Vorpal wrote:How about if we give hospital workers passes for public transport, instead, and arrange group transport from/to a few points around for those who arrive or leave outside public transport hours?
Give the benefits to those who don't drive. Not those who do.
To my mind working towards helping people overcome the obstacles which force them to drive is the way forward, help people rather than beat them. To my mind there should be an obligation placed on employers to support local living (say within four miles of their premises) and to work with employees to identify and facilitate the use of green / greener travel.
Many industries employ shift workers and lots of folk do work through the night, here’s but a few: postmen, firefighters, police men, manufacturing factory workers, power station workers, railmen. All those people deserve help too and certainly a bit of caring thought by their employer about how they get to and from work would be a positive.
I agree, and other folks working unsocial hours, or at locations poorly served by public transport deserve the same. I would actually go a step further and say that free, or very inexpensive public transport should generally be available, at least for local journeys.
But the thread started about a hospital car park, so that the sort of benefit I was thinking of.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.” ― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
Carlton green wrote: Like many others I too have moved to be nearer work and my place of work, and like them I have experienced the horrors of redundancy and economic downturns which throw one’s life into turmoil with sometimes disastrous results. NHS employment might not be perfect but the relative job security offered is something to be valued.
Most rational people eventually realise that investing in a home based on its (convenient) proximity to your place of work is risky and particularly so in the private sector. In Syd’s case above (with the NHS) he’s lived in three different locations and moved between relatively secure employment, IIRC that’s over approaching thirty years. One factor of moving home that we forget is the impact on our spouses and on our children. Spouses often work too and their ability to do so, to follow their career path, is compromised when we decide to move. Children build supporting friendships and have a Schools to attend, moving breaks up friendships (that could otherwise support them over several decades) and really does disrupt education.
I note that Syd appreciates that not everyone else can move to within a distance of work that does not need them to have a car (that’s my understanding of his final sentence). An acknowledgment that not all personal situations allow the same (perfect) solutions is very welcome on this thread.
The point is you can either move nearer to work so you don't need to use a car or choose not to and use your car for commuting. If the latter then you should accept the financial costs associated with your choice. These may well include parking payments, something not unfamiliar to most car owners.
Some of my changes in work would have resulted in excessive travel (well over 100 miles). In those instances relocation was researched as part of the application process.
In the last change my wife wished to move to a new job 230 miles away which resulted in me changing too. Fortunately we were both able to get new jobs in the desired area with 4 weeks of each other.
With no kids we are fortunate to be able to consider such life changes.
We used to pay relocation expenses to people offered jobs living more than a certain distance away. It was conditional they moved to within 25 miles of the workplace. Perhaps that should have been 5 miles. Things covered included conveyancing and removal costs up to whatever the current IR tax free limit was at the time.
I believe organisations like the NHS do the same. Here's an example form Bristol. Their limit is 25 miles too - it should be less.
We really ought to encourage initiatives like stamp duty and rent reductions, or even subsidised housing for people who move to be closer to work, subsidised child care and after school activities to reduce dependence on other family members, etc.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.” ― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
pete75 wrote:The point is you can either move nearer to work so you don't need to use a car or choose not to and use your car for commuting. If the latter then you should accept the financial costs associated with your choice. These may well include parking payments, something not unfamiliar to most car owners.
Some of my changes in work would have resulted in excessive travel (well over 100 miles). In those instances relocation was researched as part of the application process.
In the last change my wife wished to move to a new job 230 miles away which resulted in me changing too. Fortunately we were both able to get new jobs in the desired area with 4 weeks of each other.
With no kids we are fortunate to be able to consider such life changes.
We used to pay relocation expenses to people offered jobs living more than a certain distance away. It was conditional they moved to within 25 miles of the workplace. Perhaps that should have been 5 miles. Things covered included conveyancing and removal costs up to whatever the current IR tax free limit was at the time.
I believe organisations like the NHS do the same. Here's an example form Bristol. Their limit is 25 miles too - it should be less.
Vorpal wrote:We really ought to encourage initiatives like stamp duty and rent reductions, or even subsidised housing for people who move to be closer to work, subsidised child care and after school activities to reduce dependence on other family members, etc.
Unfortunately such an initiative would be a burden on an employer at the moment and I doubt all could afford to pay it. It would need a government initiative to change that but , I expect like more things, it would take careful policing to ensure the system wasn’t abused.
Vorpal wrote:We really ought to encourage initiatives like stamp duty and rent reductions, or even subsidised housing for people who move to be closer to work, subsidised child care and after school activities to reduce dependence on other family members, etc.
Unfortunately such an initiative would be a burden on an employer at the moment and I doubt all could afford to pay it. It would need a government initiative to change that but , I expect like more things, it would take careful policing to ensure the system wasn’t abused.
I wasn't thinking that any thing would change with regard to employers. It does require government intiative. It wouldn't take policing if it were organised correctly. A policy & automated system that did not allow a person or family to take advantage of it more than once without job change(s), for example.
Subsidised child care and after school activities should be available, anyway. But that's a different discussion.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.” ― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom