Conference terri::cars_uk

973.0. "Luncheon Vouchers and Lease Cars" by YUPPY::FOX (Harry Stow-Crat, Esq.) Thu Mar 01 1990 16:42

                        Rathole Alert!  Rathole Alert!
    
    
    I received this morning a very chatty letter, dated 26 February, from
    Peter Woodhouse of UK Personnel regarding Luncheon Vouchers and my
    lease car. 
    
    No doubt this topic will invoke a heated debate regarding my
    eligibility to receive them, but that is not the reason for this note. 
    
    The letter indicates that LVs for employees who currently receive
    them AND have a lease car, will be withdrawn after a three month
    notice period, ie, after the May 1990 pay day.  The decision, by
    the Personnel Committee, is based on three main "considerations":
    
    1		The majority of employees have access to a subsidised
    		canteen.
    
    2		Most employees are provided with a car either because
    		they do a significant amount of mileage on company business
    		or because of their level within the organisation. Whilst
    		on company business, employees are able to reclaim
    		reasonable expenses incurred, so in some cases the
    		provision of LVs is duplicating compensation for the
    		non-availability of subsidised lunches.
    
    3		Most employees who are both eligible for a car and based
    		at an office without a restaurant, do not receive LVs.
    
    In my own circumstances, I do not qualify for Points 1 or 3, but
    I do qualify for Point 2.
    
    Anyone who works in Central London will be aware of how inadequate
    the LV provision is - #12 per calendar month, which can all too
    easily equal only three or four far-from-extravagant lunches.
    
    Whilst I am on company business I can and do claim reasonable expenses
    for lunch, but at other times I have to rely on my LVs or pocket.
    
    This policy change, is, in my opinion, grossly unfair.  I am being
    penalised simply because I have a lease car, regardless of whether
    I'm driving it on company business or not.   There are countless employees
    at other locations, with subsidised restaurant facilities, who have
    lease cars and who therefore have an indirect salary advantage to me
    since they are generally paying less for lunch than I am.
                                             
    #12 may only be #12, but #12 in a Digital-subsidised restaurant
    goes a lot further than #12 worth of LVs at the best of times, but
    this is something of a side issue.
                                             
    Unfortunately, my Terms of Employment do not, conveniently discuss
    the provisions for a possible withdrawal of certain employee benefits
    and so I as an individual am unable (not that I would) to pursue
    a grievance with the Company on the matter on "legality" grounds.
                                      
    I open the matter up for discussion/debate/opinion.  Are you affected
    by this?  What do you think about it?  
                                      
    Cheers,                           
     John                             
                                      

Well - I'm amazed. I thought they did this in 1980 - is it done every DECade ;-)

(I lost mine when I first became a qualified car driver then).

Jc

    This is the first time I've seen a rat-hole started in a base note!
    
    Ian.
    
    (end of rat hole)

    Ian, you should know by now that there's a first time for everything!
    

	The base note refers to "lease cars" but the 3 points raised are
	all concerned with "qualified users".  There is a difference,
	although one is inclusive of the other - ie qualified users use
	lease cars.  Remember there are hundreds of lease car users who
	apparently are not affected by this ruling provided you typed
	it in verbatim, and I assume you did.

	Question - How many qualified users do we employ and how many
	of them are able to use either a subsidised Digital canteen
	or receive expense-paid lunches?  I suspect that the difference
	between the 2 categories is VERY small and thus the personnel
	committee seem to be picking on a minority group within the
	company - and the net savings are probably less than the cost
	of running the meeting where the decision was taken!

	If this is typical of the cost-cutting we are doing then
	Mit****shi are welcome to the problems!

    
    note .4 is a little off the mark (in my humblist opion)
    
    1/ UK largest (sales) region is London
    
    2/ Most of the people in Enterprise house are directly invovled
    with selling and get company cars
    
    3/ Most of the people who sell in the London region work in enterprise
    house
    
    4/ There is no subsidsied Digital canteen in London
    
    5/ A meal which I can get for 70p in BST (A digital office in
    Basingstoke) costs 350p out on the street (in london).
    
    6/ Digital sales in London are the same as else where (- two grand
    in the pocket for travel into london)
    
    My views are (<<Smoking here>>) 
    
    A/ London employees are getting ripped off in general compared to
    the rest of the company (substandard accomadation, no canteen...)
    
    B/ The base note is correct, the majority of the the UKs largest sales
    region is losing.                                       
    
    :J
    
    (Why not repost in the UK conference)
    
    :J

>>          <<< Note 973.5 by YUPPY::PACKJ "Vertical learning curves" >>>
>>    (Why not repost in the UK conference)
    
    It already is.
    R    
    

    Yippee!
    
    The anomaly has been rectified.  All employees who currently get
    LVs and take the cash instead of a lease car are getting letters
    giving three months notice of the withdrawal of LVs.
    
    

    

        Was it really worth the effort?

    Yes.  Equality.