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.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 !
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.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.
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.
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.
But the majority DON'T
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.....
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.
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.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 .
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?
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.
If they can’t drive, use public transport, walk or use a bike then what methods are left?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.
I would guess passenger in a car / taxiIf they can’t drive, use public transport, walk or use a bike then what methods are left?
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."
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.
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?
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.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?
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.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.
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.
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.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.