New driver - can employer force me to use my car if it’s snowing

Joe_Horner

Lum wrote: »

My point is that we've had this going on for 4 years now (and I remember it being pretty similar in the 80s too) employers really should be doing a risk assessment and preparing for it if they want to avoid having to give everybody snow days.

Risk assessment? They never needed them when I were a lad! You got into work or you didn't get paid, and you were thankful for the hunger cause it let you know you'd been born! And I'll thell thee sommat else- it weren't none of this namby office work in my day. Going to work meant real work!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2AcJSkUw6M

Treat most of the "it's not as bad as all that" stories about as seriously as that video. Times change, society moves on and that's a good thing. Any employer who expects employees to take the sort of risks they used to (while taking full advantage of the modern world themselves) will be the first against the wall come the revolution

Lum

Risk Assessments get a bad name. The image is of producing reams and reams of paper to satisfy some health and safety officer in a suit in an office in London somewhere.

Last risk assessment I did took about 30 seconds, it was after a customer's server had failed that was running another company's software which had a feature we had done but not actually tested yet. They had no backup of the software and the other company had gone bust. I rang the boss and told him "Well they're completely f**ked as they depend on this feature, so if my version of it doesn't work they're no worse off than they are now. That's my risk assessment, can I install it?". Answer was yes, and it worked perfectly.

Joe_Horner

Yeah, sorry Lum. I couldn't find the [sarc][/sarc] tags on here but hoped the general tone of the post would be clear enough not to need them

Lum

I knew you were being sarcastic, but it gave me an opportunity to clarify my previous point a bit.

I've only used one forum with sarcasm tags. They had no effect on how the text was displayed, unless that text was also quoted in which case they turned it green. Quite amusing I thought, but they removed that feature a few years ago.

davids3511

red_eye wrote: »

Two words for you unfair and dismissal add them together and you have just lost your self a lot of money,
well done :beer:

You think I'm stupid enough to get caught like that? If I wanted rid of somebody they would go on sub par performance. Very easy to setup and uphold. No money lost at all. :beer: to you too.

steve-L

Lum wrote: »

I said "get good insurance or prepare your business for dealing with it"
....

As for the power company. Around here they use "proper" 4x4s as company vehicles with suitable tyres for the job. However it still took them a while to get power back on to my house as the route was littered with abandoned cars. Not much you can do about that, but they got there eventually.

I was actually referring to power generation.
At a power plant are lots of people... doing manual jobs.
If these people don't turn-up the generators cannot be run.
The people REQUIRED to drive as part of their job should be either employed because they have the skills and experience OR be given the training.... but that is different to people who just have to get into work.

My point is that we've had this going on for 4 years now (and I remember it being pretty similar in the 80s too) employers really should be doing a risk assessment and preparing for it if they want to avoid having to give everybody snow days.

They don't need to give snow day's ... unless you need to travel to a location different to your 'normal place of work'. (As defined in Tax law as where you can claim expenses for if you are not working from there)

Why should the employer have to plan contingencies against employees not turning up because it snowed?

It's the employees responsibility to get to work in time ... for their contracted hours (presuming you have a fixed place you work and you choose where you live not have it provided/dictated by employer). If this means walking it means walking...

If you choose to live 50 miles from your place of work then you have a 50 mile walk or its your problem to find alternative accommodation.

Employers may choose to help out employees get into work for their contracted hours but it really is the responsibility of the employee.

Some employers provide housing close to work (eg. St. Thomas's has Nurses accommodation), historically GWR built houses for their employees etc.

Some allow working from home for jobs that can be done from home

Some might send a company vehicle to pick people up ... but they are under no obligation to do so. (My neighbour works for a tyre fitters and they have sent a properly equipped van to pick him up)

Lum

Again, a lot of this comes down to how much you value your staff's job satisfaction and their lives. If you subscribe to the "bums on seats" management style that disciplines someone for turning up at 9:02 even though they did 2 hours unpaid overtime the day before then the attitude you describe is probably how management are going to see it. It's the kind of attitude that results in disgruntled demoralised staff who will put in the bare minimum and will spend half the day on monster.com looking for a less terrible place to work. Eventually the only staff you will be left with are the deadwood who nobody else wants to employ.

If, OTOH, you're the kind of manager that judges people by results, you can say, "ok take a snow day, but I still need you to meet this deadline or we'll lose (customer)" then most decent and reasonable people will respond well to that and if necessary will put in a few extra hours to catch up, assuming it's not possible to take the work home. It shows that you trust the person and value their safety.

I also don't buy the "live closer to work" argument. In these days of companies going bust all the time, and of both partners working, it simply isn't feasible to move closer to work. The last time we did that I was a home worker and my partner worked in Abercynon, she was made redundant a month after we moved. They knew she was moving closer to the office but didn't even give her a heads up.

Currently we have gotten very lucky, we light roughty equidistant between our workplaces (45 minutes on one direction for her, 30 minutes in the other direction for me) but the primary consideration was finding a wheelchair accessible house for her. These are rare as hen's teeth and we're not bloody moving.

If your work absolutely requires people to be physically present then this needs to be brought up upfront and you need to either pay them enough that they can afford to purchase and store a second set of tyres or for things like maintenance engineers, let them take the 4x4s home the night before and then go straight out to site in the morning.

steve-L

Lum wrote: »

Again, a lot of this comes down to how much you value your staff's job satisfaction and their lives. If you subscribe to the "bums on seats" management style that disciplines someone for turning up at 9:02 even though they did 2 hours unpaid overtime the day before then the attitude you describe is probably how management are going to see it. It's the kind of attitude that results in disgruntled demoralised staff who will put in the bare minimum and will spend half the day on monster.com looking for a less terrible place to work. Eventually the only staff you will be left with are the deadwood who nobody else wants to employ.

One of the companies I know has a 12 minute rule for ALL meetings. Anyone turning up 12 minutes late is fired on the spot.
If you don't want to work for them, don't apply.
(I know people queuing up to work for them)
Same company has no problem if you want to claim a days vacation for Travelling on a Sunday night and stopping in a 5* hotel overnight close to the meeting.

If, OTOH, you're the kind of manager that judges people by results, you can say, "ok take a snow day, but I still need you to meet this deadline or we'll lose (customer)" then most decent and reasonable people will respond well to that and if necessary will put in a few extra hours to catch up, assuming it's not possible to take the work home. It shows that you trust the person and value their safety.

Not everyone works in that environment.
If you actually make things or need to be physically present it doesn't work.
I personally can do a lot from home but a bank teller can't take the cash home to count... (if you get my point) ... If you MAKE things, look after animals etc. or even dig holes in the road you have to be physically present. You can't shut down a steel furnace/nuclear reactor it needs to be constantly looked after... if your company doesn't dig the hole in the road inside the SLA (snow or not) your company will be fined.

I also don't buy the "live closer to work" argument. In these days of companies going bust all the time, and of both partners working, it simply isn't feasible to move closer to work. The last time we did that I was a home worker and my partner worked in Abercynon, she was made redundant a month after we moved. They knew she was moving closer to the office but didn't even give her a heads up.

I'm sympathetic... and that sucks!!! A friend moved to be closer to his office (they let him take vacation for the move) and a week after he moved they announced they were moving the office... back to close to where he had actually moved from!

Currently we have gotten very lucky, we light roughty equidistant between our workplaces (45 minutes on one direction for her, 30 minutes in the other direction for me) but the primary consideration was finding a wheelchair accessible house for her. These are rare as hen's teeth and we're not bloody moving.

Again... I'm sympathetic but that isn't your OH's current employers problem either.

If your work absolutely requires people to be physically present then this needs to be brought up upfront and you need to either pay them enough that they can afford to purchase and store a second set of tyres or for things like maintenance engineers, let them take the 4x4s home the night before and then go straight out to site in the morning.

