googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:fvjd54ln7jq54a3i7ep85nnj46u2ncv14g@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 21:21:00 +0100, "Michael C"
> wrote:
>>
>>Compared to not having people turn up at all, I would imagine most
>>employers
>>would be quite in favour of them working from home.
>
> Yes, but that assumes that they knew in advance that they would be
> working from home and had everything there that they needed. I
> certainly couldn't decide right now to work from home tomorrow, as
> many of the things I require to do my job are at work.
This strike has been known about for AGES. Plenty of time to make plans in
case the need arises and it would only be for a few days.
Many people in my current company work either from home or at client sites -
some of them hardly ever come into the office.
So this is a perfectly feasible alternative for some people.
>>Are you for real? It is hardly inconcievable for a bunch of people who
>>work
>>together to also be living relatively close to each other, or for some
>>people to live along the route that many people would take anyway.
>
> People tend to live within a particular radius of where they work, not
> in a convenient straight line from it. Perhaps in a large company
> there might be enough employees grouped into certain areas to make
> your suggestion viable, but I've worked in small companies where that
> simply isn't the case. Also, the problem with the larger companies is
> that they often operate schemes such as flexible working, which means
> people come in and leave at different times. So, again, car sharing
> may not be a workable solution.
Key point here being MAY NOT.
I currently work for a large company and many people do car-sharing, some of
them three or four to a car. I used to work for a small company and out of
the five of us, it was feasible for three of us.
So this is a perfectly feasible alternative for some people.
>>Spend some time getting your facts right first - you can get rooms in a
>>Travelodge for
