The snow is an excuse to

[PILTDOWN MAN]

Sometimes, but my office moved from a mile up the road, to the other side of town - 8 miles away.

8 miles isn't far though. I'm thinking a bit further afield than that.

 

[JCL666]

Well done, don't want debate, but just chuck insults, very grown up.
Do you believe employees should be paid for going home early when it snows?

It really doesn't concern me how mature or immature you think I am. However as you keep asking.....

I don't have a belief or doctrine regarding whether they should be paid or not. I would suggest that they come to an arrangement that is agreeable to both sides.

A decent employer or employee will recognise that it is not a one way street with regard to the employer/employee relationship, and both should act accordingly if they want to have a productive working environment.

 

[JCL666]

Most posters on this thread appear to be employees (apart from 1 who did send his staff home but hasn't told us what they do). Even those that can send staff home appear to be managers.

I'm now self employed on my farm so working in this weather isn't up for question I carry on, have to or my animals die. Anyhow in my previous businesses I've employed many people and would expect them to work their normal hours unless they had a problem such as kids home from school. I many have had a duty of care but it doesn't mean I had to mother them. I was a manger for BA at Gatwick ending up H & S manager so do have a little knowledge about it. Lastly one thing that really bugs me is when a staff member complains that due to them living a long way away they need to leave. It's a life choice to live that far away, tough.

Doesn't that cut both ways?

When you employed the person you were aware of the distance they may have to commute, but chose them over other possible candidates that lived nearer.

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

Doesn't that cut both ways?

When you employed the person you were aware of the distance they may have to commute, but chose them over other possible candidates that lived nearer.

Er no. You employ the best person based on what they can do for you and your business. If they live a distance away during the interview you make it clear that their travelling arrangement need to be satisfactory. The onus is on the employee not the employer. BA, though I can never remember it actually being enforced, as part of the contract stated that staff should live within a certain distance of their place of work.

At times BA would expect staff who did live a long distance away to stay local (hotel) during bad weather. The cost was staff rate but the employee was expected to pay.

 

[Ninja Elephant]

BensGrandad, as his user name suggests, is from a different generation from many of us on here. He is from a generation that typically just "got on with it" regardless.
He often gets castigated for that, but I feel it is an attitude that should be respected, whether you agree with it or not.

I'm 25 and I think that is spot on.

Agreed, Britain is no longer Great, everybody seems to want everything but for it to be given to them.
Nobody seems to want to work any more, The energy they use finding ways of not working could be better used productively.
H&S whilst is obviously a good thing has been taken too far, same as employment laws, benefit system and human rights.
This is why we are falling being the emerging countries.
People go on about being proud to be British, no the're not, the're proud to be associated with what Britain once was, not what its become.

The snow has been used as an excuse to leave work early.

Usually, I don't agree with most of what you say but I completely agree with this. There are valid reasons, obviously. But a lot of people just use it as an excuse. I oppose that.

 

[clapham_gull]

Any excuse in London.

People leaving at lunchtime. Personally, I left at 6. Had a beer in Villiers Street and got home very easily by 8.

The tubes were empty.

Fair play to those having an afternoon off, but frankly......

I see it both ways. Completely disagree with employees not paying staff who can't get to work because of transport problems. Sorry employees but I see that as part of the risk of starting a business. The rewards are potentially much higher that your day to day Joe Belongs so live with it. Legal apparently, but at the same time I've got no time for people expecting to be paid who piss off home at the first sign of bad weather.

 

[JCL666]

Er no. You employ the best person based on what they can do for you and your business. If they live a distance away during the interview you make it clear that their travelling arrangement need to be satisfactory. The onus is on the employee not the employer. BA, though I can never remember it actually being enforced, as part of the contract stated that staff should live within a certain distance of their place of work.

At times BA would expect staff who did live a long distance away to stay local (hotel) during bad weather. The cost was staff rate but the employee was expected to pay.

As it goes, without exception everyone I know who has worked for BA (and some are still employed by them), think that BA is a shit employer. Based on what you have said, I would agree with their view.

concepts like "The onus is on the employee not the employer" are out dated and for good reason.

