Should workplaces change working hours to avoid rail capacity issues

matacaster · 23 Apr 2019

Whilst doubtless some extra capacity and quite a few line reopenings would be desirable, they are expensive. Surely a very simple solution for SOME companies would be to change their working hours to avoid morning and evening peaks why would they do this? Tax breaks to alter working patterns and penalties for using cars in peak hours

Discuss

RailUK Forums

ComUtoR · 23 Apr 2019

matacaster said:
Surely a very simple solution for SOME from RMS

RMS ?

matacaster · 23 Apr 2019

ComUtoR said:
RMS ?

Oops, sorry, fixed that - typed on a train!

edwin_m · 23 Apr 2019

Most companies now allow considerable flexibility in start and finish times for office workers, and a lot of them now work from home at least part of the time. So the travel peak is much longer than it was a few decades ago when most such workers were expected to be in the office from nine to five Monday to Friday. This has allowed both the roads and the railways to carry many more commuters.

What might help further is to offer more alteratives to the season ticket. This allows unlimited travel for the whole week for around the price of three peak-time returns. So there is no cost saving for people who commute outside peak hours or work from home one day a week. It is thought that smartcard ticketing will solve this, although I'm not sure if any TOC has actually implemented such a measure. There is also the concern that TOCs might lose money from innovating ticketing products.

Bletchleyite · 23 Apr 2019

edwin_m said:
What might help further is to offer more alteratives to the season ticket. This allows unlimited travel for the whole week for around the price of three peak-time returns. So there is no cost saving for people who commute outside peak hours or work from home one day a week. It is thought that smartcard ticketing will solve this, although I'm not sure if any TOC has actually implemented such a measure. There is also the concern that TOCs might lose money from innovating ticketing products.

I agree. If there is no financial incentive not to work the traditional day (which also suits most peoples' lives) why would they just for the convenience of the TOC?

AM9 · 23 Apr 2019

edwin_m said:
Most companies now allow considerable flexibility in start and finish times for office workers, and a lot of them now work from home at least part of the time. So the travel peak is much longer than it was a few decades ago when most such workers were expected to be in the office from nine to five Monday to Friday. This has allowed both the roads and the railways to carry many more commuters. ...

It is also allowing TOCs to extend their definition of 'peak hours' for services which is then used to reduce the availability of off-peak tickets.

tony_mac · 23 Apr 2019

I am amused that this issue has been around for at least 70 years without a solution...
https://www.ltmuseumshop.co.uk/post...;pto_finish:Matt__970;pto_frame:No Frame__969
(1947 London Underground poster calling for staggered working hours).

transmanche · 23 Apr 2019

matacaster said:
Whilst doubtless some extra capacity and quite a few line reopenings would be desirable, they are expensive. Surely a very simple solution for SOME companies would be to change their working hours to avoid morning and evening peaks why would they do this? Tax breaks to alter working patterns and penalties for using cars in peak hours

It's a problem that's as old as commuting itself.

Take this example from the 1940s:

['Staggered Working Hours Reduce Crowding', with an image of a sardine tin. London Transport.]

yorksrob · 23 Apr 2019

Personally I think that unless a job is time critical, employers should offer flexi-time. They'll find that some people prefer earlier whilst others prefer later.

The problem is that the employers would lose all that free overtime they've gotten used to and would have to employ sufficient staff to cover the hours.

071 · 23 Apr 2019

One employer I worked for had staggered hours - at the request of the local council, I was told - to minimise traffic congestion on surrounding roads. Everyone except head office staff got staggered start/finish times. I think there was a 3 minute gap between each group starting or leaving. The result was that you'd have a start time like 08:51 and a corresponding finish time of 17:21. Meanwhile, some of your colleagues might be on 08:54, 08:57, 09:00, 09:03, etc. starts.

bramling · 23 Apr 2019

yorksrob said:
Personally I think that unless a job is time critical, employers should offer flexi-time. They'll find that some people prefer earlier whilst others prefer later.

One obvious problem, there would likely be disproportionate demand for earlier starts (and therefore finishes).

yorksrob · 23 Apr 2019

bramling said:
One obvious problem, there would likely be disproportionate demand for earlier starts (and therefore finishes).

