Diggers' Forum survey on travel and away working

[kevin wooldridge]

I am presuming that Chiz is suggesting the misunderstanding is that if you are on PAYE you CANT claim back expenses against tax.

That of course is wrong. Legitimate expenses can be claimed by both employed (PAYE) persons and the self-employed. When I was last employed (PAYE) in the UK I claimed tax back on books, travel, laundry, working clothes and tools.....oh and IFA subscriptions.

[chiz]

Didn't make myself clear, but no I didn't mean that! I'm fully aware that you can claim back expenses against your tax bill when on PAYE as I've done it for the past three years as I had to do a self assessment anyway, and very useful it is too. What I was referring to was that there is a danger that some might end up mixing up the rules for self employed and the rules for PAYE and think that you could claim for all travel as if you were self employed. Clarity is everything (and I didn't acheive it!)

[the invisible man]

This is all basically what I what trying to say, sorry if I didn't make myself clear and confused the issue! In short, your journey to your usual place of work is your own private trip, up to you and you are not paid for it. If transport is provided in any way shape or form it is taxable (but this is not the issue here). Journeys from there to any otyer pace of work, eg a site, are "work" and you should (I know Iknow!) be paid for it: you may sleep or fart but you may not smoke.

The nub is, what is your place of work. If you are employed on a short term contract for a particular project, your place of work is likely to be that site and it's up to you to get there in your own time. If you work permanently for Bloggs Archaeology in Ambridge, in principle you get to the Ambridge office in your own time and they transport you at their expense in work time to site, if you are on site that day. The point of the survey, I gather, is what happens on away jobs. I would argue that the van/minibus is a workplace and your working day starts from when you report to get in it, until you get back out again at your luxury accommodation. It doesn't drive itself, does it? Your time is not your own, and you are governed by your employer's terms and conditions. I strongly suspect that this is not usually the case, and that is what the survey is about.

As someone said however, individual contracts can pretty much say what they like, subject to employment and contract law. They do of course have to be "reasonable". Ha ha ha.

The only way round it all for is everyone not to accept "unreasonable" contracts. This will never happen, certainly not in the present climate.

[gwyl]

...they transport you at their expense in work time to site, if you are on site that day. The point of the survey, I gather, is what happens on away jobs. I would argue that the van/minibus is a workplace and your working day starts from when you report to get in it, until you get back out again at your luxury accommodation. It doesn't drive itself, does it? Your time is not your own, and you are governed by your employer's terms and conditions. I strongly suspect that this is not usually the case, and that is what the survey is about.

as an observation, which comes out in the survey, what is also unclear is what an 'away-job' is. some sites i've worked on because they're near motorways have been seen as day-return jobs, whereas nearer but apparently less accessible sites have been away jobs. the result was people driving long days and not being paid for it, despite their having other people's lives in their hands
which companies which have an 'hour's travelling time in hand' policy? or should the question be which don't?

[kevin wooldridge]

Its interesting that this thread is raising many issues - hopefully the on-going discussion will encourage more people to return the questionairre.

[Jack]

I may be misunderstanding the drift of this discussion...but I personally think that someone being paid to be sleep in the back of a mini-bus while someone else drives them to site to be (in most cases) totally unacceptable!

Unless of course its part of the contract due to excessive travel (I was shocked to hear of the 5 hours traveling time a day!)

Now, under the circumstances of a being driven around during normal work hours of course people should be paid for that time.

But in the usual run of the mill, being driven for half an hour to site then back at the end of the day. Why should an employer pay an employee for this time?

I agree people actually doing some work and driving should be paid for that time, and get mileage if they use their own vehicle......

But being paid to sleep? Really?:face-stir:

[Oxbeast]

I don't think there should be a difference between driving and not driving. I don;t think that people should get some kind of enhanced pay for driving, just rotate driving between all competent people. Before someone points out that not everyone is able/capable of driving, thats just the way things are and an expectation of driving should form part of the contract of employment. Travel time from office to site should be included in the working day. Perhaps this survey will reveal how common 5 hours unpaid travel time in a day is.

[gwyl]

I don't think there should be a difference between driving and not driving. I don;t think that people should get some kind of enhanced pay for driving, just rotate driving between all competent people. Before someone points out that not everyone is able/capable of driving, thats just the way things are and an expectation of driving should form part of the contract of employment.

you can't force people to drive. i think your expectations are unreasonable, and indeed if - in a hypothetical situation - i didn't want to drive i could drive sufficiently badly on a couple of occasions to ensure i never have to drive anyone else again

if people are driving colleagues they are working

if people are being driven they are not working, though the travelling is to a place of work

whether then you have pay and enhanced pay for the travelling time/driving time is another issue - and frankly in the current climate unrealistic

i think that before we are drowned in a sea of 'should' we ought to ascertain what the facts ARE, rather than how one might wish things to be

[the invisible man]

We are looking at the facts. A company vehicle is a workplace, that is a fact. Even if you are not driving, you are still working if you are travelling between places of work (eg an office and another venue). If you choose to accept this as unpaid, effectively increasing your working hours, that is up to you. Because (as it seems) everyone does, that is why it happens. I presume however that it is legal to have variable "usual" places of work and you would therefore have to get to each site under your own steam.

You can "force" someone to drive if that is part of their contract, a condition of their employment. To deliberately drive badly would be an offence, as well as irresponsible: just state that you do not wish to drive as part of your duties at your interview.

[GnomeKing]

Interesting discussion....

lets take the key example raised : employees go to office (load van)>> van driven by 1 employee goes to site >>>7.5 hours work then done at site >>> return journey to office (unload etc)

Lets take a fictional large unit, perhaps with a university sounding name.

They pay drivers for their time driving + some recognition of loading/unloading, usually with supervisors....supervisors and above are also paid for travel time, as they are still 'responsible', and also for 'office duties' at start/end of day.
This generally seems to be Fair Practice, although perhaps often not all supervisors/PO time gets accounted for, and perhaps often no time is really scheduled for the (legal) vehicle checks.....maybe some room for improvement in that regard then

HOWEVER
It is clear that the diggers are at work the moment they arrive at the office, day after day after day : - they often in company logo kit, they may be handling company equipment, they are on company premises or vehicle, they have to obey a company hierarchy >>> they have to abide by company RULES, and all normal workplace SANCTIONS can be taken against them....

If that does not constitute a place of work, then WHAT DOES? , and more importantly, if not a place of work, WHAT IS IT? - it certainly can not be defined as the employees 'own' time.


RE: being paid to sleep and fart in vans....you F***ing kidding me!!!! right....?
the work as a digger is HARD...you SHOULD know that...the money is poor (REMEMBER?)...and yet you persist with your scrouge-ing blether?

How much does does a Consultants fart cost? Does Executive bottom-talk smell better? - -

Fictional unit with university sounding name might even go as far to throw 'lavish' receptions for Execs, Sponsors, Friends, Trustees etc (where farting, and sleeping after too much CHEAP wine is all at company expense) --- and yet do nothing for the poor saps locked up in the back of vans hour after hour, day after day, fart after fart....

blether bletehr recession blahblah bleteherblah working hard together blether(snore)

PAY me - perhaps i will fart less, oui? >>> better yet, COMPENSATE me for my enforced hours in TOXIC gassesxx(

BLetherBlah...."but other jobs/professionals don't get paid for that time " blah
..>er, they DO, ...if they don't, they also are caught out in the Huge-Construction-Industry-Scam to abidcate responsibility with swarms of cash-starved sub-contractors....

"but the economy will fail, my company will close, your job will go, Western Society will Collapse, we'll have to eat our babies, and TURTLES MIGHT DIE!!!"xx(

NO - we are not going to further compromise our living standards so as 'you' can maintain your Profits....workers at the bottom of the ladder will not put up with 'Austerity' while those at the top suck ever harder on their Blood, Body and Soul.

If they can sell-out their human employees so easily, what do you think will happen to the Archaeology as $$Fenrix?? bites ever deeper?

If a simple thing such as Responible & Proper proviosn of Time In-Lieu can not be sorted by a strong body of working professionals, then really what kind of a pretence has been made to sort out anything at all?


[ DON'T BELIEVE The Austerity Scam ! - Resist The Auction of our Country - March For The Alternative 26/3/2011 ]


There is opportunity here for progressive practice,.... for example by a unit that Actually Cares.
If not, then 'our' vans will continue to reek of Farts, Discontent, and barely consicous Malice.
On this Journey, your
Vision, however 'human',
a Wan*er will make of thee.