£220 per year to park you car at work, the joys of the NHS.

User avatar
hubgearfreak
Posts: 8210
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 4:14pm

Postby hubgearfreak » 22 Jun 2008, 9:30pm

pigman wrote:These days people travel across cities or even to other cities to work. Then, the terrain may be very hilly


but they have chosen their situation.

as far as i am aware no-one is forced to work where they work, nor forced to live where they live. in a free country we choose these things. and if ones choice includes space hungry cars, why should the employer provide for free the space req'd?

or perhaps extend your idea and have the employer give free parking, free fuel, free motorcars & etc. to the employees who choose to live far from work?

thirdcrank
Posts: 30111
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Postby thirdcrank » 22 Jun 2008, 9:54pm

hubbers

I think it's a bit more complicated than that, especially when the employer expects employee flexibility. My son's partner (that's my son who was in the pram when you were in the buggy with your younger bro) used to work for a well-known insurance company in Morley, she used to walk the couple of miles eiother way. They re-organised so she was working in Leeds, 20 mins on the bus. The reorganised again, job now in Halifax. Theoretically about 30 mins by bus (with half mile walk to bus stop) but the first bus in that direction was mid-morning so it meant bus into Leeds then train back in the other direction to Halifax. She was relatively well done by because the Liverpool office closed while this was going on and they were offered the chance to travel to Leeds / Halifax.

In the end she got another job and bought a car.

You are right to say that people have a choice, but a bit disingenuous to imply that people commute here there and everywhere as a hobby.

For whatever reason, employers are transferring more and more of the costs and risks of employment (defined contribution pensions are another example) onto the workforce. These are worrying times for a lot of people.

User avatar
hubgearfreak
Posts: 8210
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 4:14pm

Postby hubgearfreak » 22 Jun 2008, 10:12pm

thirdcrank wrote:You are right to say that people have a choice, but a bit disingenuous to imply that people commute here there and everywhere as a hobby.


we'll just have to disagree there then :?

what will these people who (aren't forced to) commute do when fuel goes to £2/ltr and beyond? we all know that it's a finite resource and that demand's going up. you don't need to be a graduate in economics to work out what'll happen to the price as a consequence.

but this is about the car commuter being subsidised by the pedestrians and cyclists at a work place. surely we agree that that's a wrong thing? 8)

thirdcrank
Posts: 30111
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Postby thirdcrank » 22 Jun 2008, 10:46pm

It seems pretty obvious to me that as the price of fuel goes up further, and I have no doubt it will, more and more people will suffer and it won't just be the car commuters.

I am still regretting having inadvertently mashed up sore-thumb's OP. As I've pointed out in between, he / she is a cycle commuter (that's how he /she comes to be posting on here.)

He / she was concerned that the parking charge was going to be applied at a flat rate, to all staff, irrespective of their parking / non-parking arrangements.

If you think about it, all the costs of employing NHS staff are paid by the public. If car parking which has been free is suddenly charged at say £200 pa that is an effective wage cut, dressed up as something else.

I'm no advocate of commuting by car - I've mentioned on here before that a conscious decision by me to cycle to work ( in spite of a whispered threat from on high of the consequences) did my own career no good at all. I tend to infer from what you say that we should switch overnight to a 9,000,000 bicycles in Beijing scenario. It might happen, and as we go down we will meet China on the way up and there will be some misery here.

In the meantime, I cannot help mentioning a captivating picture of you with (presumably) hubbers junior on a mechanical shovel. My elder grandson (who will appear in the pics if I survive to post on the 2040 thread "Where were you in 2008?" :cry: ) was fascinated by it. To be consistent, shouldn't you be using a pick and shovel?

User avatar
hubgearfreak
Posts: 8210
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 4:14pm

Postby hubgearfreak » 22 Jun 2008, 11:27pm

i must have misread the original post, it seems to have gone now anyhow. but to charge everyone for car parking regardless of whether they use it or don't is clearly ridiculous. however i'm still sure that we can agree to the idea that employees should pay for car parking if they require it, and not for a benefit being supplied by a company only being available to those that use cars to get to work

car commuters are not the only ones that are going to suffer, you're right there. but in a future where fuel is expensive, the 9m bikes situation you mention will be inevitable, along with more localised food production, straw houses, returnable bottles and any number of other re-employing of the old ways.

as for us going down as china goes up, it's not how i picture the future to be. those countries that are careful/miserly with fuel will obviously ride the storm better. and the same goes for those careful/miserly households. whether ones household is amongst those low carbon ones that will find the future problems less serious is largely up to the individual householders. whether the UK/EU will be ready is a challenge for government to alter peoples behaviour. public information films appealing to peoples (or businesses) altruism simply isn't as effective as financial incentives or disincentives

regarding the micro digger, it worked two days for 10ltrs of diesel. amazing really as it did as much work in those two days that would have broken my back for a month.

workhard

Postby workhard » 23 Jun 2008, 8:36am

thirdcrank wrote:I am still regretting having inadvertently mashed up sore-thumb's OP. As I've pointed out in between, he / she is a cycle commuter (that's how he /she comes to be posting on here.)

He / she was concerned that the parking charge was going to be applied at a flat rate, to all staff, irrespective of their parking / non-parking arrangements.


If what you are saying is what is being proposed that would be an unfair, and illegal, change to someones t's & c's of employment and it would beggar belief that such a change was being proposed.

