Opinion: Started job but can’t afford to travel to office?

[SixTwoSix]

Really? This employee (and the other new starter) are on a long probation period (4-5 months I believe) so at least there's plenty of time to get over this hump and see how they perform once salary has been paid etc.

I can't see how a tribunal would ever side with an employee that is not turning up to the office as per the contract they have signed, especially when on probation

You can let them go for pretty much any non protected reason in the first two years of employment anyway.

 

[Felon]

Running a business means hiring the right person to do the job and if the job requires 3 days a week in the office and someone signed up but cannot deliver then they are not fulfilling the employment contract.

Again, this person isn't saying they can't deliver 3 days a week in the office.

They're saying they need help in their first month, to get over the initial hurdle - after that, they'll do 3x days a week in the office.

You're going to struggle to fire someone in that context without any other reason.

The context being - they've reached out and told the employer about the problem, and have tried to strike a solution for the first month, this point is very important - because it could amount to a defence in a tribunal.

But they are on probation so half of these protections do not exist for that employee yet.

For someone on probation, they still have the same statutory rights as somebody not on probation, with a few minor exceptions (dismissal procedure may be shorter, or not as thorough) - but on the whole, they have the same legal protections as anybody else.

Employee has backtracked on the agreement, the agreement was the employee will be on site 3 days as week as of the commencement of their employment and they now state they cannot and wont do this.

You and @China Man keep getting this wrong. They've not said they won't work 3x days a week in the office, it's for the first month.

They're not saying they won't do it - they're saying they need 1 month to sort their situation out. That's different than back tracking on the agreement by saying "I will not ever do this"

If they'd said "I won't work 3 days in the office a week, ever" then it's easy - they've directly violated the agreement, but that isn't what's happened.

 

[China Man]

It is down to the business and business needs, if the contract is for 3 days a week in the office and new join cannot attend or needed adjustment there is no requirement for business to adjust. It depends on HR decision of what deem to be reasonable, one can always call in sick as bed bound but not being able to get to work is not usually a valid reason.

Like all things in life you can ask but it does not mean you will get and trust me HR and manager can put their foot down and refuse suggested support without getting into any legal trouble, union can intervein but as long as the process is followed and business cannot accommodate then it will not go much further.

 

[sidimmu]

For someone on probation, they still have the same statutory rights as somebody not on probation, with a few minor exceptions (dismissal procedure may be shorter, or not as thorough) - but on the whole, they have the same legal protections as anybody else.

They have some rights, but they do not get the full protection like a typical employee of 3 years would. Anyone on probation can be let go at the end of probation or sooner.

You and @China Man keep getting this wrong. They've not said they won't work 3x days a week in the office, it's for the first month.

They're not saying they won't do it - they're saying they need 1 month to sort their situation out. That's different than back tracking on the agreement by saying "I will not ever do this"

If they'd said "I won't work 3 days in the office a week, ever" then it's easy - they've directly violated the agreement, but that isn't what's happened.

I am not getting it wrong, you are failing to see what I am writing.
I have understood this is not the case forever (at least at the time of writing), but they agreed to be on site and in the office from the commencement of their employment and are trying to do whatever they can to not deliver this agreement.
Again, its not the employers fault the employee did not discuss or bring this to their attention at interview, the company has every right to protect themselves from a new hire who is trying to not follow company policies or their contract of employment.

What you are failing to see is that we are talking about the now and not the future. Yeah it might be different next month, great hopefully they can get on with their job and stop being a risk and concern for the business. But as of right now, they are painting themselves as a risky hire and have taken more resources out the business in their first week than most other hire's do.

 

[Steeps]

Why is the first salary payment mid month? I think that would throw me off a bit if I was expecting end of the month salary payment.

There are loan schemes companies can offer staff for season tickets, but if scheduled to work 3 days in the office the full 5 days is still probably better value, then the cost is taken out of salary evenly over the year and no advance to pay. The company probably doesn't want to do this though for a new starter under probation.

 

[Felon]

I have understood this is not the case forever (at least at the time of writing), but they agreed to be on site and in the office from the commencement of their employment and are trying to do whatever they can to not deliver this agreement.

Well that's not entirely true, if you read @Scam 's reply, it looks as though they've agreed to compromise and let this person be in the office from next week, but later in the day - presumably because the train fare is a lot cheaper, (1/2 price roughly), so again compromise is always possible, and it's up to the employee to be thankful and now deliver good work, now that a compromise has been reached.

Again, its not the employers fault the employee did not discuss or bring this to their attention at interview, the company has every right to protect themselves from a new hire who is trying to not follow company policies or their contract of employment.

I wouldn't say that's the case either, because they reached out and let the employer know the situation and tried to (and have by the looks of it) come to an alternate agreement for the first month. That's not the same thing at all, as directly trying to not abide by their contract of employment - that would be gross misconduct and would rightfully be grounds for termination.

Ultimately, the employee had a problem and raised it - under your logic the employer should just fire them, right away - without trying to help at all.

The problem is if they did that - the employee would likely have a good case in a tribunal for unfair dismissal, because it wouldn't be reasonable to just fire them on the spot - especially after the employee tried to resolve the matter, and gave assurances that this was a temporary issue for their first month.

 

[sidimmu]

Well that's not entirely true, if you read @Scam 's reply, it looks as though they've agreed to compromise and let this person be in the office from next week, but later in the day - presumably because the train fare is a lot cheaper, (1/2 price roughly), so again compromise is always possible, and it's up to the employee to be thankful and now deliver good work, now that a compromise has been reached.

Yes they reached a compromise, the employer didnt have to though.

Ultimately, the employee had a problem and raised it - under your logic the employer should just fire them, right away - without trying to help at all.

No, I have not stated that they deserve immediately firing anywhere. Nor without help either.
So be a good boy will you and go quote where you got that from, as you are just making things up now.
You are clearly ignoring my actual replies and are instead reaching to what you want me to say, not what I am actually saying.

But again, tell me about how all employers need to bend over and compromise for employees regardless if they joined 5 years ago or 5 minutes ago.

The issue sits with the employee for being dishonest during the interview process, funny enough thats enough of a reason to terminate an employment contract for someone who is on probation.

To really try to make it clear;
If employee had been honest during interview process, they probably still would have gotten the job and would have gotten advancement on wages or assistance. But they chose to keep quiet, land the job and then put additional resource strain on the business because they could not meet what was expected of them. To expect the company to bend over the for the employee as a result of this is just silly.

 

[Felon]

You are clearly ignoring my actual replies and are instead reaching to what you want me to say, not what I am actually saying.

I think one problem is that you've not actually read what the OP has written, so you're making arguments based on an incorrect understanding of the situation.

Such as this:

employee has not given reasons or a solution or at least according to this thread.
Instead we have a brand new employee who has stated they cant come into the office and dont have the ability to think outside the box on how to make it work or to make a sacrifice for getting employment.

Which is false, because they do have a reason (financial hardship) and they have proposed a solution - work 1 day in the office a week, until the end of the month - at which point they get paid, and they can work 3x days a week from then onward.

I think the employer would struggle with that argument in an employment tribunal, if the employee raised it for unfair dismissal.

The issue sits with the employee for being dishonest during the interview process, funny enough thats enough of a reason to terminate an employment contract for someone who is on probation.

To really try to make it clear;
If employee had been honest during interview process, they probably still would have gotten the job and would have gotten advancement on wages or assistance. But they chose to keep quiet, land the job and then put additional resource strain on the business because they could not meet what was expected of them. To expect the company to bend over the for the employee as a result of this is just silly.

They'd struggle, because they'd need to be able to prove that the employee was being dishonest or lying at the time of the interview, which I doubt they could do.

Secondly, people do run into problems - any one of a number of things could have occurred in the employees life which led to this - we don't know. But we do know that it was raised, and discussed, so the employer would have to justify dumping them, when the employee has directly tried to resolve it, which is a difficult position to defend when you fired them.

 

[PlacidCasual]

Recruitment is expensive a couple of weeks advance isn't. I'd give them the money and take the risk.

 

[Kenai]

If employee had been honest during interview process, they probably still would have gotten the job

I think that's very debateable, personally I would expect a huge number of employers would just bin someone off at that point. Unless the candidate is exceptionally confident of themselves, that's a very big risk for someone currently unemployed to take - and I would imagine unemployed people are not going to be the most confident of themselves in interviews.

I can also well imagine if someone posted on here that they didn't get a job after interview because they said they'd not be able to afford to attend work for a month, they'd get roundly mocked for raising that at the interview

 

[swillsy]

loan them the money at 15% interest (weekly)

 

[adidan]

The employee explained the situation, if they've not got the money until they get paid then they've not got the money.

Are people saying that somebody shouldn't take a job if they don't have money? That's daft.

The reality is it'll take longer to fire them and get somebody else in so they may as well accept this from the employee and see what happens then.

They may just well be worth taking the chance on.

 

[China Man]

Well that's not entirely true, if you read @Scam 's reply, it looks as though they've agreed to compromise and let this person be in the office from next week, but later in the day - presumably because the train fare is a lot cheaper, (1/2 price roughly), so again compromise is always possible, and it's up to the employee to be thankful and now deliver good work, now that a compromise has been reached.



I wouldn't say that's the case either, because they reached out and let the employer know the situation and tried to (and have by the looks of it) come to an alternate agreement for the first month. That's not the same thing at all, as directly trying to not abide by their contract of employment - that would be gross misconduct and would rightfully be grounds for termination.

Ultimately, the employee had a problem and raised it - under your logic the employer should just fire them, right away - without trying to help at all.

The problem is if they did that - the employee would likely have a good case in a tribunal for unfair dismissal, because it wouldn't be reasonable to just fire them on the spot - especially after the employee tried to resolve the matter, and gave assurances that this was a temporary issue for their first month.

Reaching out and asking for support is the right thing to do (employee), considering the request and making a decision is also the right thing to do (employer). The decision will come down to what is the business can accommodate, what is unfair to the employee is not the same as what is an unfair decision. Making the way to work is solely the responsibility of the employee, it may be unfair in him/her circumstance but that does not mean terminating her contract is unfair because he/she cannot attend work even for a day for the reason stated. The same as looking as why business cannot accommodate working from home 4 days a week as to why can't can't the person seek help with fare or accommodations for the month outside of work.

There are a lots of things happen in life which will affect a person attendance and not having the money for fare in the first month of employment is unfortunate, if going to tribunal for a dismissal due to non attendance and there is a good business case then it will not go far. Remember we are not firing someone because they are down but we are terminating a contract because the person cannot fulfils the contract requirement. Most big company are scared of publicity more than tribunals in this case it will be a really sad story if the contract get terminated but taking on a job in London so far away which stated 3 days a week attendance required really not helped.

 

[Pyr0m@nI@]{]

I don't know why this is still being discussed, the DWP has funding for help with starting a new job. You can claim for clothing & travel expenses etc.

 

[China Man]

I think the discussion is about the decision the manager girlfriend would made rather than the actual solution to the problem. The fare money is the responsibility of the employee, if there are help available there is even less chance for tribunal case if request to work from home is refused.

 

[sidimmu]

I think one problem is that you've not actually read what the OP has written, so you're making arguments based on an incorrect understanding of the situation.

Such as this:
Which is false, because they do have a reason (financial hardship) and they have proposed a solution - work 1 day in the office a week, until the end of the month - at which point they get paid, and they can work 3x days a week from then onward.

I think the employer would struggle with that argument in an employment tribunal, if the employee raised it for unfair dismissal.

They'd struggle, because they'd need to be able to prove that the employee was being dishonest or lying at the time of the interview, which I doubt they could do.

Secondly, people do run into problems - any one of a number of things could have occurred in the employees life which led to this - we don't know. But we do know that it was raised, and discussed, so the employer would have to justify dumping them, when the employee has directly tried to resolve it, which is a difficult position to defend when you fired them.

I have read it all, yes they used an excuse in the first post that i might of missed, therefore I must be completely incorrect and my replies worthless. Grow up.

All of this was known by the employee at interview level, they chose to hide it until employed, that is them being dishonest during the interview process.
Again, employee has chosen to keep this hidden from interview, onboarding, contract of employment and only mentioned during their first week of work. But again be all lovey dovey for this problem employee who shows zero initiative.

I can also well imagine if someone posted on here that they didn't get a job after interview because they said they'd not be able to afford to attend work for a month, they'd get roundly mocked for raising that at the interview

Too right they would get mocked and laughed at.
As stated numerous times in this thread that everyone seems to blow over and give this employee the benefit of the doubt;

the DWP has funding for help with starting a new job. You can claim for clothing & travel expenses etc.

