| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 565.1 | Now that you mentioned it... | IND::SAPIENZA | Knowledge applied is wisdom gained. | Wed Jul 06 1988 20:07 | 10 |
|
We've heard that some districts have received the memo which
you mention, but so far no one in this office has seen it (at least
as far as I know).
Can you post the memo here?
Frank
|
| 565.2 | DECmobili dinosaurius extinctus | KYOA::WEGER | Bruce Weger | Wed Jul 06 1988 21:36 | 15 |
| The memo IS REAL. It is/was going to be sent to the HOMES of all plan
A and B subscribers on July 5th. So we should all see this 'any
day now'. My copy is apparently a bootleg copy that magically showed
up on my chair this morning! But Wait, There's more....
Personal use charge up to $30.00 per week.
Accumulated "fringe benefit value" (i.e. personal use mileage
value), retroactive to the beginning of the calendar year, will
be showing up on W-2 forms this year!!
NO MORE PLAN A (except for field service engineers)!
I really feel as though my "tool" has been managed !!!!
|
| 565.3 | Official memo | MERIDN::BAY | You lead people, you manage things | Thu Jul 07 1988 02:43 | 99 |
| Received today:
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
DATE: July 1, 1988
TO: U.S. Fleet Plan Participants
FROM: U.S. Field Management Team
SUBJECT: Changes in Fleet Plans
Over the past several months, the U.S. Field Management Team has
studied the various tools used by our employees in the course of
Digital business activity. The purpose of this study was to evaluate
and determine the appropriates tools which are, and will be required,
to satisfy our customer needs. We also wanted to provide greater
flexibility to the employee and Digital in the selection and management
of those tools. The company car plan was one of the tools evaluated.
As a result of this study, the USFMT has developed a strategy to
shift most eligible employees to a monthly allowance plus mileage
(Plan B) with a gradual elimination of company-provided vehicles
for most employees.
Several key factors influenced this decision. We wanted to provide
more control to the employee around vehicle selection, ensure that
our plans are competitive, reduce the administrative efforts of
both the employee and the company, ensure that our fleet programs
are in compliance with the IRS regulations and to provide consistency
between functions. A number of changes in the Federal tax law have
occurred over the past few years; most notably, the Fringe Benefit
Valuation of a company-provided vehicle. These changes also influenced
our decision.
The following changes are effective August 15, 1988:
1. The reimbursement for Plan B will be increased from $180 per
month and $0.08 per business mile to $200 per month and $0.08 per
business mile. [Not a typo]
2. Due to the tax considerations, the weekly Personal Use Charge
paid by each employee operating a company-provided vehicle will
be increased from $24 to $30 per week.
3. As required by IRS statue, the Fringe Benefit Valuation associated
with an individual's personal use of a company provided vehicle
will be calculated, and any amount not covered by the personal use
charge paid by each employee will be included in the employee's
W-2 form.
4. Plan D (station wagons with Digital logo) has been eliminated.
Current participants will be grandfathered in the Plan and may
continue to participate until such time as the current vehicle reaches
replacement criteria.
5. Plan A has been eliminated for all employees working in the U.S.
Field, except Field Service Engineers. Current participants may
continue to participate until such time as the current vehicle reaches
the replacement criteria of 36 months or 60,000 miles.
In this communication, we have tried to anticipate some of your
questions. If you have more specific questions, please discuss
them with your manager or Fleet Administration. A hotline has been
established within Fleet Administration in the event that your manager
cannot answer a particular question. The number is DTN 223-4420
or 617-493-4420.
[Selected questions and answers]
Q: How was the increase in Plan B reimbursement rates determined?
A: The reimbursement is indexed to a study entitled "Your Driving
Costs" which is published annually by the American Automobile
Association (AAA). The 1987 study indicates the appropriate
reimbursement to be $174 per month and 8 cents per mile. The new
$200 rate is an estimate of the anticipated 1988 costs which will
be published later this year. The rate will be reviewed annually.
Q: Does Digital plan to make a separate reimbursement to cover my
additional insurance costs required by Plan B?
