Walking from the front gate to work. Should it be paid?

[Deactivated] on 14/03/2014 - 22:53
Last edited 16/03/2014 - 13:37

I have some what of a random question that I've been thinking about for some time. When I get to work, from the front gate it's about a 10 minute walk to my work shop. My employer expects us to be at the work site on time and not to leave until exactly on the hour at the end of a shift.

Basically each day I am not getting paid for 20 minutes for the walk it takes from the front gate (which is part of the work site) to work. There is no place to park closer.

Are employers entitled to do this? I think time on should start from when you enter the front gate and time off when you leave the front gate.

Update:

Thanks for all the responses. From what I have read a good percentage of people seem to think it's not worth complaining about or that it shouldn't be paid while there is also support from my point of view. Things that have really stuck out from what I have read is that the walk is on site and as such I do have to abide by their rules. I am at risk of being hurt or injured by walking on site, more so than being in public really. Forklifts, cranes, cars and the such it is pretty full on and you have to be alert.

As someone else mentioned most of us do waste a lot of time at work. My boss is pretty relaxed and to complain about the walk would more than likely mean that he takes something away from us, whether it's not being able to use a phone at work, or having to work harder even! At the end of the day it's only 10 minutes each way and until something drastic was to happen at work against us the employees then it's probably not a great idea to complain. However that being said if the walk was more in the 20 minute each way and above range I would definitely have complained long ago!

Also to all the people who say they regularly work over time for free and 20 minutes a day is nothing… well that's your choice. You're either not good enough to do your job in the allotted time or your boss is asking to much of you. However at the end of the day you're willing to put up with it and that's your choice. If everyone stood up to their boss then they would have to pay for over time. But there is always brown nosers willing to work over time for free.

Education & Work

Comments

  • c64 on 14/03/2014 - 23:39
    +11

    invest in a el-cheapo big-w $60 bicycle. you'll recoup the cost in saved time in practically no time

    • [Deactivated] on 15/03/2014 - 09:09
      +2

      Can't they are banned for "safety reasons"

    • 00 on 17/03/2014 - 19:30

      At the GM Holden factory in Melbourne employees can get around the plant on bicycles.
      I found that quite interesting since they make motor car engines there (unfortunately not for much longer).

  • mick123 on 14/03/2014 - 23:56
    +10

    " I think time on should start from when you enter the front gate and time off when you leave the front gate."

    No. and that is silly thinking if you ask me.
    It should start when you start work and finish when you leave work.
    What about people on the 45th floor of a building.
    What about people who enter the premises then go for a smoko/coffee but yet to start work.

    • mls82 on 15/03/2014 - 18:14

      And those people on the 45th floor might need to spend ten minutes each morning ironing their shirts!

      I am in a camp half an hours drive from my work site. Prior to this I was in a camp 45 minutes drive from my work site. Although it is the client that finds my accommodation and my employer that provides my transport to and from my work site, I am only paid from 6.30am when I present for work each morning.

      The exception to the rule is union EBA's. You can be paid an allowance for travel if you're working away from home, given time allowances to walk to/from crib breaks (i.e. half hour break becomes one hour if its a fifteen minute walk to/fro your crib hut) etc. I'm on the fence about being pro/anti unions but they do definitely have their place on a work site.

      Don't get me started on travel to site on my "R&R" days.

      edit - removed some duplicate opinions that I have read further down this thread, spelling, grammar.

  • Tal_Shiar on 15/03/2014 - 00:13
    +31

    Are employers entitled to do this? I think time on should start from when you enter the front gate and time off when you leave the front gate.

    Employer: employee, it's 8am, where are you?
    Employee: boss, i'm at the front gate…
    Employer: …..
    Employee: i'm work still, you have to pay me!
    Employer: looks at promotional opportunities and looks at someone else
    Employee: impulse buys something on ozbargain to ease the pain from being a true ozbargainer at work

    • [Deactivated] on 15/03/2014 - 09:21
      -5

      That's a great way of looking at things. Being potentially promoted by being your employers bitch. Workers rights people have to stick up for themselves. There is so many people out there doing free over time in the hope of being promoted. I prefer to get paid from when I arrive at work and for any over time.

      • GaryQ on 15/03/2014 - 10:29
        +3

        It must be comforting to live in a country where workers have rights
        We have Tony Abbott as Prime Minister, so you can't really compare

        • arcticmonkey on 15/03/2014 - 13:50
          +5

          Goodbye workers rights with Abbott in charge.

          I know a single mum who works at Woolworths on weekends. She was stupid enough to vote Liberal so more fool her if her wage is cut in half while Woolworths continues to make billion dollar profits.

        • frewer on 17/03/2014 - 06:31

          ~14billion for the first 6months financial year

        • PainToad on 17/03/2014 - 17:18
          -3

          Can you honestly say the hourly rate unskilled workers get on Sundays is fair? "Supervisors" (looking after more than two people at the register) are making $30/hour. In many cases that's a heap more than someone who's studied for 4 years at uni.

          The current system is flawed, Abbott will fix it. Like it or not.

        • anthonyaaa on 17/03/2014 - 17:28

          Keep upping rates and everyone can make $1000 a week… More overtime pay more double weekend pay more penalty rates and holiday/ sick leaves. Which means higher wages..which means higher overheads… Which means water milk petrol cars are higher which means we pay for more… Which means everyone can make more money and charge these Bogan Aussies more money for their iPhone's… Yes woolworths makes billions because they earned it… Yes people drive Mercedes benz and bmw's because they worked hard and earned it. Yes facebook is worth billions … But why punish these people and whinge because we didn't make it to the top? be smart and u can be a James packer one day?! Now because of our non stop whinging for more money and less work… Qantas fire's 5000 jobs… We lost Holden… We lost Ford…. We Lost Toyota… We're loosing every small business that's trying to break even… We're mostly closed on Sunday's because no one can afford to keep your local stores open.. Were drowning in billions of debt as a nation… We're loosing jobs left right and centre as a nation and when more than half the country goes onto welfare we will be utterly funked because we wont be able to support all these welfare payments…. But at least we can go on our vodafone plan with free iPhone's and get our wages which are double what american's makes and 50 times what anyone in a third world country makes…. It's always more now more now and for the next few decades we will be paying the price…. With interest on all our loans and debt…. Which means higher tax…. Let's not be pea brained and please understand where all this money is coming from…

        • PainToad on 17/03/2014 - 21:23
          +4

          Exactly. Unions are destroying this country.

        • [Deactivated] on 19/03/2014 - 00:03

          "Yes woolworths makes billions because they earned it… Yes people drive Mercedes benz and bmw's because they worked hard and earned it."

          You seem completely oblivious to the fact that the duopoly (Woolies and Coles) in Australia get away with what would be considered criminal to the average Australian. It all has to do with the ties you have with people in power.

          Take for example the recent fiasco with increasing standard postage charges. The CEO of Australia post reports that standard postage is a cash drain and that the department is losing money. They fudged the figures by putting all the costs onto standard postage, and omit the fact that every other type of postage is making record profits. This year they're probably going to make more because of the price hike. Ahmed Fahour is paid in the millions with bonus millions, not for improving the postal system, but for increasing the price. I'm sure he worked hard at increasing the price. My god, if only I knew that increasing the price for a captive market meant making more money.

          Yes, he probably drives a Mercedes, or BMW, heck probably both of those and a few Ferraris. His kids would probably drive those even if they do not work a day of their lives. Do any of those people deserve any of that?

          If someone like you is able to afford anything, I seriously doubt it is of your doing. You sound like a rich man's spoilt brat.

        • PainToad on 19/03/2014 - 09:40

          Yes the duopoly is crap, but it's a completely different issue.

          Do you honestly think $30/hour is a fair amount for a check-out-chick to earn, whilst uni grads frequently start out under $40,000/year ($20/hr plus mostly likely a lot of unpaid overtime)?

        • [Deactivated] on 19/03/2014 - 16:30
          +1

          They don't earn $30 bucks unless you're taking into account penalty rate. I agree with the sentiment that they are overpaid, but that's a meagre amount and their pay has minimal, if any, impact on your expenditures. Look at these companies' profit margins and their operational history, you'll quickly realize that even if they cut wages and axe jobs, they're still going to up prices.

          With uni students being underpaid, that's debatable. $40,000 starting out is bad, but it is after a starting pay. The potential for career growth shouldn't be overlooked. For those career paths that involve studying for several years in uni and still being paid a depressing salary/wage after a few years then I am going to go ahead and say that the degree isn't worth the paper it's printed on. I won't say which degree as to not upset potentially a large number amongst us, but when getting into uni is so easy, what can you expect? Nothing worth having comes easy.

        • GregRust on 20/03/2014 - 22:24

          Just like he 'll scrap the carbon tax.

          Oh wait…

        • PainToad on 21/03/2014 - 06:53

          Do you even understand our political system? Labor and The Greens still have control of the senate until July. Then those senators elected at the last election take over. Hopefully the independents will then side with the Coalition and pass the scarping. If not, a double dissolution will be called.

        • Cheshire Cat on 22/03/2014 - 10:40

          There is absolutely no chance he would call a DD election. He would essentially have to be certain of gaining senate control to desire to and that's pretty unlikely. Given the current political climate (and the swaying, media driven, public political allegiance) he couldn't even be certain of winning the lower house again so it's not going to happen.

    • spoonmugen on 15/03/2014 - 22:23
      +2

      well… answers why manufacturing jobs going overseas…

      • NosDan on 15/03/2014 - 22:24
        +8

        well… answers why manufacturing jobs going overseas…

        i missed the part that said "cheaper to use slave labour in 3rd world countries" in the replies above…

        • anthonyaaa on 17/03/2014 - 20:10
          -8

          Slave labour?!…. Here we go again with pea brains…. Excuse me but china is a third world country… and at what point did i say slave labour? Because of china we have a 84%+ clearance rate at every auction…. (In syd) because of china more than 30% of every house sold today is brought by China… Because of china nearly every farm… Every rock… coal or anything we dig up even our grain… Even majority of our UGG boots are brought by the Chinese… If these people are "slave labour" as you troll about… What are we?? Slaves to the slaves?? No… They don't live off credit cards… They never borrow money… (no reserve bank funded by international banks) only 10% mortgage on any home (Australia 90%) they are the only country keeping the USA alive… And are basically the new worlds economic super power. We on the other hand under labours credit card mentality borrow money to give 40 billion away in $1000 bribes from k Rudd… Which we blew on smokes grog, pokie machines and plasma tv's.( why not fix the m4 build a new hospital, airport mr labour party?? Put some jobs in creation and something to show for it instead of making the star city even richer p.s run by the Americans ) We had free insulation which people ripped off and took advantage of. It nearly doubled the cost to go re do and check the whole thing all over again … We had hot solar panels which the government gives cents on the dollar back which actually gets pumped back into the grids…. We have absolutely nothing to show for the 100's of billions in debt the previous government put us in… ( not to mention john Howard saving billions … Labour went through the savings like termites) And I can assure you we as a country will be to our knees if we didn't have liberal to start saving and cost cutting… Now whinge about recession…. Well NZ didnt borrow a penny… Went through the trenches and mud… Their Dollar collapsed but after toughing a couple of years came out stronger than ever with no debt and no interest on that credit card!! We for some reason had to borrow 100's of Billions had to give out free money and create all these disorganized silly schemes will now cop it for the next decade or two… Labour labour labour…. Your delusional if u think your better off now after what the labour party's done to you and me… Not to rant on further about carbon taxes and their musical chairs when gillard back stabbed Rudd then Rudd re back stabbed gillard… More worried about whos school captain and the extra frequant flyers points than whats actually happening to the most important part of our economy ever in history

        • wanga1983 on 18/03/2014 - 01:19
          +3

          You lost me at labour… rant much? Seriously, take a chill pill dude…

        • Ughhh on 18/03/2014 - 01:24
          +3

          Indeed. Learn to use correct punctuation and paragraphs if you want to make your point more effective.

        • cashews on 18/03/2014 - 14:49

          Man, there are some feral political nuts around aren't there?

        • Serapis on 18/03/2014 - 19:50
          +1

          TL;DR

          Lost me at the first "?!"

        • GregRust on 20/03/2014 - 23:46

          tl;dr

  • scrimshaw on 15/03/2014 - 00:23
    +1

    Get one of these
    http://www.crazycatalogues.com.au/images/detailed/2/adrenali…

    Super portable, low cost, and gets you there quickly. Well, so long as there's a paved road.

  • grasstown on 15/03/2014 - 01:13
    +7

    Do some knitting while you walk

  • Cheeper on 15/03/2014 - 03:10
    +10

    Your employer pays you to "work" not walk :-)

    For future reference with such thoughts the best way to assess your argument is to "stand on the other side of the fence" and view the scene.

    In your example that would mean you should picture yourself as an owner of a business that you have employed a person to "work" for you. Would you be interested in paying your employee for "work" before they even arrived at your place of business?

    Another thing to consider… just say your employer was silly enough to pay you for the time you stepped outside your front gate… and then next week you moved somewhere where it would take you 2 hours to get to work. That would mean 2x2 hrs a day x 5 days a week… That's 20hours extra pay for sitting on a train or bus looking out the window. I think he would be quickly looking for someone who lived a lot closer and finding a way to bid you farewell.

    Another idea… you can stay at home and not waste your valuable time and … go broke and starve?

    Next suggestion.. :-)

    • [Deactivated] on 15/03/2014 - 09:13

      Well I am entering the work site on time. It's not my fault there is a 10 minute walk each way. From when I enter the front gate I am technically on my work site, but mine is still a 10 minute walk away which I don't get paid for…

      • quack28 on 15/03/2014 - 11:29
        +1

        You start to Work when you are actually producing revenue for the business, be it cleaning floors so the customer comes into a clean shop or start the cash register in the morning so its ready to take orders.

        By you walking to the area where you will be producing the "revenue" you are not working

        • NosDan on 15/03/2014 - 11:36
          +7

          id love to know why some of you come up with the harebrained ideas you have.

          By you walking to the area where you will be producing the "revenue" you are not working

          this is absolute bullshit. i know as employers they would love this idea…. by your very definition, if as part of your job you have to walk from one end of a job site to another 10 times a day… or say, if your an onsite technician traveling from one job to the next you should clock off while traveling from point A to point B then clock on once you get to the next job each time? because at those times you are not producing revenue for the business, in fact your costing the business money so the employee should be covering costs at those times?

        • quack28 on 16/03/2014 - 09:44
          +6

          You obviously love to take things out of context, take one part of the answer and make a full blown out response to it.

          My answer is in relation to when OP "Starts" to work - Key word ""Starts".

          For example. If they had to travel 2 hours a day, from their home and to when they actually start to "Work"; that is producing a revenue for the business, that 2 hours is at their own cost. They are not making money for the business, why should the business pay them?

          From your argument, once they have "started" working eg, clocked on then; whatever requirements the business needs them to do, such as traveling 2 hours between job sites, they will be paid for those 2 hours that is a given.

          So next time, please read the full context of a response before saying anything, you do have a great response, just not in the right context.

        • Serapis on 18/03/2014 - 19:52

          Well that throws all the fares and travel allowances in the trades industries out the window, doesn't it?

          Oh and also those overnight stay allowances, flight and accommodation reimbusements, and travel time pay.

          lol seriously some people are just sheep, you're really quack if you just roll over and accept it while they trample all over your entitlements

      • Cheeper on 15/03/2014 - 13:06
        +19

        OK… sorry … missed the point u were onsite.
        Damn… where would you start and stop with an idea like this?
        Most places you have to enter the worksite/office and then it takes some time to get to the clock on / sign on place.

        Meh.. I worked for 40 years and never gave stuff like this a second thought.. must be a ? generation thing? I was just grateful to have a job.

        • bluedufflecoat on 17/03/2014 - 09:07

          Right now, most people are grateful to have a job.

        • Serapis on 18/03/2014 - 20:19

          Grateful does not mean trample over your rights, pretty sure you wouldn't be grateful anymore once they start paying you below minimum wage. Everybody has a price.

      • AngryMan on 17/03/2014 - 17:10
        +2

        It is your fault, you choose to work there.

    • epicaricacy on 15/03/2014 - 10:17
      +6

      It's not his front gate, it's the work front gate he's talking about

    • [Deactivated] on 16/03/2014 - 08:51

      No, boganville citizen stay at home, waste their time, and use their centrelink money for the cost of living.

    • dearjane on 18/03/2014 - 19:54

      "stay at home and not waste your valuable time and … go broke and starve"

      This is a great option… on a full stomach.

  • juventino on 15/03/2014 - 03:14
    +1

    That's silly. Your work starts when you put on your uniform (if any)and clocks in to one of those attendance machines.

    if you don't have those, then it starts when you arrive at the main area where you normally spent your time working or when you meet face to face with your supervisors

  • wharlie on 15/03/2014 - 07:50
    +2

    Usually you don't get paid until you start work.
    There may be some exception e.g. working down a mine

    • ItsMeAgro on 15/03/2014 - 11:35
      +5

      How's is OP's situation different from working down a mine?

      The employer decides where work happens and where gates are on large sites.

  • anna10 on 15/03/2014 - 08:26
    -6

    If you'd were one of those unfortunate people who can't live near work and commute for 1.5 house one way, is the employer expected to take 3 hours off your working day? Do an in ear uni course so that you can buy the business ;)

    • [Deactivated] on 15/03/2014 - 09:14
      +3

      The commute is on site. You're missing the point. I already drive an hour to work I'm not complaining about that…

      • anna10 on 15/03/2014 - 09:21
        +1

        oh Ok, I misunderstood, now I understand the comment about the 45th floor. Still sadly, when I have worked in a huge complex covering hectares, people were still expected to be at their start of work place at the allotted hour. This is not a new phenominum. Over the decades, factories sites have covered hectares.

      • [Deactivated] on 15/03/2014 - 10:45
        +11

        The point others are making (that you're missing) is, you don't travel 1hr to work and then walk 10m - you travel 1hr10m to work. It's no different to travelling 1hr10m to another job where you don't have to walk 10m, because the workplace is right at the front gate.

        • [Deactivated] on 15/03/2014 - 10:56
          +1

          That's a good point but the last 10 minutes is out of my control. The first hour I could move closer, or hire a camper van and sleep in the parking lot, but I don't. The additional 10 minutes is something out of my control. There is no way in decreasing this time either.

        • ZzRice007 on 15/03/2014 - 14:22
          +6

          Good point, you should move 10 minutes closer to work!!!

        • ESEMCE on 20/03/2014 - 14:20
          +1

          But pretty much everyone has that… I can't drive my car into my office and park next to my desk!
          Where's the delineation between commuting to work and being at work? I (and society) say it's when you actually start doing some work!

        • Cheshire Cat on 22/03/2014 - 10:42
          +1

          No they don't. In fact the law says it's once you get on site. Their insurance and workers comp is now covering you so how is that not starting work?

        • Ughhh on 22/03/2014 - 10:56

          You're at work, not starting work. I have my lunch breaks at work site, doesn't mean I'm working.

    • ItsMeAgro on 15/03/2014 - 11:40
      +10

      Exactly the point:

      Employee decides where he lives, employer decides where the gates are on his site.

      So commute is up to the employee, but the 10 minutes from work gate to workstation is up to the employer. As an employer I'd pay for that portion, and consider it a bit dodgy not to.

      • [Deactivated] on 16/03/2014 - 08:55

        Employer should be responsible fully for their work sites?, what if they suddenly relocate the entire site to another place that takes you 2 hours to drive not 1 hour? who should bear the cost of the extra 1 hour commute time?

        • Serapis on 18/03/2014 - 19:58
          +2

          Breach of agreement contract, if you refuse to relocate, they might have to fire you and pay out redundancy.

          All employees have contracts whether written or implied because there are conditions agreed to. Employer would bear the brunt, either give compensation or a payout, though some sheep will always roll over and just take it up the butt.

  • airzone on 15/03/2014 - 08:45

    I remember that push some time back to make commute time paid work time…

  • Candour on 15/03/2014 - 09:02
    +2

    ring the government dept in charge of workplace relations in your state.
    there may be a case
    complain
    anonymously!
    if it is illegal employers should learn the law
    workers are abused enough.

    to the others, if you had to walk half a mile in would they change their words?
    mining is a good example as they likely take you to the office first and then the mine after you clocked on.

    never confront a boss directly
    ever
    they are not high minded noble people mostly
    or they would not have such practices!

    • [Deactivated] on 15/03/2014 - 09:18
      +5

      Thanks mate. Glad someone sort of agrees. I'd like to see someone walking half an hour each way every day for free on a work site. I know it's only 10 minutes I'm complaining about but it has to start somewhere. I'm losing 1 Hr 40 mins every week just walking from the gate to work.

      • [Deactivated] on 15/03/2014 - 09:53
        +10

        I'm a little surprised at the consensus against you on this one.

        Your workplace requires you to walk 10 minutes. That's the system they set up - you can't drive up or otherwise be transported to your place of actual work. You have no method of making it faster when not at your workplace and they've provided no method of internal transportation (like an elevator in that high rise analogy) to get you where you need to be. Because they've taken away any options on what you can do, to my mind that makes it part of your job, not part of your travel time.

        shrug

        • anna10 on 15/03/2014 - 10:05

          I don't feel against or for anyone. Just making an obvious (to me) observation. Such is life.

        • [Deactivated] on 15/03/2014 - 10:22

          I didn't mention feelings. OP says they think their time should start from when they enter the workplace. Your position is against that. It's not an emotional statement, it's just your position. I am surprised that people are taking that position, for the reasons I explained.

        • [Deactivated] on 15/03/2014 - 10:44

          Cheers Tantryl couldn't of explained it better myself.

        • [Deactivated] on 15/03/2014 - 10:49

          I think Afurotsu said it better than either of us below… :P

        • anna10 on 15/03/2014 - 10:55

          I mention my feelings, I don't speak for anyone else.

        • fusion17 on 15/03/2014 - 17:47

          Alot of work places with big buildings/areas have clock on and off points at various areas…so I see the ops point. I just don't think he can do anything about it.

        • chukkii on 17/03/2014 - 10:41
          +2

          But it's no different to your offices being located on the 45th floor or higher as someone else pointed out

          If I walk into the building I'm not "at work" I'm in the building and still NEED to commute upstairs to reach my office/desk

          How is this any different?

          I wouldn't expect to be paid while waiting in the lift, I would just count the time spent in lift as commute time as would any other reasonable person.

      • ZzRice007 on 15/03/2014 - 14:26
        +1

        how many paid toilet breaks and smoko breaks do you take??

      • Aneurism on 16/03/2014 - 11:46
        +1

        When I drive to work, I have to hunt for a carpark. This could take 1 second to 1 hour depending on the time of day. Does this mean they should pay me whilst I'm sitting in my car looking to find a place to park ? I am by the OP's theory, onsite.

      • Serapis on 18/03/2014 - 20:01

        As Peccadilloes said, check with the relevant workplace relations dept. See if you can get back paid AFTER you leave

    • anna10 on 15/03/2014 - 09:23

      I guess people don't walk around mine sites much due to OHS and getting squashalted. My factory was so large we had our own go cart track and used to race the local cops.

    • arcticmonkey on 15/03/2014 - 13:55

      Better get in quick before Abbott tears the Fair Work Act apart so the greedy can earn more.

  • dp1 on 15/03/2014 - 09:25
    +3

    Depends if you think you are there just to show your face or if you are being paid to work.
    What is your boss paying you for? I would suggest that you are paid from the time you are physically ready to start work and anything you do prior to this is your responsibility. If you sprained your ankle and took twice as long to walk the same distance would you want to be paid more?

    • ItsMeAgro on 15/03/2014 - 11:51
      +1

      Responsibility works both ways, though:

      What if the employee turns up, gets to his workstation, but the employer says "sorry, I want to make more profit so I stopped renting so many tools. We don't have enough now for everyone to work all the time. So you can't start work yet for another hour until Barry's done with that jackhammer."

      What should happen here? Should the employer or employee pay for that lost hour?

      Clearly the choice of where exits and workstations are on the site, and therefore how far they are from each other, is something the employer has more control over than the employee.

  • slix_88 on 15/03/2014 - 10:00
    +7

    I work for a consultancy and if I need to be at a client site 10mins away every morning, I have to commute that extra distance and therefore leave 10 mins earlier from home. Do I get paid for that commute? No. You start work when you START WORKING, not when you arrive on site and have a friendly chat or go on a walkabout

    • zambuck on 15/03/2014 - 14:28
      +3

      When you get to work, do you wait until after your laptop boots up before you clock on? To my mind, the OP's 10min walk is a bit like my 20min laptop bootup. They're both necessary once I've turned up at the workplace, and I don't have much ability to change it, however the employer does if he wants.

      I recall watching a documentary a while ago about a European cross-alps tunnel construction. The workers had a one hour each way "commute" in a tiny train once they clocked on. In that case because it's an hour down a tunnel it's a bit more of an issue and therefore fairly obviously part of the required work day.

      Realistically though, my experience with employers is that they're usually not so picky about a few minutes here or there, and my cooperation on these kinds of things is rewarded by some flexibility for things like time off for dentist appointments.

      • NosDan on 15/03/2014 - 14:49
        +3

        The workers had a one hour each way "commute" in a tiny train once they clocked on. In that case because it's an hour down a tunnel it's a bit more of an issue and therefore fairly obviously part of the required work day.

        you see this is exactly my point. what if it was only a 58 minute commute in your example? what if it was only a 40 or 30 min commute? what if its a 10 minute commute? where exactly, in your opinion, do you draw that line in the sand to say "this many minutes you get paid but if its one second less you dont"? im keen to hear anyone elses opinion on this as well, where exactly, to the very second, do you draw your lines in the sand? because if you cant mark the very second with a plausible reason that this changes you are deluding yourself.

      • slix_88 on 15/03/2014 - 20:20

        I have targets to meet at work. If my laptop isn't on, I can't be doing my work and therefore achieving my targets. Also, my workplace has moved to hot-desking meaning that it takes 20 mins to set up and pack up each day. Plus, our employer have provided us with SSD-based laptops (surprised yours hasn't) so boot up is a mere minute for us.

        If it takes you 20 mins to boot up your laptop (which sounds like a legacy pentium I system if it really does take that long) then why not put in a case for upgrade? Alternatively, you could just go into "sleep" mode or even "hibernate" the unit at the end of each day.

        I personally work 50 hours a week but get paid for 37.5 hours because I'm on a fixed salary. It all depends on what your contract states. In my opinion, the best course of action OP could take is to bring it up with HR if it's really causing him a lot of grief. However, 10 minutes in my opinion is petty time; that time is sometimes spent by casually having a chat with a colleague not in relation to work (for which the employer is paying you)

        • Serapis on 18/03/2014 - 20:15

          Same, though I'm required to boot up the computer (normally time i go get coffee from the kitchen) and check emails and the intranet to see if there are any updates or things scheduled. Takes 30 mins or so but I get paid for it because the boss requires me to be there at my desk 9am sharp. Irrelevant if making revenue at the time or not.

          Boss recognizes that we're there at that time because he requires it, so he pays us. This is the way it should be.

    • fruit on 18/03/2014 - 09:12
      +1

      Consultants are paid differently than those earning a wage and to those earning a salary.

  • Afurotsu on 15/03/2014 - 10:10
    +17

    I'm going to have to do disagree with the majority.

    The commute is on the worksite, not to the worksite. It is the employer's onus to make the workplace accessible, for the sake of productivity.

    Let me take it to the extreme; say the OP worked on a deep mining site, and it took two hours using a slow elevator [no alternative is permitted] to get from the worksite entry to his primary work area. Should he paid for the two hours or not?

    In the end, a commute to work is within personal control. A person can choose to live close to work, or they can choose to not. A commute in the worksite is not within personal control; it is within the employer's control. Therefore the onus is on the employer, and as such, the employer should by default be penalised if they get it wrong unless otherwise an agreement is explicitly reached between the two.

    • grasstown on 15/03/2014 - 10:34
      -1

      Yes but presumably the deep miner is starting at a base, where they clock in and have safety talks each day. The work has started there, which is different to the situation of the OP.

      • [Deactivated] on 15/03/2014 - 10:47
        +3

        Both are non-optional tasks required within the work site. Neither require the "work", they're just about safely getting to the place of work. Seems an apt analogy.

        • [Deactivated] on 15/03/2014 - 14:17
          +6

          Oh, I see. You make a compelling point.

        • grasstown on 15/03/2014 - 15:33
          -8

          seriously, your reasoning is wrong. its not about being within the work site. in the mining example, the workers have commenced work before they travel to the mine. the journey to the mine is part of the work.

        • ItsMeAgro on 15/03/2014 - 16:46

          …exactly like in any other workplace. Such as OP's.

      • Cheshire Cat on 19/03/2014 - 14:48

        Have you ever worked on a site? he would have safety requirements, safety clothes to be on site, certain behaviour, hes likely even getting some sort of safety allowance if it's a big site. hes on their site abiding by their rules then hes under their employ.

        and the obvious clincher. If he has an accident who is responsible? once he's on site it's a workers comp issue and the employer is responsible, if he crashes outside the front gate its all on him. therefore hes employed. plain and simples.

    • donga100 on 15/03/2014 - 10:52
      +2

      The OP does have an alternative to the long walk. They could choose to sprint instead. Would save a lot of time and probably good for their health at the same time.

      • [Deactivated] on 15/03/2014 - 10:54
        +3

        I'd hazard a guess that sprinting isn't allowed on the work site for safety reasons, as is true of most dangerous sites.

        • [Deactivated] on 15/03/2014 - 10:57
          +2

          It's not. But then again who wants to sprint to work anyways :)

        • danyool on 22/03/2014 - 17:02
          +1

          Obviously just needs to parachute into the area!

    • slix_88 on 15/03/2014 - 20:24
      +1

      Most places don't work with locality but rather time. I work in the city and may have to travel between clients in the CBD. It's not "onsite" but does that mean I don't get paid for that time because it's "offsite".

      In my opinion, his commute to and from work involves a 10 minutes walk to his worksite from the gate which is synonymous with me getting off at Town Hall and walking 10 mins down george street to my workplace.

      • NosDan on 15/03/2014 - 21:58

        which is synonymous with me getting off at Town Hall and walking 10 mins down george street to my workplace.

        your wrong and missed a very important distinguishing fact. in your journey your not under "employer control" probably until you get into your building/floor. in other words you can choose to sprint (or ride a motorised vehicle of some sort) between town hall and your place of employment if you wished could you not? which means its "your time". the OP is under the companys conrol the second he walks through the gate thus is on work time…

        https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/136801#comment-1884155

        • slix_88 on 15/03/2014 - 22:38

          Well ok let me change my example. As mentioned by a few others in this thread, I certainly don't get paid for the time it takes to go from the entrance of my work lobby to me desk where I officially "clock on" and "start work". However, I'm sure many others here have accepted that part of the journey to be part of the commute into work.

          On a side note, your employer is liable for any bodily injury inflicted upon you in your journey to and from work. This is considered a "Journey claim" by WorkCover. In some way, your employer has liability for your welfare from the moment you step foot outside your front door.
          SOURCE

        • 01011010 on 16/03/2014 - 10:15

          'Journey Claims' have basically be abolished with the 2012 reforms. Unless you are apolice officer, paramedic, fire fighter, volunteer bush fire fighter or emergency services volunteer or coal miner.

          Source: your link.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join