The employee chose to keep this hidden, the employee chose to not ask for assistance from employer, job centre, family, friends or take their own financial sacrifice to secure employment. Zero sympathy.
If the employee chose to keep something else hidden, regardless of what it is, it would go down the exact same route, some people in here are just blind.

 

[Felon]

I have read it all, yes they used an excuse in the first post that i might of missed, therefore I must be completely incorrect and my replies worthless. Grow up.

It's quite important.

If the employee has a problem and they've raised it with their employer, it's up to both parties to work it out and come to an amicable agreement that works, it's called "being reasonable"

All of this was known by the employee at interview level, they chose to hide it until employed, that is them being dishonest during the interview process.
Again, employee has chosen to keep this hidden from interview, onboarding, contract of employment and only mentioned during their first week of work. But again be all lovey dovey for this problem employee who shows zero initiative.

You don't know that, it's pure conjecture.

Taking a hardline stance and assuming from the outset that the employee has lied or been dishonest based on no evidence, is stupid.

None of us know what her situation is, so taking such a hardline stance is a bit silly.

The employee chose to keep this hidden, the employee chose to not ask for assistance from employer, job centre, family, friends or take their own financial sacrifice to secure employment. Zero sympathy.
If the employee chose to keep something else hidden, regardless of what it is, it would go down the exact same route, some people in here are just blind.

More conjecture.

 

[China Man]

Employment is how a contract should be, both party sign an agreement and if anything needs to change then it has to be a new agreement. Private matters tends to be heard and considered but not contractual requirement during interviews or hiring process, how one travel to work is non of employer business as long as it does not impact ability to attend work or performance.

If agreed arrangement to work is 3x a week in the office and for any reason it needs to change then both party needs to agree, it does not matter what the reason is or the duration. It should be documented and not just close an eye as if allowed for more than a certain period it will deem as accepted support. There are always terms and conditions attach to any contracts and we do not know what those are but based on what the OP mentioned and employee in the second week requesting working from home for 3 weeks and missed out on 6 days of office attendance it would be a easy "no" and please make alternate arrangement for your attendance.

It would be different if it is a planned absents for other reasons, if next month the staff needed working from home it could be a different case as they would have been trained and possibility signed off to do work from home etc but second week and asking for change of contract/support I would not even feel bad telling no and I expected you to be on time to go through all the necessary training, if you miss the training then you will be dismissed on absent. In my line of work each case is treated individually and each decision is unique base on business needs

 

[HangTime]

"Big corporates" based in London often have season ticket loan systems, every permanent job I've had based in a London office has either had a loan scheme or it could be expensed (less common).

I'd say the main issue here is that they've left it until after they've worked there a week to bring it up. I mean, if they are can't afford to pay a few train tickets even on a credit card basis they must have known that before starting the job. They would have been much better served seeking assistance beforehand, perhaps the company could've paid for their first month and then deducted that from their pay or whatever.

 

[sidimmu]

It's quite important.

If the employee has a problem and they've raised it with their employer, it's up to both parties to work it out and come to an amicable agreement that works, it's called "being reasonable"

You don't know that, it's pure conjecture.

Taking a hardline stance and assuming from the outset that the employee has lied or been dishonest based on no evidence, is stupid.

None of us know what her situation is, so taking such a hardline stance is a bit silly.

More conjecture.

Apart from if you read the original post, it clearly states the employee knew they would have to move for the role and therefore will come with a period of financial instability.

Again not that you listen to anything anyone says in here, the employer has no requirement to be amicable in this, they offered a job role to someone who accepted and now cannot or chooses not to meet that said agreement.
It might be for this first month only, it might not.
Maybe if it was your business and resources on the line you'd understand where hardline stances are needed for potentially nuisance employees.

"Big corporates" based in London often have season ticket loan systems, every permanent job I've had based in a London office has either had a loan scheme or it could be expensed (less common).

I'd say the main issue here is that they've left it until after they've worked there a week to bring it up. I mean, if they are can't afford to pay a few train tickets even on a credit card basis they must have known that before starting the job. They would have been much better served seeking assistance beforehand, perhaps the company could've paid for their first month and then deducted that from their pay or whatever.

Yes, someone who gets it.