£250 tax for parking at your workplace

The Telegraph has reported today that the country’s first “workplace parking levy” will come into force in Nottingham in 2012 and is likely to be adopted by other councils.

Under the scheme, any firm with 11 or more staff parking spaces will be charged £250 a year for each. That cost could rise to £350 within two years and employers would be free to pass the cost on to their staff.

An estimated 40,000 commuters in Nottingham drive to work and some businesses have threatened to leave the area if the scheme is introduced.

Business associations oppose the extra cost, which has been put at more than £3 billion if it were rolled out nationwide. About 10 million people in Britain drive to work every day.

Councils in Milton Keynes, Exeter, Cambridge and Oxford have expressed interest in the scheme.

The Core Cities Group, which represents Birmingham, Manchester, Bristol, Leeds, Liverpool, Newcastle and Sheffield, has also expressed interest, identifying the levy's “congestion-busting” potential.

The AA described the latest scheme as a “tax on jobs”. “It is very unfair — discriminating against those employers who have parking spaces, which gets vehicles off the street,” said a spokesman.

“These tariffs apply around the clock, which is especially unfair on shift workers who rely on their cars because public transport is not available.”

“This is more about generating a revenue stream than reducing congestion and will require snooping to enforce it properly.”

In my opinion paying a fixed rate tax won't stop penalised drivers making 'unnecessary journeys', most of these unnecessary journeys are for leisure, pleasure or picking up a pint of milk from the local shop – not going to work to earn money and support themselves.

It will also encourage more on street car parking as any company that tries to get the money from an employee will say they will not park in the car park, I don't think it's a good time to be asking businesses to pay more it is the time for local authorities to find ways of reducing bills.

And what about people who live in rural or remote areas with little or no transport links to places of work – should they be encouraged to not to bother – these types of communities could deteriorate, unless they just pay the ‘tax’ and be penalised for working – doesn’t make a lot of sense.

Rural areas will not be the only victims; as it has become less necessary/common to work in large cities - any company with offices in smaller towns or built up areas will be taxed or its staff will with the unnecessary costs. It will be interesting to see the faces of local authority chief execs when their town centre’s are full of empty office blocks as more people are inclined to work in large cities with accessible transport links rather than pay to park in a company car park. Maybe this tax will have to go towards improving already diabolical transport systems that exist then.

There will be a lot more people then who use the train or bus to work in their nearest large city to avoid the charge and who will face delays, cancellations and unreliable services from the public transport, so their lateness at work may be affected – not very productive. People with kids who need childcare will be limited as most nurseries close at 6pm – it’s near impossible to finish at 5pm and not be pushing it to get to get home before 6pm for most I would say. And all these unhappy commuters will still have their cars at home for their “unnecessary journeys” to the local shop where at the moment they can still park outside for free. I’m confused then – who benefits?

The Campaign for Better Transport (Transport 2000) is not an environmental campaign group. As far as I am aware it is funded by bus companies, rail companies, local councils and transport unions - so it would be far more accurate to describe it as a lobby group for people who benefit financially from anti-motorist legislation.

In my opinion it’s yet another example of "stealth" tax to pay - not just for this current government' but successive governments gross incompetence and mismanagement over the years. Could it be that the only reason this is being proposed is because a large number of motorists are actually using their cars less and not changing them so frequently? Resulting in less revenue from fuel and less car tax on the sale of new cars; it appears to be a tax for "NOT" using your car.

As you can see I don’t think it’s a great idea at all to put it lightly, anyone disagree?

Car dealerships? Should legal technicalities outweigh moral responsibility?

Usually my blogs are my perspective or opinion on current events or news stories that relate to the recruitment industry or work in general but I've got a bee in my bonnet today about a car dealership that up until yesterday I thought was the best of a bad bunch so had to talk about this.

Without naming names I know that a great majority of any drivers who have experience buying used cars has a horror story or less dramatically a bad experience with the company they have dealt with – we all know the main players in this industry. Well this one is another one of these that has really annoyed me and I would appreciate your perspective or advice on the issue.

Basically, I bought a used car almost a year ago and it came with one year warranty - which I thought was great. Since I've had the car there has been a noise coming from the left hand side when I drive on motorways or expressways for any longer than 15 minutes or so. I have had the car in to get looked at on numerous occasions and still the noise persists. I was aware that if the warranty expired without this being resolved, I would have to pay so called the company who I will not name for assistance twice and was promised a call back – which never happened after a few weeks, no surprise.

Then out of the blue someone called from the company, I presumed to deal with my car issue but it turned out it was actually to sell me a ‘service’ which I politely declined as I was unhappy that the other issue had still not been resolved. The man I dealt with seemed very helpful and insisted he would help me even though it wasn’t ‘his job’ – he booked my car in to get looked at and I was satisfied that finally I was getting listened to. Just as the details of the appointment were being confirmed the man asked if I wanted a ‘service’ on the car at the same time – you can’t blame the man for trying. I again politely declined and said that if this issue was resolved I would consider getting my car serviced with the company when the MOT was due and kill two birds with one stone. The call ended and I was happy that the issue may finally be resolved.

A couple of weeks passed and the day my car was due to go in arrived, a man came to collect the car and my husband handed him the keys and signed to say it was picked up – so he was told. I then received a call to say my car was going to be dropped off and I was to pay the balance to the delivery man for the ‘Gold Service’ they had carried out. I was obviously slightly confused as I had at no point requested this work. I explained the original conversation I had with ‘Mr. Helpful’ and my anger that the man had booked me in for a ‘Gold Service’ when I made it perfectly clear I did not want that work carried out. He said he would look into it and I got a call back around 5.30pm from a woman in the services department to say I had to pay the £90 balance in order to get my car back – livid is the only word I can use to describe how I felt at this point.

I needed the car back to drop my daughter in the morning and to go to work so explained the situation again but was met with numerous responses that basically came down to pay or you won’t get the car back. They claimed that when my husband signed for the car to be taken in the morning that it was a ‘job card’ and it’s legally binding that I agreed to the work – in retrospect obviously he should have read thoroughly what he signed instead of taking the man’s word for it – we didn’t get a copy of what he signed for so I can’t be sure if it was or wasn’t. Maybe saying my car was held to ransom is dramatic but that’s what it felt like. I agreed to give them a cheque so that I could get my car back but was extremely reluctant and unhappy with the situation.

As it stands now, I contacted Consumer Direct to see if they could help me and they said that if my husband did sign a ‘job card’ then I may not have any grounds to claim the money back. I also contacted a manager at the dealership with my concerns and explained the situation and he said he would ‘look into it’ but I’m not holding my breath on that result either.

My issue is why these types of companies get away with firstly processing unauthorized work and then getting payment for work I did not want carried out by forcing me to pay or remain without a car? I know that the law is the law and it’s not a good idea to sign something that hasn’t been thoroughly read but that is an issue I have highlighted to my husband – I don’t think he will sign anything else without reading it.

Does anyone else agree that this company should face the consequences of morally wrong sales procedures, rather than using legalities to force payment for unwanted work?

Education spending to be cut despite Gordon Brown's promises

“Despite Gordon Brown pledging to safeguard spending on schools and universities, government documents show that the total education budget will fall by £100 million after the next election”, the Telegraph reports today.

Without having to write much more, I am angry that an education system that already seems to be falling behind compared to many European countries is going to suffer from cut backs. The Prime Minister insisted only a couple of days ago that key public services would be safeguarded – does education not fall under that category?

In addition to this, The Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform will have to reduce its entire budget by almost a quarter - what effect is this going to have then on the Government’s ability to help safeguard businesses through the recession?

I don’t have the answers but could make a prediction that it’s not going to be a positive one. I am getting really fed up with the constant controversy and downfalls of the Government, which I know is obviously nothing new. I just hope that this latest decision is the final straw and this country can finally break away from dishonest, gluttonous leaders.

Wishful thinking - I know.

Do you hate Debbie or Steve in your workplace?

According to an article in the Daily Record last week, managers called Steve and Debbie have been named as Britain's bosses from hell. A poll of 4000 people put John and Catherine in second and Alan and Anne in third place. Staff said they were the most challenging people to work for.

In short, the worst male boss names were: 1.Steve 2.John 3.Alan 4.Paul 5.Chris 6.David 7.Mike 8.Simon 9.Barry 10.Andy.

And the worst women's names were: 1. Debbie 2. Catherine 3. Anne 4. Linda 5. Jane 6. Liz 7. Fiona 8. Andrea 9. Pam 10. Michelle.

Although it’s obviously not set in stone that people blessed with these names would be a nightmare to work with, it’s a bit of fun and provokes some interesting stories when discussed in a group. I personally don’t have any experience of bad boss’s with those names. We have a Jane in the office here and she’s great to work with – we love you Jane. If you have any stories feel free to share, although there would be little point trying to omit the name of your boss for anonymity – share anyway.

The article also told of researcher’s who exposed horror stories of employees being asked to carry out tasks that were definitely not noted in their job spec when they joined. Among them was a female boss who insisted her toenails were cut while she made an important conference call. Another spoke of their David Brent-like boss who threatened disciplinary action if staff didn't turn up to monthly karaoke nights.

I know that I wouldn’t complain about the latter if it was a paid outing but on a more serious note it’s worrying that there are many people suffering in their jobs and they don’t have an outlet for their woes except anonymous surveys. I’m sure there are many technically illegal tasks and treatment people endure in the workplace that goes unreported, especially with the economic downturn and people’s fears of redundancy and job loss.

No one wants to challenge or question unfair treatment generally as it can lead to bad feeling and in some cases a more serious personal vendetta from employers. I think it is an issue that needs to be given more time – it’s all well and good having legislation and laws surrounding health and safety and working time regulations, etc but are these truly implemented in all businesses today and are there ways that the unfairly treated can really change things without the risk of unemployment or being branded a ‘snitch’? I’m open to opinions…

"Facebook police raid family barbeque..."

Has anyone else seen the front page of the Metro today? At first I thought it was a joke but now I can't actually believe so many resources were wasted on an innocent party - a little bit embarrassing for all involved I would imagine

For those who haven't read the story, basically four police cars, a riot van and a helicopter raided a 30th birthday party with 15 attendees. As the barbeque was going to get lit, eight officers wearing camouflage and body armour jumped out demanding 'the rave' be shut down, whilst this was going on the small gazebo was flapping wildly due to the helicopter's blades above them. Supposedly the party invite created on Facebook under the 'create event' app had been intercepted by police who had thought it was an illegal rave as it was described as an "all night party" online.

Whilst reading it I thought the police must have had an embarrassing apology to make afterwards but was even more surprised to read that the police had insisted that they were right to end the party due to their concerns that stemmed from how it was advertised on facebook. The host of the party was obviously not best pleased as he’d spent £800 on food, drink and a generator for the evening and the party was rudely interrupted and closed down at four in the afternoon, even before the music had been put on.

It just shows I suppose how much of the interaction we have online is viewed and can be easily misinterpreted. I’ll definitely be more careful about the information I put online and how it is worded as the “Facebook police” certainly don’t seem very reasonable so I wouldn’t want them paying me a visit.

On a more serious note, there should be an investigation into who made the decision to go ahead with this ridiculous raid, not only is it a complete waste of time, money and resources but it’s an infringement of the guy’s rights surely. Is it now illegal to have a barbeque or party in your own garden? I didn’t think so…

Dragon's Den - Has it lost its spark?

I sat down to watch the new series of Dragon's Den last night and was a little disappointed with it, was anyone else?

It just seemed to be less about business and entrepreneurship and more about belittling the people who in the first place had shown a lot of courage going in there to pitch their ideas to highly successful and knowledgeable business people. Fair enough these people I’m sure have watched the show so know it’s not going to be an easy ride and they have put themselves in that position but I’m sure it would make more sense to give them constructive criticism rather than mocking them.

It’s a difficult enough task with the current economic climate to come up with a viable business model but to actually spend time and money to try to make this work is very courageous and the Dragon’s comments and discouragement could easily stifle the creativity of many of the inventors and entrepreneurs if they continue to treat it as a way of making ‘good TV’.

I could be wrong and it could be in the editing of the show that made it come across as more pantomime than business meeting but I hope that as the series progresses it becomes more about the pitch and business than entertainment value.

There seems to be a mentality on TV now that if it involves mocking someone or putting someone down then it is entertaining and it will be a ratings booster but I personally enjoy more learning about people’s success and am baffled by why TV now has such an emphasis on this type of show.

On this subject, the radio is currently on in the background and there is an advert for the “REGGAE REGGAE SUB” from Subway, a success story from Dragon’s Den – it shows that programmes like this can make a difference but for every success if there are ten demeaned individuals then is it really worth it?

I know that people may be thinking when reading this that it may sound like I’m saying that people should be encouraged and helped even if their idea is not feasible but that’s not what I mean. Obviously if someone has deluded ideas then they should be discouraged from pursuing it but all I mean is there surely must be a way of communicating this that doesn’t involve mocking or humiliating people?

How NOT to be part of the unemployment statistics during the recession…?

In the news today I read:

“The number of Britons out of work increased by 281,000 in the three months
to the end of May, the most for a quarter since records began in 1971”.

This is certainly worrying and everyday I hear of more and more people hit by the recession and its effects. From the people I’ve spoken to the story seems to be similar. They are sending out so many CV’s and applications that they are beginning to lose count and only seem to hear back from a small number even to say “Sorry you are unsuccessful…” which is obviously making a lot of people apprehensive about applying for more and it’s a vicious cycle.

I personally think that one of the most successful ways to get a job during tough times is to make yourself stand out. That doesn’t have to involve standing with a huge “HIRE ME” sign outside companies you want to work for but perhaps thinking about ways that you can communicate to these companies in a way that stands out from all the other bland CV’s they receive everyday.

Networking with recruiters through sites such as the Hirer Network or speaking to people you know and finding out if there is anyone they know that may be able to advise you on the best way to get your ‘foot in the door’ is always going to be more effective than an email or letter you send out to lots of companies.

To be more specific, if you focus your efforts on companies in growth industries where your skills are suited, and if you emphasise your ability to have an immediate impact on prospective employers' bottom lines, you'll be more likely to succeed no matter how bad the economy.

So apathy aside, if you really want to get a job there are jobs out there – get them.

"Time to Pick up the PACE..."

I have been asked to proof read an article for the upcoming edition of the Hirer magazine today about the Government initiative PACE (Partnership Action for Continuing Employment) which was created to support individuals who have either been made redundant or face the threat of losing their job.

The article written by Nicola Hamilton talks of the aims and structure of PACE and makes clear that although “absolutely necessary” as the Shadow Minister for Economy and Skills, John Park states, it is at the moment not reaching as many people as it could. It's an interesting article and I do agree with the fact that it’s not publicised enough. I personally hadn't heard of PACE before today and think that if it's to help people then people definitely need to know the support exists.

It would be interesting to know if anyone has any experience, good or bad about the initiative.

Let me know…

To read the full article, pick up the next edition of the Hirer magazine in stores soon or subscribe online at http://thehirercareernetwork.ning.com/page/subscribe-to-the-hirer

Is Someone Listening into your Mobile Phone Calls?

The police are to examine claims that a huge mobile phone hacking operation was launched by the News of the World, targeting thousands of people.
The Guardian says the paper's reporters paid private investigators to hack into phones, many of them owned by politicians and celebrities.
It is alleged details were suppressed by the police and the High Court.
Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson has ordered a senior officer to "establish the facts".

I was just reading about the police investigation into the News of The World allegedly hacking people’s phones and if it is true it’s absolutely ridiculous. There’s been so much controversy surrounding journalists in recent years and in particular paparazzi, in cases like Princess Diana’s death but this is a new low. This is completely premeditated and if true absolutely shocking that anyone would think it’s acceptable to invade anyone’s privacy to that extent.

There are lots of people who campaign against the way this country is heading with CCTV on every corner and a national database of everyone through ID cards but this is supposed to be for the purpose of protecting the country, keeping the streets safer and counteracting terrorism say the Government, which may be true.

However, what excuse can a newspaper have for listening into private phone calls? Gossip? To sell papers? In my opinion there is none.

I have in the past had the view point that people who put themselves in the public eye have to deal with the consequences and all the circumstances that come with it to some extent (with the exception of children), however I am beginning to think that there are certain media sources now that have taken it too far and there needs to be a line drawn. There has to be some rules or regulations that can govern, punish and strike off any journalists who cross the line.

What’s your thoughts…?

The 'Avon Lady' is reborn stateside but is it still the same old story?

As the recession continues and people are looking for ways to supplement their income and cover their basic bills, more people are looking at direct selling jobs to see them through hard times. The familiar sound of the ‘Avon lady’ is becoming all the more common across middle America, as cash-strapped women – and men – peddle the popular door-to-door cosmetics brand.

The difference now is rather than knocking on neighbour's doors and leaving catalogues on doorsteps, the ‘Avon lady’ of today uses networking to get sales also. The conventional role of the ‘Avon lady’ has evolved, you no longer have to go door-to-door - instead, many people are taking catalogues along to events at their local church, their children's school, when meeting up with friends and family and are even setting up networking pages and internet sites to make sales.

During a recession, I think the flexibility of direct selling may work because it appeals to people that can’t afford not to earn whilst looking for a job or that need a second income that can fit around their already busy lives so it’s easy to see how Avon and other companies that use similar business models have seen an increase in representatives in the last year.

I remember when I was at school I signed up for Avon, however, partly because I didn’t have much time to dedicate to it and partly because I liked the products too much, I used to lose money and end up with lots of products that went to waste so I’m quite sceptical about the value and income it adds.

I know a lot of people that use other talents and skills to earn money in different ways but with the same principle of supplementing their main source of money. For example, selling stuff on eBay or Gumtree, becoming an Ann Summers party rep, spray-tanning or doing other beauty treatments in the comfort of people’s homes and it seems to me to be a more rewarding source of income, especially with the increase in Avon rep’s but it would be interesting to know you think.

I've got that Friday feeling...

Friday has come at last...it seems like this has been a long week and I'm glad it's Friday. Whilst looking through the news and articles to discuss in my blog today I just couldn't concentrate. America job losses are worse than predicted, Police quiz Tory peer over expenses, Darling issues warning to bankers, the list goes on.But there are some days when you just want to forget the doom and gloom in the news and look at the positives.

Firstly, good luck Andy Murray - I'm not a big tennis fan but what a great role model, fingers crossed for him. Tonight I'm also looking forward to seeing the back of Sree, I’m sure all other big brother fans will agree he is an attention-seeking sneaky wee man and I'll be glad when he's gone - although I do wish they would do a triple eviction and get rid of Chris and Dogface at the same time - boring and pointless springs to mind.

Anyway, I’ll keep it short, have a great weekend, hope the sunshine lasts x

WAG's are to blame for bankruptcies?

“A breakdown of official statistics from the Insolvency Service by an accountancy firm has found that the majority of bankrupts under 24 are now female, whereas only a year ago men still led the field. The reason, at least according to Anthony Cork of Wilkins Kennedy - is that ‘the pressure’ on young women to follow the lavish lifestyle of female celebrities has grown immensely.”

In reality we are told that the likes of Paris Hilton, Coleen Rooney and Victoria Beckham are role models to be followed and this coupled with the growing availability of credit has meant that for the status-conscious, who want to display the accessories of success - designer clothes and jewellery seem deceptively attainable.

It's an interesting topic as I myself have a little girl who I hope will learn the value of money as I did but with the pressures of society, magazines and the media in general, is it really feasible to think that one day she will be looking up to female celebrities for their brain, success and personality rather than their wardrobe?

Unfortunately, I would say it's completely unrealistic to think that not even a little part of her will aspire to be as glamorous and ‘perfect’ as the WAG’s as we now refer to them. If I had my way education and success as a result of hard work would be her main motivators and dreams when she grows up but for that to happen, society & the media also need to take some responsibility for the icon’s that are paraded in front of young girls today.

I, as a parent obviously know my duty to teach right from wrong and instill values in my daughter to counteract these pressures as much as possible but as any parent knows – kids notice hypocrisy early on. I can’t remember how many times I’ve heard from my younger cousins, “Why can’t I? **** at nursery can.” The typical answer of “you aren’t them” only works up to a certain age. This is one of the main reasons that I think there has been a growing number of bankruptcies in females under 24 because it’s hard to dictate to a 20 year old what they can and can’t buy on their credit card.

Personally I think this problem has to be tackled in school’s now and the Government has to concentrate on making kids aware of money matters and it’s value but only time will tell whether this issue is tackled or whether my daughter and her friends will see it acceptable to use credit as a means of ‘looking good’.

The Best Job in the World

I woke up to find I don't have the best job in the world and in fact it was a lucky 30 somenthing from Petersfield that was lucky enough to have that title. In the news today it was anoounced that this is the first day for the man who beat around 35,000 applicants to land his dream job. I remeber reading about it a few months back and thinking it was a joke but apparently not.

For the next six months Ben Southall will be "exploring the islands of the Great Barrier Reef, swimming, snorkeling, making friends with the locals and generally enjoying the tropical Queensland climate and lifestyle" according to the job description - jealous, yes me too. It sounds like heaven but I suppose it wouldn't be everyones ideal job, actaully I'm not sure.

I wonder if he has KPI's about the number of people he has to befriend each day or if he has to go swimming and snorkelling at certain times of the day? Now that would be a bit of a pain, but I think the salary reported to be around £70,000 would soften the blow.

Ben isn't the only winner here, Tourism Queensland reportedly came up with this 'caretaker' job vacancy to promote the area worldwide and it's certainly worked, the publicity generated from their clever viral marketing campaign has spread and will continue to spread as the new 'caretaker' will be blogging and giving video updates reguarly. I may have a nosey.

Could this woman get a job in your office?

I was reading the BBC news online and came across an article that raises interesting questions about what's suitable 'work attire' and if people are pushing the boundaries these days.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8116876.stm#hair

I no when I'm organising my clothes for work in the morning or buying new clothes I always try to find a balance between being comfortable and smart.I wonder what recruiters think when someone comes for an interview casual or informal - does it automatically make them negative about that person's ability and ultimately result in them hiring someone else.

Despite what people may say, I think people do get an impression of someone from what they are wearing and draw conclusions within the first few minutes of meeting them - whether it's right or wrong.It would be intersting to hear from everyone what they think is acceptable to wear to work and what is unacceptable and if you have ever hired someone despite their scruffy appearance?