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

[Typhoon]

I am not quite sure what was described in #1 is a real backup plan -

he regularly had to draft in colleagues at short notice or come in himself when she was late

Presumably the performance of Scotrail is not a secret in Scotland so the owner knew full well what the situation was when he appointed her to her current position. I am not suggesting that she is unsuitable for the post but that she is not the person to rely on to open the shop.

 

[philthetube]

WhEn I started on the underground 25 years ago I was told that I had to live within 10 mins of work, I don't believe anyone gave their true address as there are not that many potential train guards thet could afford to live within ten mins walk of Golders Green or East Finchley, The reaquirement was approx 12 a week as new training courses were constantly happening to provide replacements for staff promoted to Driver.

 

[Typhoon]

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.

I have every sympathy but this is a much more general question. As a country we now expect both parents to work but have not fully made allowances for this. (Yes, yes there is the free childcare but this assumes that it is available at the right times and in the right place.) This would need to be in a different thread as it covers so many areas.

I guess it would be impolite to suggest that if you could rely on your 08:05 Scotrail train being, say, 10 minutes late, you would be better off!

 

[GB]

Presumably the performance of Scotrail is not a secret in Scotland so the owner knew full well what the situation was when he appointed her to her current position. I am not suggesting that she is unsuitable for the post but that she is not the person to rely on to open the shop.

Perhaps his other employees do not utilise the train as much (or at all) so the issue of constantly being late because of late trains has not come up.

 

[robbeech]

Perhaps his other employees do not utilise the train as much (or at all) so the issue of constantly being late because of late trains has not come up.

Or perhaps it wasn’t as bad when she started? Or she got an earlier train to start with to make sure she wasn’t late then decided to risk the later one

 

[fowler9]

This is all nonsense. I already allow a 45 minute margin for my transport on a 10 minute frequency bus service with Arriva and am broadening it to 65 this week (That is at least 6 buses I can't rely on turning up on a regular enough basis for me to use as transport). I can't rely on Northern. They cancelled a load of Cheshire Lines services today when Liverpool were playing Man Utd!

 

[robbeech]

What part is nonsense? Do you feel your employer should pay you for the extra time you are out of the house

 

[duffield]

On the legal question of disability discrimination, it's possible to at least make an argueable case that not employing (say) public transport users *might* constitute *indirect* discrimination.
For example, the non-disabled employee might have the options of driving their own car, walking or getting a taxi. The disabled employee might have only the taxi option and in a low paid job this might be entirely unreasonable financially, taking (say) half their earnings or more.
If you could show that this was the case, you might win a judgement that this policy had the indirect effect of exclusing people with certain classes of disability. The law does *not* require discrimination to be direct to be illegal.

Please note: I am not arguing the rights and wrongs of the law; I'm only stating that my understanding of the law is that a case *might* be argueable sucessfully in certain circumstances.
Indirect discrimination can be hard to prove but it is not impossible.

Another poster stated that they effectively blacklisted certain postcodes. They should be aware that they could be on uncertain legal ground there again - if these post codes' inhabitants were disproportionately (say) of a particular racial group, they could be laying themselves open to claims of indirect racial discrimination.

Again, I am not trying to start a disagreement of the rights and wrongs of the law in this area, simply pointing out that (in summary) discriminating against any 'non-protected' class of people (commuters, post code inhabitants), *may* in some cases lead to indirect discrimination against a protected class. An employer will need to potentially justify this, and would generally be on safer ground addressing the direct effects on the business (e.g. by not accepting poor timekeeping - the law will tend to look upon that as a necessary factor in running a business).

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, but I do follow these issues and cases involving them quite closely.

 

[fowler9]

What part is nonsense? Do you feel your employer should pay you for the extra time you are out of the house

No. My employer can sack me for being a grand total of 20 minutes late over 2 1\2 years. Do you think that is reasonable in a call centre? I meaning companies lost the contract for being a total of 20 mins late over two and a half years we would have run out of TOCS and bus companies.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

Employers pay you for the time you are actually at work (barring sick/holiday/special leave etc for the purposes of this discussion). How you get to/from work, mode of transport used and time taken is neither here or there as far as the employer is concerned (unless your job role specifically involves travel).

Can't believe this thread is 5 pages ...

 

[fowler9]

Employers pay you for the time you are actually at work (barring sick/holiday/special leave etc for the purposes of this discussion). How you get to/from work, mode of transport used and time taken is neither here or there as far as the employer is concerned (unless your job role specifically involves travel).

Can't believe this thread is 5 pages ...

I agree with you. Thing is I would like a bit of understanding from the employer and a bit better service from the transport providers. Since privatisation I really don't have a choice of which TOC or which bus company I use.The service gets less reliable and the price goes up and my wages stay the same but they get stricter on people being late.

 

[Typhoon]

I agree with you. Thing is I would like a bit of understanding from the employer and a bit better service from the transport providers.

I don't think you will find many arguments (except some might wish to substitute 'lot' for 'bit' for some TOCs).

 

[robbeech]

Since privatisation I really don't have a choice of which TOC or which bus company I use.

Did you have better choice before?

 

[fowler9]

Did you have better choice before?

Sort of. I had BR running the trains or I had MPTE running the busses. Now I have Arriva running both, at least from where I live to work and to the city centre. Ha ha. It's a weird situation.

 

[fowler9]

I don't think you will find many arguments (except some might wish to substitute 'lot' for 'bit' for some TOCs).

Seriously mate, since January 1st I was late by 2 minutes 5 times due to winter weather and then Arrivas bizarre School Holiday timetable. In October I was late by 30 minutes when water started pouring through the kitchen ceiling. This put me on a warning. If I am late twice more before the end of April I get a final warning. If I get two lates in the following twelve months up to April 2020 I get sacked. Late is two minutes. Based on the amazing service provided by Arriva and Northern I guess will have to find another job or eventually get sacked.

 

[Typhoon]

Seriously mate, since January 1st I was late by 2 minutes 5 times due to winter weather and then Arrivas bizarre School Holiday timetable. In October I was late by 30 minutes when water started pouring through the kitchen ceiling. This put me on a warning. If I am late twice more before the end of April I get a final warning. If I get two lates in the following twelve months up to April 2020 I get sacked. Late is two minutes. Based on the amazing service provided by Arriva and Northern I guess will have to find another job or eventually get sacked.

Hence my suggestion that 'a lot better service from transport providers' might be more accurate for certain TOCs. I didn't name names but if pushed to, Northern, Southern and Thameslink would be top of my list (but this is based on national ie London-based media) - there are probably others which escape the glare of national publicity. I do sincerely hope that Northern's performance improves in the new year for your sake (and the many others in a similar plight). There are few that I would wish to be unemployed and most of those have a contact postcode that begins SW1A. I've been there as have family members (recently) and I know it ain't good.

(Incidentally, and I know this is off-topic so I won't persist, I guess that Arriva is your bus provider. Bus companies appear to ignore the fact that although some journeys/ routes are used primarily by school students, there are other users who have to fend for themselves during school holidays, which, themselves, are inconsistent. I've been in that situation; fortunately a minor inconvenience for me but a major irritation for those in a village en-route.)

 

[fowler9]

Hence my suggestion that 'a lot better service from transport providers' might be more accurate for certain TOCs. I didn't name names but if pushed to, Northern, Southern and Thameslink would be top of my list (but this is based on national ie London-based media) - there are probably others which escape the glare of national publicity. I do sincerely hope that Northern's performance improves in the new year for your sake (and the many others in a similar plight). There are few that I would wish to be unemployed and most of those have a contact postcode that begins SW1A. I've been there as have family members (recently) and I know it ain't good.

(Incidentally, and I know this is off-topic so I won't persist, I guess that Arriva is your bus provider. Bus companies appear to ignore the fact that although some journeys/ routes are used primarily by school students, there are other users who have to fend for themselves during school holidays, which, themselves, are inconsistent. I've been in that situation; fortunately a minor inconvenience for me but a major irritation for those in a village en-route.)

I think it's only slightly off topic. I live by West Allerton station in Liverpool. Hardly remote. Our bus service wasn't just reduced it seemed to be entirely ad hoc. The new service wasn't advertised in the bus shelters, after my dad and probably others complained signs were put up saying you could find it online. What was put online bore little relevance to what turned up.

 

[richw]

Not sure how to set a poll, but maybe it’s a poll for a spin off thread, asking if your train was regularly delayed Whether people would catch an early train and perhaps go for coffee, or gamble on it being on time risking lateness and possibly discipline by employer. (Or any other options)

Personally if the train to get me to work was regularly making me late I’d get an earlier service and go for coffee or a greasy spoon fry up breakfast.

 

[RLBH]

Employers pay you for the time you are actually at work (barring sick/holiday/special leave etc for the purposes of this discussion). How you get to/from work, mode of transport used and time taken is neither here or there as far as the employer is concerned (unless your job role specifically involves travel).

Quite. There's often some give-and-take, depending on the job - if you normally start work on time (and no employer has a right to expect more) and make every reasonable effort to be on time when there is disruption, employers will generally be as understanding as possible. Obviously some jobs allow more leeway than others. If you show up late every day and your only comment is 'Sorry, the train is never on time' or 'Sorry, bad traffic today', then your employer is likely to take a rather dim view of affairs. Even if the train is always late, or the traffic is bad during the rush hour, it's your responsibility to plan accordingly.

My only caveat to that would be, if you start a new job where you're not wholly familiar with which trains are late or which roads are busy, a bit more leeway might be reasonable. Most people will probably make sure they're early on the first day, but on the second day perhaps not so much. After the first week or so, though, the expectation should certainly be for the employee to be on time.

From the employee's point of view, of course, the expectation should be that public transport can stick to the published timetable! PPM statistics are all well and good, but a train that is 4 minutes and 59 seconds late isn't going to be considered 'good enough' by the passengers. Although it would be interesting to see PPM statistics developed on the same basis for bus and coach operators.... In my experience, buses would be doing well to make it into double-digit percentages in some places.

 

[underbank]

Personally if the train to get me to work was regularly making me late I’d get an earlier service and go for coffee or a greasy spoon fry up breakfast.

What if there isn't an earlier service? What if you can't get an earlier service because your child's school or nursery doesn't open at silly o'clock? What happens if the earlier service is also cancelled?

I'm not making excuses - this is reality for many people. My own son leaves home at 7.15 to ensure he arrives at school by 8.50 registration and that's only 5 miles away. Most days, he arrives at school at 8am and has to wait outside until they open the doors. Some days, the bus is late or the traffic is bad, so he just about gets there about 8.45. But even with that allowance, he has been late several times per year when the bus simply doesn't turn up at all as it's an hourly service. It's completely unreasonable to expect him to get up and leave the house even earlier than that yet the school gives no leeway and he gets marked down as late culminating in a detention under totting up.

And then people wonder why so many people use their cars! My son is going to fast-track his driving test and aims to start driving to school throughout the upper sixth year as he's had enough of the early starts. Well done, crap public transport, another car on the road!

 

[Deltic1961]

This is what makes me laugh. Politicians bleat on time and time again about pollution and spend millions of pounds on transport initiatives to get people out of the car.

Lately Scotrail have been an utter disgrace, not to mention another price rise on the way which will no doubt make people reconsider using the rail system. Michael Matheson is nowhere to be seen and is totally silent on Scotrails performance.

Politicians only put their heads above the parapet when things are going their way.

 

[Kite159]

For me in the new year sees a couple sets of roadworks popping up on my usual route into work, so with the possibility of the commute being longer due to queues at traffic lights, I'm leaving home earlier.

If I arrive at work earlier than so be it, as it be better arriving 10 minutes early than 10 minutes late.

Of course if the queues turn out to be very bad then I've got a couple alternative routes I can take.

(Public transport isn't really an option as that takes 80+ minutes plus a mile walk at the end, compared to 15 minutes by car)

 

[HLE]

On the legal question of disability discrimination, it's possible to at least make an argueable case that not employing (say) public transport users *might* constitute *indirect* discrimination.
For example, the non-disabled employee might have the options of driving their own car, walking or getting a taxi. The disabled employee might have only the taxi option and in a low paid job this might be entirely unreasonable financially, taking (say) half their earnings or more.
If you could show that this was the case, you might win a judgement that this policy had the indirect effect of exclusing people with certain classes of disability. The law does *not* require discrimination to be direct to be illegal.

Please note: I am not arguing the rights and wrongs of the law; I'm only stating that my understanding of the law is that a case *might* be argueable sucessfully in certain circumstances.
Indirect discrimination can be hard to prove but it is not impossible.

Another poster stated that they effectively blacklisted certain postcodes. They should be aware that they could be on uncertain legal ground there again - if these post codes' inhabitants were disproportionately (say) of a particular racial group, they could be laying themselves open to claims of indirect racial discrimination.

Again, I am not trying to start a disagreement of the rights and wrongs of the law in this area, simply pointing out that (in summary) discriminating against any 'non-protected' class of people (commuters, post code inhabitants), *may* in some cases lead to indirect discrimination against a protected class. An employer will need to potentially justify this, and would generally be on safer ground addressing the direct effects on the business (e.g. by not accepting poor timekeeping - the law will tend to look upon that as a necessary factor in running a business).

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, but I do follow these issues and cases involving them quite closely.

Crikey that’s four disclaimers in one post, must be a record.

No need though - you’re allowed your opinion.

 

[nw1]

Dictating how they get to work.

I would agree here. A quick check shows that there are earlier trains from Aberdour to Edinburgh, I'm sure it's the case for other commuting locations so refusing to employ someone because they use the train is unreasonable and discriminatory. Employment law needs to be tightened up on things like this.

While perhaps the lady mentioned in the post could get an earlier train to ensure an on time arrival at work, it is really up to employers to complain to ScotRail, rather than instigating ridiculous hiring policies like this.

More generally and philosophically, there does seem to be too much focus on expecting individual responsibility and tolerating corporate irresponsibility these days in these public transport related cases. The individual inevitably ends up being the one inconvenienced. While the commuter putting up with a little short term inconvenience and travelling early to work for a short period of time is one thing, if not enough effort is made by employers to lay the blame on late arrivals to the real cause of the problem - the reliability of the public transport system - it will end up being the norm expecting people to get a train which arrives at a city station at say 07:30 for a 09:00 start "in case" all the key commuter trains are cancelled. Is this really reasonable on a long-term basis?

But whatever, a blanket rejection of candidates in a capital city for heaven's sake who rely on trains to get in is quite frankly, ridiculous.

 

[David M]

But whatever, a blanket rejection of candidates in a capital city for heaven's sake who rely on trains to get in is quite frankly, ridiculous.

Completely agree. If I live at Haymarket and work at Waverley, I have a huge number of train options I can use. Is this idiot really going to insist I use a bus or tram and get caught up in the Princes Street mayhem? Would I be instructed to walk? Shame on the press who gave the free publicity or was it motivated by a bash Scotrail agenda? I do note that every article/news report about Scotrail now says 'owned by Dutch company Abellio' - I don't recall similar riders when NatEx or First held the franchise.

 

[Deltic1961]

First were not perfect, but the service under Abellio has been far far worse.

 

[David M]

First were not perfect, but the service under Abellio has been far far worse.

Actually, I would disagree but that wasn't really my point.