No car, no job!

Geoff Lane said:

I'm fuming.

<rant mode on>

Someone I know applied for a job with a local employer who's looking to
start several new employees. It's office work with no need to travel to
visit customers etc. and the office is only five miles from his home.
Parking is a nightmare around the office. I can cycle between his home and
that office faster than I can drive it at peak times.

At interview, he thought that he'd "ticked all the boxes" and got plenty of
positive response. Yet he didn't get the job. When he rang to ask for
feedback so that he could better understand where he went wrong, they told
him that they were worried about his use of public transport. They thought
that he might not be able to get to or from work should they want him to
come in early or stay on late. Mindful of the parking issues around the
area, he'd said that he intended to use public transport or cycle and
they'd (wrongly) inferred that he didn't have a car or driving licence. As
soon as he told them he had a full licence, a car, and full NCD they
relented and he starts work in a couple of weeks.

I'm frothing because, despite the employer's obvious prejudice, a car isn't
necessary for that job. Cycle-commuting makes much more sense than driving:
It's cheaper, quicker, healthier, and doesn't add to the parking issues. So
why should do they seemingly assume that only those who travel by car can
be relied upon?

<rant mode off>

To me, this almost defies belief, but are such prejudices common?

Geoff

How do you know that the possibility of cycling - not mentioned in the
first part (which cites only PT) and only introduced along with the
driving licence revelation - wouldn't have swung it on its own?

Quoted message said:

I'm frothing because, despite the employer's obvious prejudice, a car isn't
necessary for that job. Cycle-commuting makes much more sense than driving:
It's cheaper, quicker, healthier, and doesn't add to the parking issues. So
why should do they seemingly assume that only those who travel by car can
be relied upon?

That ought to be tackled head on for the sake of those who cannot
drive, not just those who choose not to. As your friend has the job
now, it's unlikely to be followed up - which is a shame really.

Regards,

Duncan

JNugent <[email hidden]> wrote in news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

How do you know that the possibility of cycling - not mentioned in the
first part (which cites only PT) and only introduced along with the
driving licence revelation - wouldn't have swung it on its own?

He told them at interview that he intended to use public transport *or
cycle*. So the possibility of cycling was on the table from the outset.

Geoff Lane said:

JNugent <[email hidden]> wrote in news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

How do you know that the possibility of cycling - not mentioned in the
first part (which cites only PT) and only introduced along with the
driving licence revelation - wouldn't have swung it on its own?

Quoted message said:

He told them at interview that he intended to use public transport *or
cycle*. So the possibility of cycling was on the table from the outset.

Was it? Fair enough.

It doesn't say so in the OP (which is why I asked)!

JNugent <[email hidden]> wrote in news:UoudnS4-M_
[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Was it? Fair enough.

It doesn't say so in the OP (which is why I asked)!

From my OP:

"Mindful of the parking issues around the area, he'd said that he
intended to use public transport or cycle and they'd (wrongly) inferred
that he didn't have a car or driving licence."

HTH,

Geoff

Geoff Lane said:

To me, this almost defies belief, but are such prejudices common?

Yes, very.

I ranted about this in a previous thread. When I went to the
interview for a job I was told that a car would be 'essential' as the
train station was 15 mins walk away and the buses weren't very good.
A friend of mine can't get any office based jobs because she can't
drive yet (she's epileptic) and I think the prospective employers even
told her that at the interview.

It's a knock on effect of the car centric world in which we live
unfortunately.

peter

naked_draughtsman said:

I ranted about this in a previous thread. When I went to the
interview for a job I was told that a car would be 'essential' as the
train station was 15 mins walk away and the buses weren't very good.

All of 15 minutes walk?! I guess it's not that surpsing that there are
people who think that walking for 15 minutes is the same as the London
marathon... twice.

Quoted message said:

A friend of mine can't get any office based jobs because she can't
drive yet (she's epileptic) and I think the prospective employers even
told her that at the interview.

Quoted message said:

It's a knock on effect of the car centric world in which we live
unfortunately.

Is it strictly legal for them to reject a candidate because they aren't
able to drive (where driving is not part of the job, obviously).

Of course, it's one of those things that's if you follow it up, the best
you can hope for is a job offer, and would you really want to work for
them? you'll be branded 'troublemaker' before you even start.
--
Chris Johns

"Geoff Lane" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

To me, this almost defies belief, but are such prejudices common?

Not sure about an answer to that but 'tests' like telling the candidate that
to see what their comeback is are (especially where you don't get to find
out what the other candidates have been told). Glad your acquaitance got the
job in the end.

Paul

Perhaps the employer was a devotee of the late Margaret Thatcher who
pronounced that anyone who didn't own a car by the time they were 25?
were failures. If they rode a bike therefore by his reckoning he was a
failure.

PS - I know her body is still on this planet but her reasoning left a
long time ago. The only time she ever cried was when she was forced
out on office and when her delinquent son was lost on the Dacca rally.
Sadly the gun running crook was found.

"Geoff Lane" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
I'm fuming.

<rant mode on>

Someone I know applied for a job with a local employer who's looking
to
start several new employees. It's office work with no need to travel
to
visit customers etc. and the office is only five miles from his home.
Parking is a nightmare around the office. I can cycle between his home
and
that office faster than I can drive it at peak times.

At interview, he thought that he'd "ticked all the boxes" and got
plenty of
positive response. Yet he didn't get the job. When he rang to ask for
feedback so that he could better understand where he went wrong, they
told
him that they were worried about his use of public transport. They
thought
that he might not be able to get to or from work should they want him
to
come in early or stay on late. Mindful of the parking issues around
the
area, he'd said that he intended to use public transport or cycle and
they'd (wrongly) inferred that he didn't have a car or driving
licence. As
soon as he told them he had a full licence, a car, and full NCD they
relented and he starts work in a couple of weeks.

I'm frothing because, despite the employer's obvious prejudice, a car
isn't
necessary for that job. Cycle-commuting makes much more sense than
driving:
It's cheaper, quicker, healthier, and doesn't add to the parking
issues. So
why should do they seemingly assume that only those who travel by car
can
be relied upon?

<rant mode off>

To me, this almost defies belief, but are such prejudices common?

Geoff

"Geoff Lane" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I'm fuming.

And I'm Vernon....

The tale is an interesting one but probably not a unique one. As far as I
know employment law does not insist on equal rights for cyclists as they are
not a legally protected minority group. No matter how often cyclists draw
comparisons between themselves and ethnic, differently abled (horrible
term), and religious groups when perceived 'discriminatory behaviour' take
place, it's unlikely that they will be granted the same degrees of
protection in the courts.

There is a glimmer of hope regarding workplaces and cyclists. It appears
that all public sector 'new builds' have to provide for the needs of
cyclists and pedestrians and this might extend to other new developments.
The three new high schools being built in Bradford all have secure cycle
componds for staff and pupils. The new build schools that I have visited in
the past few years also had provisions for cycle storage and a few
industrial developments that I pass on my way to work have prominent cycle
storage facilities.

Your friend is now in a position to elighten his employer regarding the
benefits of employing cyclists e.g. they are healthier, have fewer days off,
do not submit huge expenses claims for travelling, rarely get held up by
gridlocks etc.

'It is better to light one candle than curse the darkness'

vernon said:

There is a glimmer of hope regarding workplaces and cyclists. It appears
that all public sector 'new builds' have to provide for the needs of
cyclists and pedestrians and this might extend to other new developments.

That usually applies to new builds in horrid locations to get to by PT as
a 'justification' for having less parking spaces than people, even when
the PT option is laughable.

Where I work now is a bit like that, although we do have a 10 min bus
service. For me, it's quicker to cycle than the bus. I don't have a car,
so I can't give a driving time (perhaps I should consider myself lucky to
have got the job without one).

Quoted message said:

Your friend is now in a position to elighten his employer regarding the
benefits of employing cyclists e.g. they are healthier, have fewer days off,
do not submit huge expenses claims for travelling, rarely get held up by
gridlocks etc.

He could, but it would probably be a waste of time. TBH, I'd be tempted to
leave my car in the car park taking up one of their precious parking
spaces.
--
Chris Johns

Chris Johns <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Your friend is now in a position to elighten his employer regarding
the benefits of employing cyclists e.g. they are healthier, have
fewer days off, do not submit huge expenses claims for travelling,
rarely get held up by gridlocks etc.

He could, but it would probably be a waste of time. TBH, I'd be
tempted to leave my car in the car park taking up one of their
precious parking spaces.

He wouldn't get a parking space - what few they have are allocated to
senior managers AIUI. Those that get in early enough can park on-street in
the short stretches that don't have yellow lines, but some have no option
but to park nearly half a mile away.

The employer is on a business park - one of those that's been built with
fewer parking spaces than people. When the park first opened, workers were
taking up every bit of the adjoining residential streets. They even filled
the local supermarket car park, displacing customers and seriously hitting
the supermarket's viability.

Of course, the local population "retaliated". The supermarket now has a
two-hour limit, strictly enforced by clampers, and the local residents
lobbied for (successfully) a residents' permit-only area. So once the few
parking spaces in the business park are occupied, employees have to park
outside the "exclusion zone".

"Geoff Lane" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Of course, the local population "retaliated". The supermarket now has a
two-hour limit, strictly enforced by clampers, and the local residents
lobbied for (successfully) a residents' permit-only area. So once the few
parking spaces in the business park are occupied, employees have to park
outside the "exclusion zone".

In other words, not only is it sensible to cycle, but it's also being a good
neighbour to do so.

"Chris Johns" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

vernon said:

There is a glimmer of hope regarding workplaces and cyclists. It appears
that all public sector 'new builds' have to provide for the needs of
cyclists and pedestrians and this might extend to other new developments.

That usually applies to new builds in horrid locations to get to by PT as
a 'justification' for having less parking spaces than people, even when
the PT option is laughable.

Nope. All of the locations that I know of are well served by public
transport.

Quoted message said:

Where I work now is a bit like that, although we do have a 10 min bus
service. For me, it's quicker to cycle than the bus. I don't have a car,
so I can't give a driving time (perhaps I should consider myself lucky to
have got the job without one).

For me, a journey to work by public transport would involve a train and two
buses or three buses and take an hour and a half should all three services
run on time plus fifteen minutes walking time. Just one missed connection
and the journey is unviable.

My car journey takes 35 - 40 minutes and cycling, an hour and a quarter.

Once the new build opens I aim to cycle in a few days per week.

Quoted message said:

I ranted about this in a previous thread. When I went to the
interview for a job I was told that a car would be 'essential' as the
train station was 15 mins walk away and the buses weren't very good.
A friend of mine can't get any office based jobs because she can't
drive yet (she's epileptic) and I think the prospective employers even
told her that at the interview.

It's a knock on effect of the car centric world in which we live
unfortunately.

Thats saddening, I've recently had to surrender my license and hadn't
realized employers were so hung up about it. This does not bode well
for the future! For what it's worth - your local council's adult
impairment unit will offer help legally if you feel you have been
discriminated against - an option I would exercise whether you want
the job or not - as it could only serve to educate people in the long
run.

Regards,

Duncan

"wafflycat" <w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

In other words, not only is it sensible to cycle, but it's also being
a good neighbour to do so.

That's what he thought. Knowing the pressure on the few parking spaces
nearby he thought that declaring his intention to use PT or cycle would be
in his favour. He was as gobsmacked as me when it went the other way.

JNugent said:

Geoff Lane wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

he'd said that he intended to use public transport or cycle

Observe - OR CYCLE. In the text you quoted. Clear as day.

Quoted message said:

How do you know that the possibility of cycling - not mentioned in the
first part (which cites only PT)

Are you actually reading what you respond to? You quoted it, for
goodness sake, you can hardly claim not to have seen it. Why do you
persist in attacking postings, even when your attacks are plainly and
obviously baseless, and contradicted by things you yourself have
quoted?

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

In article <[email hidden]>, vernon
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

For me, a journey to work by public transport would involve a train and two
buses or three buses and take an hour and a half should all three services
run on time plus fifteen minutes walking time. Just one missed connection
and the journey is unviable.

My car journey takes 35 - 40 minutes and cycling, an hour and a quarter.

Once the new build opens I aim to cycle in a few days per week.

Luckily I work mostly from home now, with occasional clusters of days
spent at one client's office just a tube or bus journey away. I could
cycle that and always did when I worked full time in an office based in
the same area. But as I'm a contractor now I would need to confirm with
the client's security people where I could safely park my bike, or if I
can take the Brompton into the office with me (I've not yet seen anyone
else do this).

To get to another client's office, based in Essex, requires a bus
journey (that or a 15 minute walk), a tube journey with one change, a
train journey, and then a taxi ride. I could cycle at both ends of that,
but fitting myself onto a rush hour tube train is difficult enough
without a Brompton.
--
congokid
Eating out in London? Read my tips...
http://congokid.com

Chris Johns said:

naked_draughtsman said:

I ranted about this in a previous thread. When I went to the
interview for a job I was told that a car would be 'essential' as the
train station was 15 mins walk away and the buses weren't very good.

All of 15 minutes walk?! I guess it's not that surpsing that there are
people who think that walking for 15 minutes is the same as the London
marathon... twice.

I know someone who was selling their house in Twickenham. One
potential buyer told her it was not suitable because he caught the
train every morning and needed to be nearer to the station. The
distance from my friend's house to the station was about a quarter of
a mile.

--
Dave...