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

  • jason101 on 16/03/2014 - 10:06
    +1

    This post summarizes exactly why Holden, Ford, Toyota and just about all other global manufacturers have put Australia in the "too hard, too expensive" basket.

    I live in SA, but work allot at our company offices in NSW and QLD - would be nice if my timesheet started at 3:30am which is when I leave the house in Adelaide for the airport so I can be at my desk in Sydney by 9am. I have the choice to accept the conditions or find a new job - I choose to accept the conditions and be grateful I have a good job.

    • [Deactivated] on 16/03/2014 - 13:47
      +1

      My company turns over massive profits and is an ASX100 company. 10 Minutes paid on site travel for walking is nothing for them.

    • coin saver on 16/03/2014 - 15:47
      +2

      the airport doesnt start flights until 6am you must live more than 150km from the airport.As for your comment regarding the car industry the only key reason why were not viabe is proctection australia subsdises the car industry to the value of$17 per head of population the lowest in the world.Holdens wage is cheaper than at least 6 other countries that gm produce cars in. Even one daewoo plant earns more.30% of car industry employees tax more than covers this protection.

      • jason101 on 16/03/2014 - 19:20
        +1

        Thanks DJ401 is my flight, it leaves at 6am - I like to be at the airport at 5am to have breakfast in the lounge, I catch a taxi around 4am - so I guess 3.30 was a bit of an exaggeration (about 25 mins) - I think your point is a bit mute considering Toyota, Ford and Holden have all announced they are closing in the next 12 months - Aussies can claim we are efficient, have high productivity etc etc all they want - if the Big guns close the factories it is proof we aren't. Anyway Australia has itself of blame and if the OP was getting paid $15 per hour to work at his factory his employer probably would be happy to pay him for the extra 10 mins it takes to walk from the gate - fact is most (not not all) blue collar workers are overpaid for their skill/enthusiasm/productivity levels - wages dictated by unions or government and this is why employers feel the need to squeeze and squeeze them. Aussie blue collar workers are generally (generally not always) BAD value in comparison to their foreign counterparts. Anyone who doesn't agree should look around their desk and office now and name the items manufactured in Australia - I'd guess nothing.

    • devilishm on 16/03/2014 - 16:06
      +2

      You mean the fact that there are places like China or India where people are so desperate to work for just a meal everyday (may be exaggeration)? Yeah mate. Given that logic we should consider ourselves lucky till we get to that situation.

    • ItsMeAgro on 17/03/2014 - 11:59

      Wait - your company asks you to travel interstate without properly reimbursing you for the extra time?

      Just so you know - that's not normal, mate. You're being ripped off. It may actually be illegal.

      I agree that if you're cool with it it's no big deal, but it's to help people like you, who don't know any better, that worker's rights laws exist.

      The car companies are pulling out because Chinese workers are paid next to nothing, and if Australian auto workers really do have crazy over-the-top entitlements, then great. Them losing their unfairly subsidised jobs is a good thing, in the long run. Remove the waste from the system.

      But that doesn't mean we have to beg employers for our jobs and be grateful for them, no matter how bad. In the long run, it's best for both parties - employers and employees - if both are getting a fair deal.

      • razorack999 on 19/03/2014 - 08:24
        +1

        Chinese workers are paid next to nothing"

        compared to who? Us? the USA? India ? Africa? indonesia?
        In the last five years chinese wages have doubled. they are now running out of labour and offshoring as well. They are now considered well paid amongst their competitor nations. They do however keep a competitive advantage though because the chinese are entrepreneurial by nature and see the need for investment in quality factories and machinery.
        But the cost of living in china is much lower than ours. they can live reasonably well with their lower wages because it allows them to live in their own country with their costs.going to the supermarket is cheaper because land is cheaper, construction costs are cheaper , employee wages are cheaper and the rents/mortgages that they all pay are cheaper.

        The problem with australian workers is that they dont feel wealthy because it is so darn hard to just pay basic living expenses…food rent/mortgage etc.
        If you dont feel wealthy then you start looking for ways to improve your lot by either changing jobs, getting retrained OR when the times get tough and those other jobs arent available, trying to squeeze the best out of the situation you are in. The OP is IMO trying to do this. Rather than ask for a raise or getting a new job, he is trying to squeeze his employer for a few extra bucks.

        As we have no real insight into the employer other than its an asx100 company, we dont really know if it is profitable or not. Is there any "fat" that can be used to pay all these thousands of employees an extra 20 out of say 480 minutes per day? Which by the way is 4-5%.
        Now given that for many industries the salaries as a component of the overheads is the major cost component, if this increases 5% across the board, a profitable business can be turned into a marginal one.

        Is the OP being greedy? On the surface yes. But he may be also responding to the cost pressures that he has, not fault of his that everything in australia is just too darn expensive.
        Low productivity gets passed on, as does high real estate prices. These costs can either be born by the market or they get substituted by overseas products. somethings can, like cars and canned fruit, others cant such as construction costs, professional fees etc. Either way we have a cost structure that is too high in australia that pressures everyday workers financially. We are stuck with the structure because we all collectively refuse to give up what we have and act like the OP, which just adds further to the cost structures that we are all forced to bear. Unfortunately marginal businesses are going out of business now and that is forcing the unemployment rate up.
        Australia is just catching up to the rest of the western world.
        No businesses= no jobs.

  • rr64 on 16/03/2014 - 10:16
    +1

    I can see your point from an ozbargaining perspective OP but I don't think you're likely to get anything for this. Try to make the best of it and have an enjoyable walk.

  • anna10 on 16/03/2014 - 10:18

    Is this the topic that has taken the most time ever or are there others w' even more responses?

  • akula on 16/03/2014 - 11:00

    When work is "work"…you are correct legally maybe. I love my job, so I wouldn't mind the 10 minutes. But it is hard to draw the line when it would be unacceptable. In my personal opinion, Australia is one of the very few countries with good workers rights, I would say you are taking it for granted.

  • errorius on 16/03/2014 - 11:05
    +2

    Clearly most of you guys don't know workers rights. I'm in the union and I have to work on upper floors most of the time and my work start when walk out of the shed start walking up the scaffold. At the end of the day I live earlier because I am entitled for tools pack up, walk down and wash up.

    OP if you are in any of the unions you should ring them up and inquire what are entitled for. If not - join one.

    • anna10 on 16/03/2014 - 11:15

      Oh yes I remember those days when workers could work for 2 hours in the morning and 2 hours in the arvo. The rest was smoko and lunch and conspiracy discussions or footy. Great days.

      • juventino on 16/03/2014 - 11:24

        and then they wonder why things never get completed on time and budget overblown.

      • ItsMeAgro on 17/03/2014 - 11:43
        +1

        There's a big difference between crazy inefficiency and worker exploitation.

        Any sensible person can and should be against both.

        • razorack999 on 19/03/2014 - 08:28

          ""There's a big difference between crazy inefficiency and worker exploitation."

          Succinctly put. The Union Pendulum has swung to far. And please lets not use the construction industry as something we should be emulating.

    • juventino on 16/03/2014 - 11:51

      if you don;t bring your lunch, do you also allow yourself an extra, say 10 minutes, on top of your break time to allow you to walk down the scaffold and out of the shed and back to the shed?

    • [Deactivated] on 16/03/2014 - 13:47

      Sounds like you got a good union that awesome. Ours isn't that great as it once was.

      • Bigblue on 17/03/2014 - 01:53

        But have you spoken to your Union or is here the only place you complained?

      • razorack999 on 19/03/2014 - 08:33

        the ONLY reason the construction industry gets away with it is the long term property bull market that has driven prices ever higher. In such an environment the inflated construction costs are "hidden" by the still profitable industry of property development. without this massive increase in property prices developers would leave the industry due to the massive inefficiencies imposed by the building unions.

        If you had the same type of union you most likely would not have an industry.
        care to share what industry you are in?

  • anna10 on 16/03/2014 - 11:35

    And, it led to animosity and frustration between the levels of responsibility, a lot of nasty fights and strikes and people going 'hungry'. Things are better now and most contracts are fulfilled on time and on budget. I'm not saying that everything is all one groups fault, but some responsibility and fairness is important. Some industries need still more input, safety and concern from both management and 'workers'.

    Walking 10 minutes is not one of those issues.

  • wasabisauce on 16/03/2014 - 12:39
    +8

    It's a sad day when somebody feels like they are entitled to get paid for a commute to work. It's even sadder when that's a ten minute walk from a parking spot.

    • Serapis on 18/03/2014 - 20:22
      +2

      It's not a commute to work, its on-site construction and he was on site, on time.

  • devilishm on 16/03/2014 - 13:17
    +2

    I'm going to go out on a limb and say all those who compare this with your usual driving/walking/cycling to work have completely missed the point. If I was an employer and I had all my employees, who, because of me and not because of how far they live from work, have to spend 30 minutes to get from my front gate to their work, demand to get paid for it, I have no choice but to do this.

    If I had to pay them for the time it takes for them to drive/cycle/walk to work because of how far they live, then I will pick the ones close by. It's because of this that employees willingly accept the fact that they do not get paid for this. And in reality, if you are a good enough employee to differentiate yourself from another living closer to work, believe it or not the employer will pick you and even PAY you for your travel. IF you are good enough.

    OP is in the first situation. Everyone else driving/walking/cycling to work are in the second.

    • [Deactivated] on 16/03/2014 - 13:48
      +1

      Cheers, spot on.

      • ankor on 16/03/2014 - 15:13
        +2

        Check your employment agreement, or EBA if one is in place and see what it says about when work starts.

        Most employers are smart enough to insert a clause about work starting when an employee arrives at a designated work area, because construction sites have various places for people to go during the course of construction. Other places will have a clock-in spot at the gate to avoid such issues.

        If you consider the potential loss of income @ $45.00ph for just one tradie walking 10minutes each way to work

        100min / 60min x $40 x 50weeks = $3,333.34.

        How many people walk approximately 10minutes to their designated work area- lets say 25 tradies; $83,333.34

        cough gina rinehart voice that's a shitload of money to pay just for walking! :D

        • Serapis on 18/03/2014 - 20:24
          +1

          That's a shitload of money to pay for a tradie

    • razorack999 on 19/03/2014 - 08:40

      ""And in reality, if you are a good enough employee to differentiate yourself from another living closer to work, believe it or not the employer will pick you and even PAY you for your travel. IF you are good enough."

      except that the employer doesnt know how good at your job you are until you start. By then you have signed a contract with the conditions already in place. But if as you say I am good at my job,, then I can go to my boss and ask for a pay rise/travel time bonus.
      if he refuses then I leave. If I stay I am accepting the original terms of my contract am I not?

      • devilishm on 19/03/2014 - 09:29

        Yes but I don't advise you do that unless you have a better offer elsewhere. It's not really sufficient that you believe that you're good enough.

  • Davo1111 on 16/03/2014 - 16:46

    I think you should read your contract. If that doesn't make it clear, contact the industrial relations department for your state.

  • alwaysis on 16/03/2014 - 19:55

    I would be annoyed too… doesn't seem right. I would check with Fair Work Australia

  • twocsies on 16/03/2014 - 20:42
    +3

    I was not able to find a direct legal answer to the OP, who hasn't pointed out his industry, but it seems like nobody else here has either. Although I'd agree that a 10 + 10 = 20 minute extra walk to the work station does seem unreasonable, walk does not equal work. It's my opinion that management should surely consider buying bicycles or some other form of transportation if they want to retain the best staff, that is not necessarily the law.

    Fairwork specifically addresses a situation for the Security industry (e.g. security guards) where the OP would not be entitled to any pay for the travel, stating that the shift starts when you get to the actual work station. Only if extra equipment is required and it takes more than 15 minutes per day to get and return that equipment would the travel time be counted.

    http://www.fairwork.gov.au/Industries/security/hours-of-work…

    The general principle is: "You must pay your employees for all the time that they work" including setting up. Walking to the work station is not working. If there were some requirement to perform additional duties such as setting up or staying back, that must also be paid. But simply walking from the front gate to the work site does not seem to be covered at all, unless some equipment (including car, or anything needed for the job) would need to be picked up. Simply walking through the front gate does not count as picking up equipment. However, if there was some safety equipment at the front gate that had to be put on to walk through the worksite, I'd expect that might be some basis for being paid for the walk.

    By the same standard, the time starts when you get to the work station, so if you get to the station and then push the start button on the computer, you should be paid starting at that time, not later when the computer actually is ready to use. If the computer is at the work station the boss could justify the delayed start time because starting the computer is setting up for work. By the way, that is a stupid example because you can use the BIOS to set the computer to automatically boot at a time each day before work starts. If the boss wanted to save money, he could simply get the IT staff to set the computers to start automatically prior to the start time (via the BIOS).

    None of this is legal advice because I'm not a lawyer, but I do think that this is how it works in Australia based on the legal information provided by Fairwork.gov.au. However, 40 minutes of walking time required each day is excessive (and on 43 C days would be a workplace safety issue) so you should discuss with management how to improve the situation; I'm sure they have also been thinking about it and do want to make employees happy so as to retain good ones, although they would not want to pay much.

  • larrcoult1234 on 16/03/2014 - 21:19
    +1

    I work in a call centre and have to be "systems ready" which involves about 10-15 minutes before my shift being at work to do this but as it's a requirement of my job I do it. From time to time there's always the grumbling about us "not being paid for it" but it's a job and it pays well so no I don't believe in your case you should be entitled to be paid, you're walking, you're not doing anything for your employer.

    • Serapis on 18/03/2014 - 20:34
      +1

      You do know it should be paid right? Call centres tend to be more tightarse and don't pay you for that. A friend of mine worked for one where you had to log out every time you went to the toilet and you lose 15 mins pay every time. Took them to magistrates court after he quit and the company had to backpay him for every 15 min block he lost for getting to work to set up and also every time he walked away from the computer.

      Claimed back around $5k in lost wages.

      What you put in was just your opinion and not necessarily your rights.

  • mangoman on 16/03/2014 - 21:33
    -1

    oOOPS

  • peterpeterpumpkin on 16/03/2014 - 21:50
    +2

    I'd be more upset if they made a big fuss about me being a few minutes late and then clocked toilet breaks and the like to the second. As a seasoned working traveller I've had more casual jobs than most and I can tell you one thing - managers are bastards when it comes to honouring casual award obligations. You'll be surprised how rare it is to be given the standard "two 10 minute paid rest breaks" either side of the unpaid lunch break. And yes, I'm being strict - standing around waiting for instructions from inept managers doesn't count as a break. You'll also be surprised at how hard it is to actually get the award wage if you work in hospitality or labouring - since they'll try to pay you a super-less cash-in-hand wage at a much lower rate (let's just say if I was a whistle-blower my whistle would break).

    When I worked in London as a function waiter we were told to come 15 minutes before every shift to ensure adequate staff. If you came 9 minutes and 59 seconds BEFORE the start of your shift you were replaced if your "extra" (substitute) showed up before you. (To top it off the manager treated his waiters like Simon Cowell treats his performers.) So not only were you guaranteed to lose 10 minutes of your unpaid time every shift but also risk getting nothing at all for showing up early but not early enough.

    If the unemployment rate was very low employers would never get away with it because workers would simply look elsewhere (which was a lot easier in my profession 5+ years ago). I agree that employers also shouldn't be exploited but their profit shouldn't come at the expense of the shafted employees who do all the hard work.

  • lplau on 16/03/2014 - 22:34
    +4

    You scratch my back I scratch yours. Its the same principle, don't bicker over small things. Its only 20 minutes.
    If you want to count that, then your employers are more than OK to count every time you….:

    • Go to the toilet,
    • Go for a coffee break
    • Go to the kitchen
    • Step away from your post to chat to socialize.
    • Take a call on your mobile which isn't about work.
    • Leave early
    • etc etc……..

    If it was like a 1 hr walk, then that would be something to complain about…

    Pissing your manager off because of 10 minutes, isn't worth it. They can make your life a living hell if they wanted to and you cannot do anything about it.

    I know of a manager which hated one of their team members, deliberately convinced him to break a company policy, then the manager ratted him out to HR/Compliance, and got him fired. Nothing my friend could do since he in fact did the action, and broke the rules, since the company would say "If somebody can convince you to do it, then anybody out there could do it too… you aren't trust worthy anymore!"

    • Bigblue on 17/03/2014 - 01:49

      I had one where in a safety video for a night fill job, we were told if we see a spill to speak to a Team Leader and I did but was told by The Team Leader don't worry about it.

  • Bigblue on 17/03/2014 - 01:45
    +1

    escimojoe in your own comments you have answered your own question.

    "it's about a 10 minute walk to my work shop" see that it mentioned WORK SHOP and what do you do in that work shop, you work as you don't work in your walk?

    But hey if you want to work in your walk while you walk to your work shop go right ahead.

    • juventino on 17/03/2014 - 02:26

      you mean escimojoe has to carry heavy tool belts and ladder while walking to his work site if he wants to get that 10 minutes paid ? BLASPHEMY !!!!

      This is Australia, mate, when I walk, I do not work, I might whistle at some fine ladies, but that's about it :)

      • [Deactivated] on 17/03/2014 - 16:58

        Well said juventino lol

  • Lucky13 on 17/03/2014 - 02:15

    You could buy a skateboard n skateboard into work :D

  • [Deactivated] on 17/03/2014 - 08:41

    My bloated and ancient work computer takes 10minutes+ to boot up in the morning. I start "work" from when I press that power button. Not my fault my employer uses slow computer systems.

    • ItsMeAgro on 17/03/2014 - 12:04

      Are you saying you don't clock on until it boots up?

      Seriously, a PC with an SSD and windows 8 that starts in less than 10 seconds costs like $500…

      • [Deactivated] on 18/03/2014 - 13:01
        +2

        Corporate based systems, loaded with 20+ applications loading at startup- attempting to push data through 100mb LAN when doing so.

        Its a long loading process.

  • forever saving on 17/03/2014 - 09:38

    Although I disagree about OP complaining about this walk, there is a line we must draw at some point. So where is it? There should be a poll. OP!

    • chukkii on 17/03/2014 - 11:20

      I think distance rather than time taken would be a better measure.

    • [Deactivated] on 17/03/2014 - 16:58

      Maybe I will make a poll (If i know how) i'm actually surprised this thread hasn't died yet ^.^

  • fleetoiler on 17/03/2014 - 11:02
    +3

    I think this is a really good discussion, especially those taking this as a theoretical discussion/question rather than treating OP as a whinger who needs to be punished for thinking such thoughts let alone doing anything sbout it. I have been tempted to reply to a few more posts in a 'spirit of the debate' fashion, but am worried about the backlash from those who have obviously made up their mind.

    Thank you OP for the interesting read and thought experiment - whether or not you intend on doing anything about it the responses and discussion has been great!

  • Smulder on 17/03/2014 - 11:20

    Perhaps you should request that they provide a shuttle service from the front gate to the building. :)

  • earths_pacifist on 17/03/2014 - 13:03

    I think the big question is what as classified as work. Is it when you are given a direction/task by a manager? If so, I think that you could argue that you have been "directed" to work at a specific location at work and therefore you are technically working.

    BTW was just a thought… I wouldnt bother about it.

  • lisss on 17/03/2014 - 14:36

    Interesting thread. One of your comments struck me as a little narrow minded:

    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.

    I agree that it is a matter of choice, but disagree that "You're either not good enough to do your job in the allotted time or your boss is asking to much of you…. But there is always brown nosers willing to work over time for free." In some industries / professions, working overtime without pay or putting in extra hours is the norm. In the end it's a choice and it hopefully pays off - for example, in my industry, you're expected to put in many hours as a junior for low per hour pay, but can expect to be remunerated very well for less hours as you progress if you stick it out.

    • [Deactivated] on 17/03/2014 - 17:00

      That true unless management and company structure changes etc etc. It's a gamble. I prefer to paid for the hours I do.

      • cloudy on 18/03/2014 - 22:18
        +1

        Do you clock off for coffee, smoko, chit chat amongst colleagues, when u take a personal phone call, sms, go on ozbargain? Where I work, I don't for all these activities, assuming you can do some of these activities.

        Because they are not work, but you are probably paid.

    • alienurbanite on 18/03/2014 - 18:25

      Absolutely…. I work in healthcare and even though we get paid well per hour, I log at least 10 hours a week of extra unpaid time as does basically everyone else. Not because we are bad at our job, but the world doesn't stop at 6pm when everybody else is at home complaining about their extra hours.

      And good luck if you think you can ask public hospitals for overtime… Most health services are on the brink of bankruptcy!

      • razorack999 on 19/03/2014 - 10:28

        "And good luck if you think you can ask public hospitals for overtime… Most health services are on the brink of bankruptcy"

        This is getting closer to the nub of it really. If there is a culture in the particular industry that they are struggling/cant afford it AND i choose to work in that industry , then I accept surely, the conditions that go with it. If that includes unpaid overtime as in your case then so be it. On the other hand if i choose to work in say the construction industry/car industry where strong unions and/or weak management have built up massively uneconomic conditions for workers, then I am also choosing to work in that industry. BUT in the case of the construction industry it is very cyclical and it goes with the job that if I am a marginal worker , I will be the first laid off. In the case of say the car industry my union has cost me a job forever. Health workers have chosen their industry and make sacrifices in the name of keeping their job sustainable. That is their choice. it is also the choice of the construction workers to be in their industry with all the corruption that goes with it.

        If I chose to work in OP's industry then I am surely agreeing to partake in the culture that goes with it. If I have a problem- then I have a union. The union will either support me OR realise due to past negotiations that what you ask has been raised before and either refused and that accepted OR Negotiated away with better wages etc. This is why it is important that we have responsible union leaders that can try to do their best by their union members but at the same time allow common sense to prevail and allow the company to generate reasonable profits.
        To have this discussion in a vacuum without any insight into the industry or profits of the company involved is being a little naive. Or does that simply not come into the calculations of the OP?

    • devilishm on 19/03/2014 - 09:05

      It's a choice that's sadly become a norm. This is where human greed is apparent, people constantly trying to best each other, and do it at their own expense. If one person so it, the next person will do it more, and so forth. The cycle continues, and finally everyone ends up doing it, and it becomes the norm, and you don't really stand out after all. You stand out now if you DON'T do it. And managers get their productivity bonus.

  • Archi on 17/03/2014 - 17:00

    I remember one of my first jobs a long time ago, the computers were old and were required to be started and shut down in a specific sequence in order to connect with a server and printers and other bits and bobs..
    but basically he asked us to start 15 minutes earlier so that when it came to 9am we could start working.
    my reply to him was does that mean I can start shutting down the computers 15 minutes earlier so I can leave at 5pm on the dot…

    I understand the OP's point of view, and also a lot of other comparisons. every scenario can not be compared to one another as job requirements industry and management are different. too many variables.

    all the comments were fun to read

  • anderstand on 17/03/2014 - 17:40
    +4

    I think the issue here is OP doesn't feel he gets enough $.
    If you get enough, these things don't matter. And I don't mean 100K+ or whatever, but enough in his own mind.
    I work to be creative, to produce something that satisfies my non monetary needs, to meet people and to contribute. That may seem idealistic.

    Daniel Pink said, the company need to pay you enough to take $ off your mind. If you work for $ and or the company doesn't pay you enough to take it off your mind, then you need to find something else that drives you or somewhere else that can give you those needs.

    Then 20 minutes won't matter.

    I'm not saying it's wrong (though it may not be legal) to calculate those minutes, I just mean there's an underlying issue that won't be fixed just by giving you back those 20 minutes lost.

    • devilishm on 17/03/2014 - 19:52

      Theoretically this is true. But also subjective. In a perfect world if the travel time is not compensated then it would be compensated during work i.e. higher than normal wage for it to be attractive. However you would think that the employer would rather choose to compensate the travel time and set this out in the contract to avoid potential disgruntled employees in the second situation.

      To those who think that the principle is that you should only get paid to work, think FIFO employees. Same concept but larger scale. Think of it from the perspective that employers NEED to get their employees there to make profit as well, and it's not just a one way street.

      • razorack999 on 19/03/2014 - 10:45

        To those who think that the principle is that you should only get paid to work, think FIFO employees. Same concept but larger scale. Think of it from the perspective that employers NEED to get their employees there to make profit as well, and it's not just a one way street"

        Great point. this brings home the issue of relative pay and conditions V flexibility of the employee.

        FIFO workers are giving up a lot including in a lot of instances, a big chunk of their family life , but they do it for higher wages. in their case they have applied for a job hours from home knowing that this part of their "work"is unpaid. But they feel fulfilled by the extra renumeration.
        Is the OP being paid above the award? Is it a high paying industry? Can the industry afford to pay these extras?
        These are questions that I am uncertain that the OP is concerned about

    • razorack999 on 19/03/2014 - 10:34

      Agree. Unfortunately not everyone is in the happy position that you appear to be in where you have a job that satisfies you on many levels non the least emotionally.
      The OP may not have had the training/ opportunities to enter into a workforce scenario that is ever going to give him the same satisfaction that you are. That just leaves the $. Once a job is distilled down to just the dollars then the issues raised become far more important.

      • cloudy on 19/03/2014 - 10:58

        I agree that $$ may be the only driver to go to work, infact to most people it is the driver. And if the OP feels as though his wage isn't enough to cover for incidental costs/time he should look else where and see if there are better opportunities.

        Or he can have a chat with his boss about his casual stroll into work. Chances are though, can easily be countered by similar arguements that there is plenty of non-work time that is paid for, taking a dump in a toilet is one example, should he be paid? does anyone clock off for toilet breaks, some take longer braeks than others, etc…

  • onlyletters on 18/03/2014 - 11:39
    +1

    I think you should be paid but unfortunately that's not how it works. I need to be at my desk 8am every day.. I usually walk in the door at 7:40-7:50.. I don't get paid for that but there has to be some give and take, sometimes you're early, and sometimes you're a little late.. no problems I think??

  • chiuy on 18/03/2014 - 14:05
    +2

    SHOULD you be paid for "non-work work activities"?
    I think the question is complicated but the solution is simple.

    It's a free country.
    If you're willing to do it without pay, do it.
    If not, get another job.

    If you're the employer and you're willing to pay it, pay it.
    If not, don't.

    Personally, 20 minutes every single shift is a deal breaker. I'd bring it up and quit if it isn't addressed.

    The fact that you think unpaid overtime is only a result of dud skills or dud bosses shows a pretty naive view on what real full time work is like, particularly if you're building career. (Though apparently Sydney is pretty bad in terms of the expectations employers have for unpaid overtime).

    People need to show that they're hard working and dedicated. It's just shame this is abused by many work places.

    But hey, people who are "good enough" get to set their own terms of employment.

    • PainToad on 18/03/2014 - 14:23

      What job do you do? I'm guessing some form of trade.

  • alienurbanite on 18/03/2014 - 18:19
    +3

    Just to throw petrol onto the fire… What if this was a much more extreme example?

    I recently visited a observatory on top of Mauna Kea in Hawaii. For the employees to get to the top, they basically need to commute an hour or more from the base due to time in-between acclimatising to the altitude. The employer provides transport from nearby towns all the way to the top of the mountain.

    Most employees get picked up from home via the employee shuttle from designated areas in nearby towns at 0630. By the time they pick everybody up, get to the top (with a 30 minute altitude adjusting break in the middle) its almost 9 am when they start. They finish work at 1730 and get home at about 2000 typically.

    Now in this situation, do you think the employee should be paid for 13.5 hours work? or should they be paid 8.5 hours of work?

    Over the course of the year, the difference is over a thousand hours paid time….

    • [Deactivated] on 18/03/2014 - 19:31

      Personally I think half and half, both parties suffer, you can't lump it all on one party.

    • ankor on 19/03/2014 - 08:19
      +1

      Here are some examples of things written into EBA's. There might be similar clauses governing the OP's contract of employment, who knows.

      Example 1

      b) The Parties additionally recognise and support the right of the Employer to require their employees to consistently report on time for the commencement of their shift and not leave their designated work area prematurely prior to any designated break during the work day or at the finish time of each designated work day. The Employer shall make clear what are the reasonable time frames for wash-up […] prior to a break and to pack up and wash-up prior to the end of each designated work day. […]

      (c) The Parties and Employees bound by the Agreement commit to:

      […]

      (5) be present, ready to commence work at the pre- start meeting each day at the specified start time; and

      (6) remain at their workface until their designated finishing time.

      Example 2
      18.4 Place of Start and Finish Work

      It is agreed that all employees will be dressed and ready to start work at their normal start time at the designated workplace and will finish work at their normal finish time and place. On construction work the workplace shall be deemed to be the nearest the Company compound or smoko shed.

  • No ONE on 18/03/2014 - 23:55
    +1

    It's like saying, "I arrive exactly on time at uni gate but takes 10 mins to get to the lecture theatre; but still I'm on time".

    Missing 10 mins lecture is same as getting 10 min late at workplace to start the job.

    • Ughhh on 19/03/2014 - 00:04

      OP should try using this excuse for a Uni exam!

    • ItsMeAgro on 19/03/2014 - 13:32
      -1

      You don't get paid to go to uni.

  • outlander on 19/03/2014 - 01:04
    +1

    I suppose your technically right. With our system most people aren't selling the products of their efforts, they're selling their time. In that case, the employer should have a clock in station close to the property boundary.

    Then again, what if you're already being paid compensation for the walking time in the form of a higher wage, or relaxed responsibilities? There was a contract entered into when you began working there that said you would be paid x amount to deal with y problems. The walk was part of that. If you weren't aware of the long walk when you began you may have a case for misrepresentation and can renegotiate, but to be perfectly sure you need to know how much you're being paid to do what you perceive to be the real work and how much you're paid to do everything else.

    The deeper you look into things the more it all just turns to squiggly lines, and you find whats right doesn't matter so much as what you can get away with. If you thing you can get away with a walking allowance, go for it.

  • [Deactivated] on 19/03/2014 - 21:31
    +1

    For what it's worth, here's my two cents.

    Any job is going to have a balance of "paid hours" and "unpaid hours". Unpaid hours might include lots of things. I once had a job where the boss expected everybody to go out boozing with him every Friday night. I didn't particularly want to but it kept him on the good side. I considered those Friday nights to be "unpaid hours".

    When you're evaluating a new job you have to weigh the total work - paid and unpaid - against the salary and make a personal call. Most people commute about 5 hours per week and that's effectively unpaid work. Or you might have to work back late occasionally for no extra pay. Ironing your shirt, shining your shoes, cleaning the concrete out of your ears. It's all unpaid work.

    I get that your situation isn't commute time because it's onsite from the front fence. But it's definitely unpaid work and good luck getting them to pay you for it. Decide for yourself if that 2 hours of unpaid work is a deal breaker.

  • thecraw on 19/03/2014 - 22:23
    +1

    Unless you have some funky rules your work starts when you are being 'productive' or able to be.

    My work carpark, within work grounds was a 30min walk. If I was to start at 7 I needed to be there ready to go at 7 not 15mins away walking thinking, well I am actually here…

    This is the entitlement mentality that our workplaces are faced with today.

  • p1 ama on 20/03/2014 - 20:08
    +1

    Has anybody ever considered that maybe this is the reason why unemployment is rising, just plain selfishness from workers?

    Think about it, if OP and co. are paid 20 mins extra a day, then that means that for ever 3 x 8 = 24 workers, one must be made redundant for them to pay OP and his cronies that extra 20 mins.

    So if this is a large company with 1,000 employees, guess what, 40 people will lose their job if OP gets what he wants, surprising how small-minded some people can be.

    • wtfnodeal on 20/03/2014 - 21:21

      Op is thinking cut the company huge profit or not to pay CEO million dollars of bonus to pay for the 20 mins of employees walk

  • Geewhizz on 21/03/2014 - 07:42
    +1

    OP's place of employment is his workshop. The fact that his employer owns the property which he has to cross to get there is as good as irrelevant.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join