A: The cost of insurance is included in the flat monthly rate.
Q: What happens when my current vehicle is due for replacement because
of age, mileage, a maintenance no-repair decision or an accident?
A: If your personal vehicle does not meet Plan B eligibility
requirements, you will be eligible for a six month exception during
which time you will be reimbursed and will have additional time
to purchase a vehicle which qualifies for the Plan.
Q: My current vehicle has reached the normal replacement criteria.
Do I have any options other than enrolling in Plan B?
A: Yes. If your vehicle has reached or does reach the replacement
criteria of 36 months or 60,000 miles on or before August 15, 1988,
a replacement vehicle may be ordered. Vehicle orders received in
Fleet Administration subsequent to the August 15th cutoff will be
returned to the requisitioner.
Q: Is the long term vision really just a cost cutting measure?
A: Control of cost is and will continue to be, an important part
of Digital's strategy, however the primary motivation of this direction
is to provide our employees and Digital with greater flexibility
in the selection and management of tools.
|
| 565.4 | We're clearly losing compensation | RAIN::WATSON | | Thu Jul 07 1988 10:29 | 34 |
| In plain English, this stinks! I consider my company car a part
of my salary, and $200 month plus 8 cents/mile, is no comparison:
Current payment for plan A is $24/week or 1248/year
New payment until 60,000 miles is 30/week or 1560/year ($312 more...which
we should all expect to see in our raises)
Future plan B reimbursement:
200 month flat
192 month for mileage (I drive 60 miles each way to a residency)
----
392/month or 4704/year....which is for a NEW car (since I no
longer own a car, Massachusetts insurance (fixed rate), AND gas
to drive 120 miles/day...
4704 paid to me
-700 minimum my insurance will be
----
4004 remains
1560 absolute minimum for COMPANY BUSINESS gas/year
----
2444 remains for car payment...never mind repairs/maintenance
at 202/month for a car payment over say 4 years, that is 9776 I
can pay for a new car...try to buy even a Chevy Celebrity with that!!
I hardly think Fleet can say this gives us greater flexibility.
I suppose it's time for me to start a search for a new job in the
Marlboro area...it's much closer to home for me.
Anybody else feel this way?
- Robin -
|
| 565.5 | | PRAVDA::JACKSON | All I want is the key to your Ferarri | Thu Jul 07 1988 10:59 | 16 |
| Who wrote this memo anyway? Don't they realize that the phone number
at the Mill changes from (617)493-xxxx to (508)493-xxxx in the
middle of July (the 18th I think). Why don't people remember important
little things like this when they write memos that will generate
LOTS of phone traffic?
Even though I'm not affected by this (I don't have a company car)
I think it stinks. Digital is now telling me that they will REQUIRE
me to buy a certain type of car, pay me well below what it costs
to operate it, and then turn around and tell us that it's in my
best interest. Gimme a break
-milt
|
| 565.6 | I smell a skunk! | RIPPLE::KOTTERRI | Rich (Welcome Back) Kotter | Thu Jul 07 1988 12:23 | 5 |
| I think it stinks, too! Other companies that have car plans pay
around $300 per month, plus mileage, according to what I have seen.
Regards,
Rich
|
| 565.7 | Personal use | RIPPLE::KOTTERRI | Rich (Welcome Back) Kotter | Thu Jul 07 1988 12:45 | 11 |
| > 3. As required by IRS statue, the Fringe Benefit Valuation associated
> with an individual's personal use of a company provided vehicle
> will be calculated, and any amount not covered by the personal use
> charge paid by each employee will be included in the employee's
> W-2 form.
Does anybody know how much personal use is covered by the $30/week
charge?
Regards,
Rich
|
| 565.8 | | SAACT0::HERANDEZ_M | AVN does it BETTER, even in DCL! | Thu Jul 07 1988 12:49 | 33 |
| Flame On! (no flame off on this one:-))
This "policy" has been in effect in the Southern Area for a couple of
years now and is just, in my opinion, another way to cut their costs at
the expense of a needed tool.
To make a clearer point, here they've established that the mileage for
a resident to travel to a site is not "business" mileage. The only mileage
you can write-off is the difference between home-office and home-site.
Is this the next national plan? Since it appears that the Southern Area
is a guinea pig for the rest of the corporation.
Plain english -- it stinks for use of a better word and it's apparent
that DEC is telling us that the "door is open" for us to leave if we
don't like it.
DEC culture? The meaning has taken quite a bit of a different definition
than it did a few years ago.
Flexibility! Please Mr. U.S. Fleet, give us a better line than that and
don't insult our intelligence by thinking we will swallow all the misleading
statements that are made to make us feel like we are getting a good deal.
Plan B was $180.00 a month when I joined DEC 6.5 years ago. It's going up
to $200.00 and I guess the next thing they will tell us is that new cars
and insurance has only gone up 11% over that 6 year period!
I've accepted this plan because I have no choice in the matter but nevertheless
don't feel that it's right and if they must cut corners they can start but
cutting the highly paid individuals that contribute nothing to the corporation
instead of the workers that bring DEC most of their revenue in the field.
|
| 565.9 | | BIGTEX::RESENDEP | following the yellow brick road... | Thu Jul 07 1988 12:57 | 36 |
| RE: .5
> Digital is now telling me that they will REQUIRE
> me to buy a certain type of car, pay me well below what it costs
> to operate it, and then turn around and tell us that it's in my
> best interest. Gimme a break
Not really. They don't like to publicize it, but there is the
alternative of choosing *no* car plan. In my last job the Area
organization did away with Plan A so I was forced to buy a car. I
calculated the business mileage I was driving and realized I could get
50% more reimbursement by not enrolling in any car plan and claiming
the standard 21 cents a mile. I later had a conversation with someone
in Fleet Administration who swore to me that I couldn't do that, but
it's in writing. Maybe in P&P, I can't remember where I saw it, but
wherever the car plan policy is documented, this third option is
described. If you are not enrolled in any car plan at all, you can
drive exactly whatever you want: a 1946 pickup truck, an MG Midget (do
they still make that?), ... whatever you want.
RE: .*
The thing about this that amazed me the most is the increase in
the monthly allowance for Plan B. If the company is *really*
interested in reimbursing employees for business usage of their
cars, then why didn't they increase the mileage allowance instead
of the monthly amount? That would increase the reimbursement
proportionally to those who drive the most business miles, and would
NOT increase the reimbursement to those who hardly ever use their
cars for company business but collect the monthly payment anyway.
Since I drive very few business miles in my current job, I'm not
complaining 'cause I'll benefit from the way they chose to do it.
But I can't help feeling it would have made much more sense the
other way.
Pat_who_lost_her_company_car_20_months_ago
|
| 565.10 | | CVG::THOMPSON | Accept no substitutes | Thu Jul 07 1988 13:24 | 9 |
| >To make a clearer point, here they've established that the mileage for
>a resident to travel to a site is not "business" mileage. The only mileage
>you can write-off is the difference between home-office and home-site.
The 'they' you refer to is the IRS not DEC. From my house to what
ever office I work at is not business mileage and I don't get
reimbursed for it. Do you think I should?
Alfred
|
| 565.11 | AAA??? | WAV14::HICKS | Tim Hicks @BXO | Thu Jul 07 1988 13:34 | 34 |
| Re: .*
As an ex-employee of another computer company (which never had a
plan A) I'm really disappointed with the way Digital is handling
this. Especially the part about relying on AAA for a rate basis!
The company I worked for did an analysis through an outside
firm. The assumption was that the fixed costs for an average
representative vehicle (that is, representing the kind of vehicle
your company thinks you should be driving) vary greatly from locality
to locality. The depreciation, of course, is the same, but taxes,
license, registration, *INSURANCE*, are a LOT DIFFERENT from Boise,
Idaho to Maynard, Taxachusettes. Your fixed monthly allowance should
reflect these differences.
Also, driving habits and costs such as gas, oil, tires, etc.
will vary greatly, also. Should an employee who can ride public
transportation get the same mileage rate as an employee who covers
hundreds of miles per day? Obviously not. Gasoline prices vary
from area to area, so both location and driving habits should be
reflected in the mileage rate.
What we ended up with was a single sheet with a fixed monthly
reimbursement figure and a mileage matrix (with an accelerated mileage
rate for more than 500 miles per week). Each location (ie. "the
greater Boston area") had its own sheet. Although it may sound
complicated, it really wasn't, and although some people moaned and
groaned, most agreed it was very fair.
BTW - as I recall, the figures used for the Boston area five years
ago were far above this $200/mo. & 8�/mi. baloney!
Tim Hicks (culture, smulture, DEC has always been in left field
with company cars...reality had to come home someday!)
|
| 565.12 | Fleet says "No new flexibility" | BACKSD::MEIER | harrY / Baltimore | Thu Jul 07 1988 14:09 | 27 |
| I just called the Fleet Hotline, DTN 223-4420, mentioned earlier.
The fleet representative, Susan McNally, who works for Rick
Catino, US Fleet Mgr, said the following:
Q: How does this plan represent greater flexibility ? I don't
see any new flexibility in the new system.
A: There is no new flexibility in the new system that you don't
already have.
Q: Then why does the Fleet memo say that greater flexibility was
the primary motivation?
A: I don't know.
Q: What is the real reason they are doing this?
A: I don't know. You would have to call the US Country Team.
Q: It was not a fleet decision?
A: No. It was decided by the US Country Team.
Q: Ok. How do I contact them?
A: I don't have the number. You should be able to look it up.
|
| 565.13 | who knows for sure? | SAACT0::HERANDEZ_M | AVN does it BETTER, even in DCL! | Thu Jul 07 1988 14:13 | 25 |
|
>>To make a clearer point, here they've established that the mileage for
>>a resident to travel to a site is not "business" mileage. The only mileage
>>you can write-off is the difference between home-office and home-site.
> The 'they' you refer to is the IRS not DEC. From my house to what
> ever office I work at is not business mileage and I don't get
> reimbursed for it. Do you think I should?
Re:.10
Alfred,
If this is the case and so clearly defined, it's amazing to me how certain
areas can ignore this :-). It's quite obvious that .4 writes off this mileage
and a subsequent call to Fleet informs me that this is up to the descretion
of local management.
I used to work for the New York Area last year and as of then, site-home was
perfectly Ok to write off in expenses.
If it's IRS rules, then perhaps the whole corporation should follow it, no?
Manny
|
| 565.14 | So how is it really defined?? | TIXEL::ARNOLD | Support search & rescue - get lost | Thu Jul 07 1988 14:38 | 7 |
| For 5 years in sws in the field (before I escaped), all of it under
Plan A, much of that time (probably 2+ years of it total) was as
a software resident. Mileage home-customer-home was all considered
as "business mileage" on the Vehicle Summary reports.
fwiw
Jon
|
| 565.15 | take it up the chain | CVG::THOMPSON | Accept no substitutes | Thu Jul 07 1988 15:01 | 23 |
| Someone goes to work in the morning and comes home at night. I
believe that some of you get paid mileage for that trip. I don't
understand why it should make a difference whether or not the place
you work is a DEC office or not. So if someone complains that they
don't get paid mileage for going from home to a customer and then
home again I hope they are also going to that I get paid mileage
from home to NIO and back.
Six years ago when I worked for an other computer company I had
what amounts to DECs plan B. We were told that IRS regulations said
that only the miles over the distance between home-office and home-
site were payable. Now at DEC when I travel for meetings/training
I can only bill the mileage from NIO to the other place (NIO is on
the way to everywhere I've gone to date). Seems fair to me.
Yeah, I think that plan A is a good one and I feel bad that it is
going away but let's be fair about what is and isn't business mileage.
Also have people complained to their Unit managers? If you got no
where did you complain to District, and up until you got to the
top or got a good answer? That's what I would do. That is your right.
