Soldato
Do London companies not all offer train season ticket loans? I've even had small employers here in Gloucestershire have it as an option.
Opinion: Started job but can’t afford to travel to office?
- Thread starter Scam
- Start date
They do if you have the initiative to ask for assistance or if they have such schemes.
They are not just laid out on the table for everyone to utilise.
I still don't get why the company doesn't just compromise temporarily up until payday and let them WFH rather than advance money, which is more risky.
Unless the job needs to be in the office (I don't think it's been mentioned why it's office only apart from company policy) a manager should be able to give a workload, set the deadlines and manage progress and if they're ff'ing around you can quickly see that they're no good.
It doesn't make the best impression but it makes more sense to see how the employee performs rather than have to go through the whole palava of recruiting and having another round of interviews.
If anything if the company gets rid of them just for that, then they've also dodged a bullet and if they have experience they can also find a similar job elsewhere. Might have just been down on their luck.
Unless the job needs to be in the office (I don't think it's been mentioned why it's office only apart from company policy) a manager should be able to give a workload, set the deadlines and manage progress and if they're ff'ing around you can quickly see that they're no good.
It doesn't make the best impression but it makes more sense to see how the employee performs rather than have to go through the whole palava of recruiting and having another round of interviews.
If anything if the company gets rid of them just for that, then they've also dodged a bullet and if they have experience they can also find a similar job elsewhere. Might have just been down on their luck.
Man of Honour
There won't be an unfair dismissal tribunal because the employee has been there for less than two years.
The employees statutory rights do not protect them in this situation - they have not been discriminated against because of any protected characteristic, they haven't exposed anything through whistleblowing, they haven't been dismissed for reporting a Health & Safety infraction.
So there won't be a tribunal, making the fairness of the situation a moot point in this scenario.
Last edited:
Not me! Interested in other opinions on this though.
My girlfriend has recruited someone in London who lives on the south coast. Big corporate office, known brand, with massive global footprint type of thing. The place of work dictates three days a week in the office.
The new employee knew this and was considering moving to London anyway. But after the first week, they’ve now turned round and said they can’t afford the train fare until they get paid in 3 weeks. (They’ve been out of work for a while). So they want to just come in one day a week until then.
As the manager, what would you do? My girlfriend obviously isn’t impressed so far.. It’s incredibly hard to train someone new remotely and there’s lots of things that you need to be in the office (getting computer setup etc, software etc) especially at a big corporate. Even tomorrow, first day of working remotely is going to be tricky - let alone all of next week because of the train strikes.
Beyond asking HR for some kind of advance, is the only option to be completely heartless here? My girlfriend *could* allow it under the radar, but it sets a dangerous precedent (other people that live afar have not been allowed to come in less). And we were half joking that if she did - this new employee could disappear after only doing like 5 days in the office before payday lol
Thoughts?
I do think there is already context in the OP, "The place dictates three days a week in the office" there is now a huge problem at London offices to get people back to work in the office and it is causing a lot of HR issue with people refuse to come back to 5 days week which is what most have signed up for but since tasted working from home and now refuse to return. Some have even relocated far from office to reduce rent over head, some have given up nursery places as they can WFM (typo WFH) and look after kids at the same time. Having new join requesting 1 day a week on the second week just doesn't seem right as a business needs for everyone else as a whole.
"The new employee knew this and was considering moving to London anyway. But after the first week, they’ve now turned round and said they can’t afford the train fare until they get paid in 3 weeks. (They’ve been out of work for a while). So they want to just come in one day a week until then." We all have things we cannot afford and we choose not to buy it, but we take this thread as no money to buy ticket at all but we do not know and should not have to know the extend of lack of money as it is non of the company or manager's business. Beg, steal, borrow, sleep at the gym or station for all it matter, for 3 weeks then all things will magically become better....
"It doesn't make the best impression but it makes more sense to see how the employee performs rather than have to go through the whole palava of recruiting and having another round of interviews" Sure it is expensive to hire but it is also expensive to have a staff who on your pay roll for next 3 weeks who cannot be trained properly and not have the correct IT set up etc". If you accept this case and allows 1 day a week how are you going to justify all other business cases at the office where people want to WFH for whatever reason they may have? Child care, rent, dependent parents.....
Last edited:
Still doesn't explain how they can't be trained properly. I can't understand what IT setup needs to be done in person, are they building the laptop or PC for the new hire?
If this is some big corporate company, having to be in the office to get software installed sounds pretty 90's, have they not heard of app sequencing and remote installs?
The 1 day a week is temporary until payday. Less risk to the business as no upfront money and if they aren't performing then you don't have to claw it back or have it spent on train fares. Upon thinking about it I do see that advancing the money if you really want them to come in or the training is only able to be done in person, is a valid option but you could be wasting it anyway if they aren't good and will utimately let them go.
Also the reasoning that you open up other cases at the office for requesting WFH is exaggerating it really, this scenario is for someone unable to pay for their journey who has just started a job and can't afford the fares until payday. It's not a great look but it seems that most of the other suggestions put the business more at risk to losing money. What guarantees do they have that being there in person at the office will make them more productive, as that is what is being implied in the original posts about them being only there 1 day a week until payday. If the employee is no good they'll be the same whether at home or in the office.
Last edited:
Still doesn't explain how they can't be trained properly. I can't understand what IT setup needs to be done in person, are they building the laptop or PC for the new hire?
If this is some big corporate company, having to be in the office to get software installed sounds pretty 90's, have they not heard of app sequencing and remote installs?
The 1 day a week is temporary until payday. Less risk to the business as no upfront money and if they aren't performing then you don't have to claw it back or have it spent on train fares. Upon thinking about it I do see that advancing the money if you really want them to come in or the training is only able to be done in person, is a valid option but you could be wasting it anyway if they aren't good and will utimately let them go.
Also the reasoning that you open up other cases at the office for requesting WFH is exaggerating it really, this scenario is for someone unable to pay for their journey who has just started a job and can't afford the fares until payday. It's not a great look but it seems that most of the other suggestions put the business more at risk to losing money. What guarantees do they have that being there in person at the office will make them more productive, as that is what is being implied in the original posts about them being only there 1 day a week until payday. If the employee is no good they'll be the same whether at home or in the office.
I work closely with office managers in central London and HR managers and we had long discussions on how to get people back to work at the office, this is a long process over the last year or two which affect not just the company offices but local business which feed off the return workers. There are compromisers made and lots of arrangements made available to retain experienced staff. Thich does not usually applies to new join or probations employee. The cases at the office requesting WFH is not an exaggeration and I am giving real examples which I know of, if one have to refuse a request for temporary child care temp (cannot afford) but then allows another to work 1 day a week because they cannot afford train ticket it would be a ball ache for the company. WFH become a real big issue after covid, if everyone happily back to normal and no one requesting WFH it will be so much easier to accommodate a new join request of one off a couple of weeks.
What you and I don't understand is not really of importance, it is the hiring company or OP statements that "It’s incredibly hard to train someone new remotely and there’s lots of things that you need to be in the office (getting computer setup etc, software etc) especially at a big corporate. Even tomorrow, first day of working remotely is going to be tricky - let alone all of next week because of the train strikes." I am sure if it was an easy answer then it would be an easy decision to let the person WFH for a few weeks of just 1 day at the office. There are banks and law firms which will not allow employee access to their software until training and assessment are done in person, have worked under supervisions, we are not talking about setting up an laptop with MS word/excel, we are talking about data access to sensitive information and alteration mistake which could cost way more than the salary of many folds of the entire team of employee yearly salary combined.
I would give the employee some slack, he did work for first week
My company have a special rule for no show on first day ....
They shouldn't have applied for the job if they couldn't get there. It's part of the research before applying - all the employee is done is pass the problem to management, not a good look for a brand new person and doesn't particularity bode well for the future.
If the OP's g/f has a strict policy on a requirement to be in the office, then allowing on this occasion will get thrown back at her later down the line by another employee when they want to WFH - opens the floodgates. The employee should either not have applied or sourced the money elsewhere imo.
But, as others have said, loyalty works both ways, you help them here and they may be appreciative - or they see the OP's g/f as a pushover and keep taking the ****.
If the OP's g/f has a strict policy on a requirement to be in the office, then allowing on this occasion will get thrown back at her later down the line by another employee when they want to WFH - opens the floodgates. The employee should either not have applied or sourced the money elsewhere imo.
But, as others have said, loyalty works both ways, you help them here and they may be appreciative - or they see the OP's g/f as a pushover and keep taking the ****.
Last edited:
In my experience they literally are just laid out on the table for everyone to utilise, it's normally pitched as a benefit long before you reach the end of the interview process or at a minimum will be in the list of benefits you get sent before starting.
My employer even uses it as a selling point, they having the recruiters saying up front they will pay (not loan) for travel into the office, free lunch etc because they want to attract the best talent and have them on site a couple of days a week, and they want to remove blockers to that like the cost of travel or the cost of buying lunch.
Last edited:
Yeah truthfully, I have applied for jobs where it is laid out on the table too in the form of a benefit. Hell there was one I applied for which would buy you a yearly season ticket for the train from your location and you pay it back out your salary each month (works out cheaper than monthlys).
But understand and have seen other business' they are not as open with options/help available.
That's normally how it works, I did that for years but I was travelling 4 days a week back then, nowadays it's a bit more complicated because on my route an annual ticket is very slightly more expensive than buying single tickets (using a railcard for the return segment) and travelling perhaps 90 times a year.
Last edited:
Judgement call based on initial impressions. You can usually form a family solid view after a few days in their company of the individual, how they act and react to challenges. I would be concerned that the person has an inability to 'life' so they would need to show other strengths for me not to bin them. If I felt them worthy a company loan to cover their travel which I would then decide down the line if they pay it back or I let it fly. If they were unwilling to accept a loan then that is quite telling and I'd say goodbye.
Test of their investment in the company and the role.
Test of their investment in the company and the role.
Last edited:
Sounds like a bargain to me as 12 days a week implies it includes a time-travel machine
Brighton isn't that expensive to commute from though, monthly tickets are under £500.
As much as I like this idea, pretty certain there's some rule about deductions from pay, blah blah. Does give the employee what they need though, and reassures the employer it's being spent on the requested item.
Most top-tier employers will offer season ticket loan facilities, which I am not sure can be squeezed to a single month, but it shouldn't be a bizarre ask.
Commuting is amazingly expensive. People aren't "flush" and may not have credit. Especially those out of work.
Anyway, the person is on probation. Just make sure your GF logs every move and documents her feedback to help the person improve. Then when they fail probation, it won't be too dramatic.
You probably have to get them to signup to it (but I don't see why they would refuse if they are genuine, it's basically a short term interest free loan given then need to travel to the office as known before they took the job), it would also be a taxable benefit, but that doesn't cost them any extra as they would normally buy the ticket out of net salary not gross. If anything it's better for the employee because they don't need to buy the ticket up front and they also defer paying the tax until p11d or whatever.
Last edited: