Here's a list of Kevin Ward's newest comments:
Hi Stephen, I miss your posts
Hmmm, can you add a source? (Daily Mail doesn't count)
(takes breath... waits......)
It was more to be clear about at what point you are considered to have started work for the calculation of worked and paid core hours, than just the driving - though the additional travel time to non-base is what has caused debate.
This is clearer now and I would gather from what has been posted, that expenses and hours begin with a journey to non-base. At base, your hours would begin when you arrive.
Thanks for everyone's continued comments.
Thanks for your comments - much appreciated.
My question is - When is someone considered to be 'at work' and so paid/insured by an employer?
Is it when they leave home to get to work as per normal?
Or, more specifically to the scenario, if they are required to go direct to an appointment that is further from the normal place of work?
This would mean leaving for 'work' earlier than normal (eg leaving 7.30 to arrive say, at 9am) and therefore working a longer day than normal - given they are arriving and leaving the appointment at the usual work times.
So - are you 'at work' when you arrive at 9am, or when you leave home at 7.30?
And at what point are you insured for the journey?
thanks for your comments.
oh stephen! you do love to tease us with these little 'tit-bits' of information!
you are clearly in posession of sooo much 'hidden information' yet only hint at what you could be telling us!
you have so much you could be giving! why!
I like your posts Stephen - keep lobbing up the easy balls!
Everyone should smile in the morning!
I think Stephen Rogers is a liberal paperclip shuffler with an ironic sense of humour, masquerading as a Dickensian caracature for our entertainment!
I, for one, am in awe of your craft sir!
When I read stuff like this I just have to dig around... I think 2 events are being confused. First the Canada thing, this was approx 8000 years ago - 6000 BP - and basic Googling found this from an article from the time:
"Scientists have concluded that the draining of Lake Agassiz would have caused a half-metre rise in sea levels worldwide. Teller says his own “back-of-the-envelope calculations” suggest that in some part of the Persian Gulf basin that influx of water could have flooded 10-km stretches of land in a single season." (http://treyf.com/icult/archives/186 is the link for you Steve!)
The other is the rise in sea level caused by the end of the last major ice age around 10000 BP which flooded what is now the North Sea, and the land bridge to Europe.
I presume, though, that "Evidence shows that at about the same time, sea levels in southern England was about 6 meters higher than today."
you meant it was lower at that time?
As for the Carbon issue, it is, as Steve suggests, a tricky subject, and probably best left to those who know a thing or two.
Get your hat and coat Dave.
reported in the daily mail......nuff said
well said james, and lorraine.
Hi Will, It is the employee who is the customer in AtoW's eyes - they are making the claim for an adaptation based on their own needs.
This Government report has only just come out on the recomendations laid out in the 'Sayce' review into disability work programs. It recomends some changes to Access to Work, if you look at this link - http://www.dwp.gov.uk/consultations/2011/specialist-disability-emp-prog.shtml - on p14 (of the pdf version) the Government themselves don't seem completely clear what the situation is, with all their legal advice.
"We will also clarify the ownership of equipment made available through Access to Work, aiming to move to a position where ownership rests clearly with the customer wherever possible. We will need to look carefully at the situation where an employer has contributed to the cost."
'aiming to move' and 'wherever possible' don't give the impression that it is legally cut and dried!
what is it that confuses the ownership issue?
hi gavin, sorry - i should have been clearer, i meant that if there was a link to an article in the press, or a link to the original research by PWC then could that be included. i was being lazy! a quick google has found more info. though if anyone can find reference to their research, please post a link. thanks
Hi there, could WLN add links to the original source or articles when starting a discussion thread please? Could be useful.
John, what do you think should happen if someone developed a disability while previously producing 100 widgets?
A mental health condition that varies, cancer etc?
'Problems' are more often in the minds of the beholder.
People with disabilities have many and varied dificulties to overcome in their search for work, without being required to work for low pay to 'prove' themselves. If they've been hired then surely they have reached rhe requirements of the job description. To then expect them have to work for less than their colleagues/NMW to 'prove' their right to be employed suggests an employer looking to exploit.
Would such an employer look for imaginative ways to make 'Reasonable adjustments'? Or is a lower wage just too tempting an option to 'help' people into work? You bet.
"if an employer is faced with 2 candidates for a vacancy, one fully fit, the other with a problem which affects their performance, they cannot currently offer reduced pay for reduced output. By that route, the disabled are being denied some work because they cannot compete on equal terms with the fully fit as they have to be paid the same."
No. They are being denied because of pure dumb ignorance.
Why stop there? women are always going off on maternity, young people haven't got experience, old people will retire soon, (...please insert cliche here...).
Anti discrimination legislation is to protect people from ignorance, stupidity and biggotry because it exists.
John, in your last line... how do you think of the disabled?
presumably this is listed in his expenses as one claimed, hence the comment?
What an April fool!