Alfred
|
| 565.16 | some comments on IRS involvement etc. | REGENT::GETTYS | Bob Gettys N1BRM 223-6897 | Thu Jul 07 1988 15:09 | 43 |
| I rarely get involved with these hot issues, but a piece
of this one strikes close to home (at least in principle).
I don't have a need for any sort of company car (I don't
do enough traveling to warrant it). I do occasionaly need to go
to plants other than my normal office to do my job and this
usually means that I travel to/from my home directly at least
one way. It was a bunch of years ago that due to an IRS ruling
we all had to deduct our normal commute milage (home to regular
plant) from our home to other plant (or vendor, etc.) milage. As
this was milage that I would normally be traveling without any
explicit compensation anyway, this change (although any cut in
payment is unpopular) seemed reasonable. It seems to me that
transportation from your home to your normal (designated?) place
of work is the responsibility of the worker and not the company.
It also seems to me that transportation over and above this
should/must be provided for explicitly by the company. Paying
you milage is one way of doing this.
Now, since everyone else is griping here - this is mine:
Our group is about to move from its current location to one 13
miles away (no, I don't qualify for any relocation compensation
at all!) which will more than double my commute (now 10 miles -
to be 23 miles). One of the plants that I need to visit
periodicaly is the Boston plant (20 miles) thus I will NOT get
any compensation for that trip (except for the tolls) as I do
now (10 miles worth). This looks like a cut in my compensation
to me, but I don't have any ideas on how to counter it. (I know
- it's minor compared to some of yours, but the principle is the
same.)
One possible saving grace, many of the groups that we
need to work with are in the Mill and it is right on my way home
(or to work in the morning) so I can get paid for the 13 miles
from Maynard to the new site (no shuttle) when I need to stop
there for business purposes. It was noted years ago (see above
on IRS) that once you arrived at the first site, you were
considered to be at work and any subsequent travel either
between sites (all milage) or from the last site to home
(any milage greater than your normal commute) were work miles
and thus compensatable without IRS implications (i.e. taxes).
/s/ Bob
|
| 565.17 | re. 14 | RAIN::WATSON | | Thu Jul 07 1988 15:23 | 22 |
| re. 14
That's the way it is in our district too. Driving from home to
the office is commuting, not business. Driving to a customer is
business. In my case, my office is 80 miles from home, my customer
is 60 miles away. In our district (a field office), most of us
drive a great distance from the office each day, but some people
work at the office. Why should those of us who are forced to drive
far be told that those are "commuting" miles? A majority of those
involved would probably say they would no longer drive "commuting"
miles of such distance using their personal car. I consider my
home office to be just that, and my customers to be "business".
I was glad to see your note and find out I'm not alone.
Also, someone suggested to me that we are not required to be on
any car plan (as someone here just mentioned)...let's hope it's
true. 22 cents/mile for business can easily surpass the plan B
rate.
I plan to discuss it with my manager--he's on vacation this week.
- Robin -
|
| 565.18 | Maybe you should try to change the rules | MANFAC::GREENLAW | | Thu Jul 07 1988 16:21 | 22 |
| Just for the sake of discussion, I would like to bring a different
viewpoint to the fore. To get to a job, most contractors charge
the customer from "portal to portal", IE. from the time they leave
their office to the time they return. This is part of the cost
of doing business and most people pay if they want the services
of the contractor. If the contractor is smart :-), the office is
adjacent to their home.
We as employees can not charge our employer for mileage from home
to office mainly because we are not considered a business. When
the IRS says that the only business mileage expense that the company can
deduct is from its office to the customers' plant, then the company
must bring its business practices in line with that policy.
I do agree that this is a "cut in pay" to those who had cars in
the past. But it was also a "cut in pay" to the waiters and waitresses
when the IRS started to figure their taxes on tips based on a formula.
It is a "cut in pay" when independent programmers were defined as
employees under the last tax law change.
If you really want to change the policy, start much higher up the
ladder. Congress makes the rules and the company must follow them.
|
| 565.19 | re: business miles | UPSAR::THOMAS | The Code Warrior | Thu Jul 07 1988 17:03 | 19 |
| re .14
I too recently escaped from the field and I'll in throw my 2�...
[But I sure feel better about sacrificing my company car :-)]
I lived 13 miles from my office if I went a backwoods/slow way and 25
miles by freeway (which beat the short way by 15 minutes). But for
over a year I was forced to commute 60+ miles (to a different Digital
office and then to a customer site) each way. For that time,
home<-->work (not office) was business miles. Saying that it was my
normal commute would be inane. Some days I can only travel 15 miles
and others 200 miles each way.
Also, at one point, I lived 400 miles from my office (and commuted to a
customer only 10 miles away). When I did drive to the office (and
back), that was also considered (by me) to be business miles.
A few simple guidelines regarding business miles are fine but that's
all they should be: guidelines.
|
| 565.20 | Memo with Q&A included | CSOA1::ROTH | Hey Moe... what's a VAX? | Thu Jul 07 1988 17:29 | 229 |
|
[Here is the memo with the Q&A section attached. It may answer the question
posed in .7. Lee.]
.___.___.___.___.___.___.___.
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! d ! i ! g ! i ! t ! a ! l !
!___!___!___!___!___!___!___!
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: U.S. Fleet Plan Participants DATE: July 1, 1988
FROM: U.S. Field Management Team
SUBJECT: Changes in Fleet Plans
Over the past several months, the U.S. Field Management Team has studied the
various tools used by our employees in the course of Digital business activity.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate and determine the appropriate tools
which are, and will be required, to satisfy our customer needs. We also wanted
to provide greater flexibility to the employee and Digital in the selection and
management of those tools. The company car plan was one of the tools evaluated.
As a result of this study, the USFMT has developed a strategy to shift most
eligible employees to a monthly allowance plus mileage (Plan B) with a gradual
elimination of company-provided vehicles for most employees.
Several key factors influenced this decision. We wanted to provide more
control to the employee around vehicle selection, ensure that our plans are
competitive, reduce the administrative efforts of both the employee and the
company, ensure that our fleet programs are in compliance with the IRS
regulations and to provide consistency between functions. A number of changes
in the Federal tax law have occurred over the past few years; most notably,
the Fringe Benefit Valuation of a company-provided vehicle. These
changes also influenced our decision.
The following changes are effective August 15, 1988:
1. The reimbursement for Plan B will be increased from $180 per month and
8 cents/ per business mile to $200 per month and 8 cents/ per business mile.
2. Due to the tax considerations, the weekly Personal Use Charge paid by each
employee operating a company-provided vehicle will be increased from $24
to $30 per week.
3. As required by IRS statute, the Fringe Benefit Valuation associated with an
individual's personal use of a company provided vehicle will be calculated,
and any amount not covered by the personal use charge paid by each employee
will be included in the employee's W-2 form.
4. Plan D (station wagons with Digital logo) has been eliminated. Current
participants will be grandfathered in the Plan and may continue to
participate until such time as the current vehicle reaches replacement
criteria.
5. Plan A has been eliminated for all employees working in the U.S. Field,
except Field Service Engineers. Current participants may continue to
participate until such time as the current vehicle reaches the replacement
criteria of 36 months or 60,000 miles.
In this communication, we have tried to anticipate some of your questions. If
you have more specific questions, please discuss them with your manager or
Fleet Administration. A hotline has been established within Fleet
Administration in the event that your manager cannot answer a particular
question. The number is DTN 223-4420 or 617-493-4420.
Q: Why is the Personal Use Charge being increased?
A: Under current IRS guidelines, Digital is required to recognize
the personal use of a company-provided vehicle as a taxable
fringe benefit to the employee. In addition to reimbursing the
company for personal usage, the Personal use charge reduces or
eliminates the taxable benefit which will be added to your W-2
form.
Q: How was the Personal Use Charge increase to $30 per week
determined?
A: The average personal miles per month in the Digital fleet is
849 miles. For the average employee this calculates to an
annual Fringe Benefit Value of $1,925. Divided by 52 weeks,
this would equal an average Personal Use Charge of $37 per week.
