• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Scottish shop owner ‘won’t hire staff who rely on ScotRail’

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Deltic1961

Member
Joined
30 May 2018
Messages
645
If you read the thread earlier, it was explained that people shouldn't have to get an earlier train (using their own unpaid time) assuming that the train they planned to get to work gave them enough time to get to the station then walk to work with a few minutes to spare.

Scotrail should be running their services on time and people shouldn't have to build in a buffer because they plainly can't.
 

dk1

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Oct 2009
Messages
15,827
Location
East Anglia
That seems the obvious answer ! but with many that seems to be impossible, seems some are not prepared to take responsiblity for themselves these days !
You cannot expect snowflakes to come to terms with their own actions. Of course we would all like life to run smoothly & that includes the train to/from work & play. Unfortunately it often doesn't turn out like that. Set the wake-up alarm earlier.
 

Deltic1961

Member
Joined
30 May 2018
Messages
645
But again the trains SHOULD be running on time. People shouldn't have to get up earlier just because Scotrail are incompetent and everyone just accepts it, including their own management and the useless Transport Secretary. That's why this country is going to the dogs because everyone just has the "near enough is good enough" attitude.

If you are going to create a timetable then stick to it, otherways there's no point having one at all.
 

Stopper

Member
Joined
11 Nov 2017
Messages
651
But again the trains SHOULD be running on time. People shouldn't have to get up earlier just because Scotrail are incompetent and everyone just accepts it, including their own management and the useless Transport Secretary. That's why this country is going to the dogs because everyone just has the "near enough is good enough" attitude.

If you are going to create a timetable then stick to it, otherways there's no point having one at all.

Spot on.
 

dk1

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Oct 2009
Messages
15,827
Location
East Anglia
But again the trains SHOULD be running on time. People shouldn't have to get up earlier just because Scotrail are incompetent and everyone just accepts it, including their own management and the useless Transport Secretary. That's why this country is going to the dogs because everyone just has the "near enough is good enough" attitude.

If you are going to create a timetable then stick to it, otherways there's no point having one at all.
Sadly this has not happened since Stephenson's Rocket. If it's possible to stick to it then they will but mechanical failures, passenger action (oh I detest that one), weather & 1000s of other delay attribution reasons transpire against us.
 

Darandio

Established Member
Joined
24 Feb 2007
Messages
10,674
Location
Redcar
If you read the thread earlier, it was explained that people shouldn't have to get an earlier train (using their own unpaid time) assuming that the train they planned to get to work gave them enough time to get to the station then walk to work with a few minutes to spare.

Scotrail should be running their services on time and people shouldn't have to build in a buffer because they plainly can't.

Nobody needs to get an earlier train. They simply leave only a few minutes earlier for their usual train and catch the earlier train that will inevitably be running late.
 

robbeech

Established Member
Joined
11 Nov 2015
Messages
4,628
The top and bottom of it is this is two completely separate situations.

The train operating company runs an appalling service that rarely arrives at various stations on time. They need to improve their service. It’s not acceptable.


The lady frequently arrives late for work. She needs to improve this. It’s not acceptable.


The two may appear related, because she uses the train to get to work. But they are actually very separate issues when it comes to the responsibility of one or the other

1) being late for work.
2) late running trains.
 

Islineclear3_1

Established Member
Joined
24 Apr 2014
Messages
5,812
Location
PTSO or platform depending on the weather
But again the trains SHOULD be running on time. People shouldn't have to get up earlier just because Scotrail are incompetent and everyone just accepts it, including their own management and the useless Transport Secretary. That's why this country is going to the dogs because everyone just has the "near enough is good enough" attitude.

If you are going to create a timetable then stick to it, otherways there's no point having one at all.

Of course, the trains SHOULD run to time....

But the majority DON'T

So one has to make contingency plans

But then it's so easy to criticize and blame someone else... <D

If you don't like it - then take responsibility and do something about it...

Only then, if enough people do something might the TOCs be brought to book
 

SussexMan

Member
Joined
23 Oct 2010
Messages
476
Epilepsy is a disability and thus a protected characteristic. Being a commuter who is late because trains are late is not. Epilepsy isn't even mentioned in this story and therefore this case falls clearly into the second category. Not sure why you even brought it up to be honest.....

