We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Your time travelling to work IS work and should be paid for
Comments
-
I don't have an issue with this in theory.
Surprised Graham isn't objecting left, right and centre to something being imposed from Europe though....
“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
I think a certain "Dr Who" is going to be in difficulty filling in his time sheet
He "time travels" for work, and "time travels" to work.
Perhaps this is why we never see him being paid, for anything.0 -
Graham_Devon wrote: »European courts have ruled that time travelling to first and from last appointments is actually work and should therefore be paid. ...
No they did not.
The COJ ruled that it constituted working time within the meaning of the Working Time Directive. They did not say anything about being paid for it. The court was very clear about that;
Accordingly, the method of remunerating workers in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings is not covered by the directive but by the relevant provisions of national law.
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf;jsessionid=9ea7d2dc30dd0f55fb4fd550460b9fb9d00a6ed80365.e34KaxiLc3qMb40Rch0SaxuRaxb0?text=&docid=167291&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=13271940 -
So if you have a base but your first job of the day is not at the base does getting to the first job count as work time even if it is nearer than the base which the getting to of would be counted as commuting not working?I think....0
-
No they did not.
The COJ ruled that it constituted working time within the meaning of the Working Time Directive. They did not say anything about being paid for it. The court was very clear about that;
Oh, sorry - were supposed to pretend it will be classed as working time, but not actually paid for. This is the debate economy board afterall.
Beg my pardon.
I suggest you read a little further. If we are to assume it won't be paid for (as you are doing), then either everyone else is confused, or you are just wrong....They added that their judgement that travel time counts as work “cannot be called into question by the argument of the United Kingdom Government that it would lead to an inevitable increase in costs, in particular, for Tyco.”Glenn Hayes, a partner at law firm Irwin Mitchell, said: “In certain industries, such as the care industry, it will have a huge impact.
“If you bid for a contract, and your costs go up, it could be potentially astronomical.”Phil Allen, a partner in employment law at Weightmans said the ruling may “significantly increase” the amount of an employee’s day counted as work.
“Whilst this decision is not about the national minimum wage, which is not subject to European law and the wording of the Act is different, it may also have implications for what employees must be paid.Allie Renison, the head of trade policy at the Institute of Directors, said the European Court of Justice had “become a red-tape machine, tormenting firms across Europe.”
“The Working Time Directive needs to be reviewed, in order to resolve the lingering questions which are now being ruled on by the ECJ. Ensuring that employers do not have additional costs and burdens sprung upon them like this must be a core element of the Prime Minister’s renegotiation efforts.”Anthea McIntyre, a Conservative MEP, said: “This could add significantly to the costs of businesses and interfere with long-established business practices. It could hit smaller firms particularly and that would be bad for growth and bad for jobs."
Antrobus to the rescue - you need to tell them all that the ruling does not talk about actually paying them for their working hours.0 -
So if you have a base but your first job of the day is not at the base does getting to the first job count as work time even if it is nearer than the base which the getting to of would be counted as commuting not working?
The COJ ruling was that;
in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, in which workers do not have a fixed or habitual place of work, the time spent by those workers travelling each day between their homes and the premises of the first and last customers designated by their employer constitutes ‘working time’, within the meaning of that provision.
Therefore it does not apply to workers who do have a fixed or habitual place of work.0 -
Graham_Devon wrote: »Oh, sorry - were supposed to pretend it will be classed as working time, but not actually paid for. This is the debate economy board afterall.
Beg my pardon.
I suggest you read a little further. If we are to assume it won't be paid for (as you are doing), then either everyone else is confused, or you are just wrong....
Antrobus to the rescue - you need to tell them all that the ruling does not talk about actually paying them for their working hours.
I am not assuming anything. I have simply taken the time and trouble to find and read the actual text of the judgement, before jumping to a conclusion.
And the judgement is crystal clear on this point;
In that regard, it suffices to point out that, even if, in the specific circumstances of the case at issue in the main proceedings, travelling time must be regarded as working time, Tyco remains free to determine the remuneration for the time spent travelling between home and customers.
Here is the link again;
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf;jsessionid=9ea7d2dc30dd0f55fb4fd55046%20%200b9fb9d00a6ed80365.e34KaxiLc3qMb40Rch0SaxuRaxb0?te%20%20xt=&docid=167291&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&d%20%20ir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=13271940 -
my husband is an agency lorry driver. He regulally commutes for 2 to 3 hours per day to his various places of work. Will he beable to be paid for his time travelling?0
-
Graham_Devon wrote: »Oh, sorry - were supposed to pretend it will be classed as working time, but not actually paid for. This is the debate economy board afterall.
Beg my pardon.
I suggest you read a little further. If we are to assume it won't be paid for (as you are doing), then either everyone else is confused, or you are just wrong....
Antrobus to the rescue - you need to tell them all that the ruling does not talk about actually paying them for their working hours.
For God's sake just read the source data for once - it was handed to you on a plate.
The court hasn't ruled that travelling time from the last appointment should be paid. It's very clear.0 -
I am not assuming anything. I have simply taken the time and trouble to find and read the actual text of the judgement, before jumping to a conclusion.
And the judgement is crystal clear on this point;
In that regard, it suffices to point out that, even if, in the specific circumstances of the case at issue in the main proceedings, travelling time must be regarded as working time, Tyco remains free to determine the remuneration for the time spent travelling between home and customers.
"free to determine the remuneration for the time spent travelling between home and customers" does NOT mean that there will be no pay involved.
Your point, to me, was that this judgement does not state that employees will be paid for this time.
To back this up, you are referencing a quote which states the company "will be free to determine the remuneration". That suggests, quite clearly, remuneration will apply. That could be time in lieu, extra pay, or wrapping these hours up into the existing contract (So for example, they finish on a friday earlier to make up for the time spent travelling).
Either way, all of the above mean the hours are paid for via some conventional method.
You are just being utterly obtuse for some reason.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.8K Spending & Discounts
- 244.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.5K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.1K Life & Family
- 257.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards