Sustainable Transport for Companies?

[John Kane]

On Feb 2, 8:35 pm, JNugent <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Jon wrote:
> > JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>I don't think many employers are
> >>foolhardy enough to insist that an employee hostile to the notion
> >>should nevertheless use a bicycle. It has to be voluntary.
> > Plenty of employers seem to expect everyone to be willing to drive a
> > car, and to see preferring undoubtedly safer rail travel as a bizzare
> > aberation.
>
> Which employers insist that "everyone" be willing to drive a car (as
> opposed to only expecting those who have to move around efficiently in
> order to do their jobs to drive a car, I mean)?

I don't know about the UK but some job ads in Canada will specify
"must have current driver's licence. These are not for primarily
'driving' jobs. The most recent ones that I can recall were for
social workers.

While this does not say that the employer insists that "everyone" be
willing to drive a car it sounds like an integral part of the job of
social worker in that city/area.

John Kane, Kingston ON Canada

 

[Ian Smith]

On Sat, 02 Feb, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ian Smith wrote:
>
> > I'm not suggesting they do - I'm suggesting they apply the
> > contract as written.
>
> Not all contracts of employment are written and neither are all
> reasonable expectations and/or implied agreements written down. You
> already know that.

But in the scenario under discussion, I was explicitly referring to a
case with a written contract that said a particular thing. I think
you should now take your straw chum off somewhere and keep arguing
where it won't disturb the rest of us. Cheerio.

--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[JNugent]

John Kane wrote:
> On Feb 2, 8:35 pm, JNugent <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>Jon wrote:
>>
>>>JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I don't think many employers are
>>>>foolhardy enough to insist that an employee hostile to the notion
>>>>should nevertheless use a bicycle. It has to be voluntary.
>>>
>>>Plenty of employers seem to expect everyone to be willing to drive a
>>>car, and to see preferring undoubtedly safer rail travel as a bizzare
>>>aberation.
>>
>>Which employers insist that "everyone" be willing to drive a car (as
>>opposed to only expecting those who have to move around efficiently in
>>order to do their jobs to drive a car, I mean)?
>
>
> I don't know about the UK but some job ads in Canada will specify
> "must have current driver's licence. These are not for primarily
> 'driving' jobs. The most recent ones that I can recall were for
> social workers.
>
> While this does not say that the employer insists that "everyone" be
> willing to drive a car it sounds like an integral part of the job of
> social worker in that city/area.
>
> John Kane, Kingston ON Canada

Hmmm... I don't often look at job ads here, but I can't recall ever
seeing a requirement for a licence in an ad that wasn't for a driving
job or a job which required mobility between locations (eg, like a
sales rep). But things could have changed.

 

[JNugent]

Ian Smith wrote:

> JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:

>> Ian Smith wrote:

>>>I'm not suggesting they do - I'm suggesting they apply the
>>>contract as written.

>> Not all contracts of employment are written and neither are all
>> reasonable expectations and/or implied agreements written down. You
>> already know that.

> But in the scenario under discussion, I was explicitly referring to a
> case with a written contract that said a particular thing. I think
> you should now take your straw chum off somewhere and keep arguing
> where it won't disturb the rest of us. Cheerio.

If you can ever find a real world instance of an existing contract of
employment which specifies that a mobile employee who drives a car
must switch to a bicycle at the whim of the employer, I think you'll
likely find it is written on straw.