Employee Off Site Parking Rights

Johno100

Pete111 wrote: »

I'll make you a wager - Either the staff stop parking there or the council will announce a move to residents parking within the year.

So the options are:-

a) Continue to park legally on those streets for a further 12 months before having the inconvenience of having to find somewhere else to park;

b) Voluntarily don't park there with immediate affect and have the immediate inconvenience;

c) Don't make a fuss, refrain from parking there for a couple of months until everybody, including HR, forget about the dictat they handed down and then go back to doing what you used to do.

I'd go with c) myself.

Pete111

Johno100 wrote: »

So the options are:-

a) Continue to park legally on those streets for a further 12 months before having the inconvenience of having to find somewhere else to park;

b) Voluntarily don't park there with immediate affect and have the immediate inconvenience;

c) Don't make a fuss, refrain from parking there for a couple of months until everybody, including HR, forget about the dictat they handed down and then go back to doing what you used to do.

I'd go with c) myself.

Well it's possible but you are forgetting the residents. I doubt they will ignore the fact they can't park near their houses once again after a couple of months have passed....

(Plus if some - you know the type - are upset enough to get a counciller to visit the company to complain they have probably already set up a rolling rosta of unofficial snoopers to monitor it!)

Oh and don't forget. Option a) rightly or wrongly gets you in the companys bad books.

Johno100

Pete111 wrote: »

Oh and don't forget. Option a) rightly or wrongly gets you in the companys bad books.

It must be the old rebel in me, but I like nothing better than an argument with HR over something like this. I remember we were all asked what our racial origin (or whatever the HR buzz word they used) was in a questionnaire. I responded that it was the same as when I joined the organisation 17 years earlier, they were most miffed.

Then we received the result of that or a similar questionnaire and they were trumpeting that they had more women than men in a certain grade for the first time. I responded with an email to HR asking what action they intended to take to remedy the imbalance, stoney silence.

Pete111

Johno100 wrote: »

It must be the old rebel in me, but I like nothing better than an argument with HR over something like this. I remember we were all asked what our racial origin (or whatever the HR buzz word they used) was in a questionnaire. I responded that it was the same as when I joined the organisation 17 years earlier, they were most miffed.

Then we received the result of that or a similar questionnaire and they were trumpeting that they had more women than men in a certain grade for the first time. I responded with an email to HR asking what action they intended to take to remedy the imbalance, stoney silence.

Like the cut of your Jib.

yvonne13_2

I'm not sure but could the company use the "company name into disrepute" into play?

RichardD1970

Uncertain wrote: »

I couldn't agree more.

Ignorance and arrogance mixed together in equal quantities make something really special!

Ignorant, arrogant, conceited, belligerent, with a childish streak (putting people on ignore who don't agree with him, the internet equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and humming loudly :rotfl:) (have you read any of his other posts on different threads :eek:)

Seems to have a slight God complex. As he has his own business (which is highly successful and creates lots of wealth, don't you know), he is probably only used to people agreeing with him.


To the OP, at the end of the day you have to decide whose advice to consider (if any) - the majority, including a couple of legal professionals or Gilbert2.

I know who I trust more.

Gilbert2

Pete111 wrote: »

Thank goodness...I was getting rather tired trying to hold back the tide of bat sh*t crazy on my own.

... Over to you guys!

Hmmm, yes, well, full marks for trying I guess.;)

Need the cavalry do you?;)

We can all see you didn't even read the thread properly before you decided to give your advice that was just anal.

Let's put you on ignore.;)

Gilbert2

Uncertain wrote: »

I couldn't agree more.

Ignorance and arrogance mixed together in equal quantities make something really special!

Quite.

Except I notice you had no answer to the many problems I pointed out earlier that your advice (:o) would have caused the employer in defending their ridiculous decree.;)

Probably yet another HR bod or, possibly, member pete111 under an alias, as you both, curiously, seem to share the same level of idiocy.;)

Gilbert2

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

It's not often I am speechless.......

Well, why not try it a bit more? That way you will spare us your need to type any further posts.;)

Gilbert2

yvonne13 wrote: »

I'm not sure but could the company use the "company name into disrepute" into play?

No, because parking a car on a road that has no restrictions, ie legally, could not possibly be bringing the company into disrepute.

For that line to be successful then the company would need to prove how they have suffered the alleged disrepute.

What must be recognised is a very important point, that is, neither the company or the residents of this road own it or have any claim to it, it is a public highway.

Until the road is a resident's only parking area, if ever, then the resident's focus should be with their council, not the employer, to lobby a change.

The company's only, legal option, is to appeal to their employees not to park in a particular area.

Even if, as member Uncertain states in his quite bizarre advice, a clause is included in an employment contract regarding this issue, then it needn't mean it is also enforceable.

For example, equally ridiculous would be an employer inserting a clause that all employees are not allowed to use a car, that the employees own, that is over 3 years of age on a public highway because it is bad for their image and it brings their name into disrepute.

The company would be laughed out of court, in both scenarios, especially if represented by some of the keyboard lawyers from this thread.