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

[Orangeade]

So why take a job if you know you cannot afford the travel costs to said job without putting it on a credit card? May I add, like a normal human being to get things done, make an impression and get yourself in a better position.

Unfortunately this employee has now showed the company that she will not take the initiative to get things done and instead will wish to pass the buck to management when it has nothing to do with the company.

Lots of people struggle to find employment. I've interviewed countless people that genuinely need the work that I have not hired and that I know are going to struggle to gain employment anywhere. It's not an easy life for everyone.

Maybe this is the lift that will keep this person out of poverty and bad decisions. Maybe it's not. But in absence of information why assume the worst?

 

[sidimmu]

Lots of people struggle to find employment. I've interviewed countless people that genuinely need the work that I have not hired and that I know are going to struggle to gain employment anywhere. It's not an easy life for everyone.

Maybe this is the lift that will keep this person out of poverty and bad decisions. Maybe it's not. But in absence of information why assume the worst?

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.
I have made sacrifices through maxing out credit cards to ensure I can make it to my new work environment and the wage would then allow me to pay it off.

Some people want to make an impression, some people have problems and the initiative to resolve it, others might take a different solution to their employer.
To just turn up and say no, cant/wont do that due to X is a concern and I would not be happy with that employee either.

 

[Felon]

employee has not given reasons or a solution or at least according to this thread.

Well they did give a reason - it's in the OP, they'd been out of work for some time, so it can be assumed their cash flow is in a poor situation, given the circumstances.

Furthermore, apparently (from how I read it) once they've been paid the person said they'd be able to do the 3x days a week onwards.

So long as that happens - then I don't see a reason to throw them in the bin, show a little compromise.

 

[sidimmu]

Well they did give a reason - it's in the OP, they'd been out of work for some time, so it can be assumed their cash flow is in a poor situation, given the circumstances.
Furthermore, apparently (from how I read it) once they've been paid the person said they'd be able to do the 3x days a week onwards.

Again not really an excuse when you choose to take on a role that will expect you to be in an office.
Why not take a credit card to get yourself to your employment and make a good impression? I dare say it will take maybe 2-3 months to pay it off, but thats what you do when you want/need the job and the salary that comes with it.

So long as that happens - then I don't see a reason to throw them in the bin, show a little compromise.

I'd love for you to quote me where I have said to throw them in the bin.

This new employee would be a concern as they cannot problem solve and instead want to bring all their problems to their new employer who owes them nothing at this time. As stated before, why not try to come up with a solution and bring it to the table? Or why not do what countless people including myself have done before.

 

[Scam]

Thanks guys. Good points. She's on a call with her now (and I'm gasping for a coffee )

If they really are that short on cash I am pretty sure the jobcenter has a system to help people into the first weeks of work in such a situation (eg they will pay for the rail costs etc).

But did GF have a say in the hiring process? There must have been something that clicked to offer the person the job.

Good point re. the job centre. And yes my other half was obviously involved in the process (as much as her stupid HR numpties were trying to take over!)

Could easily be a case of real financial hardship, especially when they've been out of work for a while. What percentage of their income are those train tickets going to be costing ? The offer of one day a week for the rest of the first month does seem like an attempt to mitigate the problem. Your other half would likely get a better picture once the new employee has had a salary paid in.

We're talking about someone in their mid-twenties starting a job paying £40k+. I'd imagine the train tickets are £50 odd per day or something. This isn't a £25k graduate job. She has relevant experience.

My personal opinion is that the company should “float” them some cash to cover the train fare for the first month.

What's the issue here? Just pay their ticket? Hardly going to break the bank and it smooths things over..

Easier said than done in a big corporate. My girlfriend has a corporate card, but doesn't think she could do that very easily (this would have been my choice but my expenses are a bit more free and easy).

Yes just expense the train tickets, which will either build trust or call their bluff.

Indeed. If HR were ever actually useful for once -- they would pro rata her pay and give her an advance. That would easily cover the train tickets.

If someone (a new starter) has said they can't physically afford the commute for the first month until they get paid, it might be more a reality for them, than a behaviour.

It might be a reality, but the three days a week in the office annoys my girlfriend too and it was made absolutely clear throughout the hiring process. Why wait until the end of the first week to bring it up?

But really, someone doesn't have enough money to go to work? That person must be close to falling through the cracks entirely.

Yes and this is what doesn't make sense. My girlfriend is sure she mentioned having savings at some point which puts a massive spin on the argument...

Furthermore, apparently (from how I read it) once they've been paid the person said they'd be able to do the 3x days a week onwards.

So long as that happens - then I don't see a reason to throw them in the bin, show a little compromise.

True, true. But as @sidimmu just said, this could be showing of a bad attitude, or maybe just inexperience in the workplace. If I started a new job I would be falling over myself to set a good impression. Yes money problems are different but there must be some way around it beyond starting your first week trying to go against company policy

 

[sidimmu]

Good point re. the job centre. And yes my other half was obviously involved in the process (as much as her stupid HR numpties were trying to take over!)

This, if done through job centre, they will assist in funding if you ask.

Easier said than done in a big corporate. My girlfriend has a corporate card, but doesn't think she could do that very easily (this would have been my choice but my expenses are a bit more free and easy).

I have never come across any corporate happy to pay a persons travel to and from the office for a job they signed on to agree to and was not discussed/confirmed during interview.

True, true. But as @sidimmu just said, this could be showing of a bad attitude, or maybe just inexperience in the workplace. If I started a new job I would be falling over myself to set a good impression. Yes money problems are different but there must be some way around it beyond starting your first week trying to go against company policy

bad attitude, inability to solve problem, inexperience whatever whatever, they have shown they need a chunk of training and professional skills development, therefore the new employee is a bit of a concern or not really made a solid impression in their first week.

 

[Kenai]

bad attitude, inability to solve problem, inexperience whatever whatever, they have shown they need a chunk of training and professional skills development, therefore the new employee is a bit of a concern or not really made a solid impression in their first week.

From the employees perspective, these are all still infinitely preferable to saying at interview that you won't be able to make it into work and not getting a job at all.

 

[sidimmu]

From the employees perspective, these are all still infinitely preferable to saying at interview that you won't be able to make it into work and not getting a job at all.

Taken on a 40+k job and wont get a credit card to ensure their travel to work for the first month.
Yeah instead of being honest about how I wont spend my own money to get to work until you pay me, lets instead go down this route where I appear to lack common sense and courtesy.
Both are equally dreadful and the employee is a potential risk as a result.
If this is how employment starts, whats it going to be like after probation has ended?

 

[Kenai]

Taken on a 40+k job and wont get a credit card to ensure their travel to work for the first month.
Yeah instead of being honest about how I wont spend my own money to get to work until you pay me, lets instead go down this route where I appear to lack common sense and courtesy.
Both are equally dreadful and the employee is a potential risk as a result.
If this is how employment starts, whats it going to be like after probation has ended?

That people out of work will do or say silly things to secure a job shouldn't really be a surprise. They'll be less worried that you 'have concerns' about them and their employment than they would be spending another month without a job and no income.

Without knowing all the details, we're all making assumptions - the savings thing puts a different spin on it which makes it seem more odd but maybe those savings aren't accessible, maybe she's not able to get a credit card because she's already loaded up a couple whilst out of work? There might be genuine reasons or she might just be a complete pain in the arse employee. Either way, from her perspective, she's better off than not having a job this month.

 

[sidimmu]

That people out of work will do or say silly things to secure a job shouldn't really be a surprise. They'll be less worried that you 'have concerns' about them and their employment than they would be spending another month without a job and no income.