 

[BUTTERBALL]

Genuinely, this country is a joke when it comes to coping with snow. I had a 20 mile journey home from work yesterday and it was fine, in fact, nothing on the roads at peak time. The chaos becomes self-fulfilling as businesses, schools and services shut down as soon as the first few flakes have laid.

 

[Hungry Joe]

Do you believe employees should be paid for going home early when it snows?

I think you, and a lot of others, are looking at this on too simplistic and big a scale. The decisions need to be based on individual sites and employees circumstances, which will vary greatly. Businesses are not so stupid as to have adverse weather policies that allow employees to take the piss. Where I work our policy is that you are expected to make reasonable efforts to attend work in adverse weather, if you don't you are not paid and are possibly subject to disciplinary action if it is deemed appropriate (ie - everyone else from your part of town made it in easily, you were phoned by your line manager and told to attend but refused). Those who don't come in but it is deemed that is reasonable have to take unpaid leave, holiday, or make the time up, unless they can work from home. Once at work, if conditions worsen throughout the day/shift, site management (in consultation with me as a safety specialist, emergency services advice, human resources etc) will decide if there are employees who, due to their personal circumstances (pregnant, disabled, carers for young children and/or elderly relatives, travel long distances by public transport affected by the weather, live in remote country areas where roads aren't gritted) should leave early. In those circumstances it is the employers decision and so they are paid. Similarly if the employer decides conditions warrant closing the site and sending everyone home, they are paid. Most businesses will have policies like this, they are standard industry practice.

Do you think that is reasonable?

 

[pornomagboy]

I work for Sainsburys doing home delivery and we cancelled all our deliverys at 11 o'clock yesterday morning due to Heath and safety of staff and general public and customers still moaned

 

[Hungry Joe]

I work for Sainsburys doing home delivery and we cancelled all our deliverys at 11 o'clock yesterday morning due to Heath and safety of staff and general public and customers still moaned

Moaning is probably something else that also made this country 'great'.

 

[amexee]

I think you, and a lot of others, are looking at this on too simplistic and big a scale. The decisions need to be based on individual sites and employees circumstances, which will vary greatly. Businesses are not so stupid as to have adverse weather policies that allow employees to take the piss. Where I work our policy is that you are expected to make reasonable efforts to attend work in adverse weather, if you don't you are not paid and are possibly subject to disciplinary action if it is deemed appropriate (ie - everyone else from your part of town made it in easily, you were phoned by your line manager and told to attend but refused). Those who don't come in but it is deemed that is reasonable have to take unpaid leave, holiday, or make the time up, unless they can work from home. Once at work, if conditions worsen throughout the day/shift, site management (in consultation with me as a safety specialist, emergency services advice, human resources etc) will decide if there are employees who, due to their personal circumstances (pregnant, disabled, carers for young children and/or elderly relatives, travel long distances by public transport affected by the weather, live in remote country areas where roads aren't gritted) should leave early. In those circumstances it is the employers decision and so they are paid. Similarly if the employer decides conditions warrant closing the site and sending everyone home, they are paid. Most businesses will have policies like this, they are standard industry practice.

Do you think that is reasonable?

Certainly explains, why f*** all work gets done

 

[BensGrandad]

I know we don't want to go back to boys going up chimneys but am I the only person who thinks that employment laws and H & S laws are loaded too much in favour of those that want an excuse not to work and still be paid just for being kind enough to attend the work place..

 

[Ninja Elephant]

I know we don't want to go back to boys going up chimneys but am I the only person who thinks that employment laws and H & S laws are loaded too much in favour of those that want an excuse not to work and still be paid just for being kind enough to attend the work place..

No, you aren't. Personally, my attitude is get on with it. At what point do people start saying the rain is too heavy? The sun is too hot, the wind is too strong.... Any excuse to get out of working. Obviously there are circumstances where people genuinely have good reasons and that's totally different. The vast majority probably don't, and just want a day/afternoon off.