I brought it up because someone asked if discrimination on the type of commuting would be illegal. Maybe I wasn't clear enough in my response.

The business owner is reported to have has stated:

A shop owner has vowed to never employ another rail commuter because a key member of his staff has been repeatedly delayed by ScotRail disruption.

If an employer had a policy that said "people who rely on public transport to commute to work would not be employed", that would be clear indirect discrimination because many disabled people are unable to drive and be contrary to the Equality Act. Requiring staff to arrive for work at the agreed start time is of course a different matter - but that isn't what the business owner was reported to have said.
 

robbeech

Established Member
Joined
11 Nov 2015
Messages
4,628
The question would be. Did the shop owner say “I’m never employing anyone who uses the rail service to get to work again” or did they say “the last person that was always late used the railway. I’m keen not to have anyone who is always late working for me” or words to that effect and the media have maybe deliberately, maybe not altered the words slightly but altered the meaning significantly.
 

philthetube

Established Member
Joined
5 Jan 2016
Messages
3,749
Mate I completely agree that it isn't the employers responsibility but when the bus or train service is hopelessly unreliably where does that leave the service provider. I mentioned earlier I think that my local bus is every ten minutes. I am aiming for buses that get me in 45 minutes before my shift. There is one Northern train but it is completely unreliable. I have reached the stage were walking is probably the best option. I would agree that that is down to me but where does that leave public transport? That unreliable in Liverpool (4 miles from the city centre) that you are best off walking if you don't want to get sacked .
I know this is off topic but if walking is an option it is probably nearly always the best one for many reasons. Health, reliability and cost to name three.
 

mpthomson

Member
Joined
18 Feb 2016
Messages
948
Potentially indirectly? Someone who can’t hold a driving licence due to a medical condition may well be able to argue it is? Depends on alternatives like buses and cycling though being an option?

No, it isn't discriminatory in any way. Even if for medical reasons she can't drive, but no one has said that's the case.
 

mpthomson

Member
Joined
18 Feb 2016
Messages
948
I brought it up because someone asked if discrimination on the type of commuting would be illegal. Maybe I wasn't clear enough in my response.

The business owner is reported to have has stated:



If an employer had a policy that said "people who rely on public transport to commute to work would not be employed", that would be clear indirect discrimination because many disabled people are unable to drive and be contrary to the Equality Act. Requiring staff to arrive for work at the agreed start time is of course a different matter - but that isn't what the business owner was reported to have said.

No, it wouldn't in any way, shape or form. There are other ways that people who cannot drive can get to work rather than using public transport and many do so, even if they can't walk, ride bikes etc.
 

johnnychips

Established Member
Joined
19 Nov 2011
Messages
3,676
Location
Sheffield
No, it wouldn't in any way, shape or form. There are other ways that people who cannot drive can get to work rather than using public transport and many do so, even if they can't walk, ride bikes etc.
If they can’t drive, use public transport, walk or use a bike then what methods are left?
 

fowler9

Established Member
Joined
29 Oct 2013
Messages
8,367
Location
Liverpool
If bus or train reaches the point where it is that unreliable you have to allow an extra hour at either end of your working day where is that eventually going to leave the train and bus companies? I currently aim for a scheduled bus service (On a ten minute frequency) that means I get in 45 mins before my shift. There should be another three after the one I go for that get me in on time. Northern trains are far from a reliable back up. It is utterly ridiculous to suggest that someone accepting this level of reliability is a snowflake.
 

kilonewton

Member
Joined
19 Apr 2010
Messages
152
Location
Scotland no more
The other issue, which no one has raised, is childcare. For instance, I can’t drop my child at the nursery until 8am. There’s a train I can catch at 8:05, but that would rely on getting parked close to the station, which at that time is not an option, so I’m on the 8:35, and instead of being 10 minutes late for work that one day a week, I’m 40 minutes late. My boss has recently returned from maternity leave, so is very understanding, and I’m expected to make up that time over the rest of the week.
So if you have two inflexible times at both ends of your commute, you can’t be expected to just get out of bed earlier and get an earlier train. You have to rely on the train running to time.
 

robbeech

Established Member
Joined
11 Nov 2015
Messages
4,628
Again, with respect, this is a completely unrelated issue to what is being looked at here. Your commute time is unrelated to your work start time and it isn't your bosses problem that you live where you do, have to get a train when you do, have kids, etc.
I fully agree that the service should be reliable and if it isn't then action MUST be taken against the transport provider so that they cannot continue to get away with it and the service improves but it MUST NOT cause any financial detriment or any additional retail penalty (shop not opening on time, or closing early) to the employer.
 

cb a1

Member
Joined
9 Mar 2015
Messages
350
If this story were about roads ...

Scottish shop owner 'won't hire staff who rely on travelling to work".
cb a1, director of John Doe supplies, relies on senior employee Jane to open the shop at 9:30am every day, which also acts as a parcel drop-off point. However, she said her drive from Aberdour in Fife had been so unreliable due to congestion on the Queensferry Crossing that he regularly had to draft in colleagues at short notice or come in himself when she was late.

Jane, age irrelevant, a former sales representative, was equally upset at the delays, which she said had been a daily occurrence since she started the job in May.

She said: “I have gone from regularly driving into Edinburgh at the weekend where it took me 35 minutes to drive into Edinburgh and have been quite shocked with what people have to put up with every morning where it can take me at least an hour and sometimes 90 minutes if someone has broken down on the route. My boss hired me so he could depend on me but I’m having to let him down on a near daily basis."
 

158756

Established Member
Joined
12 Aug 2014
Messages
1,426
If bus or train reaches the point where it is that unreliable you have to allow an extra hour at either end of your working day where is that eventually going to leave the train and bus companies.

Probably not that much worse off. People can't afford not to work, and jobs aren't exactly easy to come by, especially ones paying enough to feed a family, combine that with the shortage and cost of housing and the lack of capacity on the roads for more cars and you have a large captive market. Plus the railway will be subsidised by government anyway. A regulator with more teeth is needed.

Potentially indirectly? Someone who can’t hold a driving licence due to a medical condition may well be able to argue it is? Depends on alternatives like buses and cycling though being an option?

If he required employees to drive to work (without it being necessary to do the job) that would be illegal as I understand it. Saying he won't employ people who commute by train, or even any form of public transport doesn't preclude employing a disabled person travelling by taxi, or walking if possible. As far as I know this hasn't been tested in court though , so someone could perhaps try to argue it.
 
Last edited:

gazzaa2

Member
Joined
2 May 2018
Messages
829
What's the story with Scotrail? Why is it such a, by all accounts, terrible service?
 

cb a1

Member
Joined
9 Mar 2015
Messages
350
Probably not that much worse off. People can't afford not to work, and jobs aren't exactly easy to come by, especially ones paying enough to feed a family, combine that with the shortage and cost of housing and the lack of capacity on the roads for more cars and you have a large captive market. Plus the railway will be subsidised by government anyway. A regulator with more teeth is needed.
What sort of teeth do you want the regulator to have? I tend to think of regulators as being most useful in a multi-provider market (e.g. telecoms, energy, insurance, finance) where there are many operators and you need to ensure that customers aren't getting fleeced by cowboys.

Most of Scotland is serviced by a single operator [Abellio] with little market compeition. I don't know what they are, but I expect they have contractual obligations which if they fail to meet can result in a number of penalties being imposed and I would guess the chance that the franchise is terminated early.

I'm genuinely interested in what a regulator can bring to the party that in a one-operator provider system that the franchise awarder (Scottish Ministers) can't do anyway?
 

158756

Established Member
Joined
12 Aug 2014
Messages
1,426
What sort of teeth do you want the regulator to have? I tend to think of regulators as being most useful in a multi-provider market (e.g. telecoms, energy, insurance, finance) where there are many operators and you need to ensure that customers aren't getting fleeced by cowboys.

Most of Scotland is serviced by a single operator [Abellio] with little market compeition. I don't know what they are, but I expect they have contractual obligations which if they fail to meet can result in a number of penalties being imposed and I would guess the chance that the franchise is terminated early.

