Salary Linked Parking Charges

theoretica

Would you prefer a system that had a high fixed price for everyone and only the highest paid used the carpark?

Is there enough parking for everyone or do people need to be discouraged from using it?

FBaby

I think it is quite fair on the basis that most people who choose to drive knowing it will cost them quite a bit do so because they don't have a choice. Why should people on a lower grade pay a significant higher percentage of their income to do something they have to do to keep their job?

polarbear79

What I would prefer is that public sector workers did not have to essentially work for 2 days a year for free just to come to work (because certainly for me that is what it equates to). It might be slightly more tolerable if we were contributing to the income of the Trust and therefore supporting the healthcare of our local community but all we are doing is filling the coffers of a private parking firm. It is nauseating.

MacMickster

I take it that everyone gets an effective subsidy on the price charged to the general public.

If so, then it is merely a case of the lowest paid getting the greatest subsidy.

Undervalued

polarbear79 wrote: »

What I would prefer is that public sector workers did not have to essentially work for 2 days a year for free just to come to work (because certainly for me that is what it equates to). It might be slightly more tolerable if we were contributing to the income of the Trust and therefore supporting the healthcare of our local community but all we are doing is filling the coffers of a private parking firm. It is nauseating.

I'm sure many people in all walks of life feel the same so I don't see why the public sector is any different.

Many people would be delighted if their commuting / parking costs were "only" two days pay per year. Plenty of people are paying that or more per month.

Quentin

polarbear79 wrote: »

.....all we are doing is filling the coffers of a private parking firm. It is nauseating.

If it's cost effective why not park elsewhere?


If not, then you look to have a good deal (just 2 days pay for a whole year's on site parking!)

Malthusian

polarbear79 wrote: »

What I would prefer is that public sector workers did not have to essentially work for 2 days a year for free just to come to work (because certainly for me that is what it equates to).

There's no "have to" about it. If you don't like it, cycle. If that's not practical then you're not working 2 days for free, you're working 2 days to pay for your choice to live miles away from your workplace.

sangie595

polarbear79 wrote: »

What I would prefer is that public sector workers did not have to essentially work for 2 days a year for free just to come to work (because certainly for me that is what it equates to). It might be slightly more tolerable if we were contributing to the income of the Trust and therefore supporting the healthcare of our local community but all we are doing is filling the coffers of a private parking firm. It is nauseating.

The vast majority of public sector workers do not get, or expect to get, parking at their place of work, or any form of subsidy. Don't make this about the public sector, because most people don't get this benefit at all. And I doubt that the company is anything but a contractor running the car park for the employer, so the benefit will be in reduced costs under the contract or some such thing. If this were genuinely a private sector enterprise you wouldn't be getting parking so cheap! What you pay in a year is what I pay in a month, and I consider my parking to be a deal!

Since you find the policies so nauseating though, I suggest you park elsewhere or travel to work by a different method.

bap98189

polarbear79 wrote: »

What I would prefer is that public sector workers did not have to essentially work for 2 days a year for free just to come to work (because certainly for me that is what it equates to).

Nobody is forcing you to park your car in the hospital car park. You could presumably use public transport, walk, cycle, or park somewhere else.

Consider the other point of view of staff who do not drive to work. Why should the hospital provide a service, which is effectively subsidising those staff who choose not to use public transport?

polarbear79 wrote: »

It might be slightly more tolerable if we were contributing to the income of the Trust and therefore supporting the healthcare of our local community but all we are doing is filling the coffers of a private parking firm. It is nauseating.

Your trust will be getting income from this. The parking company may be the ones taking your money, but they will be paying the trust a fee to run the scheme.

t0rt0ise

Just two days pay to travel to work. When I worked in the NHS it cost me a months pay to travel to work by tube. You've got a good deal.