Can people not afford to commute to work?

[pemma]

That's very poor management, but your story is very similar to what happened to me that led to me never, ever working outside my 'proper' hours'.

In some jobs that can be very difficult.

I've been in employment where taking my full lunch entitlement is impossible to do unless I actually leave the premises for the full duration of my lunch entitlement.

 

[matt_world2004]

Most pensioners in England only have concessionary travel on buses, and then only after 09.30, and most of those I see using those passes I am certain do not have cars, many, particularly women, never having driven, or have had to give up driving for medical reasons or who can no longer afford to run a car. I have been in the latter situation myself, but through a bequest was able to buy a bottom-of-the-range Renault new four years ago, adequate for my needs but it will have to keep going for several more years. This canard about 'wealthy pensioners' swanning round on public transport free from one champagne bar to another, partly spread by that arch-hypocrite Nick Clegg, is one that needs scotching once and for all. The only place this could be remotely true is London, and personally I think the concession of free travel before 09.30 on weekdays on the underground and overground should be withdrawn, maybe also on the buses.

I actually disagree with removal of concessionary travel before 9:30, the reason being is that freedom passes also apply to disabled people, who through no fault of their own have no choice but to use the public transportation network. Also just because someone is over 65 doesn't mean they are not working. Infact many poorer over 65 year olds have no choice but to work. I was working an inner-London bus route last week and there were several very wealthy FP users using the route.

*NB before people ask how I know they were wealthy, The location the bus served, had very little "affordable housing", They were visiting an location that is either visited by tourists, or the wealthy and they spoke to us like we were "the help"

 

[AM9]

Most pensioners in England only have concessionary travel on buses, and then only after 09.30, and most of those I see using those passes I am certain do not have cars, many, particularly women, never having driven, or have had to give up driving for medical reasons or who can no longer afford to run a car. I have been in the latter situation myself, but through a bequest was able to buy a bottom-of-the-range Renault new four years ago, adequate for my needs but it will have to keep going for several more years. This canard about 'wealthy pensioners' swanning round on public transport free from one champagne bar to another, partly spread by that arch-hypocrite Nick Clegg, is one that needs scotching once and for all. The only place this could be remotely true is London, and personally I think the concession of free travel before 09.30 on weekdays on the underground and overground should be withdrawn, maybe also on the buses.

Many pensioners around here, (Herts) use their bus passes because it is a convenient way to go about the day's business balancing exercise against time-saving travel. I have a car which I tend to keep for journeys that involve carrying more than I can carry on foot, or for longer journeys which are difficult using public transport. Many others I know do the same. If there is some political move to remove the pass from all but the most needy, the consequences may not be as the advocates would presume.
Fistly, there are a lot of pensioners who do have cars but are reluctant to use them as they lack confidence in modern traffic. If they lose their free bus transport, don't assume that they will just carry on using buses and pay the full fare. They will (reluctantly) take to their cars so everybody should be prepared to spend extra time behind them as their progress will be a lot slower than other road users.
Next, those that don't get out as much as they do now will face declining health which will further stretch already pressed NHS capability.
There will also be a severe reduction in the number of buses on the road. The current deal of half the average fare given for ENCTS passenger carriage may not be much but it underpins the basic provision of regular services. Take that away and the services will be decimated to the detriment of paying passengers. Not only that but bus travel out of the main cities that survives will descend into the undesireable state it had before passes were issued, i.e. only commuters and the poor use them.
Is that what people (other than the Taxpayers Alliance) want?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I actually disagree with removal of concessionary travel before 9:30, the reason being is that freedom passes also apply to disabled people, who through no fault of their own have no choice but to use the public transportation network.

Many people have no choice but to use public transport; should they all get it for free? Disabled people can of course pay the fare to travel before 9:30am.

There is an argument that says it should be free as moral compensation for the inconvenience of being disabled through no fault of your own. There's another one that says benefits, not discounts, should handle that, and a further one that many disabled people can live a normal life and may well easily be able to afford to pay for their travel - perhaps an argument for means-testing.

Should a disabled IT consultant or company director (to give two well-paid professions) get free travel? Is that good use of public money?

I'm really not sure.

Neil
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There will also be a severe reduction in the number of buses on the road. The current deal of half the average fare given for ENCTS passenger carriage may not be much but it underpins the basic provision of regular services.

Quite the opposite. Indeed, it caused *cuts* as bus operators found it unviable to provide the larger vehicle required for the service. It has also caused increases in adult fares as bus companies tried to work round the reimbursement system.

Personally, I like the idea (though I think it should be a local area pass covering both bus and rail on a zonal basis, not just County-based but based on a reasonable local travel area). However it needs to be properly funded.

If it cannot be properly funded, it would be better to either give a discounted fare or a Travel Tokens type system in which the available subsidy is split between those for whom the system is intended to offset against the full fare.

Neil

 

[Deerfold]

There will also be a severe reduction in the number of buses on the road. The current deal of half the average fare given for ENCTS passenger carriage may not be much but it underpins the basic provision of regular services.

That's not the deal everywhere - the payment varies by local authority. I've heard of figures as low as 20% in some local authority areas - such that on some services the buses are uneconomic even if full of ENTCS pass holders.

 

[Greenback]

In some jobs that can be very difficult.

I've been in employment where taking my full lunch entitlement is impossible to do unless I actually leave the premises for the full duration of my lunch entitlement.

I've been in the same position. My solution was to tell everyone I am not to be disturbed during my break. I wouldn't answer the phone, and if I was disturbed by management I would add the time on to the end of my break t compensate.

But you are right, sometimes it's not possible to do this at all, and sometimes it's very difficult to do it. On the railway, for example, I had to leave the ticket office completely to get any peace!

 

[Bletchleyite]

That's not the deal everywhere - the payment varies by local authority. I've heard of figures as low as 20% in some local authority areas - such that on some services the buses are uneconomic even if full of ENTCS pass holders.

Exactly.

My preference would be that the scheme (or a better one including rail in some form) is retained and properly funded. However in a situation where the electorate won't vote for tax increases on the basic rate, that's non-viable.

Given that, the only right thing to do is to reduce the scheme so it is financially viable, IMO, which would either mean it becoming a discount rather than free travel or a travel tokens/smartcard fixed-sum benefit scheme (the area is a bit of a red herring on buses because most people aren't travelling the length of the country on it, obviously with rail one would be needed). As it is the low reimbursements have caused cuts and fare increases (=stealth taxation on those least able to afford it) to make it just about viable.

Neil

 

[Tetchytyke]

In what way does the basket reflect a certain level of luxury spending? It is based on average expenditure patterns - it does not reflect the spending of a high or low earner but the average earner - there are also separate indices for pensioners.

The basket includes a wide range of goods, including essentials (e.g. fuel, water), semi-essentials (e.g. insurance) and discretionary goods (e.g. eating out, electronic goods). The inflation rate was, until very recently, only as low as it was as the decreasing cost of electronic goods, etc, offset the increasing cost of fuel and food.

If you have no discretionary income- you're poor or heavily indebted- then you'll only be buying the essential items which typically had a higher rate of inflation.

If you have lots of discretionary income then you're more likely to be buying the luxury electronics or jewellery which typically has a lower rate of inflation. And even with the cuts to the cost of petrol, this will typically benefit those with higher-powered cars which use more petrol, which again tends to be the more wealthy.

 

[The Snap]

I've been in the same position. My solution was to tell everyone I am not to be disturbed during my break. I wouldn't answer the phone, and if I was disturbed by management I would add the time on to the end of my break t compensate.

But you are right, sometimes it's not possible to do this at all, and sometimes it's very difficult to do it. On the railway, for example, I had to leave the ticket office completely to get any peace!

Lunch breaks are never something I've ever had the 'luxury' off. My job is quite flexible in the sense of it’s a ’come and go’ type environment and isn't structured with a designated time for lunch breaks, start or finish times etc. Indeed, I tend to eat my lunch at my desk whilst carrying on working or having a 5 minute browse online. In fact, actually stopping work for 30 mins is a waste of my time, it takes all of 5 mins to polish off my lunch so why spend another 25 mins wasting time you could otherwise spend working and ultimately go home 25 mins earlier!

Regarding working longer hours than what you’re paid for, that is something I’ve done in the past as it was seen as ‘expected‘. Fortunately, in more recent times, the railway has been blessed with 'fatigue management' regulations which on infrastructure projects have dropped from 14 to 12 hours door to door. That gives you a nice excuse to get up and go home when you hit your hours…!

 

[Greenback]

Lunch breaks are never something I've ever had the 'luxury' off. My job is quite flexible in the sense of it’s a ’come and go’ type environment and isn't structured with a designated time for lunch breaks, start or finish times etc. Indeed, I tend to eat my lunch at my desk whilst carrying on working or having a 5 minute browse online. In fact, actually stopping work for 30 mins is a waste of my time, it takes all of 5 mins to polish off my lunch so why spend another 25 mins wasting time you could otherwise spend working and ultimately go home 25 mins earlier!

Regarding working longer hours than what you’re paid for, that is something I’ve done in the past as it was seen as ‘expected‘. Fortunately, in more recent times, the railway has been blessed with 'fatigue management' regulations which on infrastructure projects have dropped from 14 to 12 hours door to door. That gives you a nice excuse to get up and go home when you hit your hours…!

All jobs are different, Rich. I've also worked in places where I've foregone breaks, taking a few quick breaks while working instead of a longer break, and then gone home earlier at the end of a shift. It worked for me in certain roles, especially if it helped to catch an earlier bus or train!

These days, most employers don't support it though, from what I've seen, as it's recognised that a proper break can have beneficial effects on performance, not to mention the health of an employee, particularly one who is working with display screen equipment. In my last job, I was also informed that European Working Time Directives came into play, and that I had to take a 30 minute break a maximum of 5 hours after starting work.

I never bothered checking how much of this was right, as I was more than happy to do so, it was more the timing of my break, in that I wanted to work 5.5 hours first, that was an issue.

 

[Emyr]

In fact, actually stopping work for 30 mins is a waste of my time, it takes all of 5 mins to polish off my lunch so why spend another 25 mins wasting time you could otherwise spend working and ultimately go home 25 mins earlier!

I'm fine with working 9-12, 9-1 without stopping but if I don't have a proper break I hit about 3pm and my productivity drops whether I like it or not. Not having a lunch break means the last few hours of the day are junk.

Maybe your job isn't as mentally taxing.

 

[Greenback]

I found it easier to get by without a proper break when I was working shifts. I was usually so tired anyway it didn't seem to make much difference!

On 9-5 or similar, I'd look forward to my break as splitting the day up.

 

[The Snap]

All jobs are different, Rich. I've also worked in places where I've foregone breaks, taking a few quick breaks while working instead of a longer break, and then gone home earlier at the end of a shift. It worked for me in certain roles, especially if it helped to catch an earlier bus or train!

These days, most employers don't support it though, from what I've seen, as it's recognised that a proper break can have beneficial effects on performance, not to mention the health of an employee, particularly one who is working with display screen equipment. In my last job, I was also informed that European Working Time Directives came into play, and that I had to take a 30 minute break a maximum of 5 hours after starting work.

I never bothered checking how much of this was right, as I was more than happy to do so, it was more the timing of my break, in that I wanted to work 5.5 hours first, that was an issue.

I agree, every job is different and different employers have different views on these type of things.
As I say, I work in rail infrastructure projects and it has always been (or at least in my experience) quite flexible in terms of working hours etc. Obviously the companies abide by the European Working Time Directives and other regulations, I'm just saying the actual reality can be slightly more fluid, particularly when based in site offices (even large site offices with 50+ people in), compared to a more corporate office space away from site.

I'm fine with working 9-12, 9-1 without stopping but if I don't have a proper break I hit about 3pm and my productivity drops whether I like it or not. Not having a lunch break means the last few hours of the day are junk.

Maybe your job isn't as mentally taxing.

Everyone is different. Any one individual may find a job more taxing than other, even though they do the same job. One may need a break, the other may not.
As it happens I am generally quite relaxed at work. That doesn't mean to say it is any less mentally taxing than any other job. It’s down to the individual and how they’re wired up I suppose.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Lunch breaks are never something I've ever had the 'luxury' off. My job is quite flexible in the sense of it’s a ’come and go’ type environment and isn't structured with a designated time for lunch breaks, start or finish times etc. Indeed, I tend to eat my lunch at my desk whilst carrying on working or having a 5 minute browse online. In fact, actually stopping work for 30 mins is a waste of my time, it takes all of 5 mins to polish off my lunch so why spend another 25 mins wasting time you could otherwise spend working and ultimately go home 25 mins earlier!

I think that's a personal thing. I don't work effectively in the afternoon (and thus don't really enjoy it at all) if I don't get a proper break, which means going outside for a walk or similar. I'd rather have a full hour and work an hour later.

Neil

 

[The Snap]

I think that's a personal thing. I don't work effectively in the afternoon (and thus don't really enjoy it at all) if I don't get a proper break, which means going outside for a walk or similar. I'd rather have a full hour and work an hour later.

Neil

Indeed, I agree it is a personal thing. I'd sooner work through and go home a little earlier.

As I say, we're all different!

Either way, so long as the job gets done it doesn't really matter.

Slightly off topic but quite relevant to the whole 'employee motivation' theme (appologies), but one of the things we looked at at University was the way some huge corporations manage their staff to get the most out of them. One of the example we looked at was Google, who operated a totally flexible system where staff could come and go as they pleased. They'd have to work ‘x’ number of hours per week, but could do it whenever and however the wanted, 24 hours a day, so long as the job was done. They also allowed 20% of their staff's working time per week to be spent doing something totally unrelated to their work. They could spend that time developing apps, coding or whatever took their fancy. Incidentally, Gmail was created during that time…!!

http://www.entrepreneurial-insights.com/google-way-motivating-employees/

 

[Bletchleyite]

Either way, so long as the job gets done it doesn't really matter.

And that in one sentence sums up "good management", at least when it comes to jobs that are not time critical.

Neil

 

[The Snap]

And that in one sentence sums up "good management", at least when it comes to jobs that are not time critical.

Neil

Quite, which is the approach Google have taken.

If programme and deadlines aren't critical, I think that's the best way to keep staff happy and motivated. Rigid regimes for the sake of them don't motivate anyone in my opinion.

 

[Greenback]

I think it's increasingly recognised, at least by the better employers, that staff happiness is essential as poor morale brings in a whole set of performance, recruitment and retention, attendance, discipline and motivation problems that are best avoided if possible.

It's usually the case that flexibility in some aspect of starting and finishing times is a more cost effective way of helping staff to be happy and motivated than refusing sensible requests. Either there's no cost implication at all, or less usually any cost implications are more than offset by better performance, improved attendance and increased motiivation

 

[CC 72100]

When I was interning in Paris, I often arrive at work 15 minutes early before my scheduled start, and on average would leave 30 minutes late.

In addition to this, I would sometimes forgo my (unpaid) lunch break so that I left 45 minutes and not an hour 45 minutes late at the end of the day. The latest I once left was 7pm, after having started work 15 minutes early, having worked through my hour lunch break, and having worked 90 minutes past my scheduled end time.

All this for 436 euros a month. Yes, I did gain a lot of valuable experience from it, but the high staff turnover even during my time at the company and since demonstrates that the staff - both permanent and interns - felt undervalued and overworked.

Apparently when I left the staff morale survey highlighted all this. The Operations Manager's response, when told that they don't find the working environment very pleasant or welcoming, was that staff could bring in posters to put above their desk if they wanted. Missing the point just a tad there....

 

[AM9]

That's not the deal everywhere - the payment varies by local authority. I've heard of figures as low as 20% in some local authority areas - such that on some services the buses are uneconomic even if full of ENTCS pass holders.

OK, I accept that sometimes ENCTS may not hold up all services. The point I was really trying to make is that those who see the bus pass as 'something that they aren't getting, therefore OAP's shouldn't either' should be careful what they wish for. Road traffic in the daytime would certainly change as many drivers who really shouldn't be driving, will drive and taking up more roadspace than younger drivers may think is reasonable.
The universal granting of national bus passes is probably less expensive than many realise:
1) as Neil Williams says, the cost of travel on passes outside the holder's locality is relatively small
2) the dividing up of validity would exacerbate the problems of those living near to the local boundary where their necessary journeys have no correlation with such boundaries, (this could be particularly acute near large cities with their enhanced PTE coverage)
3) as usage probably falls with increasing income, the saving of any means test may not even approach the savings of removing the better-off from the scheme
4) time restrictions on validity seem to work where applied. Those lucky enough to have no limitations (PTEs, TfL and some counties like Herts) probably have very little effect on peak services, they are a small proportion of the total and the services would be there anyway, especially in the PTEs.
5) those in the margins that do need to use their passes to get to work may just give up and retire, thereby removing their income tax contributions, (or even become net claimants)

I think that the scheme is a relatively low-cost benefit that also has benefit to some non-users and should be continued. As far as I can see, the most effective way to reduce the costs would be for it to be taxable as a benefit in kind. The issuers would need to inform the tax authorities when passes are issued for an applicant that provided their NI number. I don't know how tax would be applied, below the personal allowance £10.5K would be to low, maybe the hiogher rate (40%) tax threshold would be too high.

 

[Greenback]

When I was interning in Paris, I often arrive at work 15 minutes early before my scheduled start, and on average would leave 30 minutes late.

In addition to this, I would sometimes forgo my (unpaid) lunch break so that I left 45 minutes and not an hour 45 minutes late at the end of the day. The latest I once left was 7pm, after having started work 15 minutes early, having worked through my hour lunch break, and having worked 90 minutes past my scheduled end time.

All this for 436 euros a month. Yes, I did gain a lot of valuable experience from it, but the high staff turnover even during my time at the company and since demonstrates that the staff - both permanent and interns - felt undervalued and overworked.

Apparently when I left the staff morale survey highlighted all this. The Operations Manager's response, when told that they don't find the working environment very pleasant or welcoming, was that staff could bring in posters to put above their desk if they wanted. Missing the point just a tad there....

I think all we can do is hope that such outdated attitudes will disappear in time, even if they haven't quite done so already!

 

[button_boxer]

3) as usage probably falls with increasing income, the saving of any means test may not even approach the savings of removing the better-off from the scheme

I'm not sure you'd see much (if any) saving from making the passes means-tested given that you'd have to pay the admin overhead of doing the means testing, and you risk bad publicity if you try and take a pass off someone who used to qualify but whose circumstances improve. And quite apart from that, there's a stigma attached to means testing that means some vulnerable people who would be entitled to a means-tested benefit choose not to apply for it in the first place because they don't want to admit (to themselves or others) that they are "poor".

 

[Tetchytyke]

The universal granting of national bus passes is probably less expensive than many realise:
1) as Neil Williams says, the cost of travel on passes outside the holder's locality is relatively small

That depends on which locality you look at.

As we all know, the ENCTS reimburses bus companies only for the travel that (hypothetically) would have taken place had the OAPs had to pay for it. That reimbursement rate is also falling rapidly as councils run out of money.

This has had a noticeable impact on touristy towns in rural counties, such as Scarborough or Whitby. Companies like Yorkshire Coastliner only get reimbursed for the people who would have travelled, yet they need to buy and operate bigger buses to cater for the hoardes of people having a cheap day out at the seaside. NYCC have no money to give them more money, and they are responsible for much of the reimbursement (not WYPTE or the City of York where many of the OAPs come from) so Transdev must find the money from their other income stream: fare-paying passengers.

Bear in mind that Yorkshire Coastliner seriously attempted to re-register their buses to the seaside as express coaches to try and prevent ENCTS from using them, and also bear in mind that Stagecoach have once again been complaining in the press about how the cost of the ENCTS is falling more on them than ever before and how it simply isn't sustainable. Alsdo bear in mind that the recent financial failures of Pennine buses in Skipton and Western Greyhound have been pinned on ENCTS reimbursement rates and the fact that tendered services are being scrapped to fund them. I suspect we are rapidly reaching the time when one bus company will unilaterally decide to refuse to accept ENCTS passes and fight the consequences in court.

The problem with ENCTS is that many of the costs are hidden or transferred. The OAPs get to travel for free and, to pay for it, a single from Hemel Hempstead to my house (a distance of 1.3 miles) is £2 and the last bus is at 7pm.

 

[AM9]

That depends on which locality you look at.

As we all know, the ENCTS reimburses bus companies only for the travel that (hypothetically) would have taken place had the OAPs had to pay for it. That reimbursement rate is also falling rapidly as councils run out of money.

This has had a noticeable impact on touristy towns in rural counties, such as Scarborough or Whitby. Companies like Yorkshire Coastliner only get reimbursed for the people who would have travelled, yet they need to buy and operate bigger buses to cater for the hoardes of people having a cheap day out at the seaside. NYCC have no money to give them more money, and they are responsible for much of the reimbursement (not WYPTE or the City of York where many of the OAPs come from) so Transdev must find the money from their other income stream: fare-paying passengers.

Bear in mind that Yorkshire Coastliner seriously attempted to re-register their buses to the seaside as express coaches to try and prevent ENCTS from using them, and also bear in mind that Stagecoach have once again been complaining in the press about how the cost of the ENCTS is falling more on them than ever before and how it simply isn't sustainable. Alsdo bear in mind that the recent financial failures of Pennine buses in Skipton and Western Greyhound have been pinned on ENCTS reimbursement rates and the fact that tendered services are being scrapped to fund them. I suspect we are rapidly reaching the time when one bus company will unilaterally decide to refuse to accept ENCTS passes and fight the consequences in court.

The problem with ENCTS is that many of the costs are hidden or transferred. The OAPs get to travel for free and, to pay for it, a single from Hemel Hempstead to my house (a distance of 1.3 miles) is £2 and the last bus is at 7pm.

The problem for any party wanting to scrap the scheme is that Seniors' vote, despite many of them being barely fit enough to get out of the house. If voters want it to be scrapped because they personally don't get a cut, they should get out and vote for a party who doesn't support it. That's how democracy works.
They should however as I said above, be careful what they wish for. They will be old one day, and it is highly likely that they have family members of whom theymay care, that may need such a benefit much sooner than they envisage themselves.
If the scheme is to continue, then clearly the governments in the future will need to address the impact of higher fares that the bus companies impose to sustain their profits. In many areas, a high volume of former passengers returning to their cars will have a more costly impact than the likely subsidy needed to keep the scheme running as originally envisaged. In reality that means that it would need to come from central taxation rather than unequally burden local authorities' continually shrinking funds. We are already seeing local authorities bearing the cost of old age care where it really is a national problem.
Transport funding is really a national problem that if not solved will adversely affect employment in an area. Large PTEs usually have large budgets giving them an economy of scale. The costs of seniors' travel tends to be a smaller part of the total pot than for a rural area like the 'Costa Geriatricas' of Norfolk, Suffolk, parts of Sussex et al. It's not that those areas have produced a higher number of old people, more that those seniors that are there have been exported from areas like London*, Manchester, etc. where the beaucolic coastal environment attracts them.

* Recent housing policies responding to national benefit caps and bedroom tax have literally driven many from London Boroughs to locations remote from their roots. How long before the attention is turned onto the elderly as a further source of vacated property?