[BBC News] Staff dispute on jail travel pay

[ans]

Fair enough then.

 

I do think it's a bit rich though. It's not like they've moved 200 miles away.

[ai_Droid]

I'm afraid I agree with Albert, it's rough, but it's part of working. Sometimes your work moves, and sometimes it's a longer drive. Sometimes it's a shorter drive. That's the way it is, and it's not your employers problem, its yours.

[Miss Take]

The dangerous precedent is paying civil servants to travel to work on a small island - and the way government calculates travel costs e.g. 40p per mile - and then if others get relocated and expect the same payments on relocation, how much the costs could eventually be. Jeez - you talk like the prison has moved half way across Britain - when it's only a few miles.

 

If a company relocated across to the other side of Preston or Liverpool (e.g. 15 miles) they wouldn't pay mileage. On your logic, since your old man is now saving a few quid on his journey to work and has effectively gained a pay rise, it would only be fair that he should start chipping in to the others by having his tax code adjusted.

 

By planning I mean preparing to get up half an hour earlier, and if you had the previous luxury of being able to walk to walk, then realising sometime during the >5 years the prison was planned for and eventually built, that you needed to buy a car for work like the rest of us.

 

I agree there has to be a realistic relocation distance when mileage claims are valid - but >17 miles.

 

This is taxpayers money we are talking about - i.e. Joe Public subsidising one small sector of the civil service for similar distances many others on the island have to travel and don't get paid for.

 

Albert, I'm sure you'd be the first to be up in arms if your employer said to you 'you need to take a pay cut of £1,000 because we need to improve the business, which is what this effectively boils down to.

[Miss Take]

I'm afraid I agree with Albert, it's rough, but it's part of working. Sometimes your work moves, and sometimes it's a longer drive. Sometimes it's a shorter drive. That's the way it is, and it's not your employers problem, its yours.

 

It is an individual problem, unless your employer realises that it is to its benefit to keep morale up and try to retain the staff they have, which is what has been done here (and, might I add, is done as a pretty standard thing all across britain).

 

Perhaps some of you on this board can afford to take an effective pay cut like this - good for you!

[Mission]

I think they should go on hunger strike, just like the prisoners have over the no smoking issue.

[MarkH]

What's wrong with you people?

[The Warder]

WTF Apr 29 2008, 08:11 PM

(quote) no surprise there then, they should bus them up en mass. by the time they are happy with a travel allowance they will be car sharing and ending up better off. do all civil servants get paid expenses for travelling to work??

(1) There is no direct bus route between the two places

(2) By own bus/ would cause problems with different times of work, emergencies, call outs etc

==============

Molly Apr 29 2008, 08:15 PM

(quote) Will prison staff that live closer to the new prison get a pay cut now they wont have to travel as far to work? thought not.

(1) Staff who were employed after the official opening date was announced will not receive payment

(2) Staff who reside closer to the new prison than the old will not receive payment

(3) Payment will be on a sliding scale; dependant on how close that person lives (worked out by Government Admin) This is the most direct route which in this case is The old Prison, Ramsey mountain road, through Tholt-y-Will and to Jurby. No additional payment will be made if the mountain road is closed (bad weather, TT etc)

==============

The Frog Apr 29 2008, 10:35 PM

(quote) 'Officers have been offered 40p per extra mile they will travel over a period of three years, payable in a lump sum'... they already get paid a travel allowance...? THEY GET PAID FOR DRIVING TO WORK? FFS... but noooooo, they want more, coz they have been massively inconvenienced by moving 20 odd miles up the road!

(1) Only those currently working on the new systems can claim (note: staff who live in areas around the prison are utilized first and therefore cannot claim)

(2) as per forum member TerryMcCann stated ‘when they took jobs at the prison they knew they would have to travel to Douglas and that was accepted as a normal part of their daily commute and no extra should be paid for travel costs’ ‘The move to Jurby is a forced relocation. They have no choice but to accept it (other than quitting) and many will incur an extra cost for travel’

As per forum member Miss Take ‘No-one, including the prison workers, expects to get travel money when they initially take a job. You accept a job offer knowing how far you have to travel and whether the salary is worth it. If you're then forced to travel to a relocated office and incur extra costs then the situation has changed.

It isn't paying people more to do the same job - it's covering them for the increase in costs they incur by agreeing to stay on in that job after a relocation’

As per forum member Pale Rider ‘I have been in this situation in the UK about 2 years ago. My company merged with another and relocated about 25 miles away from our old office. This meant staff had no choice but to move which increased our travelling costs and time. Had the job originally been in the new location I would never have applied because of the distance from home and fuel costs. Unfortunately the company had a get out clause. Because it was a merger, and not just a relocation they refused to pay. None of the staff who were forced to move work there now!

About 10 years ago I was in a similar situation at a different company. This was a straightforward office relocation 13 miles away, we got a slight wage increase to cover extra fuel costs without even having to ask.

As far as I know in the UK, a company has to offer staff some financial incentive if they relocate over a certain distance. I would assume rules will be similar on the island’.

===============

The Frog Apr 30 2008 11:22 PM

(quote) As if they are going to leave their cushy little numbers for the sake of a few pence per mile. Let em go I say, see how long they last in the real world... 'Sir, he has more pens than me', 'his chair looks more comfy', 'you expect me to do that now? but i'm on my break'.

I'd swap jobs... security (no pun intended) & paid to travel to work!

Hmmmm, JAP, that's what prison guards tend to do and get paid very well for. You might wanna get used to that idea.

(1) Explain and define cushy little numbers. Do you have experience of this? If assaults on staff, having your family and yourself threatened on a regular basis is cushy, then you are correct

(2)Training of staff takes a considerable amount of expense, time and manpower

(3) ref pay.. They work Nightshifts, 13 hour days, bank holidays, Christmas, New Year, weekends, extended as and when required, work odd and unfriendly hours that affect social life. This does not mean to say that the Prison staff are unique, as other sectors like Hospitals, Fire and Police services to name but a few, do varied patterns too

==============

Molly 01 May 2008 08:30 AM

let them all stay at the old prison and recruit new staff from uk to run the new one.

Not really an option I know, the prison officers know that as well so as someone else said, they've got the government over a barrel. The screws that I know are hardly ever at work anyway, 3 weeks off or more after a week of nights! that cant be rite can it?

(1) The old prison is run down and not capable of new proposed regimes that include education, work training, offending behavior packages

(2) ref new staff, see reply earlier

(3) ref 3 weeks off. Staff have worked for 78 hours nightshift in one week. The 3 weeks off includes their holiday entitlement which is built into their shift patterns. They are unable to take holidays when they like ie, school holidays, Christmas etc, but have to take them dependent on their shift pattern.

 

 

It is understandable that the tax payer (including myself) is a little aggrieved with the situation and personally, taking a pay cut of £1000 would cause problems to most families. I do not think anyone would be willing to take a pay cut and if any person is entitled to it, then good luck to all.

With reference to the prison, it is huge as seen on various websites and although I believe it should have been built closer, that option was decided by others. It will however, be closely monitored by outside agencies and will take time to get the regimes and programs correct.

[Albert Tatlock]

Albert, I'm sure you'd be the first to be up in arms if your employer said to you 'you need to take a pay cut of £1,000 because we need to improve the business, which is what this effectively boils down to.

I'm sure I would have something to say about a £1000 pay cut - but this is nothing to do with what happens when they are at work. It's a bit of extra travel to work for some, and less travel to work for others - given many years notice of it happening - on a small island where others have to incur similar costs.

 

What about some of those made redundant in Ramsey last year, now having to work in Douglas - should the taxpayer subsidise their journeys too? If the DoT relocated to Ramsey, would you be willing to subsidise hundreds of civil servants to travel there and back?

 

You want to travel a bit more if you think the islands that big - people need to keep distances in perspective.

 

But overall, do not underestimate what this would cost given the way the government calculates/pays mileage if it was set as a precedent. It's not up to the Manx taxpayer to take the hit for travel costs - we are all having to pay more due to rising fuel costs - that's life.

