Conference terri::cars_uk

    The lease scheme operating in Ayr has just been dramatically improved:
    it is being wound up.  I don't know how many lease car drivers there
    are at present, but apparently a low proportion (8 people) stated
    that they would be taking out another lease when the present one
    expires.  The company has decided that this benefit, or millstone
    depending on your point of view, is not worth the trouble any more.
    
    I wish I could say it was a pity, but as a current lease car driver
    I am not at all surprised.
    
    
    Ian.

    Is the AYR management able to declare UDI like this? As far as I
    can make out, the lease scheme is a benefit built in to the penalty
    of being an employee. If you are eligible for a var on the scheme
    because of your job or position then you have to either take one
    or permanently opt out of the scheme. Foe existeing leasers, the
    option to "out" is available at the end of the last lease taken
    out before the time the "scheme-updating" took place about 2yrs
    ago. In theory there should be no activity required by Ayr as the
    scheme is administered by car fleet who are supposed to do all
    the work. (Or at least, tha's the theory!). Being able to lease
    (if you want) even if you are not receiving the supplement or required
    to have a car as part of your job is open to anyone that doesn't
    spend more than X% of their salary on a lease......    
                                           
    

Remember that AYR is not part of Digital Equipment Co. Ltd...  It probably can
declare UDI like this.

Jc

.61�
.61�Remember that AYR is not part of Digital Equipment Co. Ltd...  It probably can
.61�declare UDI like this.

    Quite right.  Our lease scheme is completely separate, and is not
    administered by Fleet, but by Ayr Personnel.
    
    
    Ian.

    Thanks for the correction...... is the same true for The Queensferry
    Plant?

    What Ian Smith did with Rhodesia, now Zimbabwe..
    
    Issue a Unilateral Declaration of Independence
    
    Rich
    

.66�    What Ian Smith did with Rhodesia, now Zimbabwe..

    But I'm Ian Smith, and I've never even been to Rhodesia!
    
    Yes, South Queensferry will be the same, as they are also part of
    Digital Equipment (Scotland) Ltd.  They may or may not have their
    own lease scheme, I don't really know, but they won't have the Digital
    UK scheme.
    
    
    Ian.

    ... so could someone in Ayr join the Digital UK lease scheme?
    
    Ray.
    

You can't.  As DESL is an entirely separate legal entity, employees thereof
are under separate contracts of employment which are in no way related to
DEC UK Ltd.  We have separate badge numbers, different terms and conditions,
all that good stuff.  In fact the only thing that's the same is the pension
plan, simply because a decision was taken several years back to have the DESL
scheme amalgamated into the DEC UK scheme - prior to that, even they were
separate.

Don't hold your breath.

Incidentally, the memo from Ayr personnel deciding the lease scheme was no
longer a tangible benefit was after a survey of existing users, only three
of whom said they would be renewing leases.  Everyone else said they would
be leaving the scheme.  Hardly UDI.

Brian

    
    User Defined Interface ?

re last few...

I work for Digital Equipment Corperation (I think - I definatly don't work for
Digital Equipment Co. Ltd - I just found that out the hard way). I still have
a lease car. I work in Engineering.

I think its high time this company decided if it is still one company, (one
architecture....) but thats another rathole for another conference.

Jc

>>I think its high time this company decided if it is still one company, (one
>>architecture....)

Interesting point.  Digital is actually a comglomerate of some 60-odd companies
ranging from "mother" DEC to DEC UK Ltd., DEIBV, Digital Taiwan, even some
subsidiaries that don't have the name "Digital" in them at all!  So what is a
company anyway?  Or a corporation? 

The relevant point here is that we all work for different subsidiaries of the
same corporation.  Jc works for Digital Equipment Corporation rather than
DEC UK because he works for Engineering and that's where Engineering is!
Just as I work for DEIBV and the person at the next desk works for DESL - I
am employed out of Geneva and my neighbour works for the Ayr plant.  The
benefits available to one subsidiary are not necessarily the same as any other
due to local and company laws (depending on where your particular piece of
the company is incorporated - mine is in Holland!).  End rathole .....

    Re: .72
    
    > I work for Digital Equipment Corperation (I think - I definatly don't
    > work for Digital Equipment Co. Ltd - I just found that out the hard way).
    
    Huh?  Could you explain a bit more?  I was always under the impression I
    worked for Digital Equipment Co. Ltd.
    
    Jeff.

re .74,

Jeff,

So did I till I had a job offer in EIS taken away because I was not a  *_UK_*
head.

All the business cards in this group say Digital Equipment Co. Ltd but noone
here works for them.

Jc

p.s.  Yes - and I'm still bitter about it.

>>All the business cards in this group say Digital Equipment Co. Ltd but noone
>>here works for them.


isn't that just part of the address for dec park?

...art

    I believe that we in DECpark (yes, us in Engineering too) are all
    employees of Digital Equipment Company Limited, the UK Co.
    
    However, Engineering staff are not included in the Subsidiary
    headcount (nor, I beleive are some "Area" groups). This means that when
    the Subsidiary are "right-sizing", adding a head from Engineering's
    headcount makes the problem worse...... Similarly, hiring someone from
    the Sub's headcount to Engineering helps a lot.
    
    It's an effect of the difficult business circumstances, not a question
    of who you are employed by.
    
    JK
    

Re: .77

Thanks John - an excellent description of the situation.

People may be interested that some years ago the possibility of the UK
Engineering function being a separate subsidiary company was investigated. 
It was not done because the costs outweighed the slight benefits. 

I understand that the main reason why we have a separate company in 
Scotland for our manufacturing operations is to do with government grants 
(regional development aid and so forth).  It's much easier to deal with 
this when a separate company is involved.

The one discrepancy between the UK subsidiary and the Scottish (and Irish) 
manufacturing companies is that the manufacturing companies do not use the 
corporation-wide badge numbering system.  I haven't yet heard a reasonable 
explanation why they don't.

jb

The original idea for the separate companies for manufacturing was indeed to
do with grants and so on.  Now there is no such need for any distinction but
for "fiscal reasons" we continue as we are.  Ireland is a special tax haven
case.

The badge numbers allocated to European manufacturing are actually corporate
badge numbers but the plants themselves remove the first 2 or 3 digits and
replace them with the plant or country code.  Example - 102634 badge number is
in Ireland, so it becomes IR-2634.  My badge number in Ayr is either AY-237
or 132237 depensding on what purpose it's used for.  I also have a "proper"
corporate badge against which ESPP and ELF and stuff like that work.  It gets
totally confusing at times and is a real pain.  They even "lost" 5 years of
my pension benefits when I transfered because I went onto a new badge number
for payroll purposes (fortunately sorted out since the pension plans joined!).

If you ask the manufacturing personnel people, it's all to do with "identity".
In other words, manufacturing people are encouraged to identify with a plant,
not Digital.  At this point I stop my input before I go into rat-hole mode.

    With the current right-sizing exercise going on there seem to be an 
    awful lot of lease cars for take over i.e. cars that still have a period 
    of their lease to run but have no 'owner'.

    To reflect this situation, and to reduce costs, should employees in the 
    lease scheme who are about to order a new car be encouraged to take over 
    one of the cars that currently have no 'owner' ?.

    Should there be an incentive or incentives to make this suggestion more
    acceptable ?. I'm thinking here in terms of a guaranteed valet of the car
    with perhaps a percentage discount in the lease cost.

    Should the powers that be insist that these cars are taken over before any 
    new cars are ordered ?. I'm not sure here how practical this suggestion
    is though.

    A simple calculation suggests that these cars are costing an awful amount 
    of money simply sitting there. 

    I'll admit I've just taken over one of these cars but I did so based on
    the economics of what I could afford/wanted. I wouldn't expect any
    incentives or whatever to be made retrospective.
    
    Comments ?

    Rich

    Why can't the lease scheme be extended to cover kit cars ;-)

	'cos you may not have finished it by the end of the lease...

	Dave

    Just a general query on lease car servicing.
    
    What is the situation on getting your dec mobile serviced at an
    independant garage rather than a dealer.
    
    I've heard conflicting views. For example I currently have an Escort
    which I usually get serviced at Ralphes in B'stoke which is a smallish
    garage that is an agent for Hertz, PHH etc.
    Does it invalidate any manufacturer's warranty if you don't get the
    car serviced at a main dealer. (ie rust warranty) ?
    
    I haven't phoned Hertz yet, as you may be able to clarify.
    I'm getting a new car soon and after the 1sdt service I intend getting
    it serviced locally at Ralphes.
    
    - Roy

    I've noticed that since the rightsizing programme began last year there
    is an ever increasing supply of lease cars available for takeover.
    
    I think that this has been discussed before but thought it worth
    mentioning again. It surprises me greatly that there is not some sort
    of incentive to take-over these cars as they must be costing the
    company a fortune to have them sitting around for months not doing
    anything.
    
    A couple of ideas would be to use them as pool cars (although the
    administration of this may not be worth the hassle). Another idea is to
    encourage people to take them over when the lease on their existing car
    expires, perhaps by splitting the cost. For example if there was an
    astra GTE available at a cost of �1000/yr the company could go � way
    and pay �500. This would surely be better than them having to pay
    �5,000 or whatever with the car sitting idle.
    
    As the company is looking for ways to save money, could not a
    substantial amount be saved here, AND give us a good deal at the
    sametime. OR am I living in a dreamworld :-]
    
    As this is puzzling not just myself but several of my colleagues, I
    would be very interested if there were any comment from Fleet.
    
    - Roy (I took over a car in mid-lease when I joined the company, but I'm
           replacing it with a new one as there wasn't anything I fancied)

Re.85:

I agree. When I moved to a new job last November which meant having to enter
the lease scheme, I wanted a Cavalier SRi or CDi. There was a practically
new CD available (5000 miles) and an SRi (25000 miles) both were alot more
expensive than a VTX quote for a brand new CD, guess what I chose.

/Dave.

    Have you seen the latest Car Fleet news from VTX? Here it is...
    
                                       Car Fleet News
    Digital                   Contract reductions/ext
    
    In the next couple of months Digital will be reviewing the lease perameters
    in terms of the number of months we retain our cars for, and the mileage
    benchmark we use (50,000).
    
    In view of this change, we will not be reducing any leases until a
    decision has been made - this is likely to be late May/early June.  If your
    car is up for renewal anyway in the coming months you can order in the
    normal way but no more than 5 months in advance of your existing car's
    contract expiry date.  If you are in any doubt of when your lease contract
    is due to expire please check with Fleet Dept.
    -------------------------------------------------------------------
     
    Hmmm, I wonder what kind of changes we can expect - anyone care to
    hazard a guess?
    
    Peter.

    At the request of the author the previous note has been set hidden for
    the time being.
    
    Rich
    

Re: .87

A recent newspaper article said that the last budget has prompted many
companies (I think it claimed over 20%) who provide employees with cars to
offer them the alternative of (or in some cases a switch to) a payment of
between �8000 and �10 000 a year rather than a company-provided car.  It
also claimed that a majority of other companies providing employees with
cars were looking at similar schemes. 

jb

    If the payment is �8,000 to �10,000 then I would go for that, and buy a
    smaller diesel (Peugeot 205 or similar). the posh motor that I drive
    about in now would be classed as a 'luxury item', and I could spend the
    extra on other things (eg a Harley Davidson but don't tell the wife !).
    The company car as we know it will be a thing of the past in 5 years.
    
    When you think about it, the amount of money spent on poncy cars could
    be put to much better use, ie to invest in the business in the current
    recession.
    
    jb.

    
    10 grand. I'll take that no messing!
    
    Steve.
    

    For those who had given up looking, VTX FLEET contains some quotes again!
    
    Ian.

    It would appear that the allowance has been reduced to �3995 (�3400
    before vat) from �4230 (�3600).

    So the company will be saving �200 per car per year by extending the
    lease period from 30 to 36 monnths.

    The cost to the supplement holder looks marginally higher than before.

    - Roy

    I see that a Cavalier GSi or a 16v Calibra are more than a grand a year
    more expensive now.
    
    A Calibra now costs more than a Corrado or an MR2 - used to be the
    other way round.
    
    
    John

    
    A case of demand outweighing supply? (doubtful in these times even for 
    a sought after car and the MR2 must be pretty popular still).
    
    The 16v Calibra is highly adept at keeping its value (look at second 
    hand prices) and almost certainly cheaper to maintain than the VW or
    the Toyota.
    
    Maybe Vauxhall are finding it easier to shift cars than VW or Toyota
    still and haven't upped their discounts?
    
    Mark

    
    Unless the new MR2 is vastly diiferent, i would be surprised if the
    Calibra was much cheaper to maintain (if at all) than the MR2.
    
    Nigel

    
    What's the service interval on an MR2? I bet you'd find a NEW MR2
    dearer to maintain than the old style one (in terms of parts costs,
    etc).
    
    Mark

    Let's compare like with like here..
    
    Both the Vauxhalls have air conditioning as an option - I bet that
    pushes the price up by about �500 per annum
    
    Rich
    

at least that *was* the extra cost on my BX. List price is about �800 or 
�900 or so.

Peter.

    Can anyone provide insight into this query?
    
    During the first week in August, I placed my order for a replacement
    lease car... (after being told that to get delivery at the time
    requested {NOV 3 '92} I should place my order before the 3rd week in
    August).
    
    On Monday of this week, I was advised that my order had been received
    (3 week delay), and that although I have ordered from the preferred
    list, CAR FLEET have asked for quotes from the relevant leasing
    companies.  I fully realise that this could well save digital money,
    but this also means that my car order has not yet been placed!
    
    This surely makes a farce of the "3 months is sufficient time to place
    your order and receive your car" idea behind CAR FLEET's thought
    process... and also means that my car will probably not now be
    delivered untill early DEC '92.
    
    Can this be any way to run a business..?  If we have broad general
    statements like the "3 months" one above... surely the issuer of such
    statements should honer these statements.
    
    I understand that CAR FLEET is probably under a lot of pressure at
    this time of year.... but if they can't cope with this pressure...
    shoudl we be looking to vendorise as we have done with other parts of
    our organisation ??
    
    Bob

    I agree that 3 months is a bit tight. Some cars have a longer delivery
    time than others.
    
    In a perfect world 3 month should be long enough for most cars. It
    should only take a couple of weeks for a quote to be processed which
    would leave over 2 months to arrange delivery.
    
    However, as we all know, quotes and orders get delayed and cars get
    delivered late. I believe there is a 2 month window at the end of the
    lease period during which the car can be returned so the _actual_ end
    of the lease is 2 months later, so really there are 5 months to get
    quotes and place your order. I guess this doesn't though if you are fed
    up and want your new shiny motor !
    
    Roy

    
    re 102.
    
    The 2 month window works the other way. This is the EARLIEST a car can
    be given back without DEC having to pay a penalty clause on the lease.
    
    I requested a delivery date of the 2nd of February this year for my new
    car. Well the dates got mixed up and I was advised delivery would take
    place on the 2nd of October last year. I pointed this out to car fleet 
    saying I still had 4 months to run. They spoke to Hertz, saw there was an
    obvious mistake and said that the earliest I could have my car without 
    penalty was the 2nd of December. It duly turned up on that day.
    
    Talk about an early Christmas present.
    
    
    POL.

    re .103 
    
    Maybe I misunderstood this info from car fleet but I thought it meant 2
    months either side of the expiry date. 
    
    
    Roy

    Like I said.... I was having a little bit of a moan....
    
    Having said that, it still irks that other parts of DEC get  penalties
    if they miss a commitment... whilst some parts of the company (Car
    Fleet for Example)... seem do be able miss their commitments without
    any obvious repecussions...
    
    Bob

    Well its nearly that time of year again when there maybe changes afoot
    with the car scheme. What ideas do you have ? Will the allowance be
    increased (unlikely). Will the preferred list continue ? (I can't see
    any benefit from it myself).
    
    The ideas that I have heard (remember this is _not_ a rumour just ideas)
    is that the preferred cars will only be Vauxhalls and that the
    allowance may go down and the difference given in salary, thus allowing
    you to get a cheap car on the scheme and pocket the difference.
    
    I certainly think fleet should make all the quotes public and encourage
    more orders per quotes to cut down on this overhead. However, I don't
    know the full story here.
    
    Royston

My ideal solution would be to get rid of Car Fleet. Every 
employee would have access to an application (a mathematical
formula) where you would enter driver details such as, Market
price of vehicle, estimated milage, age, etc, etc. This would 
throw out a figure, the supplement subtracted, and Bingo - you 
are left with the driver price.

You could then place your order direct with the lease company.
Surely this is not too difficult to do, you could get quotes
on any car you fancy and the system would be fair - the
same care for the same price for everyone!

What I see happening is that we will be restricted in which
cars we can and cannot order, maybe opting for one or two 
manufacturers, or a new basket of cars which we HAVE to order
from.


	Ian

I think you need to find someone prepared to take over your
lease, or wait until your lease expires.

There are other ways, but I don't think your Cost Centre
manager would be too happy if I were to mention them!


	Ian

    Changes:-
    All quotes public and reuseable - like the old days.
    Openess in the pricing mechanism - to enable predictions of approx
    cost.
    Ability to negotiate one's own deal with a garage - principally to gain
    access to the "6 month old <8,000mile" cars which offer such good
    value.
    Some mechanism for recovering costs from bad drivers or those who
    choose cars which are stolen frequently. Contentious and may not be
    worth the hassle.
    
    Andrew

    1. 	Everyone to have a standard company car ( e.g. Cavalier/Sierra ), 
    	in burgundy of course !
    
    2.	No optional extras etc.
    
    3. 	Anyone who doesn't want a company car ( by which I mean a car which
    	doesn't do something for the company ) is free to buy their own.
    
    	The above scheme may not be popular with you guys, but it does have
    a great deal of benefit to Digital :-
    
    a) company image
    
    b) savings on administration
    
    c) savings on servicing/repairs/insurance etc.
    
    d) straight-forward tax/NI calculations
    
    	Terry
    

    >  a) company image
    
    So all of us turning up in (same) standard cars gives a better image?
    
    >  b) savings on administration
    
    Not too sure why this will save on admin, my wife works for Olivetti
    who have a scheme just with Vauxhall, where each level of person has a
    choice of 2 DIESEL vauxhalls. They still need a fleet division etc.
    
    >    c) savings on servicing/repairs/insurance etc.
    
    No way, how can you say this?
    
    
    
    IMHO, of course
    
    
    Greg

    
    Re .111
    
    I think it's about time freedom of speech was revoked for contractors.
    Personally, I think we should get rid of the contractors and keep
    the car scheme.
    
    Richard.
    
    
    

    An all-diesel fleet would allow the company to do interesting (from a
    cost-saving viewpoint) things like on-site fuel bunkering.  Buying the
    same model from one manufacturer in bulk has got to be cheaper - think
    of the sponsorship opportunities:
    "Digital standardized on the new Cavalier - call your dealer to find
    out why!" etc.
    Is th company image better promoted by a uniform (if pedestrian) fleet
    or by a mixed bag of flashy Japanese coup�s, MPVs, hot hatches and
    what have you?  If a salesman turned up to see me in an obviously self-
    indulgent conveyance 8*), I might think that he was earning a bit too
    much commission...
    
    Richard
    
    

    
�    		If a salesman turned up to see me in an obviously self-
�    indulgent conveyance 8*), I might think that he was earning a bit too
�    much commission...
    
    I'd also infer that he was a successful salesmen selling products and
    services people wanted.
    
    Richard.

And just how many customers actually see us arrive at 
their offices? All the places I've been to, you park in 
the car park, report to reception and the customer meets
you in reception.


	Ian

.113>    I think it's about time freedom of speech was revoked for contractors.
.113>    Personally, I think we should get rid of the contractors and keep
.113>    the car scheme.
    
    Richard Jenkins,
    
    	I did say that you may not like it, but I don't believe that this
    type of personal attack is going to help the situation really. There
    are many good reasons why any company should use contractors, but this
    is not the note stream in which to discuss it.
    
    	One of the advantages that contractors bring to any company is
    their experience of many different ways of doing things from a number of
    different companies. This is true of software development as well as
    other areas, such as car schemes. If the client company or its
    employees prefer to stick with what they know ( which doesn't appear to
    be too popular from the replies in here ), rather than listening to,
    and learning from, outside experience, that is their loss.
    
.114>    An all-diesel fleet would allow the company to do interesting (from a
.114>    cost-saving viewpoint) things like on-site fuel bunkering.  Buying the
.114>    same model from one manufacturer in bulk has got to be cheaper - think
.114>    of the sponsorship opportunities:
.114>    "Digital standardized on the new Cavalier - call your dealer to find
.114>    out why!" etc.
.114>    Is th company image better promoted by a uniform (if pedestrian) fleet
.114>    or by a mixed bag of flashy Japanese coup�s, MPVs, hot hatches and
.114>    what have you?  

    Richard Smith,
    
    	totally agree
    
    Terry
    
    
    

    re: -1
    
    Terry,
    
    	Far be it from me to take issue with anyone who totally agrees with
    me, but I don't think that .113 was being entirely serious....
    
    Richard (Digitemp)
    
    PS I've had company cars in the past, and enjoyed it as a perk, but I
    believe that company cars as a perk are a bad thing generally.
    

    
    Re .117
    
    Terry,
    
    When you as a contractor suggest ways of reducing the benefits
    enjoyed by permanent staff, I feel I have every right to tell
    you as politely as possible to get stuffed.
    
    Richard.

    
    Ahh, but can he afford to go to Le Mans? And is Gary talking about the
    tent we met at?

    As a high-mileage lease car driver (>1000 miles/week at present), I
    value greatly the ability to choose the car that I know is going to be
    able to carry me around for that sort of distance -- without me getting
    out of it in agony after a long drive (I have a bad back). I am also
    tall, and need good headroom...
    
    I have recently done two or three trips of nearly 600 miles in a day
    (with rests, of course), and I know from bitter experience what the
    driver's seat of most Fords would do to me over a tenth of that
    distance. I also can't fit in the more up-market Cavaliers without my
    head hitting the sunroof. Giving a uniform car scheme would be a
    severe retrograde step for me.
    
    However, I do think there should be a proper preferred list, according
    to the originally stated principles of the one we have now, i.e.:
    basket of cars (say, the top 5-10 sellers in each category of saloon,
    hatch, estate), with costed options, all at a price that is held all
    year. You can't order anything that's not on the list. That should
    provide reasonable flexibility, and should also stop the company
    footing higher insurance bills for ludicrously overpowered rocket-sleds
    that are stolen or accident-damaged.
    
    I still like complete choice though!!
    
    
    
    Regards,
    stephen

    
    A big improvement would be
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Give me a car!   :-)
    Andy..One-day

re.121:

Good point about the comfort on long journeys. I was recently painfully reminded
that we are not all the same shape in what is a popular and up market car which
I could not accept as the standard.

Dave.

.119>    When you as a contractor suggest ways of reducing the benefits
.119>    enjoyed by permanent staff, I feel I have every right to tell
.119>    you as politely as possible to get stuffed.
    
    My suggestions about the car scheme are intended to save Digital money,
    which, in turn, will enable the company to continue to provide employment 
    for both permanent and contract staff. I am sure that, in the current 
    economic climate, this is far more important than the ability to choose 
    a specific car. Remember that, without a job there will be no company
    car !
    
    These suggestions are based on what I have seen in a number of other 
    companies. As I said before, one of the advantages that anyone from
    outside the company can bring in is this wider experience. Whether or
    not that advice is acted upon is up to the company and/or employees.
    
    You seem to be taking this very personally, Richard. Do you honestly
    think that it makes the slightest bit of difference to me personally if
    you have the car of your choice ? I have no axe to grind about this.
    
    This stream is all about making suggestions to improve the scheme. I 
    have chosen to suggest something of benefit to Digital that I have seen 
    work elsewhere. BTW, I am not alone in this as a number of people have 
    already agreed in principle to keeping a short list of allowable cars.
    Also, I do not remember seeing any suggestions come from you. It
    appears to me that you are just acting out of self-interest, whereas
    I'm trying to improve the system.
    
    The fact that I am a contractor is irrelevant, other than the fact
    that being one has given me the chance to see the wider picture.
    
    	Terry

    >> The fact that I am a contractor is irrelevant, other than the fact
    >>    that being one has given me the chance to see the wider picture.
    
    Do contractors get special glasses then??
    
    Al.

    I don't see a small basket of cars as an improvement. I would be
    unconvinced about a cost saving.
    If we did our own servicing ie DECgarage I could see real benefits.
    I believe, maybe wrongly, that a garage would match a price. For
    example I suspect that if I went into a ford garage and said "I can buy
    a cavalier 2.0 ... what price a mondeo to the same spec - here's the
    cash" I could get much the same deal.
    Choice is a motivator - givens mean I might as well work anywhere, from
    a car point of view.
    
    Andrew

	Not hers you understand, she just works for them.  However,
	they produce a list of cars and you can choose from that list.
	This list is fairly small and is updated every quarter or
	half year.  There are no jeeps, sports cars or large people
	carriers, just 5 door saloon and estates.  For the last 10 years
	she has had Cavalier SRis. This does not seem unfair to me.  Digital's
	scheme costs a hell of a lot to administer not counting the cost
	to cost centers of damage etc.  Oh, and you can always opt in and
	out at lease end...

	Dave

    From what I can remember, the Car scheme at Digital is the envy of the
    industry. A major reason why the Digital car scheme has not been
    adopted by more companies is 'our friend' the Taxman moved swiftly to
    stop such schemes.
    
    The scheme at Digital does NOT cost a hell of a lot to administer. The
    �25m or so quoted for the cost of the scheme is the total cost of the
    scheme i.e. market supplement, admin, etc. Administration is but a     
    miniscule part of the total cost. Even if you went to the 'standard'
    list scheme of other companies, this cost will still be the same. The
    base price for the market supplement is a Cavalier mumble or a Mondeo  
    watsit or a Jaguar thingy is the same for Digital and every other
    company; this base price is essentially reflected in the value of the  
    market supplement.
    
    Employees who chose cars whose spec is greater than the base car or
    chose another car whose monetary value is greater, pay for the
    difference out of their own pocket; it cost the company nothing. The
    only person who is miffed is the taxman as I believe the difference is 
    deducted from your pay before tax.
    
    One of the attractions for working for Digital was that the car scheme
    represented 'added value' over its competitors offerings. Replace the
    car scheme with the 'industry' norm and what have you got...another
    boring, dreary company...and another reason removed for remaining at
    Digital.
    
    Angus

    re...
    <
    One of the attractions for working for Digital was that the car scheme
    represented 'added value' over its competitors offerings. Replace the
    car scheme with the 'industry' norm and what have you got...another
    boring, dreary company...and another reason removed for remaining at
    Digital.
    >  
    
    Exactly! - having worked for several companies who imposed a certain type 
    of car on it's employees, and seen the abuse these cars took as a result
    of the 'backlash' (shall we say), I think Digitals scheme is far, far
    superior. I reckon that if an employee can choose the car he/she wants 
    to drive, they will treat it more sympathetically (there will always
    be exceptions of course :^)). 
    But the point is, a perk is only worth having if it is just that - a
    perk. A company I once worked for only ever bought brown Austin Maestros, 
    you can imagine how well the cars were treated, I left after 3 months,
    the job was ok, but a man can only stand so much ridicule from his
    peers.
    
    -	Al.

    
    Re .124
    
    I can't imagine why you think I am taking it personally, Terry.
    Why should I take umbrage at the removal of a personal benefit ?
    
    
    btw. Sorry about the contract :-]
    
    
    

    Re .128
    I agree totally, this puts my views much better than I could myself.
    The car scheme is not an overhead in the same way as others such as
    admin etc etc. It's part of the package that makes skilled people want
    to work for this company, any reduction in it's "value" would have much
    the same effect as a pay cut or other reduction in benefits.  The only
    way a company can attract and retain the best people in the industry is
    by offering the best "package" whatever that may be, so by all means
    reduce the value of the car scheme if you are going to increase the
    other benefits (we have never been at the top of the pay tree).  People
    who are not in the car scheme DO NOT have a right to be heard, I mean
    how would they like it if I started spouting off about how much money
    they should be paid or what benefits they receive. This is not aimed at
    anyone in particular but I am heartily sick at the way the car scheme
    is seen as some sort of freebie which can be mucked about with to save
    money.
    
    Steve.
    
    Steve.

	Steve (and anyone else),

	if  you (and others) are correct, then I don't care what is done
	with the lease scheme.  The folklaw is, though, that the lease
	scheme is expensive.  Knowing this company, I know that most
	administrative things we do are more expensive than other
	companies.  I was just pointing out what my wife's company
	does.  You should note that they have lurched from financial
	crisis to crisis for the last 5 or 6 years and that they do *only*
	what is cost effective for them to do (otherwise they would have
	gone bust long ago).  Again, you should note that I do not belong
	to the lease scheme (I take the money, and run), and I do not need
	a company car for my company business.  As for this company's 
	remunerations versus another - get a life, check out the real world
	and you'll see that there are very few companies offering jobs let
	alone the benefit differences you describe.
	

	Dave

	ps just in case you think that this is a question of noter not saying
	what he/she would face to face; just name your pub...

>>      As for this company's 
>>	remunerations versus another - get a life, check out the real world
>>	and you'll see that there are very few companies offering jobs let
>>	alone the benefit differences you describe.
    
    I don't know about getting a life, what I have got are several computer
    papers and stuff like that - there are LOADS of jobs out there, even in
    a recession (green shoots of recovery still not visible), especially for
    the better people, the ones that DEC should be trying to keep/attract.
    
    I accept that everyone is entitled to an opinion, and I will even
    accept that the car scheme is not that high on the list of most peoples
    reasons for being in DEC, however it is a part of the benefit package
    and changes shouldn't be undertaken lightly and a reduction in that
    benefit IS THE SAME as a pay cut.
    
    I think notes brings out the stroppier side of my nature :-)
    
    Steve.
    
    PS. I am experiencing first-hand the current job market as I was
    "reprofiled" the other week !  I'll let you know in a few weeks how
    many "real" jobs there are out there :-) :-).

    My wife's computer company has just changed their petrol scheme so that
    the company pays for what petrol you use, as opposed to a fixed 8p a
    mile.
    
    You pay all private + business mileage on a PHH card, then you claim
    business miles back, therefore as they know the miles and the price of
    petrol you bought, they give you the exact amount back based on your
    mpg. They also check mpg's so if 2 cars have wildly differing mpg's
    they can get the car checked, or the drivers right foot!
    
    Greg

    A friend of mine who was made redundant from Digital has just joined
    Oracle as a Project Manager; not exactly the most sought after skills
    considering the number of PMs made redudant. Although I already knew
    from the Trade mags, she told me, this Sunday, that Oracle are heading up
    a Systems Integration business and are looking for 100+ or 200+ people.
    Oracle doesn't have a great deal of SI expertise, however some of the
    people being 'let go' by Digital...
    
    Her benefits include a company car: of her own choice. She's ordered a
    rather nice BMW soft-top thingy. The car she is driving is a pool car   
    and is an Audi 80 something or other. Sorry for being a little vague
    but as I can't afford these cars on Digital's scheme I didn't take much 
    notice of model details.
    
    I know Microsoft are hiring people, as are Thames water and Granada.
    Not too sure what company cars they offer, but the rather natty Rover
    800 series given to my neighbour who works for Granada seems
    indicitive of the package they're offering.
    
    Angus
    
    PS. There was a study conducted not more than six months ago which
    looked at the costs of company cars. The figures they supplied were
    banded according to job type e.g. erks (like me), manager types,
    directors and MDs, etc. I can't remember the exact details and whether
    it was cost to driver or cost to company, but I do vaguely remember the 
    following:
    
    The 'value' of Digital's market supplement was substantially less (like
    �1500-�2000 pro-rated for band) than the average cost of a company car 
    for all bands.
    
    If you stuck on �1000 cost to the market supplement to cover cost like
    insurance, maintenance, admin, etc and pro-rated it according to band,
    then Digital's scheme still worked out cheaper.

    
    >>    PS. I am experiencing first-hand the current job market as I was
    >>    "reprofiled" the other week !  I'll let you know in a few weeks how
    >>    many "real" jobs there are out there :-) :-).
      
    What does "reprofiled" mean Steve ?  Is it like what you did to our FAX
    machine, or have you bent your car ?                                                  

If you haven't heard the term "reprofiling" lately, I suggest
you speak to your manager.


	Ian

    I think that it's unlikely that Martin would be reprofiled as the ink
    isn't even dry on his employment contract yet :-)
    
    Steve.
    BTW.  Reprofiling = Rightsizing = Looking for a new job.
    Also, The FAX machine was "reprofiled" by it falling off a chair onto the
    floor resulting in something resembling Nige's Indy car after the
    crash.

    
>    You pay all private + business mileage on a PHH card, then you claim
>    business miles back, therefore as they know the miles and the price of
>    petrol you bought, they give you the exact amount back based on your
>    mpg. They also check mpg's so if 2 cars have wildly differing mpg's
>    they can get the car checked, or the drivers right foot!
 
	This would get very confusing, as my husband and I drive 3 cars between
	us, and fill up......could he use the PHH card too? ..and 
	what if I use my husbands car for business, can I use the card on that,
	and what do you do about the higher MPG?

	And the VERY high mileage of the NG........18-20 if you're lucky....
	.......I wonder who's NG they would compare against, as only 8 3.5L
	V8's were ever completed.

	Much too complex.

	Heather

    Err, Good one Heather. I'll ask.
    
    As you've opted out you still claim petrol for business miles at a
    different rate?
    
    Greg

>    As you've opted out you still claim petrol for business miles at a
>    different rate?
 
	I claim business miles at the rate of 8p a mile

	Heather   
   

    Its only the people who are not entitled to a company car but use their
    own car for company business that can claim at the higher rate...not
    people who have chosen to opt out!

re. -1

The higher milate rate only applies to the 1st 100 miles on company business
in any 7 day period. 

Terry

I heard today from CC that those who take the money and run are going to be 
even less over compensated than before...

No figure, but it's not going to be �3000 any more.


That's a real bummer, because I was depending on that amount to give me back 
some of what the tax man has taken away for the company car :-(

re.144:

That has the effect of trapping people in the scheme and certainly does not
help attain the following as stated in CCs memo;

 *   To develop a more flexible system which increases the
             cash element of total compensation to allow greater
             personal choice in the selection of compensation
             benefits.

Dave.

>I heard today from CC that those who take the money and run are going to be 
>even less over compensated than before...

	Can you post all the info, as our service centre manager told me that
	my amount would stay the same, as I am not in the scheme (and never
	have been).
	It would only change for those coming out in future.

	I have this verbally, not in writing.

	I was also wondering about the promotion stuff, how many people have
	been told that their lack of money on promotion was because they
	got extra on the car scheme.........

	Heather

The new rates will only apply to those people who "receive approval to opt 
out of the scheme on or after June 14th 1993"

	Thanks Mark.

	Heather

    
    I've just found the original communication from the December 1988 car
    scheme changes, when market supplements changed to car supplements). 
    Twice it states (in capital letters) that YOUR TOTAL COMPENSATION WILL 
    NOT BE ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THESE CHANGES.
    
    Is any such clear assurance being given about this current change?

    
> YOUR TOTAL COMPENSATION WILL NOT BE ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THESE CHANGES.
    
	The total compensation wasn't, if you took the cash you just didn't 
	get the increases that the people who took the car got.
	Also, when the cash did increase, uou didn't get the first few increases
	(up to 495 quid) as this was the VAT element.

	So, the people who took the cash were 1,000 quid worse off than those
	who took the car......but officially were not "adverley affected",
	but "less overcompensated".

	It seems the same as now, if you currently have the cash, you keep the
	"less overcompensated" amount, if you take the car, you get it in
	vauxhall equivilent of the basket..........not adversley affected, just
	less overcompensated!!!!!!

	Heather

The figures that I heard quoted by my boss had a much smaller
supplement value than today..

for example, today a Level 8 or 9 gets a �1300 "market supplement" over the
base car; people opting out after mid June get about �600, with 10 & 11
getting another �900, and 12+ getting another �500. 

(These figures are approximate, but close...)

I wonder how long the higher (current) values will be available...

Peter.

    
    
    The Level 8/9 market supplement was always given on the basis that 
    it was not for a car, but to bring Digital employees into line with 
    other people in the market place.
    
    Reducing a cash supplement must constitute a reduction in compensation.
    
    What a wonderful idea.
    

    
    
>    The Level 8/9 market supplement was always given on the basis that 
>    it was not for a car, but to bring Digital employees into line with 
>    other people in the market place.
 
	I hate to tell you, but this changed a few years ago.

	All the extra supplements used to to be called "market supplements"
	and were, indeed, ment to compensate for the fact we didn't get
	perks similar to others in our industry.

	However, with the last change in the car scheme to baskets of cars,
	they also changed the "market supplements" to "car Supplements".
    
	Heather

Why is everyone wasting all this time slagging off the
new scheme and speculating on how it will affect them, 
when we have been told that full details will be published 
on July 1st?

The mail from Chris Conway was deliberately vague as the
details for the scheme and for the new benefits package are 
not complete, but we should be aware that changes are 
going to happen.

Let's just all calm down, and if the new scheme is bad, then
we can all slag it off on Thursday.


	Ian

    re -1
    
    what would be the legal implications of reducing the market supplement
    . That would constitute a REAL reduction in wages as opposed to one
    through cost of inflationvs no pay rise (Not that that is'nt real)
    

	The "market supplements" dissapeared on 1st Dec 1988, and were replaced
	with car supplements.

	This is part of the mail - the bit that says this.......

	Heather

                   I N T E R O F F I C E   M E M O R A N D U M

                                         Date:      18-Oct-1988 11:42am GMT
                                         From:      PETER WOODHOUSE @RES 
                                                    WOODHOUSEP AT A1_CHEFS at CALCOT at REO 
                                         Dept:      UK PERS
                                         Tel No:    830-3897

TO:  PAUL DINWIDDY @RDL


Subject: EMPLOYEE BRIEFING ON CAR SCHEME CHANGES

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

On 1 December this year, there will be some significant changes made 
to the company car scheme.  This document outlines the changes and 
should clarify what impact you will feel, if any, as a result of the 
revised arrangements.

The goal of the overall review has been to maintain a competitive 
benefit, while at the same time reducing the administrative complexity 
of the current scheme.  YOUR NETT COMPENSATION WILL NOT BE ADVERSELY 
AFFECTED BY THESE CHANGES.

THE NEW SCHEME

The existing Market Supplements, City Allowance, Job Supplement, 
Qualified User Allowance and the definitions of "qualified" and 
"non-qualified" user will no longer apply.

You will be entitled to the provision of a car and supplement 
(dependent upon job level) if you fall into one of the following 
categories:


	.......Rest of very long mail deleted

    .147 �"receive approval to opt out of the scheme on or after June 14th
         �1993"
    
    Where is this a quote from ?
    
    Royston

re .157;

this has come from the briefing document issued to managers, which is
"read from" but not "given to" employees.

There is some info in it, but obviuosly  a lot is lacking.

I guess the details are in the info pack, which hasn't surfaced down here
at SBP yet. It was on release yesterday in UCG.

Peter.

    Re: .153
                      If you take the cash instead of the car then
    it really is very important to recognise that the supplement that 
    you receive is NOT a Car Allowance.  If you wish to claim the 
    expenses of using your own car for business purposes, then you will
    have to declare the compensation that you get from Digital. The only
    compensation you have to declare is the 8p per mile.  The extra pay
    that you receive is not a Car Allowance - payroll dept will confirm
    this.
    
    Alasdair
    
    

>                      If you take the cash instead of the car then
>    it really is very important to recognise that the supplement that 
>    you receive is NOT a Car Allowance.  If you wish to claim the 
>    expenses of using your own car for business purposes, then you will
>    have to declare the compensation that you get from Digital. The only
>    compensation you have to declare is the 8p per mile.  The extra pay
>    that you receive is not a Car Allowance - payroll dept will confirm
>    this.
    
    Alasdair, I don't understand what you are saying.

	I take the cash, I have a mail from personnel telling me that it is
	the cash equivilent for the car allowance and car supplement.

	This is taxed at my highest rate, it is declared to the taxman as part
	of my gross salary on my P60.

	I do not declare the 8p a mile to the taxman. He does not need to know,
 	as it is not a benefit, it is an expense, just like other expenses
	I accrue on Digitals business, like hotel bills.

	I do tell the taxman what my business mileage is as part of my total
	mileage, and what expenses, including depreciation, I have had for the 
	year, as this business percentage can be claimed.

    	All this I do after talking with the taxman on the exact situation.

	If you think differently, I'd check up if I were you.

	Heather

re.160:

You must declare all business expense to the taxman including the 8p a mile and
especially if you are seeking a rebate for using your private car on business.

Dave.

>You must declare all business expense to the taxman including the 8p a mile and
>especially if you are seeking a rebate for using your private car on business.

	I have just come off the phone to the taxman regarding the loss
	made on the share scheme last year.

	I asked him about the 8p, and he didn;t want to know.

	Mind you, he didn't know what to do about the shares, he has to discuss
	it with his supervisor.

	Heather

    Heather,
    
    The 8p per mile you receive has to be offset against your expense
    claim for car running costs.  It is the only compensation you receive
    for using your own car for business purposes.  
    
    I will gladly compare notes with you. ( your expense claim form to the
    taxman vs mine) .  Then we can publish proper notes for the guidance of
    others. 
    
    Alasdair

    
>    The 8p per mile you receive has to be offset against your expense
>    claim for car running costs.  It is the only compensation you receive
>    for using your own car for business purposes.  
 
	The 8p a mile is for petrol, ie you pay it and claim it back...
	I would assume if I had to delcare the 8p a mile, I could put in my
	petrol receipts

	I'm having fun with the tax man and payroll at the moment, they both
	saay conflicying things, so I've told them both, put it in writing,
	and have asked for their response in writing.

	Heather.....piggy-in-the-middle

    Heather,
    
    You are right - you should claim your petrol receipts PLUS service
    charges PLUS running costs.  You can also claim for a (reasonable)
    number of car washes throughout the year. BTW I am assuming that you do
    a non-trivial business mileage each year. 
    
    The taxman should send you a claim form for you to fill in all these
    costs and then prorate them business vs personal(inc home to office)
    He will allow these costs and a proportion of the depreciation which is
    calculated as 25% of the value of the car (as at the beginning of each
    year)
    
    OK?
    Rgds.
    
    Alasdair 

>    You are right - you should claim your petrol receipts PLUS service
>    charges PLUS running costs.  You can also claim for a (reasonable)
>    number of car washes throughout the year. BTW I am assuming that you do
>    a non-trivial business mileage each year. 
 
	I hardly do any business miles, but I don't do many private miles
	either.........there is no way I could get a petrol receipt for
	business miles only.  
	Maybe 1 business mile to 4 private, less than 10,000 miles a year total.

	1 tank (16 quid) lasts me over a week, when I could have done a few
	trips to basingstoke(42 miles return, 30 of which are company), 
	quite a few home to office (12 miles return), a trip to Savacentre,
	maybe one or two other local trips.
  
	Should I collect all my recipts, and just claim 20%, and decalre 8p 
	mile business?

	Heather

    
    
    An article in the latest "What Crap" says that the taxman has just
    introduced a scheme whereby anyone contributing to the lease cost
    of a company car will be allowed to claim tax relief on the money
    they contribute.
    
    Richard.

    re .167
    
    That's how the DEC scheme has worked for years.
    
    One less advantage that the DEC scheme will have over other schemes
    though.
    
    Andrew