Earning less than taxi fare

SeduLOUs

Polarbeary wrote: »

This reminds me of when I broke my foot. I could have in theory, got a taxi to and from work as I couldn't use the tube. But it would have cost at least £50 a day. Half my salary gone on taxi fares! Instead I was signed off by my orthopaedic consultant.

And here lies the problem with the system.

There's quite a drastic difference between being 'not fit for work' and being 'not fit to drive to work'.

It would have been extremely unfortunate for you to have to work for effectively half pay due to the difficulties associated with a broken foot, but instead you got to sit at home and your employer had to pay out wages for someone who was perfectly capable of working, but didn't fancy 'losing out' by having to pay for a taxi.

It wasn't your employer's fault you had the accident, so why should they have to pay for your convenience?

Undervalued

SeduLOUs wrote: »

And here lies the problem with the system.

There's quite a drastic difference between being 'not fit for work' and being 'not fit to drive to work'.

It would have been extremely unfortunate for you to have to work for effectively half pay due to the difficulties associated with a broken foot, but instead you got to sit at home and your employer had to pay out wages for someone who was perfectly capable of working, but didn't fancy 'losing out' by having to pay for a taxi.

It wasn't your employer's fault you had the accident, so why should they have to pay for your convenience?

I agree.

However, under the current "fit note" system a doctor has three options.

Fit for work

Fit for work if the employer is willing to make the adjustments the doctor suggests

Unfit for work

It is an interesting point as to whether being fit to work, but not fit to travel by public transport, falls in the second category or not. I don't know if that has ever been tested in a higher court. Effectively the doctor is saying PB is fit for work providing they send a car for him.

Either way the employer is entitled to decline and treat the employee as off sick.

zagfles

ScarletMarble wrote: »

I dont! Some of my friends aren't tech savvy like me


I'm working myself on BD but starting at a more sensible 9am. Plus my work is two thirds of a mile from my parents and be walking it unless it's pouring with rain.

I never understood the need for some retailers to open stupid early on BD. If they all reverted back to normal hours, customers are not going to be that bothered.

You're not answering the question about the contract. That's the important thing. If that says she works eg 8-5 on Saturdays, or perhaps any 8 hours between 8am and 8pm or something like that, and she is being asked to work early, she can tell them to shove it unless they pay for a taxi. Or just tell them to shove it anyway.

Polarbeary

SeduLOUs wrote: »

And here lies the problem with the system.

There's quite a drastic difference between being 'not fit for work' and being 'not fit to drive to work'.

It would have been extremely unfortunate for you to have to work for effectively half pay due to the difficulties associated with a broken foot, but instead you got to sit at home and your employer had to pay out wages for someone who was perfectly capable of working, but didn't fancy 'losing out' by having to pay for a taxi.

It wasn't your employer's fault you had the accident, so why should they have to pay for your convenience?

I was also using crutches and strong painkillers and there was no lift in the office. I couldn't physically get up and down three flights of stairs in a twisty old building. My contract stated that I was entitled t sick pay so...I could also barely make it down my stairs and front steps and couldn't shower. So in theory I could have got to work but in pain and also unable to mobilise.

I love some of the comments on here! Bet you are a laugh at Christmas parties. How funny to get so wound up about a now healed fractured foot of someone you don't even know. Far worse things to get wound up about.