheapest quote by about £3 last year), the extra cost is supposed to be factored into the 40p/mile allowance that you can claim.
(Whether 40p/mile still covers the full extra costs of fuel, maintenance, depreciation, insurance etc that come with using your car for work is questionable these days - it depends on what car you drive I guess - but officially it's supposed to, and certainly it covers more than just petrol if you drive anything vaguely sensible)
The government guidelines are 45p/mile for the first 10K miles in a year, 25p/mile thereafter, however, the actual rate a company pays is down to the company to decide. Should it vary from the government guideline then the employee can claim/pay any difference against tax.(Whether 40p/mile still covers the full extra costs of fuel, maintenance, depreciation, insurance etc that come with using your car for work is questionable these days - it depends on what car you drive I guess - but officially it's supposed to, and certainly it covers more than just petrol if you drive anything vaguely sensible)
If the company pays 25p/mile then the employee can claim unpaid expenses to the value of 20p/mile for the first 10K miles in a year. This would reduce the amount of tax payable by 20p * number of miles * your tax rate. Similarly if they paid 50p/mile you would owe tax on 'over-payment' of expenses in the same way, therefore on 5p/mile (up to 10K miles, 25p/mile over 10K miles).
joebongo said:
Essentially she is a near passing learner again in competency terms and I wouldn't send her to the corner shop never mind negotiate the great unwashed.
Really? As soon as I passed my test I was out on the road myself, as was my wife who passed after we were married. The only way to get better and grow in confidence is to actually drive by yourself and having you next to her probably isn't going to be helpful. The best bet would be to get a couple of refresher lessons from a professional.However on the subject of the OP, is her using public transport having an effect on her productivity compared to her collegues?
We had similar in my old work. They employed a new housing officer to cover a very rural area but the manager and HR forgot to include any reference to cars or driving in the job description or contract. The lady who was awarded the job couldn't drive at all (she had previously done a similar job in a city centre where her total area covered was all within a couple of square miles and all on bus routes) and she hadn't even thought about it until her first day when she discovered that her new rural area covered around 150 square miles with a very sporadic bus service. To save face, the manager who employed her initially handed her a bus pass then within a couple of weeks of this not working out, offered her a 'promotion' to an office based post.
ging84 said:
Having a drivers licence doesn't mean you can drive.
Under no circumstances should anyone who no longer feels confident in their driving abilities be pressured to drive, for a company to do so would almost certainly be a health and safety violation.
Obviously so, I'd have thought. The time to bring up a driving licence requirement is surely before she's employed in the job?Under no circumstances should anyone who no longer feels confident in their driving abilities be pressured to drive, for a company to do so would almost certainly be a health and safety violation.
That said, I'm slightly amazed there's somewhere you can do site visits via public transport apparently without your employer noticing you've been gone for days at a time.
ging84 said:
Having a drivers licence doesn't mean you can drive.
My Gran had a valid UK driving licence from 1935 till she died in 2008. She applied for it just before they introduced compulsory driving tests in 1935 in case she ever needed to drive. She never ever drove in the 73 years that she held her licence but held onto it 'just in case'.Years back I had a job I wasn't really cut out for, I got the hint when out the blue they asked me to start running small items from one place to another using an antiquated LDV from the 90's even though having a driving licence wasn't a pre-requisite for employment.
I didn't actually mind driving it as it was better than working for them and left soon after for a better job, met up with a mate who worked there as well for a catch up a couple of years later and he was lamenting the fact that he had to drive the thing and so started looking for other work, I'm sure the only reason they kept it was to prompt people to leave.
On another forum I frequent there was a thread about someones daughter applying for then being denied a job at the Royal Mail as she doesn't hold a manual licence, I wonder if that would count as discrimination?
I didn't actually mind driving it as it was better than working for them and left soon after for a better job, met up with a mate who worked there as well for a catch up a couple of years later and he was lamenting the fact that he had to drive the thing and so started looking for other work, I'm sure the only reason they kept it was to prompt people to leave.
On another forum I frequent there was a thread about someones daughter applying for then being denied a job at the Royal Mail as she doesn't hold a manual licence, I wonder if that would count as discrimination?
I'd be interested in this.
I used to work for a service company in London where we all drove round in vans. The company experimented in recruiting a bunch of people and giving them travelcards, while others (Muggins) drove round dropping their materials off.
It was an unmitigated disaster; all but one of them were sacked or resigned. The one person that stayed on, and was an excellent member of staff, was compelled into having a van. I say compelled because she was a bit of a car-hating hippy type.
My distinct memory (c. 15 years ago) is that our manager couldn't force her, but had to persuade her in to this change.
I used to work for a service company in London where we all drove round in vans. The company experimented in recruiting a bunch of people and giving them travelcards, while others (Muggins) drove round dropping their materials off.
It was an unmitigated disaster; all but one of them were sacked or resigned. The one person that stayed on, and was an excellent member of staff, was compelled into having a van. I say compelled because she was a bit of a car-hating hippy type.
My distinct memory (c. 15 years ago) is that our manager couldn't force her, but had to persuade her in to this change.
untakenname said:
On another forum I frequent there was a thread about someones daughter applying for then being denied a job at the Royal Mail as she doesn't hold a manual licence, I wonder if that would count as discrimination?
No - any more than an inability to count would be "discrimination" if it stopped you getting a job as an accountant.RM have a HUGE fleet of manual-box vehicles which that job would have required her to drive. It's simply a skill that is required to do the job, which she does not possess.
If the same excuse was given while refusing a job to somebody who could not physically drive a manual due to a disability, rather than somebody able-bodied who had simply taken an auto-only test - and there was a way of simply arranging things so that that person could have done the job by driving automatic vehicles - then that WOULD be discrimination. There's a requirement to make reasonable adaptations to accommodate disabilities, not to accommodate simple lack of skill.
untakenname said:
there was a thread about someones daughter applying for then being denied a job at the Royal Mail as she doesn't hold a manual licence, I wonder if that would count as discrimination?
There are no laws preventing discrimination against people who can drive, or can't, or can't drive manual, or motorcycles, or whatever. Licence discrimination laws don't exist.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff