POA

[carryfast]

Conor:

Carryfast:
Realistically POA ( standby ) isn’t going to make much difference to the total shift time when legally it’s all about either being on break or other work and if you’re not on other work then why not just book it as break.

Because in some cases it can result in you having to take another 30/45 minute break later in the day when booking a PoA would mean you didn’t because it didn’t reset the 4.5hrs driving time or 6hr working time.

As an extreme example.30 minutes other work at start of shift.Drive 4.5 hours including putting it on a dock.Break for 3 to 5 hours waiting.Drive 4.5 hours including putting it on a dock and fuelling up.30 minutes other work at end of shift.How does booking POA make any difference or help in that case ?.Or for that matter reset the driving time or WTD even in the case of a 10 hour driving shift ?.When surely booking break,not POA,is supposed to do that ?.Realistically POA is there to differentiate stand by time from daily rest.IE it can’t be daily rest if you’re awake waiting for,or disturbed by,a call to start a shift for example.Anything else would be a pointless misinterpretation of the definition of POA.

[weeto]

ContainerBoy:
Seeing as POA and breaks don’t make a difference from the perspective of the 48 hour average over the reference period I can’t help thinking that some employers might be able to benefit from POA rather than breaks. Maybe some kind of insurance/tax incentive that would not apply if driver was just taking a break but if he was waiting around on POA causing a loss to the business due to the waiting around then maybe employer can get something out it.

But if that was the case then all employeys would be demanding that POA be used.

Googled it can’t find out for the life of me why it was brought in in the first place.

Commercial motor archives is a good place to search.
The FTA took all the credit for bringing it in, so perhaps you could ask them why it was.

Drivers aren't the enemy | 10th March 2005 | The Commercial Motor Archive

[billywolves9]

My company tells us to use it for breakdowns only because they can claim the hours back against your week average hours which is tracked over 27 week period. Although it doesn’t effect your actually daily shift hours when your running close to your weekly average hours of POA is deducted can prevent forced Work leave, which day off unpaid, don’t know if any other companies do this

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[igloo_mike]

POA is there for 2 reasons.
1 so your employer can squeeze more work out of you.
2 for drivers who get all brakes taken off them to use less brake time.

A “friend” works for Jack Richards and they take all brakes off them so if you do a 10 you lose 90 minutes pay.
One driver was told to take a split brake and they took 3 and a quarter hours off him.

He also says there hourly rate is less than stobbarts.

That’s why people use POA to try and make a living out of 60hr weeks.

[carryfast]

igloo mike:
POA is there for 2 reasons.
1 so your employer can squeeze more work out of you.
2 for drivers who get all brakes taken off them to use less brake time.

A “friend” works for Jack Richards and they take all brakes off them so if you do a 10 you lose 90 minutes pay.
One driver was told to take a split brake and they took 3 and a quarter hours off him.

He also says there hourly rate is less than stobbarts.

That’s why people use POA to try and make a living out of 60hr weeks.

It seems clear that POA isn’t meant to be used as a substitute for break.More like a sub division of other work.In which case it’s doubtful if booking POA to satisfy break requirement would be acceptable.Just like in the case of booking POA to satisfy daily rest requirement.IE it’s either other work,or POA,or break,or daily rest.

app.croneri.co.uk/feature-artic … -explained

[weeto]

If you look back far enough you will find POA was forced in to cover long periods of waiting time at RDCs, and the original plan was to pay this POA at a rate lower than the basic hourly rate, meaning drivers will have to work longer before they reached the overtime rate, so basically brought in to screw drivers over.
The WTD for drivers was first mentioned in 1991 with a average 48 hour week with a max 60 in a week.
Sometime between 2003 and 2005 POA was forced into legislation to basically keep drivers on long hours per week.

[carryfast]

weeto:
If you look back far enough you will find POA was forced in to cover long periods of waiting time at RDCs, and the original plan was to pay this POA at a rate lower than the basic hourly rate, meaning drivers will have to work longer before they reached the overtime rate, so basically brought in to screw drivers over.
The WTD for drivers was first mentioned in 1991 with a average 48 hour week with a max 60 in a week.
Sometime between 2003 and 2005 POA was forced into legislation to basically keep drivers on long hours per week.

If they intended to limit the working hours of drivers it’s the daily rest and weekly rest regime that would obviously do it.

But POA doesn’t seem to make much difference in just being a seperate sub heading of other work.It can’t possibly make the overall shift time or working week any longer because that’s governed by the daily/weekly rest requirement.

While how can a driver possibly be on standby supposedly waiting for a call to start driving during a ferry crossing which is obviously a situation of being on break until the ship docks.Just like sitting eating,drinking and watching the tele while it’s being tipped or loaded is.If the driver isn’t involved in the operation then that’s surely that’s break until it’s finished and ready to move.

IE Just another flawed piece of Euro hours regs crap.

[carryfast]

Here’s a question for the rule makers.If POA is all about catering for periods of standby when the driver could be called at any time how does it also contain the rule that the length of that period in question must be known beforehand.

When surely by definition standby on call to resume work must mean the total opposite.IE the length of the period in question isn’t known and the call could be at any time which is the definition of being on standby.As opposed to a ferry crossing for example in which the period will at least cover a 1 hour break in most cases with the time of docking being more or less known.

[dieseldave]

Carryfast:
Here’s a question for the rule makers.If POA is all about catering for periods of standby when the driver could be called at any time how does it also contain the rule that the length of that period in question must be known beforehand.

Carryfast,

I wouldn’t worry about “how” it contains the rule, surely even you can see that it’s easier to simply accept that it does.

The Road Transport (Working Time) Regulations 2005 Reg.6(1)

Periods of availability
6.—(1) A period shall not be treated as a period of availability unless the mobile worker knows before the start of the relevant period about that period of availability and its reasonably foreseeable duration.

=================================

Carryfast:
When surely by definition standby on call to resume work must mean the total opposite.IE the length of the period in question isn’t known and the call could be at any time which is the definition of being on standby.As opposed to a ferry crossing for example in which the period will at least cover a 1 hour break in most cases with the time of docking being more or less known.

Here’s the definition of PoA

The Road Transport (Working Time) Regulations 2005 Reg.2

Interpretation
2. In these Regulations—

“period of availability” means a period during which the mobile worker is not required to remain at his workstation, but is required to be available to answer any calls to start or resume driving or to carry out other work , including periods during which the mobile worker is accompanying a vehicle being transported by a ferry or by a train as well as periods of waiting at frontiers and those due to traffic prohibitions;

[carryfast]

dieseldave:

Carryfast:
Here’s a question for the rule makers.If POA is all about catering for periods of standby when the driver could be called at any time how does it also contain the rule that the length of that period in question must be known beforehand.

Carryfast,

I wouldn’t worry about “how” it contains the rule, surely even you can see that it’s easier to simply accept that it does.

The Road Transport (Working Time) Regulations 2005 Reg.6(1)

Periods of availability
6.—(1) A period shall not be treated as a period of availability unless the mobile worker knows before the start of the relevant period about that period of availability and its reasonably foreseeable duration.

=================================

Carryfast:
When surely by definition standby on call to resume work must mean the total opposite.IE the length of the period in question isn’t known and the call could be at any time which is the definition of being on standby.As opposed to a ferry crossing for example in which the period will at least cover a 1 hour break in most cases with the time of docking being more or less known.

Here’s the definition of PoA

The Road Transport (Working Time) Regulations 2005 Reg.2

Interpretation
2. In these Regulations—

“period of availability” means a period during which the mobile worker is not required to remain at his workstation, but is required to be available to answer any calls to start or resume driving or to carry out other work , including periods during which the mobile worker is accompanying a vehicle being transported by a ferry or by a train as well as periods of waiting at frontiers and those due to traffic prohibitions;

My point was that as it stands POA is a contradiction and makes absolutely no sense.IE ‘the driver is required to be ‘available’ to answer ‘any’ calls to resume work’.But then it also says that the point of the call to resume work in question must be foreseeable beforehand.So what’s the object of having the provision when ‘available’ ( standby ) by definition means waiting for ‘any’ call to resume work at obviously equally ‘any’ unforeseeable point.

While surely anything that isn’t other work is break regardless of how long it takes or whether the period in question is known beforehand or not and whether or not the driver will get a call to resume work again during it ?.Also bearing in mind that booking it as break will re set the driving time limit clock at least.

Which leaves the question how is sitting in the lounge on a ferry,or in a warehouse canteen reading the newspaper,etc for 1 hour + for example,supposedly POA not break.While the idea that the actual length of the period of so called ‘availability’ ( ‘standby’ ) needs to be known beforehand surely just defeats the object,of having such a standby provision,as opposed to just booking the time as a break,even more ?.

[dieseldave]

Carryfast:

dieseldave:

Carryfast:
Here’s a question for the rule makers.If POA is all about catering for periods of standby when the driver could be called at any time how does it also contain the rule that the length of that period in question must be known beforehand.

Carryfast,

I wouldn’t worry about “how” it contains the rule, surely even you can see that it’s easier to simply accept that it does.

The Road Transport (Working Time) Regulations 2005 Reg.6(1)

Periods of availability
6.—(1) A period shall not be treated as a period of availability unless the mobile worker knows before the start of the relevant period about that period of availability and its reasonably foreseeable duration.

=================================

Carryfast:
When surely by definition standby on call to resume work must mean the total opposite.IE the length of the period in question isn’t known and the call could be at any time which is the definition of being on standby.As opposed to a ferry crossing for example in which the period will at least cover a 1 hour break in most cases with the time of docking being more or less known.

Here’s the definition of PoA

The Road Transport (Working Time) Regulations 2005 Reg.2

Interpretation
2. In these Regulations—

“period of availability” means a period during which the mobile worker is not required to remain at his workstation, but is required to be available to answer any calls to start or resume driving or to carry out other work , including periods during which the mobile worker is accompanying a vehicle being transported by a ferry or by a train as well as periods of waiting at frontiers and those due to traffic prohibitions;

But then it also says that the point of the call to resume work in question must be foreseeable beforehand.

And where exactly does it say that “the call” must be foreseeable

[carryfast]

dieseldave:

Carryfast:

dieseldave:

Carryfast:
Here’s a question for the rule makers.If POA is all about catering for periods of standby when the driver could be called at any time how does it also contain the rule that the length of that period in question must be known beforehand.

Carryfast,

I wouldn’t worry about “how” it contains the rule, surely even you can see that it’s easier to simply accept that it does.

The Road Transport (Working Time) Regulations 2005 Reg.6(1)

Periods of availability
6.—(1) A period shall not be treated as a period of availability unless the mobile worker knows before the start of the relevant period about that period of availability and its reasonably foreseeable duration.

=================================

Carryfast:
When surely by definition standby on call to resume work must mean the total opposite.IE the length of the period in question isn’t known and the call could be at any time which is the definition of being on standby.As opposed to a ferry crossing for example in which the period will at least cover a 1 hour break in most cases with the time of docking being more or less known.

Here’s the definition of PoA

The Road Transport (Working Time) Regulations 2005 Reg.2

Interpretation
2. In these Regulations—

“period of availability” means a period during which the mobile worker is not required to remain at his workstation, but is required to be available to answer any calls to start or resume driving or to carry out other work , including periods during which the mobile worker is accompanying a vehicle being transported by a ferry or by a train as well as periods of waiting at frontiers and those due to traffic prohibitions;

But then it also says that the point of the call to resume work in question must be foreseeable beforehand.

And where exactly does it say that “the call” must be foreseeable

If the worker must know the ‘foreseeable’ ‘duration’ of the ‘period’ of availability’ obviously before starting it.Then logically they’ll need to know exactly when the call to resume work will actually take place before starting the period ?.

IE it seems obvious that the whole thing is an unnecessary pointless contradiction.In that break and waiting for a call to resume work aren’t mutually exclusive.To which the rule makers have then added insult to injury by erroneously transposing the,by definition,‘unforeseeable’ nature of ‘stand by’.

[dieseldave]

Carryfast:

dieseldave:

Carryfast:
But then it also says that the point of the call to resume work in question must be foreseeable beforehand.

And where exactly does it say that “the call” must be foreseeable

If the worker must know the ‘foreseeable’ ‘duration’ of the ‘period’ of availability’ obviously before starting it.Then logically they’ll need to know exactly when the call to resume work will actually take place before starting the period ?.

There’s your problem Carryfast, your logic isn’t logical.

Have another shot at answering my question plese, go on mate… it’s quite easy.

Here’s a clue… just read what’s there, and NOT what isn’t.

[carryfast]

dieseldave:
There’s your problem Carryfast, your logic isn’t logical.

Have another shot at answering my question plese, go on mate… it’s quite easy.

Here’s a clue… just read what’s there, and NOT what isn’t.

I did read what’s there.

‘‘A period shall not be treated as a period of availability ‘unless’ the mobile worker knows before the start of the relevant period about that period of availability and its reasonably foreseeable ‘duration’.’’

So how can the worker possibly know what the ‘duration’ of that ‘period’ will be without first knowing beforehand exactly when the ‘call’ to ‘resume’ work will be made ?.While without that essential piece of information there’s obviously no way of establishing what the ‘duration’ of that ‘period’ will be.IE for a ‘duration’ of the ‘period’ to be established beforehand it will obviously need a start time ‘and’ a ‘finish time’ ( call to resume work ) ?.IE the total antithesis of the idea of standby ( period of availability ) which by definition means an unknown point of when the call will be made for the resumption of work.

As I said a pointless provision.That can more easily and more advantageously be sorted by the usual break provision and that’s not even fit for purpose anyway because they’ve confused the definition of ‘standby’ within it.

[freight_dog]

Carryfast:
If the worker must know the ‘foreseeable’ ‘duration’ of the ‘period’ of availability’ obviously before starting it.Then logically they’ll need to know exactly when the call to resume work will actually take place before starting the period ?.

I see what you’re getting at. I think you’ve got it a bit too complicated. What they mean is you have to know how long the theoretical time of poa is planned to be. Not when Poa does actually end sooner because a call to work comes. Would be pointless having it if they knew when they’d need you in advance.

Say a known block of 3 hours of poa. If you were called after an hour to work the poa then of course ends and another mode starts, say other work or driving, could even be break. They might say " you don’t have to wait in the driver’s waiting room now, take your lunch, you’re off somewhere at 1pm". It’s how long the planned length of poa is that you have to know before, the 3 hours bit.

We have standby and it’s works exactly the same. It’s to stop you hanging by the phone for indefinite periods so you can plan breaks/shut eye

[dieseldave]

Freight Dog:

Carryfast:
If the worker must know the ‘foreseeable’ ‘duration’ of the ‘period’ of availability’ obviously before starting it.Then logically they’ll need to know exactly when the call to resume work will actually take place before starting the period ?.

I think you’ve got it a bit too complicated.

+1

[dieseldave]

Carryfast:

dieseldave:
There’s your problem Carryfast, your logic isn’t logical.

Have another shot at answering my question plese, go on mate… it’s quite easy.

Here’s a clue… just read what’s there, and NOT what isn’t.

I did read what’s there.

‘‘A period shall not be treated as a period of availability ‘unless’ the mobile worker knows before the start of the relevant period about that period of availability and its reasonably foreseeable ‘duration’.’’

So how can the worker possibly know what the ‘duration’ of that ‘period’ will be without first knowing beforehand exactly when the ‘call’ to ‘resume’ work will be made ?.While without that essential piece of information there’s obviously no way of establishing what the ‘duration’ of that ‘period’ will be.IE for a ‘duration’ of the ‘period’ to be established beforehand it will obviously need a start time ‘and’ a ‘finish time’ ( call to resume work ) ?.IE the total antithesis of the idea of standby ( period of availability ) which by definition means an unknown point of when the call will be made for the resumption of work.

Carryfast,

If we stick with what’s actually written…

The driver gets told… “we think you’ll be held up for a couple of hours,” it’s an estimate of what’s reasonably foreseeable.

However, a call comes (within that couple of hours,) and the driver has to do some sort of work, which he then does.

For record purposes, the driver has just had ■■ hrs/mins of POA that is to be recorded as such. It’s quite simple really!!

The fact that the original estimate got interrupted by a call (that the Regs actually make provision for) has as much to do with the price of fish as your notion that the driver has to know when the call will come. At the point in time that the call comes, the driver has nevertheless had ■■ hrs/mins of POA.

[carryfast]

Freight Dog:

Carryfast:
If the worker must know the ‘foreseeable’ ‘duration’ of the ‘period’ of availability’ obviously before starting it.Then logically they’ll need to know exactly when the call to resume work will actually take place before starting the period ?.

I see what you’re getting at. I think you’ve got it a bit too complicated. What they mean is you have to know how long the theoretical time of poa is planned to be. Not when Poa does actually end sooner because a call to work comes. Would be pointless having it if they knew when they’d need you in advance.

Say a known block of 3 hours of poa. If you were called after an hour to work the poa then of course ends and another mode starts, say other work or driving, could even be break. They might say " you don’t have to wait in the driver’s waiting room now, take your lunch, you’re off somewhere at 1pm". It’s how long the planned length of poa is that you have to know before, the 3 hours bit.

We have standby and it’s works exactly the same. It’s to stop you hanging by the phone for indefinite periods so you can plan breaks/shut eye

It isn’t a question of if the ‘planned’ period ends sooner than anticipated.It’s the fact that it’s impossible to establish any supposed set duration of even the supposed ‘planned’ period without first having pre established an anticipated time of being called back to resume work,because it’s only obviously that call which will end the duration of the period.Which as in the description you’ve given totally defeats the object of POA ( standby ) anyway because if you have a reasonable idea of when you’ll be called to resume work then you can just book that as break anyway.While if the call is sooner than anticipated that just means a shorter,or possibly,aborted break regardless.In all cases break will do the job just fine with no need to complicate matters with the silly idea of a period of availability ‘standby’.Which is itself subject to the contradictory condition that the worker must know when the call to resume work will happen anyway.IE it’s anything but standby.

Then put that in the real world of a driver on the 4.5 driving time limit on arrival at a tipping/loading point,then booking POA instead of break,obviously won’t satisfy the rule that only taking break,not POA,will reset the driving time period.In which case what’s the point of POA in that typical situation.Let alone the idea that a driver has wasted 1 hour + of valuable break provision in that regard,during a channel crossing for example,by booking it as POA instead of break.

While as I’ve said it only makes some sense in the case of something like being told that there’s no vehicle available or it’s being loaded/tipped for however long when starting a shift.In which case taking a break immediately when starting a shift would be pointless.But which then defeats the object under the rules when the guvnor says we haven’t got a clue how long you’re going to have to wait or how long it will take.IE that’s clearly POA ( standby ) in that case by any logical definition.But which by the wording of the rules as it stands isn’t actually allowed within that supposed provision because the guvnor hasn’t got the slightest clue how long it’s going to take and when the driver can actually start work.

While the example which you’ve described just confirms that being on break while at the same time waiting for a call to resume work isn’t mutually exclusive.

However that obviously all changes if we’re discussing POA in the terms of daily rest period when waiting for a call to resume work can’t possibly go together with daily rest.IE 10 hour shift,3 hours POA,11 hours daily rest which is my bet what it’s really there for,to seperate daily rest from standby not break.In which case it’s obvious that the driver would need to know when the standby period ends so they can start their daily rest period.

[stevieboy308]

I don’t understand why so many people seem to have issues with this!!

I believe they had to bring it in once they brought in the wtd, before the wtd anyone that is paid off the tacho and all recorded breaks deducted, could have all waiting time on other work so they would get paid. But then then they’d be limited by the 48/60 limits. So they had to bring something in that allows them to be paid whilst not racking up working time.

So they brought in poa, they had to make the definition slightly different, to make it different to break! But it’s basically the same and any extra requirements are uncheckable.

I would pretty much only use it for the above reason or if by taking a full break now would mess up my day and I was bothered about my working time, then I’d use poa, yes you can do 1 min of other work every 44 mins of break to achieve the same thing, but I’d prefer to have a kip for a couple of hours or anything rather than press a button I don’t need to every 44 minutes.

Break does the same thing as regards working time, so I don’t see how poa is a con!!

Nothing to get wound up about or over think, use it for the above 2 reasons because it makes sense too, use break at all other times instead, it’s that simple

[carryfast]

dieseldave:
Carryfast,

If we stick with what’s actually written…

The driver gets told… “we think you’ll be held up for a couple of hours,” it’s an estimate of what’s reasonably foreseeable.

However, a call comes (within that couple of hours,) and the driver has to do some sort of work, which he then does.

For record purposes, the driver has just had ■■ hrs/mins of POA that is to be recorded as such. It’s quite simple really!!

The fact that the original estimate got interrupted by a call (that the Regs actually make provision for) has as much to do with the price of fish as your notion that the driver has to know when the call will come. At the point in time that the call comes, the driver has nevertheless had ■■ hrs/mins of POA.

As I said it’s a contradiction.The driver supposedly needs to know the duration of the period before starting it.But the duration of the period really doesn’t matter because if it did the idea wouldn’t possibly work anyway as in your example,even if there was any point in using it instead of break.IE it’s what happens when laws are made by a committee made up of Germans,French and Italians.

On that note I’m still trying to get my head around why the same rule makers think that anyone with any sense would book sitting in the lounge etc,on a ferry, while crossing the channel,as POA and not break.IE available to do exactly what and when during the duration of the crossing.