Conference 7.286::digital

    O.K.  I'll give it a shot.  Since Plan A cars cost more than even what
    most people would consider to be a fair Plan B amount,  the goal of
    this exercise is to eliminate Plan A cars for everyone EXCEPT those
    whose job requires them to carry equipment and parts all the time (i.e.
    Customer Service Engineers).
    
    Plan B payments are raised to a reasonable level, taking geographic
    differences into consideration.
    
    All current Plan A people are told that their current Plan A car is
    their last.  Anyone whose car has < 6 months life left, would be given
    one of the many Plan A cars sitting around the various Digital offices
    to use until the replacement car reaches end of life.  If there are
    insufficient Plan A cars to meet the needs of these short-timers, they
    are allowed to keep their current Plan A car for a maximum of 6 months.
    At the end of the 6 month period, the Plan A car is turned into the
    leasing company and the employee is moved to Plan B.
    
    For those whose car has > 6 months life expectancy, they are put on
    Plan B when their Plan A car is retired.
    
    Pros -
    
    	Gets Digital out of the Plan A business except for a small portion
    of the employee population.
    
    Cons -
    
    	What do you do about the people who own non-Plan B compliant cars
    and never intend to own such cars, such as 4x4s, 2-seater sports cars,
    etc.?
    
    Bob
    

    .0 says the problem is "Digital is spending too much money on car
    plans." Digital certainly may be spending a large amount, but is it too
    much? Just because we spend a lot of money on lighting doesn't mean
    that we should remove all of the light bulbs, does it?
    
    Since it's a big amount, it's an attractive target for cost cutting.
    I'm not convinced that the cost is out of line with what it should cost
    given the business that the field is in. What's the benchmark here? Is
    there one? How do we compare? How do we evaluate the costs of *our*
    plan?
    
    Cutting fleet costs by $X may reduce the field's
    ability to deliver revenue and profit to the corporation by $X*N. This
    would seem especially, er, ill-advised, since services is one of the
    few business in the corporation that is actually growing, and probably
    the only one whose margins are still in the "good old days" range.

    
    Ok, Here's my proposal.
    
    We are saying we want Account Group Managers to have more power to make
    decisions, why not let them decide who does and does not get to keep
    their car.
    
    Seeing that the reduction in auto expenses directly affects the
    profitability of the account groups I would think AGMs would want
    this responsibility.  This also solves the problem losing important
    individual contributors who quit because they lose the auto benefit 
    and can't pay their mortgages.
    
    Let the AGM make the decision on a case by case basis.  They are paid
    to manage their "little company" and should be expected to do their job
    rather than rely on policies and milage requirements set by someone
    working in the ivory tower.
    
    Ed_who_quit_his_job_at_Unisys_when_they_acquired_the_company_he_was
    working_for_and_took_away_his_car_plan_and_did_not_increase_his_pay
                                                 
                               

    My proposal...

    I think DEC should get out of the 'car owning' business.  Sounds like
    it gets horribly balled up in IRS regulations and milage requirements.

    Switch to only a 'Plan B' type of car plan....people buy their
    own car.  For some jobs, owning a car might be a requirement.  Owning
    a certain type of car might be a requirement.  Digital should
    pay for the miles that people drive for 'digital' (all of the miles
    allowed under US/IRS law).  This payment should cover EVERYTHING
    related to the cost of owning the car.  For jobs where owning a car
    is a requirement, this payment should include an extra monthly
    adder, since DEC may be forcing you to buy a car you might not otherwise
    own (like a four seater when you really want a Miata).

    To transition to this plan, DEC should offer for sale all of current
    Plan A cars to their current 'owners' at an appraised price.

    If you need to do a lot of driving for DEC, the company should pay
    for it.  If you do enough, you should get a car almost for free (and 
    use it as your personal vehicle as you wish).  But I think it should be
    YOUR car and not DEC's.
    bob

   First off the "issues" we have been discussing in related topic are ones of
"fairness", i.e. is the car a benefit or a tool, who should have one and who
shouldn't.  The general concensous seems to be that it is both.  If you take
away my car it will cost me about $5K, but I need a decent car to conduct
legitimate company business. 

   I propose that everyone currently on a car plan get a $5K raise in pay and
turn in the car, no options.  All the cars now go to a pool maintained by the
DEC site to which you are assigned, CC using the cars foot the bill for the
cars their people use based on days used and miles driven (like the rental
agencies $39/day and $.39/mile or something like that), cars that aren't used 
go to overhead.  Put the responsibility of cost containment on the CC mgr
where it belongs.

   If an employee needs to make a customer site visit, then they utilize one of
the pool cars and expense the operating costs (gas, tolls, parking etc.) OR if
their personal car meets the current Plan B requirements they may drive their 
own car and get the "real" cost of operation which is around $.35/mile.  Pool
car storage and maintenance are the responsibility of the SITE facilites people
and the costs are passed on to the CC using the vehicles based on their usage. 

   Current usage records should be used to determine how many cars should be
assigned to each DEC site.  The number of cars should probably 75% - 85% of max
expected usage and use rental cars to handle the overflow.

   If the company wants to call a car a "tool" then treat the car as if it were
company owned "tool" which is kept in a "tool crib".

    The reason for milage limits is because there are a lot of people on
    the plan A that very seldom put business miles on the car.  Management
    is a prime example.  How many District managers go visit customers on
    a daily basis.
    
    Here's one idea...People who do not visit customers often enough should
    be able to provide/use their own car for business and let DEC reimburse
    them at the current IRS rate which is 26.5 cents/mile.
    