Funnilly enough, that's not my experience of my workplace. Whilst there are plenty of early birds, there are also people (like me) who commute or who don't want to get out of bed too early, and others who come in later to fit around the school run.

Of course, in a non-time critical job, it shouldn't make any difference if every one works early, so long as they work their hours.

PeterC · 23 Apr 2019

yorksrob said:
Personally I think that unless a job is time critical, employers should offer flexi-time. They'll find that some people prefer earlier whilst others prefer later.

The problem is that the employers would lose all that free overtime they've gotten used to and would have to employ sufficient staff to cover the hours.

A place where I worked introduced flexi time. Staff had been clocking up a fair bit of unpaid overtime previously. The management eventually dropped the scheme as they claimed that it was being "abused" as people started claiming days off in lieu of the extra time worked.

yorksrob · 23 Apr 2019

PeterC said:
A place where I worked introduced flexi time. Staff had been clocking up a fair bit of unpaid overtime previously. The management eventually dropped the scheme as they claimed that it was being "abused" as people started claiming days off in lieu of the extra time worked.

That doesn't surprise me !

thejuggler · 23 Apr 2019

PeterC said:
A place where I worked introduced flexi time. Staff had been clocking up a fair bit of unpaid overtime previously. The management eventually dropped the scheme as they claimed that it was being "abused" as people started claiming days off in lieu of the extra time worked.

Did they not know that's how flexi time is supposed to work?!

The fact still is even if you introduce flexi times many workers are constrained by other none flexible times, especially school starting and finishing.

PeterC · 24 Apr 2019

thejuggler said:
Did they not know that's how flexi time is supposed to work?!

The fact still is even if you introduce flexi times many workers are constrained by other none flexible times, especially school starting and finishing.

That's what we all thought too. I assume that they imagined that people would compensate by working short hours on quiet days. Trouble was that there weren't any quiet days.

DarloRich · 24 Apr 2019

matacaster said:
Whilst doubtless some extra capacity and quite a few line reopenings would be desirable, they are expensive. Surely a very simple solution for SOME companies would be to change their working hours to avoid morning and evening peaks why would they do this? Tax breaks to alter working patterns and penalties for using cars in peak hours

Discuss

flexible working is already a thing and should be further encouraged.

Groningen · 24 Apr 2019

It is than not just about trains. It is also about busses running before or/and after the morning and/or evening peak hours. Or bikesheds at stations; open longer!? It is complex. Here some schools are opening later for lessons to avoid rush hour of the working people.

underbank · 24 Apr 2019

We introduced flexi time where I worked (office) in the 80's. The abuse was unreal. Rather than a staggered working day, it ended up with people working longer days just to build up time for a day off, i.e. working through lunch, coming in an hour early every day or going home an hour later every day. Those claiming to work lunch still sat there eating their lunch, gossipping, reading, etc. Others were doing long days even though the hadn't a full day of work to do.

Management tried to clamp down by insisting on fixed hours to be worked each day, i.e. if you start early, you finish early, but it was a nightmare to manage and supervise.

In the end, it went back to strict 9-5 with an hour for lunch. Shame as it could have been really good, but as usual, the few took the piss and ruined it for everyone.

yorksrob · 24 Apr 2019

underbank said:
We introduced flexi time where I worked (office) in the 80's. The abuse was unreal. Rather than a staggered working day, it ended up with people working longer days just to build up time for a day off, i.e. working through lunch, coming in an hour early every day or going home an hour later every day. Those claiming to work lunch still sat there eating their lunch, gossipping, reading, etc. Others were doing long days even though the hadn't a full day of work to do.

Management tried to clamp down by insisting on fixed hours to be worked each day, i.e. if you start early, you finish early, but it was a nightmare to manage and supervise.

In the end, it went back to strict 9-5 with an hour for lunch. Shame as it could have been really good, but as usual, the few took the piss and ruined it for everyone.

We have some at mine who work "compressed hours", which means they are scheduled to work a longer day, resulting in more days off. This isn't necessarily an "abuse" so long as people keep on top of their workload. We have to take half an hours lunch break, which possibly cuts down on gossiping in hours.

