Employee Off Site Parking Rights

Gilbert2

dizzyrascal wrote: »

and I don't think that everything can be considered a profession either.
But that's just me.

You got that right jizzy!

Certainly not some HR bod who, let's face it, is just the 16 yr old school leaver who counts the paper clips!:D

Gilbert2

Uncertain wrote: »

A famous judge once said that, as far as he was concerned, there were only two professions.

One was the law and everybody knows what the other one is as it is by far the oldest.

I imagine you are well acquainted!

With whom? Your wife?

Yes, I find Mrs Uncertain very aquaintable.;)

yvonne13_2

Can both Gilbert2 and migglewan please not turn the OP's post into a name calling match? Just stick to the subject or refrain from posting if your going to start getting personal as both post #143 and #144 are unnecessary and they don't add any value to the OP's question.

Also I don't understand why migglewan is claiming Gilbert2 is a troll......As a newbie I find that statement factless as you've only just joined.

getmore4less

The next course of action is for all emplyees to club together and pick another street not on the excluded list and all park there, eventualy they wont be able to park anywhere.


The employer should be encouraging(incentives), public transport, car sharing, cycling, improved parking density(double park), shifts that allow space swapping etc. rather than imposing a no local roads policy.

They need to fix the real problem not the symptoms.

Gilbert2

yvonne13 wrote: »

Also I don't understand why migglewan is claiming Gilbert2 is a troll......As a newbie I find that statement factless as you've only just joined.

For member migglewan to even make that statement is rather revealing.


Member migglewan is just an alias, either members RichardD 1970, Uncertain or that other fool Pete111.

I'd wager it is probably member Pete111 because I had to block him to spare me the nonsense he posts.

Although it could just as well be the other pair.

Who cares? They certainly do!;)

Gilbert2

migglewan wrote: »

Stuff, stuff and more stuff

Fine, I am unemployed and obviously earn nothing.
I'm as happy to accept that or the complete opposite, whatever pleases you.;)

But you are still pete111;)

*member on ignore*

Pete111

Gilbert2 wrote: »

Fine, I am unemployed and obviously earn nothing.
I'm as happy to accept that or the complete opposite, whatever pleases you.;)

But you are still pete111;)

*member on ignore*

I assure you he/she is not. I have a 7 week old baby. The only thing I am doing at 2.30 in the morning is desperately trying to get some sleep before she wakes us for her 4am feed!

Whereas you and I may disagree intensely on this issue I will not resort to using the word 'anus' in order to insult you as part of our discussions.

I also have no reason to doubt your earnings. In fact I'm pleased your company is doing well in these difficiult times. I have found on thsi forum however, that those who run small businesses do appear to think that just because they are successful in one area, often feel they know than actual employment lawyers when it comes to questions of employee relations...(this can end badly!)

If you are ignoring me I guess you won't get this post - but I just wanted to state to the forum that I have never used a 'sock puppet' on MSE and an certainly not going to resort to employing one in relation to an argument that I am very confident I am on the correct side on..

P
PS I wish I were 16 again...I'd even take 32!

Pete111

Oh, and as a (hopefully!) parting shot to this thread. Who joins a forum and within short order adopts a principle of putting everyone who disagrees with their views on ignore?

Strikes me as the actions of someone who simply cannot countenance being either a) proved wrong or b) disagreed with.

I've never put anyone on ignore despite a number of 'robust ' clashes with other posters - but then again I suspect I may be rather more open minded than some.

Ah well - nought as queer as folk.

(and good luck OP!)

saintjammyswine

Gilbert2 wrote: »

A good solution in other circumstances.

However, why would one wish the expense of renting a parking space from someone when the road directly outside is free?

In effect it has already been paid for via various taxes as a motorist is able to use the public highways for driving, and parking, without restriction anyway. (Save for those roads that do have restrictions, the one in this thread do not).

Bearing in mind the roads are paid for through Council Tax, not Road Fund Licence (not tax) we all pay for the roads, regardless of whether we are motorists or not.


Just adding my pennyworth, the thread wasn't long enough already!

Gilbert2

saintjammyswine wrote: »

Bearing in mind the roads are paid for through Council Tax, not Road Fund Licence (not tax) we all pay for the roads, regardless of whether we are motorists or not.


Just adding my pennyworth, the thread wasn't long enough already!

Indeed, and your input is most welcome.

My council tax also pays toward the police.

However, I may put a clause in my employee's contracts banning them from contacting the police for any reason during work hours just in case the police may then want to call at my work premises and the public may think something untoward and it'll damage my business image!