ricgem2002 Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 What about a salaried employee who has a designated office but has to travel to other offices further away, sometimes during their own time (ie. Enforced longer commute), does this help them? What about the increasing number of jobs advertised as location "flexible" and an expectation of travel and staying away from family for several nights a week? Does that count as working time? thousands of employees travel up and down the country working away from home and are paid accordingly. when they finish work at the end of the day and go back to their digs/hotel they have finished work. do you think they should be paid more Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 (edited) How does it help salaried employees? You start off by complaining that they've helped anyone at all, now they've not gone far enough? ---------- Post added 11-09-2015 at 09:10 ---------- What about a salaried employee who has a designated office but has to travel to other offices further away, sometimes during their own time (ie. Enforced longer commute), does this help them? What about the increasing number of jobs advertised as location "flexible" and an expectation of travel and staying away from family for several nights a week? Does that count as working time? Technically, yes, the travel counts as working time if it's not to your base. Staying in a hotel, no, because you're not working and are free to do what you want. You could just arrive later when travelling to a destination further away. And flexible is a description for a job advert, not a legal definition for their base office. Edited September 11, 2015 by Cyclone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WiseOwl182 Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 thousands of employees travel up and down the country working away from home and are paid accordingly. when they finish work at the end of the day and go back to their digs/hotel they have finished work. do you think they should be paid more I'm asking about the scope of this ruling and what it could impact. If you have to drive 4 hours each way to a hotel, on top of a 40hr working week, that puts you right on the edge for the max 48 hr rule. It could affect pay due to NMW. ---------- Post added 11-09-2015 at 11:09 ---------- You start off by complaining that they've helped anyone at all, now they've not gone far enough? ---------- Post added 11-09-2015 at 09:10 ---------- Technically, yes, the travel counts as working time if it's not to your base. Staying in a hotel, no, because you're not working and are free to do what you want. You could just arrive later when travelling to a destination further away. And flexible is a description for a job advert, not a legal definition for their base office. You can't just arrive later if your company needs you to be there at 9am and it's a 5 hr drive, for example. This would necessitate a hotel stay , travelling down the previous evening would become working time. I would argue having to stay in a hotel for work purposes is working time too. You wouldn't otherwise choose to stay away from your family in a cheap hotel in some grotty town unless your job depended on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricgem2002 Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 I'm asking about the scope of this ruling and what it could impact. If you have to drive 4 hours each way to a hotel, on top of a 40hr working week, that puts you right on the edge for the max 48 hr rule. It could affect pay due to NMW. the company would just make you sign the opt-out form when you sign/renegotiate your contract . I have worked for many companies and everyone I know who didn't sign these forms didn't get the job (funny that) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 Of you think this is bad, wait until TTIP is passed. That is going to be a disaster. Cannot imagine why there hasn't been more media coverage of it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJC1 Posted September 11, 2015 Author Share Posted September 11, 2015 You start off by complaining that they've helped anyone at all, now they've not gone far enough? Theres pros and cons... ---------- Post added 11-09-2015 at 12:16 ---------- Of you think this is bad, wait until TTIP is passed. That is going to be a disaster. Cannot imagine why there hasn't been more media coverage of it... I'm neutral. Again with TTIP, lets see what the outcome of discussions are. ---------- Post added 11-09-2015 at 12:18 ---------- I don't know how it helps salaried employees but yes maybe their employers will now have to pay overtime . do you support this action in helping the working man/woman ? it doesnt help salaried employees if firms dont have to pay overtime... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchresearch Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 is travelling to work, work? is travelling to last appointments work? When I used to be on the road, it was expected of me to be in places like Newcastle, Glasgow, Bristol for 9am at least two or three days a week. I was paid a standard salary which revolved around a 39 hour week, although I did much more than that if you factored in the time I left. Same with getting home and 7 at night. For me it wasn't the money, it was the tiredness - as I'd get home late, eat late, have a full meal in my stomach right before bed and then have to be up early to do it all again. I was told if I didn't like it to look for another job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJC1 Posted September 11, 2015 Author Share Posted September 11, 2015 When I used to be on the road, it was expected of me to be in places like Newcastle, Glasgow, Bristol for 9am at least two or three days a week. I was paid a standard salary which revolved around a 39 hour week, although I did much more than that if you factored in the time I left. Same with getting home and 7 at night. For me it wasn't the money, it was the tiredness - as I'd get home late, eat late, have a full meal in my stomach right before bed and then have to be up early to do it all again. I was told if I didn't like it to look for another job. Who hasnt put in endless commuting or travel hours. I just assume its part of a salaried position and you get paid expenses on the back end. I guess the law prevents ZHC employees being exploited...but does it In practice? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WiseOwl182 Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 Who hasnt put in endless commuting or travel hours. I just assume its part of a salaried position and you get paid expenses on the back end. I guess the law prevents ZHC employees being exploited...but does it In practice? Why is it ok for an employee to spend hours and hours travelling unpaid for work, just because they're on a salary? The principle is the same no matter how often or how much you're paid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phantom309 Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 The way I understand it , it is more about people who once at work do not get paid for travelling between appointments or jobs which is part of their working day, but although being at work for between 8 to 12 hours are only being paid for the actual time when they are carrying out their duties so they could only be paid 6 hours but are actually at work for 12 hours Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now