    People who drive a lot of miles then should then have the choice of
    either plan. Now the only problem with this is the way the IRS looks at
    business miles.  I personally feel that home to the first customer site
    should be considered business.  But Uncle Sam doesn't see it that way. 
    Maybe people in software should be allowed to consider their home as
    their office.  
    
    The plan B is already changed in that you can use a car that is within
    5 years old instead of 4.  Also after this period it is up to your
    local manager to determined whether the car needs to be replaced.  We
    currently have plan B cars older thatn 5 years on the plan.  so it can
    be done.  This way we could buy a used car that had low milage for plan
    B.  Then after a couple of years just sell it.  I'm sure with the
    reimbursements that DEC gives would more than pay for the vehicle.
    
    Only one thing that I dont understand is why should there be geography
    limits to the monthly reimbursement.  Is it because insurance costs are
    higher in some areas?
    
    Rick
     

    
    
    Re: .6
    
    Boy, you struck a nerve!  
    
    Seriously, how many managers do you expect to see lose their cars?
    
    -Ed

    I support .3 - It probably makes sense to re-evaluate who gets cars and
    who doesn't.  And case by case may be the only way that is fair -  and
    that includes Account Group Managers determining whether Unit Manager's
    get cars.  Re-evaluate only when jobs change, else the frequency of
    change would be more expensive than the cost of carrying someone a
    little longer than might really be deserved.
    
    I have no real problem with the other proposed changes.  Plan B will
    cost me more money a year, but will get me a better car than a Taurus,
    so I can live with that.  Losing the car entirely would be very painful
    for all the reasons discussed in not 1664.  The only other improvement
    would be a $400 basis not $350, but given the times...
    
    Ken B.
    Seattle
    

    My turn...
    
    Take cars away from everybody.
    keep a pool of vans for field service in the parking lot to be checked
    out each day.
    Keep a pool of Taurus for sales, sales support, and software folks to
    check out when they need them.
    
    If you use a vehicle you do paper work at the end of the day.
    All vehicles will be turned in at the end of the day unless your out of
    town.
    
    If you choose to use your own car, you get paid a per mile rate.
    
    This plan would elimate cheaters and get cars from managers that really
    do not need cars to do their everyday jobs.

    The HP car plan:
    
      Fully loaded new Ford Taurus every 12 months for all eligible employees 
      Weekly Cost to employee -  $10 - $20  depending on income
      Cost to HP -  break even or make money
      In use for 8 years and everybody is happy
    
    Details:
      
      HP and Ford got together
      HP buys a new fleet each year at very high discounts
      Ford buys back the entire fleet each year and sales them
        to their car dealers
      HP gets the benefits of depreciation, no maintenance costs,
        no enormous leasing costs
      Ford manages 99% of the arrangement including delivering and 
        picking up the cars
      To get around IRS and personal use, HP deducts $30 per week
        from your pay check but gives you a $30 pay bonus each week.(You
        end up paying the taxes on this income)
      
      I have heard from HP sources that this plan is a break even plan.
      It must be working well because they have been doing it for 8 years.
      
      A year ago I suggested to fleet that we contact Ford and get the
      details. I do not know what ever happened. 
        
    
    
    
      

    If the company mandates that certain functions need cars, then there
    should be ZERO burden on the employee. That is only fair.
    
    With Plan A, the employee gains a vehicle for personal use, pays tax on
    the benefit (At least here in Canada) after a standing charge plus a
    monthly fee of $175. The employee parks the car for DEC, pays for the
    gas upfront, plus all maintenance (Digital's banker!), and gets
    reimbursed for such expenses. 
    
    To eliminate some of this, a pool of cars could be maintained, but the
    administration of this, plus the requirements for security at DEC sites
    (they need a fenced in area here, plus lighting etc, plus mucho
    insurance), would be very costly indeed. More overhead. Not valid.
    
    One way is to place Plan A administration in the hands of a leasing
    company. They do it anyway for other customers, and simply pay for the
    car via an employee payment. It should be the same for A or B. DEC
    gives us a realistic amount every month, and we pay the lease company.
    If we want we capitize the vehicle ourselves, then we can do that - DEC
    still gives us $x per month, plus mileage. All our personal mileage
    should be paid for ourselves. All insurance and maintenance should be
    re-imbursed on a personal/business miles ratio, plus the additional
    insurance costs of running a car for business (very real up here)
    should be paid in total by DEC. One final addition is a small monthly
    amount be paid fto the employee for administrating the car on behalf of
    DEC. 
    
    So if DEC turns round and gives us a decent amount per month, plus pays
    their fair share of running costs, then I'd be happy.
    
    If I have to go out now and buy a car, I'd need a mortgage to do it,
    and plan B at $350/month would not cut it. I need at least $550/month
    to cover the extra insurance and lease costs, 'cos I don't have the
    capital.
    
    I think all everyone is talking about is a FAIR amount per month, plus
    decent mileage re-imbursement. Sounds very simple indeed.
    
    My 2 cents.
    
    Paul

While the "motor pool"  concept may be workable for Sales and Hardware Service,
(I say "may" because I can't speak for those folks), it isn't workable for EIS,
or whatever we're called these days.

Many of our people find themselves commuting 50 to 100 miles/day, often in the
opposite direction from their home-to-office commute.  It benefits neither the
individual nor the company to have them drive to the office so they can 
retrace their steps to get back to the customer (and then repeat the excersize 
in the evening).  If nothing else, they've just put 2 x commute unnecessary 
miles on the company vehicle.

Leaving the wasted miles aside, EIS folks are generally expected to be at the 
customer site for a full working day.  Who is going to show up at the facility 
at 6:00 AM to release the car, and remain until 7:00 PM to check it back in.
Or do we set it up so they pick up the car on Monday and return it Friday?  But,
of course, that revives the question of personal use, doesn't it?

For myself, the loss of the company car will be an annoyance.  I can afford to
buy a car, and the ability to drive whatever I please (like a Miata) somewhat
makes up for the loss of the Plan B option.  

But how about the guy who stood in my office on Tuesday shaking his head and
repeating "But I can't afford to buy a car, I just can't."?  He took a job 
based on an offer of "$xx,000 and a company car" and figured he could live 
on that, but just barely.  What's he supposed to do?  

\dave

    The car pool scheme wouldn't work for Hardware Services either.
    In addition to a tool case, I carry around a kit box with PM
    supplies (vacuum cleaner, etc), a bunch of pocket service guides,
    a number of often used full sized service guides, a folding hand
    truck, a scope, a briefcase for paperwork, and a laprop computer. It
    would be a true pain in the rear to unload all that stuff each
    night, and then put in all back in the next morning.
    
    I addition, it would mean that someone would need to act as
    a local fleet administrator to keep track of oil changes, tires,
    milage, washes, etc.
    
    Do the police in your town have to buy their own patrol cars?
    Do the UPS drivers have to buy their own trucks?
    
    There needs to be a provision made in whatever plan is adopted
    for the special use vehicles: DecWagons and Vans. They are used
    very differently from the cars driven by managers, sales, EIS, etc.
    I'd be happy to park my DecWagon at the office if that's what
    they decide, put the notion of a "pool" where you take whatever 
    unit is available simply won't work for Digital Services hardware
    engineers.
    

    	I've been reading all the resposes and I can't help but notice
    that the entire plan is based strictly on milage. If I where to design
    an application that was so singular in thinking, I would be unemployed.
    Any plan Digital adopts will have to take some of the following into
    account.
    
    	1) Corporate image. If I were paying $1000 a day for a consultant,
    I would prefer that he/she did not arrive on my sight in a two-tone 
    red-over-blue, 73 ford pickup that "fogs for misqitoes"(Burns oil).
    This is not the image that Digital wants to display nor is it the image
    that customers want to purchase.
    
    	2) Occasionally, Some sales folks transport customers. Again, the
    pickup would not be appropriate.
    
    	Now , if all employees that do not qualify for a car plan, but must
    meet one or both of the above requirements, are required to purchase
    a late model car, you have hit that employee with a double wammy.
    3K-5K a year drop for the loss of the car plus another 5K a year
    for a car.  8K to 10K a year swing is a little to big of a burdan
    for any employee to be expected to accept.
    
    	Possible solution:
    	identify the correct jobs that require cars. Identify the correct
    plan for that job. If management cars are truely the target, use a
    rifle instead of a shotgun. I know, I know, too simple. 
    
    	I would like to suggest that people like myself, who were told that
    I must participate in one car plan or another for the company image,
    if nothing else, am now facing paying for a plan B car for 3 more years
    without plan B, be grandfathered until the current plan/car they are
    on reaches normal retirement.
    
    	I guess I should stop giving my 2 cents worth. I may need them to
    pay for this car.
    
    

    Plan B in New Jersey definitely would not cut the mustard. If any of
    you are not aware we (NJ) have the second highest insurance rates of all
    the 50 states. If the proposed Plan B were implemented of the $350,
    $147 a month would have to go for insurance because of the high
    Liability and Damage waiver that Digital demands on Plan B
    participants. I went on Plan B for one year and believe me folks I took a 
    blood bath when I filed my Federal Income Tax. I have been here at Dec
    for 11 years working in field service and have gotten a car every 2 years
    and have averaged 47k miles a year providing hardware maintenace
    service for Dec's contract paying customers. Previous noters have tried
    to explain what we have to carry in our vehicles in order to service 
    contract customers. Our district manager summed it all up at one
    meeting "on a typical day taking 3 hardware fix calls, we carry in our
    vehicles a dollar amount greater than a typical Brink's Armored Car
    carries in cash". Is the company car a tool/resource ?? Yes it
    is-period, a luxury- no. I take the company car as a much needed tool
    same as my hand tools, Oscope and spare parts to do a job for Dec to
    bring in much needed revenue. My car comes home with me at night
    because I may be on "standby" and may be called out, may have an early
    scheduled hardware call at 6 AM in the morning, or maybe I don't get
    home until midnight because of a service call. 
    	The last I read Field Service brings in a few million dollars
    here and there for the good of the company. If they make it more
    difficult for me to do my job for which the company is paying to do,
    then WHO is going to be the loser in the long run- NOT ME.
    	regards
    	John

    Re: .15  
    
    The $350 is the base amount.  Additional $$$ would be added to the base
    $$ according to location.  Therefore, it is likely that people in New
    Jersey would receive $350 + $x to offeset the high operating cost.
    

    refer -1. If that is the case of a base amount of $350 + x$ for
    operating costs you are talking of approximately $500 a month plus
    the .08 cents a mile. "This" is going to save Dec money? If the plan B
    does fall out by base money plus additional operating expenses because
    of geographical location then there will winners and losers namely Dec
    whose car expense outlay will greater than it is now....
    	regards
    	John

    
    a.	Who needs a company car? Those who visit customers more than once
    	in while. Who determines this? Be fair, elect a peer group, you
    	know who you are. Need a car "once in a while"? Get a renter, or
    	take a "floater".
    
    b.	Lost your car? Not eligible any more? Go back "x" years, and average 
    	the costs, (realistically now), and add to base salery, or apply
    	toward "B" plan.
    
    c.	The HP plan sounds fair enough.
    
    .mike.
    
    (But commuting at 22.5/mile? Nope, the Tauroid sits while I commute in
    a junker or a pickup.)
    

    I agree that the plan should be phased in. Consider the following:

    I just pick-up a new Lumina APV under plan A. I personally paid $600
    to get the 7 passenger option. When the plan changes this winter, if I
    am no longer able to afford plan A, and have to buy my own car under
    plan B, I'm out the $600.

    So I will have paid $600 to have the 7 passenger option for 6
    months! If I had known ahead of time, I wouldn't have put any of my own
    money into it.

    But DEC will reimburse me the $600. NOT!

    I agree with those who say the plan should be phased in.

    --- Paul

    re: 19
    
    I am unfortunately in exactly the same position, except I will not be
    eligible for any car plan on 1 Jan.  It has been a great benefit and I
    have taken advantage of it for 20 years.  Without it I never could have
    afforded to buy a house near the beach.  Just hope we can rearrainge
    the budget to fit in a car payment.
    
    I hope that we are given an opportunity to purchase the current fleet
    vehicles that we are driving.  My wife really likes it!
    
    The positive side of this whole deal is that I will now not be so
    dependent on DIGITAL (or is it digital or DEC).  If an offer comes along....
                                                 

    The object is to cut Digital's expenses!
    
    1) Grandfather ALL current Plan-B vehicles, period, with no renewals.
    
    2) Required mileage driven while on the job < 12000 annual average
       is reimbeursed using the legal federal allowance.
    
    3) Required mileage >= 12000 miles annual average qualifies the
       individual for plan-B vehicle.  Local management would determine
       when higher mileage amounts (>18000?) would qualify an individual
       for a Plan-A vehicle.
    
    4) Plan-A vehicle for those jobs requiring a vehicle, including
    Customer (Field) Service, Sales Reps, etc.
    
    Williams

.19

Don't forget that when you buy the car the leasing company will add that $600
or whatever it thinks the option is worth to the price of the vehicle.

- Mike

	I missed the DVN, and have not heard the 'official' version
	of what is going on with the car plan.

	Can someone please provide a recap, or just send me a quick
	mail.  I'm on Plan A now and need to understand the impact.

	...are the rumors REAL, or is this just Car Plan War --the saga 
	continues?

	Thanks!

    Re: .17
    
    John,
    
    The cost adder was from the DVN.  Some of the examples given were that if a
    person was located at ALF, then that person would get approx. $354 per 
    month.  $350 (base) + $4 (adder).  If the same person was based in
    L.A., then that person would get $494 ($350 base + $144 adder).  The
    adder was called a location adjustment.  The Marlboro area was pegged
    at $367.  If I get time and the DVN tape back, I will recheck the numbers.

Please keep the discussion in this note limited to car plan alternatives.

General car plan discussion and complaints are in note 1664.

Thanks...

Bob

    Several years ago when I worked for another computer company that was
    #2 then, the car plan did not include a company car.  It contained a
    mileage allowance that was xx cents up to 150 miles and then a slightly
    reduced per mile rate after that.  It also included a daily allowance
    of $1.xx per day worked.  If you worked overtime on Saturday or Sunday
    and worked a full week, then you would be paid this allowance for the 
    six or seven days worked.  Also, if you were out sick, on vacation,
    etc., you would not get the allowance.  The allowance was paid for
    every day that you and your vehicle were "signed in", available for
    work.  Additionally, the company paid your insurance on that car!
    The insurance part was the biggest part of the "benefit", especially
    for the younger employees, or those with several points or accidents.

Ok... since I started this, here's my $.02

Assumptions:  The main goal of these changes is to reduce the cost of the car 
plans.  Plan A in its current form, costs more than Plan B in its proposed form.

The only flaw that I see in the current version of the proposed plan changes
is the minimum mileage requirement for Plan B.

FSE and EIS Delivery people are deployed as the business dictates.  They should
not be penalized for spending six months generating revenue at a site close to
their office, especially when they may be required to spend the next six months
200 miles away from the office.

Sales and Sales Support often are required to travel independently to customer
locations throughout their territory.   Whenever schedules permit, Sales and
Sales Support prefer to travel together, usually going over the plan for the
upcoming call.  Minimum mileage requirements will incent them to drive 
separately.

Why is there a minimum mileage requirement?  Because there are a lot of people
currently on the car plans who do not belong there.  The minimum mileage 
requirement, IMHO, is a cop-out for managers who don't want to make the tough 
decisions about who _really needs_ company car support.  As was mentioned
earlier in this topic, the AGM should make the decision regarding who will
participate in the plan, and who won't.   Arbitrary mileage requirements will
not work for everyone.

The goal is to reduce costs.  An accepted viewpoint is that reducing the number
of fleet vehicles that Digital provides will help achieve this goal.  Most
field employees cannot afford to "donate" their vehicles for Digital's use.
However, I think it is reasonable to ask an employee to provide their own
vehicle, in exchange for a monthly stipend, provided that the risk of losing 
the monthly stipend is minimal.

It is unreasonable to expect an employee to enter into a 36-48 month lease or
loan, if the company stipend is only available in 6 month increments.  

It is the responsibility of the AGM to insure that car plan participation
is not being extended to individuals who don't need them.  Don't saddle the
individual contributor with the requirement to "build" miles in order to keep
their car.

Bob

>   Why not designate the employee as "H.O.M.E." based.

    THIS IS A GREAT SOLUTION FOR "SERVICES" RESIDENTS! 

    What would need to be done to make this happen? 
    What are the IRS rules on this? 
    Would DEC go for this?

    --- Paul

    
    	It is agreed that Customer Service (re. Field Service) needs
    cars, I also believe that EIS (re. Software Delivery) also need
    cars when travel expense becomes a burden. Under the above scenarios
    I would think management can "devise" a work-around that also meets
    IRS code. Why not designate the employee as "H.O.M.E." based. Therefore
    travel to and from the customer site is covered. I believe the rest
    of us should fall under the plan as "IT" has been announced. 
    
    			fred deady
    
    ps. I am one of the folks that will be losing a car, said
        car was in my Offer Letter 11 years ago. 
    

    
    re .30
    
    Now, now, Fred.  Am I detecting just a hint of "negative waves?"
    
    Scott

    I submit that it is poor business ethics for a company to contract for
    on-site customer services and then expect its employees to subsidize
    the expense of fulfilling that contractual obligation by forcing
    company car charges in them (as in plan A).  If a company requires its
    employees to visit customer sites to perform services for its business,
    then it's incumbent on the company to provide the means to support
    that service, period.  If they cannot afford the cost of doing that
    type of business, then they should find some other business or be 
    up front and advertise for field positions using the phrase, "must
    have own car."
    

re: .32

The company is doing just that.   They are saying that if you need a car, they
will provide one for you FOR COMPANY BUSINESS ONLY.   If YOU choose to use
that vehicle for NON_COMPANY business, you MAY DO SO, at a cost of $.225/mi.

The only error that the company is making in the proposed implementation is
the mileage requirement.

Bob

    re: .33
    
    Almost right, Bob.
    
>will provide one for you FOR COMPANY BUSINESS ONLY.   If YOU choose to use
>that vehicle for NON_COMPANY business, you MAY DO SO, at a cost of $.225/mi.
    
    Unless things change, you can NOT choose to leave your company provided
    vehicle at the office at night, thus you MUST use the vehicle for
    non-company business at a cost of $.225/mile.
    
    Bob
    

    
    
    
    re: 34
    
    Exactly the nasty fly in the ointment!

    And if I lived where I did until last summer, it would only cost me
    $70/week to drive to/from work.  That's almost a car payment.
    
    Bob

Re: .34

Sorry Bob, I wasn't aware that this was the policy in your geography.  Here at
SYO, we can, and often do, leave the company car in the lot... and pro-rate
the $30/wk if we do.

So, for example, if I go to a week long training session, I can leave the car 
in the lot, and the keys with the secretary, and not pay the $30 for that week.

Are there other geographies that require you to provide a home for you 
company car?

Bob

    re: .37
    
    Bob,  Yes, if someone is going to be gone for a week, they can park the
    car in the office garage and not pay the $30/week.  But, no, we can't
    leave it at the office overnight and commute with our own vehicle.  In
    that instance, if I was still on Plan A, I would be forced to pay
    ~$70/week to garage and secure Digital's vehicle at my home.  I realize
    that it is the IRS rules that make those miles 'personal' miles, but
    regardless of whose rules they are, the cost of taking care of
    Digital's property would be too high.
    
    Bob

    Bob,
    
    We cannot (in Canada) forgo the $175/month charge, nomatter where we
    leave the car. Generally, the local office cannot store the cars in the
    lot. You MUST take it home.
    
    So far, Car Plan A is definitely gone here, for those with 1989 and
    1990 cars. They must replace them and go on B. Details are scant
    though. Next year, 1991 cars will be phased out. Tough break.
    
    For anyone to charge $0.22 per mile is ludicrous for personal use. That
    would cost me , at 80 miles/day, $17.60/day!, and I was moved to this
    office from where I was before, at 1.5 miles from home!!!! It is all
    really too complicated.
    
    Go for a HP type of deal I say, or give us a fair payment.

    PER CORPORATE FLEET POLICY:
    
    (I should know, I enforce this ...)
    
    THe $30/week car fee CAN NOT and SHOULD NOT be waived under any
    circumstances unless:  the keys are given to the next level above
    manager (or in the case of a salesrep, his/her manager) in his/her line
    and function, and that the car is actually used as a "floater" for that
    week.
    
    Otherwise, no matter what you hear or say, there is no way you can get
    out of paying the $30 bucks a week.
    
    Sorry ... I go this in writing from Corporate Fleet, Policy 23
    something.
    
    Tammi Yiakoumatos
    Landover, MD ADEG Sales HQ Finance

As Bob mentioned earlier, in our district (Upstate NY), we do follow the rules 
in .-1. I leave my keys with my boss and leave the car in the DEC parking lot.
Its never been used (to my knowledge) as a lonaer, although it is there for 
that purpose, if required.

Jim

    I am one of those people who cannot afford to purchase a vehicle.
    When I came to Digital, I was told that the salary that I required was
    too high but with the car plan, the compensation was the same as my
    original salary requirement.  My suggestion for the car plan is as
    follows:
    
    	Digital provide me a check for $6,000 towards the purchase of a car
    (i.e., the downpayment for the car).
    
    	Digital increase my salary starting January 1, 1993 by $6,000 (but
    this does not replace or supersede my scheduled merit pay increase). 
    
    	Digital pays me whatever is allowed for business miles on this
    vehicle in accordance with current IRS laws.
    
    	Digital pays the insurance on this car because of the increased
    cost of using a personal vehicle for business purposes.
    
    

My wife had a short stint with the use of a company car.  She was travelling
Merrmiack to a customer site in Maine.  I was going out to DECUS and for a 
week (plus a few days) and she came with me.  The car was left in the MKO
parking lot with keys left with her boss.  She was following the guidelines and
also did not have to pay the #30/week personal use because it was put back in
the company pool for that length of time.

My guess is that A GREAT DEAL of people think that once the keys are given to
them, it is their car for use when-ever, for what-ever they want.

bjm

    re: .44
    
    Are you reading a different conference than the rest of us?
    
    Bob

Re:.43

When you find a company that will give you that deal on a company car, please
write us.   We'd love to follow you over.

Come on, people...  this kind of nonsense will not lower our costs.

Bob

    RE: .46
    
    I don't consider my salary nonsense......
    
    
    
    Steve
    

...then ask for a raise because you think your salary is too low, and you think
you can do better elsewhere.   Write if you find work.

It has nothing to do with Digital's Company Car plan, or the adjustments that
we need to make to reduce the cost of implementing that plan.

Statements like "Digital reduced my salary to give me a car" are nonsense, and
do not belong in this topic.   Take it to 1664.

This topic is for the discussion of implementation plans which will provide
company vehicles, or compensation for personal vehicles used for company 
business, at a reasonable cost to Digital.  

Thank you.

Bob

    I think car plan (A) should be phased out compleatly.
    Car plan (B) should have no restrictions on age or type.
    Plan (C) @.275 cents per mi. the IRS limit.

    OK....HERE IS MY 2 CENTS...
    
    Issue 1 - Eligibility
    
    	Should probably be by job code and not by number of business miles.
    	WHY? - Because we are suposed to be doing what is best for Ditital.
    	Is it best for Digital to have Sales and support personnel arriving
    	at calls in seperate cars just so they can claim buisness miles? 
    	Is it best for Digital to have support personnel not wanting to
    	work on program business for periods of up to a year because their
    	business miles will fall off....Remember program business is where
    	we are making money these days.  Basing eligibility on miles will 
    	only server to promote the WRONG behavior.  People will visit
    	customers where in the past a phone call would have server the 
    	purpose.
    
    	Will there be people who do not use the cars for business purposes
    	getting cars?  Yes...However, we DO NOT want people in like job
    	functions being compensated differently.  YES Compensated.  Think
    	of the scenario.  People will be picking and choosing which efforts
    	and customers they want to support based  solely on the business
    	mileage they can claim.  This is NOT the behavior we want our
    	people engaging in.  This is not working as a team.
    
    	SO......If you are in an eligible job code....you qualify for a
    	car, regardless of your business mileage.
    
    Issue 2 - Those who are not eligible
    
    	The company may call it what they like, but the company car plan
    	has been promoted as compensation to many employees.  The company 
    	needs to be aware of this fact and sensitive to the fact that
    	losing the car will represent a real hardship to many people.  If
    	in fact an employee who has in the past qualified for use of the
    	car now becomes ineligible, the company should some how compensate
    	that employee.  How???? Maybe  with a % increase in pay or a one
    	time cash payment to assist the employee in purchasing a vehicle.
    	
    	I realize that we need to belt tighten to get digital back on
    	track, but you do not want to throw the baby out with the bath
    	water!  There are many employees who have been extremely loyal to
    	this company over the years (good and bad) and deserve better
    	than to have their car taken away with no assistance.
    
    Issue 3 - Car Plan A
    
    	I personally think that it should be eliminated all together.  It 
    	has to be costly to maintain.  Just think of the people Digital
    	must staff to manage the weekly expenses not to mention the 
    	coordination with the leasing and insurance companies.  Digital
    	should not be in the car business (regardless of how the employees
    	pay for the plan....22 cents per personal mile or 30 dollars a 
    	week).  
    
    	The only exception I see to this might be the service engineers
    	visiting customers with heavy equipment.  This puts undue stress,
    	wear, and tear on a personal vehicle.  The company should provide
    	wagons for this purpose.
    
    Issue 4 Plan B
    
    	This should be the plan of choice for eligible employees.  While
    	the $350.00 will not cover all expenses (insurance, maintenance,
    	etc) it is compensation and is better than no car at all.  Again,
    	Digital should not be in the car business.  This plan will save
    	the company money by eliminatint the need for a host of positions
    	to mainatain the current plan A.  The $350.00 is far less than each
    	of our cost centers is currently being hit in expense charges.
    	I will not complain if I am forced to go to plan B.....
    
    
    SUMMARY
    
    	o Drop mileage eligibility - eligibility by job code
    	o Eliminate Plan A
    	o Stop complaining about Plan B!.....some people will get nothing!
    
    LP

    RE .50
    
    	You hit it on the head.  Here's my vote for all you said.
    
    Pat

    .50 is the best summary yet.
    
    Is anybody compiling this in a nice neat letter to management?
    
    I presume that many people would sign such a letter.
    
    ken b.
    