Bletchleyite · 24 Apr 2019

underbank said:
We introduced flexi time where I worked (office) in the 80's. The abuse was unreal. Rather than a staggered working day, it ended up with people working longer days just to build up time for a day off, i.e. working through lunch, coming in an hour early every day or going home an hour later every day. Those claiming to work lunch still sat there eating their lunch, gossipping, reading, etc. Others were doing long days even though the hadn't a full day of work to do.

I actually (perhaps bizarrely to those who are clock watching) prefer the setup we have (as is common in professional jobs) - I don't get paid overtime, and am contracted to a core 8 hour day, but if there's hardly any work to do there's no need for "presenteeism", and if there's lots to do I might have to work a bit late. But equally starting and finishing early on a Friday to go away for the weekend is no great issue either. I prefer a longer lunch break to go for a walk and eat even if that means finishing a bit later, others prefer to wolf down a sandwich and finish a bit earlier. Give and take, which comes from a good relationship between management and staff.

IOW, nobody takes the mick, which is how it should be, and because of that there is no need to track it right down to the 30 seconds for a wee.

yorksrob · 24 Apr 2019

The nice thing about flexi-time, is that I can take an afternoon's leave, go in at 7:00, and be out for 10:30.

Tetchytyke · 24 Apr 2019

yorksrob said:
We have some at mine who work "compressed hours", which means they are scheduled to work a longer day, resulting in more days off.

My place clamped down on flexi because people were coming in at 8 and leaving at 6, demanding extra days off on flexi, usually to extend a weekend. In a public-facing job it caused huge problems as they were at work when the doors were shut and off when the doors were open. That is abusing the system IMO.

Compressed hours are different as they'll generally only be offered where there's a business need. If the doors are open 8-6 it works, and the day off can be managed.

yorksrob · 24 Apr 2019

Arctic Troll said:
My place clamped down on flexi because people were coming in at 8 and leaving at 6, demanding extra days off on flexi, usually to extend a weekend. In a public-facing job it caused huge problems as they were at work when the doors were shut and off when the doors were open. That is abusing the system IMO.

You said it with the phrase "customer facing". For a lot of work that's not customer facing, there's less need to keep to office hours. In this circumstance, building up a flexi-day isn't abuse.

Even with customer facing work there may be a possibility to stagger some hours so long as sufficient cover is maintained.

Arctic Troll said:
Compressed hours are different as they'll generally only be offered where there's a business need. If the doors are open 8-6 it works, and the day off can be managed.

Ah, so you believe in flexi-hours where they suit the employer, but not the employee !

Tetchytyke · 24 Apr 2019

yorksrob said:
You said it with the phrase "customer facing". For a lot of work that's not customer facing, there's less need to keep to office hours. In this circumstance, building up a flexi-day isn't abuse.

Always depends on the work, I guess, but in most offices I've worked in the disruption caused by absence is more than the benefit of the overtime. Really does depend on the work, though.

With compressed hours, like with reduced hours, you don't get the disruption as you know when people will be in.

yorksrob · 24 Apr 2019

Arctic Troll said:
Always depends on the work, I guess, but in most offices I've worked in the disruption caused by absence is more than the benefit of the overtime. Really does depend on the work, though.

With compressed hours, like with reduced hours, you don't get the disruption as you know when people will be in.

I find that leave tends to cause disruption anyway, but we all need it.

Meerkat · 24 Apr 2019

When we had it is was a real pain in small teams - because of the need to cover leave etc it was actually difficult for people to fit all their leave plus flexi-days in!
And people were sitting around doing nothing building up flexi hours, but didn’t want to work late when it was important

johntea · 24 Apr 2019

Where I work in our department a couple of colleagues that live locally tend to get in around 7-8 am then leave at 3-4 pm, I get in 10-10:30am and leave at 6-6:30 pm, although I work in NHS IT so the office is essentially available 24x7x365 anyway!

I can actually do most of my job from home too, although I've only done it a couple of times as a normal full working day and absolutely hated it as you're in the comfort of your own home but working and getting stressed, it just feels odd not having any 'atmosphere' around you in my opinion! It can however be extremely useful having such access when I am on call as it means 90% of problems I can resolve without having to go into work!

Should workplaces change working hours to avoid rail capacity issues

On Moderation

RailUK Forums

Established Member

On Moderation

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member