Do companies have a legal responsibility for staff in bad weather

[Tony 10]

I have been told if you wear a uniform for work, then you have more rights surrounding this.

 

You must ask yourself what difference does a uniform make?

 

You've probably been mislead because there are some workers (who happen to wear uniform like those that I mentioned) that require additional measures because of the work that they do, not because they wear a uniform.

 

I expect that you've picked up Chinese whisper. Send three and fourpence we're going to a dance.

Edited January 6, 2010 by Tony

[RobbyBrown 10]

Do employers have a responsibility to help any staff who need to use the toilet?

 

ie sit them down on the loo, wipe their bottoms for them ?

[ohhhh 10]

Employers have a duty of care to their employees and a potential liability may exist if employees were pressurised into travelling by car or foot when conditions were dangerous.

 

That was cut from the BBC website last Feb

 

If your boss phoned you up and said get into work or you're sacked and the authorities were saying that travel is dangerous the boss is forcing you to put your job against your safety and is therefore liable if anything happens to you. The same goes for getting home in cases when your have been told you must work but are also told travelling is dangerous.

 

As for helping you to the toilet this will be covered under the Disability Discrimination Act

[Yog Sothoth 10]

An employers obligation to safety begins when you step on the premises and end when you step off. That's it. No more. Now go to work.

 

 

(yea yea, I know about the exceptions for business travel and site workers, don't be pedantic )

 

True, but there's such a thing as moral responsibility.

[Tony 10]

That isn't mentioned in the thread title and judging by lots of responses in the thread plenty of people don't understand the difference.

 

You might also think that employees have a moral responsibility to their employer to turn up to do what they are contracted and paid to do. I would also say that they have a legal responsibility to turn up no matter what the weather or face the consequences.

[viney40 10]

well, that would explain why I can't find anything official about it.

 

But still posted any irrelevance you could find! Not very bright are you.

[Cyclone 10]

It's a discussion forum, I posted something relevant, but it turns out not a legal requirement.

All you've done is (as usual) try to pick faults.

Do you have anything to contribute beyond your petty fault finding? Or were you trying to demonstrate an ironic sense of humour by posting about people who weren't adding to the thread?

[Yog Sothoth 10]

That isn't mentioned in the thread title and judging by lots of responses in the thread plenty of people don't understand the difference.

 

You might also think that employees have a moral responsibility to their employer to turn up to do what they are contracted and paid to do. I would also say that they have a legal responsibility to turn up no matter what the weather or face the consequences.

 

Hmmm...by that token, you could argue that anyone who is sick or injured, or indeed, unable to come to work for any reason whatsoever, shouldn't be paid. We'd be back in the Victorian era!

 

As I said, you can't expect people to walk an unreasonable distance, in sub-zero temperatures. A couple of miles, maybe up to five even, but what if you live in Hope, or Wath, or Holmfirth? If there's no transport, then that's it. My place takes a realistic view: if you live somewhere where it's just not realistically feasible to get in, then you will be given the day, or else allowed to work from home if your job allows it. Same if you are disabled (we have plenty of severely disabled employees). If however, you live in Sheffield, and are physically able, then there's no excuse.

 

The bottom line is, people should make reasonable efforts to get to work. BUT, employers should make a reasonable assessment of what 'reasonable' means. Whether people are paid or not should, in my opinion, be based on that, as it is here. I do realise however, that not every employer is as beneficient as the big public sector ones.

[matsalleh 10]

I have not read all this thread but an interesting point was raised on BBC news this morning.

A lot of people work unpaid overtime so surely there could be some consideration given to this.

[MrH 11]

A useful page from the BBC website may be helpful:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8421373.stm

[Tony 10]

Hmmm...by that token, you could argue that anyone who is sick or injured, or indeed, unable to come to work for any reason whatsoever, shouldn't be paid. We'd be back in the Victorian era!

 

As I said, you can't expect people to walk an unreasonable distance, in sub-zero temperatures. A couple of miles, maybe up to five even, but what if you live in Hope, or Wath, or Holmfirth? If there's no transport, then that's it. My place takes a realistic view: if you live somewhere where it's just not realistically feasible to get in, then you will be given the day, or else allowed to work from home if your job allows it. Same if you are disabled (we have plenty of severely disabled employees). If however, you live in Sheffield, and are physically able, then there's no excuse.

 

The bottom line is, people should make reasonable efforts to get to work. BUT, employers should make a reasonable assessment of what 'reasonable' means. Whether people are paid or not should, in my opinion, be based on that, as it is here. I do realise however, that not every employer is as beneficient as the big public sector ones.

 

Of course, and I expect that we will agree that there is a middle ground that is clear to both of us.

 

I did say "judging by lots of responses in the thread plenty of people don't understand the difference. " and I'll stand by that. There seems to be a lot of talk that there are only some kind of employee 'rights' rather than any responsibilities to the employer.

[viney40 10]

It's a discussion forum, I posted something relevant, but it turns out not a legal requirement.

All you've done is (as usual) try to pick faults.

Do you have anything to contribute beyond your petty fault finding? Or were you trying to demonstrate an ironic sense of humour by posting about people who weren't adding to the thread?

 

My bold.

 

Why the intent interest in what I post in all threads?

 

If I agree with you, will you give me a bit of a break? There is no need to try and insult me. You are beginning to look like some sort of forum stalker.

 

I have contributed to this thread by stating current regulations regarding the OP. You are quite right, this is a discussion forum and you did post something relevant, but not relevant to the OP.

 

Lets just call it quits and enjoy the forum for the great resource that it is.