 

If they want a compromise, then lay on a prison bus after they park up in Douglas - but let's see how many of them still take that after a couple of months. Not many I would imagine - they'll soon fall back on their cars like the rest of us, and have to take the hit like the rest of us.

 

They even want paying for the time they are travelling. This would be laughed out of court in the UK.

[manxy]

I don't disagree with you on much Albert, but on this one I do.

I couldn't afford a paycut and to expect others to do so, would be bad for the families concerned. I understand that this is for a few years and if they can afford a 40 odd million pound prison, then this is loose change, as like the new Hospital and Iris scheme.

[manxy]

Fair enough then.

 

I do think it's a bit rich though.

 

A screw friend of mine mentioned once that every inmate gets £350 per year in tax rebates! So if someone does 10 years for say buggering nuns, they are paid £3500 by us taxpayers. Now THAT is a "bit rich"!

 

Take away the "rebates" off the nun buggerers and the rest of 'em (if you don't contribute in the first place how can you get anything 'rebated')

Give the money to the screws.

Can anyone validate this?

 

Do prisoners get a tax rebate whilst in prison?

If they have families, then it makes a difference, but single, no overheads (not talking about nooses) Surely the money should go elsewhere, even to their victims?

[manxy]

I think they should go on hunger strike, just like the prisoners have over the no smoking issue.

Didn't hear that they've gone on hunger strike. That'll save some money

The whole prisons none smoking, which includes everyone

[Lonan3]

That was a clear, authoritative and instructive post. You must be new 'round these parts.

[Albert Tatlock]

and if they can afford a 40 odd million pound prison, then this is loose change, as like the new Hospital and Iris scheme.

'They' is 'us' and 'us' is 'you' and 'I'.

[Miss Take]

Albert, I'm sure you'd be the first to be up in arms if your employer said to you 'you need to take a pay cut of £1,000 because we need to improve the business, which is what this effectively boils down to.

I'm sure I would have something to say about a £1000 pay cut - but this is nothing to do with what happens when they are at work. It's a bit of extra travel to work for some, and less travel to work for others - given many years notice of it happening - on a small island where others have to incur similar costs.

 

What about some of those made redundant in Ramsey last year, now having to work in Douglas - should the taxpayer subsidise their journeys too? If the DoT relocated to Ramsey, would you be willing to subsidise hundreds of civil servants to travel there and back?

 

You want to travel a bit more if you think the islands that big - people need to keep distances in perspective.

 

But overall, do not underestimate what this would cost given the way the government calculates/pays mileage if it was set as a precedent. It's not up to the Manx taxpayer to take the hit for travel costs - we are all having to pay more due to rising fuel costs - that's life.

 

If they want a compromise, then lay on a prison bus after they park up in Douglas - but let's see how many of them still take that after a couple of months. Not many I would imagine - they'll soon fall back on their cars like the rest of us, and have to take the hit like the rest of us.

 

They even want paying for the time they are travelling. This would be laughed out of court in the UK.

 

I'm gonna have to disagree with you on most points on this one.

 

You can't offset the benefit to some staff against the loss to others - unless you're in a communist country perhaps. This is a genuine loss to people whose contracts of employment state Douglas as their work address.

 

Despite what you might think, this happens a lot - both in governement and private businesses - I underwent it at my last job, which involved a move of only 20 miles, so it was on a similar scale to this - the size of the Island has nothing to do with it. My company encouraged car pooling and gave mileage allowances to the drivers, so it was perhaps slightly better thought out than in this case.

 

The staff are not being compensated for extra fuel costs - like every other Manx taxpayer they will absorb those costs - this is to reimburse the cost of extra travel, including the extra wear and tear on the vehicle. The 40p rate is the recommended rate of the UK Government and as such is used across the British Isles.

 

The only point I agree on is that they should trial having a bus from Douglas - it's a sensible option if it is used.

[WilDDog]

I was offered another job in the department I work and they wanted me to travel more or less the same miles as the warders without any mileage allowance, I have to say I wasn't impressed and I didn't take the job.

I've had a re-think on this, and now I think they should be paid to travel to Jurby for a couple of years. If they do get it "good luck" to them.