A query on work & parking
Discussion
I post out of curiosity more then anything, as I have heard through the grape vine this situation exists at a local-ish (major) company.
Say your place of work decide to build additional offices on the work carpark, to expand. They put in place a park & ride scheme that now takes 30mins+ to get onto & off site.
You now need to get up 45 mins early (gotta wait for the bus...) & get home 45 mins later due to your place of work making the decision to sacrifice employee's time over their expansion.
Where would the law stand? Are there any limitations on situations like this regarding whats ''reasonable''?
Say your place of work decide to build additional offices on the work carpark, to expand. They put in place a park & ride scheme that now takes 30mins+ to get onto & off site.
You now need to get up 45 mins early (gotta wait for the bus...) & get home 45 mins later due to your place of work making the decision to sacrifice employee's time over their expansion.
Where would the law stand? Are there any limitations on situations like this regarding whats ''reasonable''?
PurpleMoonlight said:
Are employees obliged to use the park and ride, or is it just made available should they chose to do so?
Keep in mind there is now no on-site parking due to office expansionI'd say it's the employee's duty to be at work in good time regardless. How this is achieved is up to them be it public transport, private car and park elsewhere or making use of the free park and ride now offered
Dimebars said:
I'd say it's the employee's duty to be at work in good time regardless. How this is achieved is up to them be it public transport, private car and park elsewhere or making use of the free park and ride now offered
I'm sure this is right, but I think what the OP wants to know is if an existing employee has any comeback if this change is made after they commenced working for the company, such that they lose 90 minutes more of their life every day over and above what they agreed to when originally accepting the offer of employment.singlecoil said:
Employees of those companies would know that when they accepted the job.
Yes, they would. Did nobody's workplace ever change? I worked for one company across two office moves - the first location had no parking at all, the second had a couple of spaces first-come-first-served, the third had adequate parking. Lucky me - but it's hardly impossible that could have worked the other way round.TooMany2cvs said:
singlecoil said:
Employees of those companies would know that when they accepted the job.
Yes, they would. Did nobody's workplace ever change? I worked for one company across two office moves - the first location had no parking at all, the second had a couple of spaces first-come-first-served, the third had adequate parking. Lucky me - but it's hardly impossible that could have worked the other way round.singlecoil said:
TooMany2cvs said:
singlecoil said:
Employees of those companies would know that when they accepted the job.
Yes, they would. Did nobody's workplace ever change? I worked for one company across two office moves - the first location had no parking at all, the second had a couple of spaces first-come-first-served, the third had adequate parking. Lucky me - but it's hardly impossible that could have worked the other way round.The job isn't changing. They're still doing the exact same role they were employed to do. One minor ancillary part of the fringe facilities available is changing - no different to if the canteen closed, or kettle was replaced by a coffee machine.
TooMany2cvs said:
singlecoil said:
TooMany2cvs said:
singlecoil said:
Employees of those companies would know that when they accepted the job.
Yes, they would. Did nobody's workplace ever change? I worked for one company across two office moves - the first location had no parking at all, the second had a couple of spaces first-come-first-served, the third had adequate parking. Lucky me - but it's hardly impossible that could have worked the other way round.The job isn't changing. They're still doing the exact same role they were employed to do. One minor ancillary part of the fringe facilities available is changing - no different to if the canteen closed, or kettle was replaced by a coffee machine.
If I was forced into parking sufficiently far away to need a Park & Ride for 45 minutes at the beginning and end of each day, I'd find a new job.
The employer is probably doing nothing illegal, as the provision of parking probably wasn't contractual, so there's unlikely to be a breach
Probably not much the OP can do, other than put up and shut up, or leave
The employer is probably doing nothing illegal, as the provision of parking probably wasn't contractual, so there's unlikely to be a breach
Probably not much the OP can do, other than put up and shut up, or leave
singlecoil said:
I have to admire, but not in a good way, your determination. An extra 90 minutes a day over and above what the employee signed up for is not a not a minor ancillary part of the job.
Given that it will save those who live nearer to the park&ride than work 30 mins of driving each day, there will be some who will benefit from this as much as other will lose. To me it sounds like the employer is being quite reasonable in providing a park&ride. Most wouldn't. The place of employment is still the same, they are still offering free parking, it's just in a different location. People aren't paid to travel to work at the moment so it's not part of the job at all, never mind a minor ancillary part.
The Surveyor said:
singlecoil said:
I have to admire, but not in a good way, your determination. An extra 90 minutes a day over and above what the employee signed up for is not a not a minor ancillary part of the job.
Given that it will save those who live nearer to the park&ride than work 30 mins of driving each day, there will be some who will benefit from this as much as other will lose. To me it sounds like the employer is being quite reasonable in providing a park&ride. Most wouldn't. The place of employment is still the same, they are still offering free parking, it's just in a different location. People aren't paid to travel to work at the moment so it's not part of the job at all, never mind a minor ancillary part.
MitchT said:
Dimebars said:
I'd say it's the employee's duty to be at work in good time regardless. How this is achieved is up to them be it public transport, private car and park elsewhere or making use of the free park and ride now offered
I'm sure this is right, but I think what the OP wants to know is if an existing employee has any comeback if this change is made after they commenced working for the company, such that they lose 90 minutes more of their life every day over and above what they agreed to when originally accepting the offer of employment.I don't recall ever having a job where the T&Cs specified how I got there. If/when transport circumstances changed I had to adapt. Life can sometimes be a b
h.singlecoil said:
An extra 90 minutes a day over and above what the employee signed up for is not a not a minor ancillary part of the job.
There's nowhere else to park, at all, anywhere nearer? Absolutely no other way of getting to the office?Bear in mind they don't HAVE to offer parking at all. Maybe the whole P+R plan was a bad one, and they should have just said "No parking will be provided"?
singlecoil said:
Nevertheless it's not what the employee signed up for when accepting the job.
And?singlecoil said:
It may be legal but it certainly isn't reasonable.
So resign.singlecoil said:
TooMany2cvs said:
singlecoil said:
TooMany2cvs said:
singlecoil said:
Employees of those companies would know that when they accepted the job.
Yes, they would. Did nobody's workplace ever change? I worked for one company across two office moves - the first location had no parking at all, the second had a couple of spaces first-come-first-served, the third had adequate parking. Lucky me - but it's hardly impossible that could have worked the other way round.The job isn't changing. They're still doing the exact same role they were employed to do. One minor ancillary part of the fringe facilities available is changing - no different to if the canteen closed, or kettle was replaced by a coffee machine.
Unless they have a contractual term stating that they're being supplied on-site parking, they have to suck it up.
No different to moving office from a nice big industrial park to a busy high street.
My OH had a job once in a hotel next to a shopping centre. The shopping centre one day decided to turn the free parking into pay and display. Ergo, unless she could get in to the hotel car park (which was often full of guests) she had to pay £8 a day to go to work.
Did she sign up for that? No.
Was free parking contractual? No.
Therefore, suck it up.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff