Diggers' Forum survey on travel and away working

[gwyl]

my flippant point about the farting and snoozing in the back belies the key issue that there is someone with some real responsibility not being rewarded, and driving - actually working at any time between 06h00 and 08h00 - rather than being at a place of work; where they are recompensed for it i am delighted for them; where i am less than impressed is where they are working and getting nothing for it.

i know it happens, and my particular concern is not with those who are in the back - rather the driver; as to my equally flippant bad driving comment, it can be turned 180? and one drives with excessive caution so that an hour drive takes an hour and a quarter (or more) and there i think people will be equally keen for that individual not to drive again, but as a driver they get the cash.

result for them. less so for those who can and do drive effectively, and will consequently end up driving all the time. & indeed, stating in an interview in/prior to which you will no doubt have played up the possession of a driving licence that however you decline to drive is an interesting tactic, which i think few will actually adopt. for the life of me i can't think why.

i am by no stretch of the imagination against more pay for all site staff. however, i think i'd rather that the person driving me to work was feeling that they were getting something for doing it on top of what they are already pulling in. some might think that a bit radical, but i would rather that they are feeling moderately less unhappy with their situation/scenario than the rest of the team; after all they're only in control of a vehicle at speed. unless they're one of those trying to drag it out to get out of driving in the future.

but we are still getting knickers in a twist about should where the crucial is to establish what actually happens across the board; then using unions, the Digger's Charter, Digger's Forum coherently propose a programme of action.

shouting bletherconsultantsbletherclasswarblether blahblah doesn't really do the cause a whole lot of good.

it just makes the rest of us seem like a bunch of ranters by association

[GnomeKing]

yes - drivers should be properly rewarded and compensated

...but there should also be progress on the issue of many hours being driven on company business with no recognition...(there can only be one driver after all - sometimes there is competition to be the driver, not avoid it)).
apologises for ranting (one of those days where there seems too much left unrantted)...this issue has been raised before (apparently with little impact).

presenting a case for compensation for employees time when driven day after day from an office to a site and back, could be an element of more general improvement in conditions at the 'bottom' of the profession.
I would like employees being empowered enough to demand it.
This is the point i wish to get across, rather than to discredit a good argument with ranting.

With a lying government and world scale financial scam, there is still so much to rant about...but maybe not here.

[troll]

Something that was included in this survey deserves mention at this point. Training for drivers.

If an employer provides transport to site either from the office or the provided accommo on away jobs, they are responsible for ensuring that supplied drivers (from within company assets or contracted from without) are competent. All too often, a drivers` licence is enough to allow inexperienced drivers to transport teams of people long distances in large mini-buses. As far back as the late nineties, I had to take a mini-bus licence before I was let loose with unwitting passengers. This despite the fact that I was way over the minimum age of 25. Nowadays, unpaid and inexperienced drivers acting on behalf of extremely persuasive employers are putting peoples lives at risk. In company time. The issue of unpaid drivers is a simple one in my view. If individuals choose to do extra unpaid work- that at the moment- is entirely up to them. As a passenger, I want any potential employer to recognise that they are responsible for my well-being whilst travelling in a vehicle provided by and staffed/driven by their representative. As such, any drivers should be competent and more importantly trained/licenced to operate the vehicles they assume responsibility for. Taking this to its logical conclusion-trained and licenced drivers should be paid for those skills and competency levels-notwithstanding the huge responsibility they assume when carrying souls and expensive company equipment.

Oxbeast-I have to take issue with your view. There is no such thing as compulsory overtime. Field archaeologists are contracted to carry out duties pertaining to that job description. Driving incurs extra hours and responsibilities above and beyond those outlined in contracts of employment. Inexperienced, unqualified and unpaid drivers may be a dream for profit-driven businesses but a potential nightmare for passengers who have little say in the matter. The dream will soon erupt into a catastrophic nightmare for an employer taken to court for failure to provide competent/trained and licenced drivers when God forbid-the unthinkable but somewhat inevitable happens.

Herein lies yet another facet of this......some of the vehicles I have had the unfortunate pleasure of travelling in over the years shouldn`t have been allowed on the roads. Whilst some of the better organisations out there provide good quality vehicles with drivers fit and appropriate for the task in hand, all too many expect passengers to put their lives into the hands of semi-sober spotty youths driving sh*t-heaps under pressure. Not good enough by far.
Oh and as a footnote.." you may sleep and you may fart but you may not smoke".....huzzah! It`s in writing! I can indulge in unfettered flatulence in the van! That will please my colleagues no end. Think the company should now provide sick-bags in advance of my traditional chandellier shakers that have been known to melt windscreens.

[kevin wooldridge]

I think Troll's post points to many of the reasons that whilst people are happy to use the driving licence angle if it helps in obtaining work, many are actually reluctant to drive if it means being a chauffeur.

But the Diggers Forum can help here. If through the survey it is possible to formulate a 'Statement of Good Practice' regarding the whole question of driving licences, driving to work, whether it counts as work time and for whom etc etc, that statement could then be put forward for adoption by RAOs as part of the IfA standards. I realise that would only cover those organisations recognised by the IfA, but it would at least establsh a benchmark (and who knows, many RAOs may already have standards on this matter that just need to be formalised into an industry wide standard). As Troll intimates this is really a H&S issue at heart and therefore I can't see many employers or the IfA objecting to the principle.......

[BAJR]

This is the document I have used a few times
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cach...ndg382.pdf
when I had reports of excessive driving and/or unsafe vehicles, lack of training etc.

PLUS this... which is serious...
It is not so much if companies want to have standards... it is the MUST have -

Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has issued a stark warning to companies to make sure they comply with Health and Safety law and take into account the new Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007, which comes into force from 6 April 2008.
Driving is the most dangerous activity that most employees undertake as part of their working day. According to The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (ROSPA) around 20 people are killed and 220 seriously injured every week in crashes involving someone who was driving, riding or otherwise using the road for work.
For businesses that use vehicles at work, the new law means the employer is responsible for ensuring safety on the road. Previously a company could only be convicted of manslaughter if a single individual at the very top of the company was personally guilty. The new law allows prosecution for gross failures in the management of health and safety within a company as a whole; when it results in a death.
The new law means that employers must make sure any vehicles used for work; whether company cars, grey fleet or employees’ own vehicles comply with the following:
1. They are roadworthy
2. Have a current MOT certificate for vehicles over three years old.
3. The driver is licensed to drive
4. The vehicle is insured for business use
5. The car is regularly serviced
6. The employee is carrying out basic maintenance checks
7. The employee is a member of a roadside recovery organisation

[kevin wooldridge]

Um....no 7. The employee or the employer? I can see a new codicil to BAJR job ads.....'Must have driving licence. Must belong to AA/RAC (compulsory), IfA (optional)'....

[Oxbeast]

Oxbeast-I have to take issue with your view. There is no such thing as compulsory overtime.

You're welcome to disagree with my view troll, and thanks for doing it in public rather than sending me email. I agree that overtime should not be compulsory. As I say above:

Travel time from office to site should be included in the working day.

I think everyone should get travel time from office to site included in thier working hours, not just the driver. I just don't understand the attitude that you can't expect people to drive as part of their job. Can you imagine a surveyor or a plumber saying, yeah, I'll go to work in your van but its a liberty for you to expect me to drive it.

I only bothered to comment on this thread beecause I can't fill in the survey; I don't work on site anymore. Frankly I wish I hadn't bothered. I only hope some of the people who are expected to spend 4 hours a day commuting to site on public transport fill it in.

[kevin wooldridge]

I only bothered to comment on this thread beecause I can't fill in the survey; I don't work on site anymore. Frankly I wish I hadn't bothered. I only hope some of the people who are expected to spend 4 hours a day commuting to site on public transport fill it in.

You can fill in the survey Oxbeast and you should. Just explain your situation in the notes and comment on the sections where you feel your experience will be of value. I don't think anyone can fill in every box in the survey (not unless they have spent the whole of the past 10 years living in a tent and never going home - and even then they cant complete the boxes about travel from home!!)

[sadie]

Yes, do fill it in Oxbeast, and you may be joking but the public transport issue can be a thorny one for those of us who work within Greater London and often spend hours and a small fortune getting across 5 (time)zones to glamorous places like Enfield...

[GnomeKing]

Enfield...you have my sympathy....
A two hour commute from one side of Blackwall to the other was not unusual when i worked in London....does the London salary weighting compensate for this....

whether Oxbeast fills in survey or not, the point stands - "I think everyone should get travel time from office to site included in thier working hours, not just the driver"