I'm genuinely interested in what a regulator can bring to the party that in a one-operator provider system that the franchise awarder (Scottish Ministers) can't do anyway?

I honestly don't know what can be done other than fining the operators (or the department, but it'll just end up back at the Treasury) really significant amounts. The (Scottish) Government are invested in the franchise as the vehicle for their transport policy and are intent on accepting the lowest bid with knock on effects on the availability of trains and staff. Whatever contractual penalties they have/are willing to enforce are clearly inadequate for ensuring a decent standard of service.
 

cb a1

Member
Joined
9 Mar 2015
Messages
350
I honestly don't know what can be done other than fining the operators (or the department, but it'll just end up back at the Treasury) really significant amounts. The (Scottish) Government are invested in the franchise as the vehicle for their transport policy and are intent on accepting the lowest bid with knock on effects on the availability of trains and staff. Whatever contractual penalties they have/are willing to enforce are clearly inadequate for ensuring a decent standard of service.
I would argue that Delay Repay is a 'fine' and has the benefit that those of us who are affected get the compensation. I've been commuting by Scotrail for over 12 years now and in the past I had to wait until the performance over a whole month fell below some measure before I got compensation. That only ever happened once during one of the severe winters of 2009 or 2010. Whereas at least now I get it per journey.
The thing with a regulator is that if they have any teeth, they have to be vested with them by the government. That brings me back to why not just write these into the contract? Are there powers that could be given to a regulator which can't be written into contract documentation?
 

robbeech

Established Member
Joined
11 Nov 2015
Messages
4,628
If he required employees to drive to work (without it being necessary to do the job) that would be illegal as I understand it. Saying he won't employ people who commute by train, or even any form of public transport doesn't preclude employing a disabled person travelling by taxi, or walking if possible. As far as I know this hasn't been tested in court though , so someone could perhaps try to argue it.

Again, people are relating the person’s journey into work with the work start time. They’re not related. If a person starts at 0930 then that is when they are due to start. The shop keeper should not and cannot limit the modes of transport a person uses to get to work. They can choose to employ one person over another if they are likely to be the best person for the job (or even if they aren’t). The shop keeper cannot dismiss someone if they travel by train to work, but they can if they are frequently late but once again it’s not related to their transport method.
 

Failed Unit

Established Member
Joined
26 Jan 2009
Messages
8,857
Location
Central Belt
I must admit I have some sympathy for the Scotrail users, as a GTR user, during that period from May I needed to leave 1 hour earlier than I did before the timetable.

I should not have needed to - but we all know the story here.
My employer was sympathetic, but ultimately it was not thier problem.

GTR got absolutely no punishment for this, nor offered any form of compensation to non-season ticket holders.

I suspect unfortuantly for Scotrail users they should watch what happened with GTR with interest - and hope that they don't have as much suffering, I don't think things are as bad in Scotland, but certainly we had to either find alternative means of getting to work (drive, bus etc) or leave a lot earlier than we wanted to.
 

Typhoon

Established Member
Joined
2 Nov 2017
Messages
3,488
Location
Kent
Again, people are relating the person’s journey into work with the work start time. They’re not related. If a person starts at 0930 then that is when they are due to start. The shop keeper should not and cannot limit the modes of transport a person uses to get to work. They can choose to employ one person over another if they are likely to be the best person for the job (or even if they aren’t). The shop keeper cannot dismiss someone if they travel by train to work, but they can if they are frequently late but once again it’s not related to their transport method.
No argument with this except that in the original case the employer could be more realistic and sympathetic by getting someone who lives locally to open the shop (or give another person the keys as well). Relying on someone who lives so far away is a recipe for disaster - whether they use the train, bus, car, taxi or bicycle.
 

robbeech

Established Member
Joined
11 Nov 2015
Messages
4,628
No argument with this except that in the original case the employer could be more realistic and sympathetic by getting someone who lives locally to open the shop (or give another person the keys as well). Relying on someone who lives so far away is a recipe for disaster - whether they use the train, bus, car, taxi or bicycle.

Yes. I agree. But we do not find out in this instance if the situation has changed. In fairness though it does seem like there are alternative plans already in that respect as the shop keeper apparently has to get someone else to open up, so a backup plan IS in place.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top