Without knowing all the details, we're all making assumptions - the savings thing puts a different spin on it which makes it seem more odd but maybe those savings aren't accessible, maybe she's not able to get a credit card because she's already loaded up a couple whilst out of work? There might be genuine reasons or she might just be a complete pain in the arse employee. Either way, from her perspective, she's better off than not having a job this month.

Got savings but also loaded up credit cards?
Sometimes got to take a stance and stand by it.

Again issue is that the employee is showing no skills or initiative on how to sort this and is instead pushing it back on to the employer to allow her to not follow company policy when only being there a week.
I understand the employee dont care how the employer may see them and that itself is a risk. But, if you dont respect the company and its management, would you even respect the clients or processes? Probably not.

I can and will be compassionate when required and needed, but this is a personal problem with the employee and the job has had zero impact on and its really got absolutely nothing to do with the hiring company and it should not be there problem.

 

[China Man]

You hire a person to do a job and that requires attending the office 3 days a week, how he/she gets to work does not mean a thing to a manager especially a new join. Either you can do the job or you can't, making adjustment for a new join is really something I would not do personally and if working 1 day a week is possible then I would have recruited a different person cheaper and also could be better.

For those who think making adjustment for the new join could win loyalty and potentially an employee of the year thing, yes of course but hiring many temp contract and a larger population to choose from yield much better chance

 

[Pyr0m@nI@]{]

Tell them to contact the DWP for help with the extra costs associated with finding a new job.

 

[Felon]

True, true. But as @sidimmu just said, this could be showing of a bad attitude, or maybe just inexperience in the workplace. If I started a new job I would be falling over myself to set a good impression. Yes money problems are different but there must be some way around it beyond starting your first week trying to go against company policy

£40k a year, living on the south coast - and having been out of work for a while, I can see the problems right away.

Her take-home is around £2600,

Her rent anywhere on the south coast is going to be average around £1000-1200 a month before any bills (if she's in any of the main towns, I'll assume somewhere like Brighton)

The cost of the commute (3 days a week, so 12 days in total for a calendar month) comes in around £600 ( around £5k a year for a season ticket)

If she does the commute 3 days a week, it's going to be around 70% of her take-home (£1.8k) gone, right off the bat - that's before council tax, food or whatever.


At the end of the day, it's going to have to be a judgement call - you have to do what's best for the business, but it's difficult to know what's best for the business making such a rash move, as you'll have to go through the hiring process all over again. This person hasn't committed gross misconduct, they've let the employer know about the problem and presumably given their commitment to being in the office 3x days a week, after the first month.

I honestly would expect the employer to provide *some* level of help, it's ultimately in their interests to ensure they have the right staff - and presumably this person fitted the bill well, as they were hired in the first place.

 

[Scam]

From the employees perspective, these are all still infinitely preferable to saying at interview that you won't be able to make it into work and not getting a job at all.

Either way, from her perspective, she's better off than not having a job this month.

True, true. But stuff like this is what made my other half wary of taking on someone who lives far away in the first place! Not so much this dramatic, but she doesn't want someone that needs a 'conversation' about getting to the office on time, or three days a week, or wants an exception because of 'the trains'. To add perspective, said new employee had also asked my other half about a relocation package. In hindsight perhaps that was her way of raising the issue, but the way she raised it, it seemed more at the time that she was just after more money or something (dunno).

its really got absolutely nothing to do with them and should not be there problem.

Yep. Giving your new employer problems in the first week is not good. My girlfriend's role changed a while ago, she took on loads of responsibility and is absolutely snowed under with doing her day-to-day, together with creating new big-picture processes that she's now in charge of. She was desperate for the headcount and finally got it.. unfortunately it's quite a niche role so finding people will the right experience (or aptitude) is difficult. In short, she just wants to get on with the job in hand, not problem solving for a new starter with what appears to be a bad attitude.

Update (my girlfriend will be annoyed I'm giving these details but hey), they've come to a compromise in that new employee has pre-booked train tickets for the week after next.. but later so she doesn't get in until midday. She's still leaving normal time though

I'm not getting a good vibe from this at all, apparently she thought it appropriate to mention what time she could take lunch. NB: worth mentioning there is an existing compromise for some employees that live further afield to work on the train as part of their hours so it's not unheard of.

I don't think I ever want to manage anyone

 

[Kenai]

Got savings but also loaded up credit cards?
Sometimes got to take a stance and stand by it.

Again issue is that the employee is showing no skills or initiative on how to sort this and is instead pushing it back on to the employer to allow her to not follow company policy when only being there a week.
I understand the employee dont care how the employer may see them and that itself is a risk. But, if you dont respect the company and its management, would you even respect the clients or processes? Probably not.

I can and will be compassionate when required and needed, but this is a personal problem with the employee and the job has had zero impact on and its really got absolutely nothing to do with the hiring company and it should not be there problem.

I don't disagree the person presents a possible risk but it shouldn't be surprising that people don't raise these things at interview - they'd rather risk being a problem employee than not an employee at all.

 

[sidimmu]

£40k a year, living on the south coast - and having been out of work for a while, I can see the problems right away.

Her take-home is around £2600,

Her rent anywhere on the south coast is going to be average around £1000-1200 a month before any bills (if she's in any of the main towns, I'll assume somewhere like Brighton)

The cost of the commute (3 days a week, so 12 days in total for a calendar month) comes in around £600 ( around £5k a year for a season ticket)

If she does the commute 3 days a week, it's going to be around 70% of her take-home (£1.8k) gone, right off the bat - that's before council tax, food or whatever.

At the end of the day, it's going to have to be a judgement call - you have to do what's best for the business, but it's difficult to know what's best for the business making such a rash move, as you'll have to go through the hiring process all over again. This person hasn't committed gross misconduct, they've let the employer know about the problem and presumably given their commitment to being in the office 3x days a week, after the first month.

Guess what, none of those problems are the problem of the business.
They set the policies and rules, it is for the employee to follow them.
They were told expectations at interview and agreed to them.
Then in their first week want to back track on your agreement, well why shouldnt the employer back track on their agreement too then?
Again I am not saying bin them and send them to the wolves, but its not the employer responsibility to ensure their staff get to work on time and actually turn up to the office.

I honestly would expect the employer to provide *some* level of help, it's ultimately in their interests to ensure they have the right staff - and presumably this person fitted the bill well, as they were hired in the first place.

I suspect they would offer an advance and pro rata it, if said employee asked at initial stage of interview or during onboarding, not a week into the role. Again the employee has caused all the problems and showed zero understanding, respect or initiative to resolve it.

I don't disagree the person presents a possible risk but it shouldn't be surprising that people don't raise these things at interview - they'd rather risk being a problem employee than not an employee at all.

Yeah I respect that, but then they should also respect if your change of heart does not fit the hiring company. If the person was that good and stood out, I am sure the employer could have had a sensible chat with them during interview or onboarding.

Yep. Giving your new employer problems in the first week is not good. My girlfriend's role changed a while ago, she took on loads of responsibility and is absolutely snowed under with doing her day-to-day, together with creating new big-picture processes that she's now in charge of. She was desperate for the headcount and finally got it.. unfortunately it's quite a niche role so finding people will the right experience (or aptitude) is difficult. In short, she just wants to get on with the job in hand, not problem solving for a new starter with what appears to be a bad attitude.

Update (my girlfriend will be annoyed I'm giving these details but hey), they've come to a compromise in that new employee has pre-booked train tickets for the week after next.. but later so she doesn't get in until midday. She's still leaving normal time though

I'm not getting a good vibe from this at all, apparently she thought it appropriate to arrange what time she could take lunch. NB: worth mentioning there is an existing compromise for some employees that live further afield to work on the train as part of their hours so it's not unheard of.

I don't think I ever want to manage anyone

This does not set a good precedent for the future. As it could be viewed as one rule for one, one rule for others allowing a new joiner who needs to prove their worth, do half days for the same salary. Or I hope this user is working in those mornings and during the train ride like others do. Completely agree that no one wants to be managing a new starters problems when its got zero to do with the organisation and the org have not created those problems or concerns.

 

[Felon]

Then in their first week want to back track on your agreement, well why shouldnt the employer back track on their agreement too then?

I don't think that the employee has "backtracked" on the agreement, they've asked for a compromise in the first month, due to financial difficulties.

If the employee had said "Nope, I can't ever do 3x days a week, I can only do 1x day a week from now on" then that's a big problem.

I can also tell you as a manager and tech lead for a large company, that you're always going to struggle to fire an employee, who has told you they have money problems and can't afford their commute for the first month - without having any sort of discussion or trying to solve the problem or strike a compromise.

Life and employment law isn't a simple binary matter of "YOU'RE FIRED" the moment a problem arises, both parties have to make an effort to strike a compromise. If they don't - the employee may have a successful tribunal if fired, so care must be taken.

 

[China Man]

£40k a year, living on the south coast - and having been out of work for a while, I can see the problems right away.

Her take-home is around £2600,

Her rent anywhere on the south coast is going to be average around £1000-1200 a month before any bills (if she's in any of the main towns, I'll assume somewhere like Brighton)

The cost of the commute (3 days a week, so 12 days in total for a calendar month) comes in around £600 ( around £5k a year for a season ticket)

If she does the commute 3 days a week, it's going to be around 70% of her take-home (£1.8k) gone, right off the bat - that's before council tax, food or whatever.


At the end of the day, it's going to have to be a judgement call - you have to do what's best for the business, but it's difficult to know what's best for the business making such a rash move, as you'll have to go through the hiring process all over again. This person hasn't committed gross misconduct, they've let the employer know about the problem and presumably given their commitment to being in the office 3x days a week, after the first month.

I honestly would expect the employer to provide *some* level of help, it's ultimately in their interests to ensure they have the right staff - and presumably this person fitted the bill well, as they were hired in the first place.

I think we think too much for the new join lol unless we are hiring a James bond who is the only one for the job to save the world
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. I also work in a big company and the stance on employment and termination of contract is a lot different now compares to 5-10 years ago, it is a lot easier now to terminate someone contract as it is much easier to justify business needs vs employee needs. We all need to safeguard the company survival as too many going under.

 

[Scam]

I can also tell you as a manager and tech lead for a large company, that you're always going to struggle to fire an employee, who has told you they have money problems and can't afford their commute for the first month - without having any sort of discussion or trying to solve the problem or strike a compromise.

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

 

[sidimmu]

I don't think that the employee has "backtracked" on the agreement, they've asked for a compromise in the first month, due to financial difficulties.

If the employee had said "Nope, I can't ever do 3x days a week, I can only do 1x day a week from now on" then that's a big problem.

I can also tell you as a manager and tech lead for a large company, that you're always going to struggle to fire an employee, who has told you they have money problems and can't afford their commute for the first month - without having any sort of discussion or trying to solve the problem or strike a compromise.

Life and employment law isn't a simple binary matter of "YOU'RE FIRED" the moment a problem arises, both parties have to make an effort to strike a compromise. If they don't - the employee may have a successful tribunal if fired, so care must be taken.

I am very aware of employee protections and not just having the ability to Alan Sugar someone. But they are on probation so half of these protections do not exist for that employee yet.

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. Didnt speak about concerns in interview or onboarding, didnt ask about advances on salary for the movement of roles. This all points back to the employee choosing to try to chance getting away with not agreeing to company policies.

Yes the employer will look to figure out a way for the future as confirmed by the OP. This is not a requirement of the employer to do this though, sounds like the employer is being nice about it, they have no reason and no legal requirement to be nice about it.

@Scam and @China Man 100% agree with both your replies.