Unfortunately, its the inverse.
Catering staff don't get paid much but if they don't turn up the resto can't run....
Cleaning staff are another set of people who can't work from home....
Factory workers, people who gut fish, slaughter animals or put the lids on tins of paint....
Care home staff ...
etc. etc. (Its a long list)

If your job is plant manager for a nuclear plant or trader for a bank that's a different matter!

For many it's not about a site... it's about going into a factory, foundry or plant and getting your hands dirty.. and this doesn't pay that much or require any qualifications.

Lum

For the factory example. The question is, is it better to shut down for a snow day or to risk my staff's lives (and the associated costs, e.g. any death in service payout, recruitments costs, retraining costs) in order to keep the place open.

For the company at the start of your post that setup is fine. I've worked for companies that will give you crap for turning up late to site and don't allow the overnight stop if it's less than 4 hours drive. So you leave at 6AM (having previously gotten home from a different site in the opposite direction at 11PM the night before) and some !!!! decides to jackknife their lorry on the M6 at 8AM, that's your problem, should've left earlier.

I attribute my current chronic health conditions to that hellhole of a job that I was stuck in for six years. Since I left the company couldn't replace me and last I heard they had gone bankrupt. My current employer is now hoovering up my old customers and putting clauses in the support contracts that require remote access if they want a next day response. I also get told off if I book two site visits without a rest day in between.

Thing is I would be quite happy to go to site using winter tyres for this employer, they treat me well and I put in the best I can. The previous employer, snow days were an excuse to finally get a proper night's rest.

steve-L

Lum,
There are some truly crap companies out there. It sounds like you worked for the company run by one of my ex-employers long lost brother.

I quit after a year ... I can quite see that if I continued my health was going to suffer!

However, I've worked for a lot of companies in different places and each has had different 'takes'.

My first ever job was a machinist in a small factory of about 10 people. The factory was always struggling to survive and any break in production could have led to closure. The owner would frequently pitch in on the shop floor. That sort of company can't afford to stop...
(That's a long tome ago now before I went to Uni twice)

I have worked for some multi-nationals that are like nannies.
If you go up stairs without holding a handrail or use a coffee cup without a lid you get a written warning ... 3 and you are out!
They wouldn't dream of asking anyone to drive in the snow without a 6 week course!! (Equally, it can be next to impossible to do your job sometimes)

I also worked for companies somewhere in-between.
My present employer allows me a lot of discretion. (Small branch of large multi-national)
It is good in many ways and the culture is largely about getting the job done.... however I also have a bonus and promotion prospects that would be at risk if I refused to drive in the snow for a meeting I really should attend.

In the Olympics debacle I had to walk from Waterloo to Canary Wharf (5-6 miles each way) at stupid times of day to attend meetings. (I had to get to Waterloo first and after)... I could have made an excuse and dialled in but I would expect my bonus would have been very much reduced if we lost the client .... (other colleagues have chosen to live in walking distance to the office)

What I'm saying is there is no simple answer. It really depends on what your job is, how close to going broke your company is or how crucial you attend in person.

At the end of the day the company is not responsible for you getting from your home to your designated place of work.
Quite how far they will go to help is up to them based on staff attrition and the market.

To give a local historical example: Back when you had a real colliery being a miner was not a job you could just replace. If you didn't like conditions you could quit but you would be unlikely to find anything in Abercynon paid so well for someone who left school with no qualifications.

The Rhonnda has obviously had to change/adapt after the closure of the collieries. However, some areas of the UK still have factories/power stations etc. employing 'unskilled' labour and just holding their head-up against competition from China.

When I went to school as a male I was trained to work in factories.
My schools stated primary purpose was to turn out people to work in factories.

We had stupid rules like having to wear leather shoes and keep them polished. I had a 5 mile walk to the bus (living in rural back of beyond) so going through snow meant wet feet and not shiny shoes so every morning it snowed I would be caned for not having shiny shoes.

The school did this (and many other archaic things) partly because this was expected for factory workers. You turn up on time and smart regardless.