Surely the staff at such an (NHS) employer, where Trade Union membership tends to be high, would seek assistance from their union(s) and fight it? I know of one or two local employers who have gone down the charging for "permit to park" route and caused local residents no end of grief when the tightwad drivers simply decamped to local streets and clogged them up.

pigman
Posts: 1725
Joined: 11 Jan 2007, 12:23pm
Location: Sheffield UK

Postby pigman » 23 Jun 2008, 8:40am

hubgearfreak wrote:
pigman wrote:These days people travel across cities or even to other cities to work. Then, the terrain may be very hilly


but they have chosen their situation.


so if they were proposing to build a gas works next to your house after you'd happily been there for a few years, you'd accept that? After all, you chose to live there.

or perhaps extend your idea and have the employer give free parking, free fuel, free motorcars & etc. to the employees who choose to live far from work?


Some tongue-in-cheekiness there, no?

thirdcrank
Posts: 30111
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Postby thirdcrank » 23 Jun 2008, 8:41am

hubbers

As I've tried to explain above, as a newly enrolled spambuster my wide ranging powers include editing any post. So, I get an edit button over every post, not just my own. Intending to quote sorethumbs post I inadvertantly edited it instead, which meant I replaced it with my own contribution. I sent a grovelling apology to sorethumb but when I fast looked he had not returned.

My only strong area of disagreement with you is on free choice. IMO everybody's choices are constrained by circumstances and the lower somebody's position in the heap, the less choice they enjoy.

workhard

Postby workhard » 23 Jun 2008, 8:55am

thirdcrank wrote:My only strong area of disagreement with you is on free choice. IMO everybody's choices are constrained by circumstances and the lower somebody's position in the heap, the less choice they enjoy.


very true but we do live in a society where a "someone" is increasingly expected to resolve the -ve consequences of our own choices for us be it Gordon Brown, the state, national rail, your local train operating company, the Highways Agency, the NHS.

I live in one of those dull dormitory towns where a significant % of the population commute by train to London or by car to other towns in the region. "Dinner party" conversation often revolves around the frustrations, costs and generally draginess of journeys to and from work - but no one ever seems to acknowledge the element of choice. "I can't afford to live in London" really means "I can afford to live in London but not with the lifestyle or standard of accommodation I now have so I choose not to and SOMEONE needs to fix xxxxx to make it easy for me"

User avatar
hubgearfreak
Posts: 8210
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 4:14pm

Postby hubgearfreak » 23 Jun 2008, 10:45am

pigman wrote:proposing to build a gas works next to your house after you'd happily been there for a few years, you'd accept that?


no i'd fight it :roll:

pigman wrote:Some tongue-in-cheekiness there, no?


none. why should employers give benefits to some employees and not others?

User avatar
hubgearfreak
Posts: 8210
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 4:14pm

Postby hubgearfreak » 23 Jun 2008, 10:50am

thirdcrank wrote:My only strong area of disagreement with you is on free choice. IMO everybody's choices are constrained by circumstances and the lower somebody's position in the heap, the less choice they enjoy.


not quite. those at the bottom of the heap who can't afford cars have no choice but to take jobs near their homes.

i've chosen to never apply for a job outside lincoln (ie. more than 5 miles away) travelling by car every morning and every evening must be frustrating, expensive, unhealthy, unsustainable and robs the participants of free time.
i choose not to do it...and if it means (which it does) taking poorly paid jobs then so be it

User avatar
hubgearfreak
Posts: 8210
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 4:14pm

Postby hubgearfreak » 23 Jun 2008, 10:56am

workhard wrote: "I can't afford to live in London" really means "I can afford to live in London but not with the lifestyle or standard of accommodation I now have so I choose not to and SOMEONE needs to fix xxxxx to make it easy for me"


thanks workhard. a voice of reason

as the cost of commuting goes up, then the difference in the house prices of those near to employment compared with those dormitory places will increase. get out while you can

pigman
Posts: 1725
Joined: 11 Jan 2007, 12:23pm
Location: Sheffield UK

Postby pigman » 23 Jun 2008, 11:15am

hubgearfreak wrote:
pigman wrote:proposing to build a gas works next to your house after you'd happily been there for a few years, you'd accept that?


no i'd fight it :roll:


Why? You (hypothetically) chose to live there. The fact that the organisation in control has chosen to change your circumstances is irrelevant. You made the choice, you should have had the foresight, you should accept it. The gas company should make use of the land if its availalbe for the good of society as a whole. Are these not the crux of your argument? (apologies if Ive misinterpreted your argument)

User avatar
hubgearfreak
Posts: 8210
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 4:14pm

Postby hubgearfreak » 23 Jun 2008, 11:26am

sorry pigman i think that you have misunderstood.

i wouldn't choose a job over 5 miles away. it would be frustrating, expensive, unhealthy, unsustainable and rob me of free time.

how this is relevant to welcoming (rather than objecting to) industrial development in a residential area i'm having trouble understanding

pigman
Posts: 1725
Joined: 11 Jan 2007, 12:23pm
Location: Sheffield UK

Postby pigman » 23 Jun 2008, 11:49am

hubbers
I think Ive got there in the end. Yes, I did misunderstand and the principle is somewhat different. The big difference is that you wouldnt set yourself up to be vulnerable to parking charges in the first place. So apologies and no hard feelings i hope.

But its still a bit unfair for those that didnt have your foresight, took a distant job and now have the rug pulled from under them by having to fork out a lump sum. However, I dont have any sympathies for those new starters that now choose to work there, with the full knowledge that there is to be a parking charge. But then there'd be the problem of differing terms & conds for new & existing employees.