.50 is basically what I was going to say. Just to say it again:

1) Drop Plan A for EVERYBODY but Field Service Wagons
2) Allow everyone with customer job codes to move to Plan B
3) Provide a low cost financing deal with DCU to buy existing Plan
   A cars (after all, I did just fork over $600 for options to put
   in my Plan A car that I don't want to throw away)
4) NO mileage requirements for Plan B cars, just job code
5) Reasonable rates for plan B based on where you have to INSURE the
   car, not where the office is.
6) Let us all get back to the business of making money for Digital by
   getting money from customers, not sucking out of employees.

.50 & .54 represent a workable alternative to today's car plans. I would sign 
a letter stating such drafted to Zereski and Palmer. The car plan changes 
that are imminent are going to promote behavior that, although not against 
company policy per se, is not in the company's best interest overall.

Regards,

Jim

Re: .50, car plan by job code.

Whoa here.

Some people in the field (like me) have a IM&T job code (i.e.  internal peson,
no customer contact) but really are in the Customer Services organization. We
are out each day at customer sites delivering services and bringing in money.

It seems that a few years ago the job code thrashing that DEC performed caused
some people to end up with job codes that were descriptive of what they did but
the organization was incorrect.

Using job code as a selection criteria may yank the cars from some that are
using them every day to produce real revenue.

Lee

    
    RE: .56  I was going to say the same thing
    
    .54>2) Allow everyone with customer job codes to move to Plan B
                 ^^^^^^^^
    		 This should be based also on NEED to be determined by the
    local cost manager who would be responsible for the P/L in their
    district.  If they decide someone needs a car and cover the cost with
    revenue, it should not be in conflict with 'the policy'.
    
    JN

    re: 55
    
    The behavior mentioned, I suggest, will be due to what Mr. Palmer
    termed "Law of Unintended Consequences" in his recent DVN appearance.

    I would like to see incorporated into the soon to be revised Plan B two
    additional aspects:

    1- DEC insures the car.

    2- DEC gives a tax adder to compensate for the taxes withheld from
       Plan B payments, similar to the way it is done for other things 
       like DEC-100 and Circle of Excellence that result in higher
       taxes.

    Other than that, the new changes proposed by the company are ok with
    me.

    These last few make good sense...
    
    A) XXX Plan A except for field engineers*
    
    B) All employees w/ customer contact can go onto Plan B*
    
    C) Realistic rates for Plan B (i.e., COLA, insurance, etc.).
    
    D) Tax-adder to get the Plan B reimbursables back to the figures given
    (i.e., $350 base +/- location).
    
    * These can be extended by local management for special conditions. 
    Caveats: It hits their expenses, they answer to upper management for
    any questions on why these people get a car, and finally, NO mileage
    limits!
    
    --- Gavin

>>Some people in the field (like me) have a IM&T job code (i.e.  internal peson,
>>no customer contact) but really are in the Customer Services organization. We
>>are out each day at customer sites delivering services and bringing in money.

>>Using job code as a selection criteria may yank the cars from some that are
>>using them every day to produce real revenue.
    
    It works the other way to.  Although I no longer work in the field, I
    still have a sales job code -- Does that mean I get my car back??
    
    Larry
    
    

    
    
    In summary here are some of my suggestions to ease transition of the
    car plan.
    
    	1. Retain a fixed rate weekly personal use charge on "A" cars
           initially based on the drivers prior year personal mileage
           history and adjusted up or down based on actual usage every 3 to 6
           months. This allows an individual to budget expenses easier and
    	   still achieves the goals of the plan. Yes, we do use the car for
    	   personal use. We have been paying for it weekly and as a year end
    	   adder to our W-2's.  
    
    	2. Permit "A" car drivers who decide to transition to the "B" plan an
           option to buy their current "A" vehicle regardless of mileage. For 
    	   many this is the cheapest option to get started in the "B" plan and 
           it gets the company out of initially owning a lot of floaters which 
           would continue to be charged to the local Cost Center. The
    	   remaining longevity on the car would extend the time for
           preparing to purchase a subsequent replacement.    
    
    	3. Negotiate a Group Business Insurance policy for "B" car drivers
           which would provide the lowest cost for drivers and remove the
    	   administrative burden of verifying individual business policy
    	   coverage.
    
        4. For those of us transitioning to the "B" plan don't add the
           monthly reimbursement to our base salary for the purpose of
   	   computing health/LTD insuranceand other benefit premiums and add
           insult to injury.  
    
    	5. Management should release a draft of the revised car plan
           details ASAP so people had sufficient time to analyze and plan
           their individual actions. An early "DRAFT" could also allow
           solicitation of employee ideas for adjustment or amendment of
           the draft before the final policy is implemented. Right now
           there are a lot of unanswered questions that have a bearing on
           our decisions of which plan to select. Questions like what is
           the period for review of average mileage for car plan
    	   continuance, every 3 months, 6 months, annually or what.   
    
    	6. Find some way to allow services people who travel from home to a 
   	   customer site to not be penalized for doing their job in terms
           of car eligibility. Allow them to count their commuting miles to
   	   a site less the difference to the office as business miles for
           be eligible for the car plan.I don't think there is anything in
           the IRS rules that prohibit eligibility for a car as long as
           they aren't re-imbursed for the commute. (By the way I'm not in
           delivery.)     
    	   
    I have no problem with the company revising the car plan to reduce 
    expenses. Eight of the ten people I work with far exceed the 800 business 
    miles per month over the period of the last fiscal year making all  us 
    eligible for plan A or plan B. With the geography, number of accounts
    we cover it's no problem exceeding the mileage.    
 

    
    
    I still say let local management set the policies.  This might have the
    added benefit of making the DM or AGM (whatever!) hip to what's going
    down.  Let them budget their own reductions in auto expenses.  That
    way, we can "think globally and act locally" as is the fashion these
    days.
    
    Folks, If you can't come to some agreement with your boss or his boss
    about your car plan, you sure as hell won't convince anyone in the
    ivory tower.
    
    JMHO.
    
    -Ed
    

I'd like to state some views about the new car plans, then make some 
suggestions.  All statements/ideas are as seen by myself, a 6 year employee
in the Digital Consulting Services (DCS) group, which used to be called EIS.

Aspects of the new car plan affect individual DEC employees differently.  
This difference is broad, and depends on numerous factors including what your 
job is, where you live, amount of personal use, etc.  

An eventual result of the new plan will be some who "have it" and some who 
"don't".  This will occur within common groups of employees, who may take on 
animosity towards one another.  The Plan B payments per office are a good 
example of "why do they get that, when we get this?".

These differences have the potential to pulverize the DEC community at a time 
when is it critical that our focus should be on the company as a whole.  

In addition, entirely new scenarios also emerge as a result of this.  
Widespread "creative expense reports" will become common.  Bogus trips will be
reported, homes will "move" closer to offices, customers will suddenly become
further away, group trips will be done separately, etc.  OBVIOUSLY, none of 
this represents a good direction.

The time and expense to audit and control the new plan specifics will certainly
be massive.  Those managers left, who have taken on more responsibility due to 
cutbacks, will now face the control of stringent car plan rules.  This effort
will detract from their ability to streamline their groups, and maximize their
margin.

I view the new plan as an erosion of a significant benefit, period.

To resolve this dilemma, some good points have been suggested, here's mine:

1)  The HP plan as stated in the notesfile sounds right.  If HP employees can 
    have good cars, while the company enjoys minimal cost, then we should
    follow their plan.  Minimal cost is the idea here, right?  Does HP have
    the ability to do something DEC can't?  Has this been evaluated?  Why not?

2)  If we are not to follow HP, then we must revise the new plans.  
    We can't loose sight of the fact that the company is striving to save cash,
    while respect must also occur with regard to the indvidual employee who will
    be realizing a diminished benefit.  There are easier ways to reduce the cost
    of a car plan without introducing the problems that will certainly surface.

    - Plan A is most benefitial since it offers:
      - No depreciation costs.
      - No maintenance costs.
        - Repairs, Registration, etc.
      - No risk costs.
        - Malfunctions, Accidents, Theft, Vandalism, etc.
      - A respectable car for full time use.
      - Predictable out of pocket costs.
        - Loosing the above items can have a major, unpredictable impact on an 
	  individual's budget.  
        - A company the size of DEC, can get massive purchase, insurance, and
          maintenance arrangements which drastically reduces the cost of these 
          items on per unit basis.  This scenario represents the potential for
          a large benefit to individuals.
          - Denying this advantage to employees by enticing them to leave 
	    Plan A, or ruling them out, releasing the company's need to 
	    support these programs, is an insult.

      - Plan A should be so cost effective to DEC that the need to offer a
	bolstered Plan B is not necessary.  Those who want plan B do it
        BY CHOICE, and are willing to accept the terms of that choice.  
	Plan B payments are taxable, so DEC spends this money, and the
        employee doesn't see a good chunck of it at all - not efficient.

      - In addition, I don't say that Plan A is not void of problems
	or execssive expenses.  The changes should concentrate on reducing
        those costs as well as new ideas in cost reduction & streamlining,
	not simply eliminating cars, or ignoring their need in a profitable
        organization.

	Quick Example: Automate vehicle expense reporting. An analysis of all 
        	       items on a vehicle expense form can be easily achieved. 
		       This will weed out any fraud, inconsistencies, or 
		       highlight a problem vehicle, which should be replaced.  
		       Management would only need to see reports indicating 
		       exceptions, and could concentrate on earning DIGITAL 
		       a profit...

    - I propose to keep Plan A, as it was.  Since DIGITAL does not want it to
      cost them so much, increase the weekly cost from $30.  In my opinion
      to have a good car, full time, risk free, for $1560 a year is a great
      benefit.  If this were to double to $3120, it would still be a good deal.
      I'm sure there is some amount where this weekly contribution could be
      satisfactory at reducing DEC's cost, while still offering a good deal to 
      the employee.  This represents a predictable, equal, across the board 
      change.

      We must remember that some way or another, our benefit is going to be 
      eroded in the name of saving our company, it will be more expensive for 
      the employee, but this way we basically keep what we had: group benefits,
      while preserving lessened individual risk, which is a very major item.

    
    I agree w/ .54, except drop plan a completely.  If Digital Service FEs
    need a wagon, and wagons are generally more expensive, and/or they will
    put more wear and tear on their vehicles, then give them more $$.  But
    let's drop the GELCO scam once and for all.

Re .64

	You stated the facts very eloquently.  Bottom line is that it will be
extremely difficult for some folks to migrate to plan B.

	I have a hard time believing that we cannot negotiate an agreement
similar or superior to what HP has.

	We could probably go to Avis and get cars cheaper than going to say Ford
or GM direct.  Avis has all the mechanisms in place to deal with our fleet 
needs.  And by the way, Avis has figured out that its better for them to 
turn their fleet every nine months.

	Let's also not forget that we are already doing a fair amount of 
business with these folks.

	Even better, why don't we do like our customers do.  Put out an RFP 
and select the lowest bidder.  This might even result in no change of leasing
vendors other than them using sharper pencils.