 

[Hungry Joe]

I know we don't want to go back to boys going up chimneys but am I the only person who thinks that employment laws and H & S laws are loaded too much in favour of those that want an excuse not to work and still be paid just for being kind enough to attend the work place..

You are far from the only person who thinks this way. Without being rude I put it down to general ignorance of the said laws and guidance by most, and incorrect application of the laws and guidance by many. Intersesting fact is that we actually have less health & safety legislation in this country than we did 30 years ago, and that was before the latest government white paper and reforms. If a company doesn't have a policy like the one I described then that's their problem, not the laws. The law is purpously broad in definition for that purpose, it can't be prescriptive to every case, that's down to individual judgement. Blame people's judgement by all means, but don't blame the laws and guidance unless you've studied them sufficiently to be able to put forward a well informed critique.

 

[BensGrandad]

Not being ' in the know' it is the impression that I get rightly or wrongly as they say sometimes ignorance is bliss.

 

[Garage_Doors]

I think you, and a lot of others, are looking at this on too simplistic and big a scale. The decisions need to be based on individual sites and employees circumstances, which will vary greatly. Businesses are not so stupid as to have adverse weather policies that allow employees to take the piss. Where I work our policy is that you are expected to make reasonable efforts to attend work in adverse weather, if you don't you are not paid and are possibly subject to disciplinary action if it is deemed appropriate (ie - everyone else from your part of town made it in easily, you were phoned by your line manager and told to attend but refused). Those who don't come in but it is deemed that is reasonable have to take unpaid leave, holiday, or make the time up, unless they can work from home. Once at work, if conditions worsen throughout the day/shift, site management (in consultation with me as a safety specialist, emergency services advice, human resources etc) will decide if there are employees who, due to their personal circumstances (pregnant, disabled, carers for young children and/or elderly relatives, travel long distances by public transport affected by the weather, live in remote country areas where roads aren't gritted) should leave early. In those circumstances it is the employers decision and so they are paid. Similarly if the employer decides conditions warrant closing the site and sending everyone home, they are paid. Most businesses will have policies like this, they are standard industry practice.

Do you think that is reasonable?

Of course you are right it is more than reasonable, you can't take that one simple question alone, you will see from above it was part of another longer posting, but i was having trouble in getting a particular poster to communicate on the larger scale rather that than just chucking insults, in an attempt to help him I broke it down into single questions.

 

[Hungry Joe]

Not being ' in the know' it is the impression that I get rightly or wrongly as they say sometimes ignorance is bliss.

The media, particularly papers like the Daily Mail and Telegraph, have a big part to play in perpetuating the 'elf and safety gone mad' myth. They sieze upon ludicrous decisions by people who don't understand the law, or hide behind health and safety for their own reasons, and report them as the norm. The thousands of very sensible and proportionate decisions made every day which mean that we are now safer and healthier at work than ever are ignored because they don't make good press or fit their agenda. H&S is an easy target. Yes, reforms are and were needed to make things simpler and easier for business, but not at the expense of safety itself. The British Safety Council and HSE are largely supportive of reform, but not change that winds the clock back to pre-war conditions for a few cheap votes. Good H&S is good for workers, businesses and the wider economy. The case that uneccessary red tape is strangling the economy and small business in particular is overstated. That's not to say we should become complacent and ignore good opportunities to modernise and make things more user-friendly.

I'll get off my soapbox now, but it is something I'm passionate about. To listen to some you'd think we in H&S are the devil incarnate, not people trying to keep you in one piece and in good health. Check this article out or the HSE myth busters page on HSE: Information about health and safety at work for some balance....

Its health and safety gone... very sensible - Home News - UK - The Independent

 

[Hungry Joe]

Another timely piece....

Judith Hackitt's 'Risk Assessment' - You've got to admire Mary Pickles

 

[Poyetry In Motion]

I know we don't want to go back to boys going up chimneys but am I the only person who thinks that employment laws and H & S laws are loaded too much in favour of those that want an excuse not to work and still be paid just for being kind enough to attend the work place..

You are so spot on