15th February 2011, 01:02 PM
(This post was last modified: 15th February 2011, 01:13 PM by troll.)
Something that was included in this survey deserves mention at this point. Training for drivers.
If an employer provides transport to site either from the office or the provided accommo on away jobs, they are responsible for ensuring that supplied drivers (from within company assets or contracted from without) are competent. All too often, a drivers` licence is enough to allow inexperienced drivers to transport teams of people long distances in large mini-buses. As far back as the late nineties, I had to take a mini-bus licence before I was let loose with unwitting passengers. This despite the fact that I was way over the minimum age of 25. Nowadays, unpaid and inexperienced drivers acting on behalf of extremely persuasive employers are putting peoples lives at risk. In company time. The issue of unpaid drivers is a simple one in my view. If individuals choose to do extra unpaid work- that at the moment- is entirely up to them. As a passenger, I want any potential employer to recognise that they are responsible for my well-being whilst travelling in a vehicle provided by and staffed/driven by their representative. As such, any drivers should be competent and more importantly trained/licenced to operate the vehicles they assume responsibility for. Taking this to its logical conclusion-trained and licenced drivers should be paid for those skills and competency levels-notwithstanding the huge responsibility they assume when carrying souls and expensive company equipment.
Oxbeast-I have to take issue with your view. There is no such thing as compulsory overtime. Field archaeologists are contracted to carry out duties pertaining to that job description. Driving incurs extra hours and responsibilities above and beyond those outlined in contracts of employment. Inexperienced, unqualified and unpaid drivers may be a dream for profit-driven businesses but a potential nightmare for passengers who have little say in the matter. The dream will soon erupt into a catastrophic nightmare for an employer taken to court for failure to provide competent/trained and licenced drivers when God forbid-the unthinkable but somewhat inevitable happens.
Herein lies yet another facet of this......some of the vehicles I have had the unfortunate pleasure of travelling in over the years shouldn`t have been allowed on the roads. Whilst some of the better organisations out there provide good quality vehicles with drivers fit and appropriate for the task in hand, all too many expect passengers to put their lives into the hands of semi-sober spotty youths driving sh*t-heaps under pressure. Not good enough by far.
Oh and as a footnote.." you may sleep and you may fart but you may not smoke".....huzzah! It`s in writing! I can indulge in unfettered flatulence in the van! That will please my colleagues no end. Think the company should now provide sick-bags in advance of my traditional chandellier shakers that have been known to melt windscreens.
If an employer provides transport to site either from the office or the provided accommo on away jobs, they are responsible for ensuring that supplied drivers (from within company assets or contracted from without) are competent. All too often, a drivers` licence is enough to allow inexperienced drivers to transport teams of people long distances in large mini-buses. As far back as the late nineties, I had to take a mini-bus licence before I was let loose with unwitting passengers. This despite the fact that I was way over the minimum age of 25. Nowadays, unpaid and inexperienced drivers acting on behalf of extremely persuasive employers are putting peoples lives at risk. In company time. The issue of unpaid drivers is a simple one in my view. If individuals choose to do extra unpaid work- that at the moment- is entirely up to them. As a passenger, I want any potential employer to recognise that they are responsible for my well-being whilst travelling in a vehicle provided by and staffed/driven by their representative. As such, any drivers should be competent and more importantly trained/licenced to operate the vehicles they assume responsibility for. Taking this to its logical conclusion-trained and licenced drivers should be paid for those skills and competency levels-notwithstanding the huge responsibility they assume when carrying souls and expensive company equipment.
Oxbeast-I have to take issue with your view. There is no such thing as compulsory overtime. Field archaeologists are contracted to carry out duties pertaining to that job description. Driving incurs extra hours and responsibilities above and beyond those outlined in contracts of employment. Inexperienced, unqualified and unpaid drivers may be a dream for profit-driven businesses but a potential nightmare for passengers who have little say in the matter. The dream will soon erupt into a catastrophic nightmare for an employer taken to court for failure to provide competent/trained and licenced drivers when God forbid-the unthinkable but somewhat inevitable happens.
Herein lies yet another facet of this......some of the vehicles I have had the unfortunate pleasure of travelling in over the years shouldn`t have been allowed on the roads. Whilst some of the better organisations out there provide good quality vehicles with drivers fit and appropriate for the task in hand, all too many expect passengers to put their lives into the hands of semi-sober spotty youths driving sh*t-heaps under pressure. Not good enough by far.
Oh and as a footnote.." you may sleep and you may fart but you may not smoke".....huzzah! It`s in writing! I can indulge in unfettered flatulence in the van! That will please my colleagues no end. Think the company should now provide sick-bags in advance of my traditional chandellier shakers that have been known to melt windscreens.