Conference 7.286::digital

    This will be interesting to follow and hopefully those on the "B"
    (myself included) will not get hung out to dry. It would be surprising
    to see the benefit improve and given the financial decisions some of us
    have made around the current parameters of the plan - let's hope they
    remain wise ones. We are asked to purchase/lease vehicles of a minimum
    age & description and make these decisions based upon the projected
    cash flow coming in from the "B" plan - if we choose the "B" plan
    versus "A" plan approach. In the process many of us become obligated to
    a contract that might be less costly if we had been allowed to select
    older vehicles but we do it based on information given that presumably
    is provided so we can plan what we are able to afford. Again, hopefully
    we can avoid being blindsided, but I wonder. The recent insurance
    coverage level increase requirement - to provide Digital a better deal
    - has not shown signs of sharing any of the cost savings with those
    investors whose capital has funded the benefit, namely "B" plan
    drivers!

    I believe the conclusion someone reached was that the average cost per
    month for Plan B was $158 greater than Plan A. There is apparently a
    task force being formed to recommend changes, if needed, by 6/1/94 with
    implementation by 1/1/95.
    
    On the downside, the recommendation that this be looked into came out
    Finance. On the upside, the people who have been asked to participate
    in the task force are the Sales Organizations. Ideally, the Sales
    organization has the wisdom to judge and weigh the merits of what tools
    are made available to the Sales Force and the effect on they have on
    Goals.
    
    I believe it's an over simplification for an accountant to conclude
    that one business practice costs more than another and, as a result,
    justifies change in the Sales Organization. I surely hope that the
    Sales Managers are concerned more with increasing the YIELD of their
    Sales Representatives (against stated goals) rather than the PRICE of
    that Representative at the $40/week granularity. We could save much
    more than this by smart logistic planning in the recent rash of Sales
    training that takes folks miles from their area local.
    
    In any case, I don't believe jerking around the Sales Organization on a
    whim is healthy for Digital's recovery and that such plans, if valid,
    should be phased in gradually. Was it much more that 12 months ago that
    someone concluded that it was less costly to have the Sales
    Organization on Plan B than Plan A?

    	As an aside, have any Plan B persons received their "freqent driver
    miles" statement from Fleet qualifying or eliminating them as
    continuing participants?
    
    Phil

CC manager get the updates monthly (I think), with a 6 month moving average.

I believe it is the descretion of the CC mgr to remove drivers, which makes 
a lot of sense.   For example, our people cover a territory of 40,000 square 
miles, but in any given quarter, most of an individuals business could be 
within a 20 mile drive.   Next quarter it could be a 200 mile drive.

Only the CC manager is in a position to determine if an individual contributor
needs a car.

My $.02

Bob

    
    How long ago was it that they tried to make us move off Plan A to Plan
    B?  While car plans are not considered compensation, I think management
    underestimates the value of Plan B to many of us.  I've left Unisys
    after they took away my car plan.  Is this yet another way to promote
    attrition?
    
    -Ed
    

    The rumor I heard is effective Q1 1995 (july) back to $200.00/month
    for plan B aprticipants.
    
    Remember its only a rumor I heard.
    Mike Turro
    

    I'm looking for a little REAL information about the car plans...
    
    I'm in SI (formerly EIS, DC, and whatever) I was forced off Plan A a
    couple years ago during one of the Great Purges.  I've now been
    assigned to a project that will exceed the 600 mile/month limit for
    Plan B (is there a separate mileage requirement for Plan A?  If so,
    I'll probably exceed that too).  The project is scheduled to go AT
    LEAST 6 months and projected to be around 2 YEARS! 
    
    I just attempted to get my car put on Plan B and was told by my manager
    that I had to have A 6 MONTH RECORD OF GOING MORE THEN 600 MILES/MONTH
    BEFORE THIS COULD BE DONE!  So, I'd have to be 6 MONTHS INTO the
    project before I could get on the car plan.
    
    Is this corporate?  If so, where is it documented?  If not, whats the
    scoop?  Is it just some PSC bureaucrat trying to mess with the plans to
    "keep down the cost" of having people driving all over the place?

    
    VTX US_FLEET  has info on the rules for Car Plan B.
    
    I did not see the six month mileage clause.
    
    I got into car plan B without showing the 6 prior months of minimum
    mileage. I must say, however, that I have a very good "people" manager.

When the minimum mileage rules were established their was some comment in
some memo to the effect that the minmum busness mileage would be reviewed
after 6 months average and if a driver was under then the driver 
would be removed from the car plan either plan A or B. But it said
nothing about the 6 month average befor going on the plan. 

I also checked  VTX US_FLEET and could find nothing about the 6 month
check befor being put on the auto plan.

    I've already been in VTX, and agree there is nothing written there
    about a 6-month requirement.  I also just talked to someone out East
    who manages the car plan, and she agreed that there is NO PRIOR
    requirement.  
    
    This evidently is a product of my management, once again warping the
    policy requirements for some purpose...  I'll not ascribe any
    malevolence, although...

    You may want to do some careful calculation before you push for Plan B.
    My calculations show that you are better off to stay with $.225 per
    mile if you drive more than 1450 business miles per month. If you
    consider non-refundable taxes withheld (i.e. FICA and Medi-fraud), it
    would probably take even less to break even. I don't know if this
    scenario applies to you. It's just something to think about.
    
    Russ

    
    Having been on both plans (currently on Plan B), my opinion is that
    with the previous reimbursment rate for Plan B ($325/mo + 8
    cents/business mile) it was pretty close to break-even. Now that the
    monthly rate went to $210/8cents it's a losing proposition.
    
    Even if you did minimal maintenence and had no failures it's still very
    iffy, and the monthly check is added right on to your salary, so the
    tax bite from the Plan A 'benefit' makes no difference.
    
    And you can get a whole LOT more stuff in a Taurus Wagon than you can
    in a Thunderbird. Personally, when the $325 goes away on the T-Bird,
    I'll go back on Plan A.
    
    .mike.

    RE -1
    
    Try Villager Mini-Van. That's the replacement for the Taurus Wagon on
    the selector. However, everything you say is still true. In fact, I
    think the Villagers are even nicer (power locks & windows). I'm looking
    at ordering the flip open rear window. It's only $81 and a service type
    like myself would get lots of use from it.
    
    Russ
    

    
    I've seen the Villager, looks like a good deal, but I will miss the
    Taurus wagon, (I've had several), and my last one had power everything.
    
    Anyone have opinions on the Chrysler MiniVans? Every one I know
    (non-FS) who has one, loves it. But - Do they hold up to constant
    use/abuse?
    
    Inquiring Minds want to know...
    
    .mike.

    I agree about the .225 and mileage, but I'm in a situation where I
    should be RIGHT AROUND 850 miles/month.  At that rate, even with the
    taxes, and the additional business insurance, it still provides a
    couple bucks a month more to help defray the cost of prematurely
    wearing out another perfectly good car for this company.
    
    From the information I'm seeing, it looks more than ever like a
    management problem, not a fleet problem.  Just the normal,
    we-don't-want-to-follow-the-company-guidelines-in-this-group,
    we-will-just-make-up-our-own-instead garbage.

    RE .14
    I know of three engineers who bought CaraVans when the big push to Plan
    B happened about three years ago. I haven't heard any major complaints
    yet. However, I also know several people who have Caravan/Voyagers
    which are longer in the tooth. The consensus is "watch for oil
    consumption after 60 to 70K miles. The engines usually fail altogether
    shortly after 100K." Of course, I'm probably not the most objective
    person when it comes to Chrysler products. I recently had a lousy
    experience with one. If you'd like details, send me mail.

    You should really check out the car notes if you are interested in
    buying anything.
    
    From my personnal experience. 1993 Voyager.
    
    These vans are built to the minimum specs possible. 
    - tires and brakes typically wear out about 45000 KM
    - struts 50000 km
    - arm rest constructions consistantly poor
    - rear door latch...see the news
    - history of tranny problems
    - known starter freezing problem
    
    
    Brian V
    

>    I've seen the Villager, looks like a good deal, but I will miss the
>    Taurus wagon, (I've had several), and my last one had power everything.


Ah, yes.  the famous Taurus?Sable with the inefficient braking system.

It seems that every time I stopped by the body shop for coffee and a chat 
there was ANOTHER DECwreck in there for front end work resulting from the 
driver not stopping in time.

Glad I never had to drive one.

    Droving 2nd Taurus .... brakes work just fine though the front brakes
    have been replaced twice in 100,000 miles on my current beast.  Like
    the car.  I bought both my Plan A cars and haven't regretted it yet.

    
    Geez.. I never hit anything with the *front* of my Tauroids (the wife
    did take out a phone pole once tho :-)
    
    I figure that a work vehicle, used daily will go through front brakes
    every 30K or so, rotors, anyway. Unless it was a Celebrity/6000 type
    with the tiny make-believe rotors on it, then you maybe got 20K. RM03
    disk heads generate more friction than did those tiny things...
    
    Shocks/struts are usually junk by 30K, but the wear is so gradual that
    it doesn't seem like a problem until they are *really* bad. The 'Bird
    has about 55K now, and I just did rear shocks and will do the struts
    when I get off standby, it does make a difference.
    
    I've driven more Fords for Digital than anything else, and I really
    can't complain, they've been good for the most part, GM's haven't been,
    and I've only driven a rented Caravan once, so I have little to base
    judgement on there. You can carry a lots of stuff in one though, and
    It's easier to load/unload than a 2-door sedan. That's where the Taurus
    really shined, you can pack 'em easy and they hold lots of stuff. I'm
    sorry to see 'em go.
    
    .mike.

    
    	re: -1
    
    	What do you mean "sorry to see them go"?
    
    	As far as I know, the Fords are with us under PLAN A. Since this
    topic is about PLAN B, I think we are getting into strange territory.
    
    	Plan B is for those who DO NOT have a company, or choose not to
    use one I believe.
    
    	Correct me if I'm wrong here, folks. I thought this string was
    to elecit info on the coming *new* changes to Plan B.
    
    
    		the Greyhawk

    Well, whether it's Plan A or Plan B, keep buying those Ford products. 
    It helps to keep me employed!
    
    	Stu
    	Onsite MCS resident at Ford Motor Co, PowerTrain Operations.
    	Driving his 3rd Taurus wagon on Plan A, and whose wife also drives
    	a Taurus wagon.

    re .-2
    I 'assumed' that since it was mentioned that the Taurus was replaced by
    the Mercury Villager, that the Taurus wasn't on the "a" plan anymore.
    
    Perhaps I shouldn't 'assume'? But then I haven't checked the 'list'
    either. I do know that they got 'ugly' (imho) for '96.
    
    .mike.

    Just to be clear on this point, the Mercury Villager replaced the
    Taurus Wagon as the "preferred vehicle" for MCS. The Taurus Sedan is
    still available. This is according to the '95 vehicle selector. I have
    not seen any information on '96 yet. When I say it is the preferred
    vehicle, I am referring to the fact that an MCS engineer can get one
    for $30 per week. Any other vehicle, excluding the Taurus Sedan, will
    cost more. For most of us in MCS, using a Taurus Sedan would be like
    taking a pea shooter to war. The cargo space is just not adequate.
    
    Russ
    

    re: .-1 
    
    What about Plan B?, At $210/8cents it's not even worth considering.
    And when the bulk of the B-Plan drivers change to the "A" flavor, the
    costs will change enough to warrant the "Plan" Planners to rethink the
    current setup, and *PRESTO*, the plans will change again. Does anyone
    think that it will cost *YOU* less?
    
    .mike.