We chose the approach of a small weekly increase and inclusion
of the balance in your W-2 form to minimize the out of pocket
expense to you.
Q: What does "Fringe Benefit Value" mean?
A: Fringe Benefit Value is determined by a computation which
assesses a value on the availability of personal use of a
company-provided vehicle. Digital has traditionally averaged
this value among employees. More recent interpretations of the
tax code indicate that the FBV should be assessed
individually.
Q: How is the Fringe Benefit Value computed?
A: The Fringe Benefit Value is determined using a computation
which includes total annual mileage and total personal mileage.
The Internal Revenue Service has a published set of tables which
are used in the computation.
For example, an individual drives a fleet vehicle 20,000 miles
per year; 8,000 miles of which are personal. In this example,
the percentage of personal use is 40%.
The Fair Market Rental Value of this vehicle is $3,100 per the
IRS table. Based on the percentage of personal use, ($3,100 x
40%), the fixed Fringe Benefit Value in this example is $1,240.
Added to this number is a 5.5 cent fuel adjustment from the IRS
table. In this example, ($0.055 x 8000 personal miles) the
variable Fringe Benefit Value is $440.
The total annual Fringe Benefit Value in this example is $ 1,680.
This assessment is then reduced by amount of personal use
charges paid during the year. In this example, let's assume
that you paid $30 per week for 52 weeks. The net Fringe Benefit
Value that would be assessed to your W-2 form would be $120
($1,680 less $1,560 [$30 x 52 weeks]).
Q: Is the Fringe Benefit Value different for each employee?
A: Yes. The Fringe Benefit Value is determined by a combination of
the percentage of personal use and the number of personal miles
driven. Those individuals with high business mileage and low
personal mileage will have a lower FBV.
Q: How was the increase in Plan B reimbursement rates determined?
A: The reimbursement is indexed to a study entitled "Your Driving
Costs" which is published annually by the American Automobile
Association (AAA). The 1987 study indicates the appropriate
reimbursement to be $174 per month and 8 cents per mile. The
new $200 rate is an estimate of the anticipated 1988 costs which
will be published later this year. The rate will be reviewed
annually.
Q: Does Digital plan to make a separate reimbursement to cover my
additional insurance costs required by Plan B?
A: The cost of insurance is included in the flat monthly rate.
Q: What happens when my current vehicle is due for replacement
because of age, mileage, a maintenance no-repair decision or
an accident?
A: If your personal vehicle does not meet Plan B eligibility
requirements, you will be eligible for a six month exception
during which time you will be reimbursed and will have
additional time to purchase a vehicle which qualifies for the
Plan.
Q: If I am currently driving a company-provided vehicle, can I
purchase it and enroll on Plan B?
A: Yes. The fleet vehicle currently assigned to you may be
purchased anytime prior to reaching the normal replacement
criteria and you can enroll in Plan B. If you are interested
in purchasing your current vehicle, you should contact the
appropriate leasing company directly for an employee sale
quotation. For PH&H vehicles, call 301-771-2806. For Gelco
vehicles, call 612-828-2432.
Q: Why is Plan D being eliminated?
A: The original intent of plan D was to increase the customer's
visibility to Digital. To that end, we have been successful.
Further concerns around security and utility have influenced
the decision to operate unmarked vehicles.
Q: Will the company logo be removed from my station wagon?
A: No. Current Plan D participants will keep the logo on the
vehicle and continue to receive a monthly allowance. When the
vehicle is replaced, it will be replaced with an unmarked
station wagon and participation in Plan D will cease.
Q: I ordered a vehicle which has been acknowledged by the leasing
company.
Has my order been canceled?
A: No. All fleet vehicle orders which were received in Fleet
Administration through the date of this communication will be
processed.
Q: My current vehicle has reached the normal replacement criteria.
Do I have any options other than enrolling in Plan B?
A: Yes. If your vehicle has reached or does reach the replacement
criteria of 36 months or 60,000 miles on or before
August 15, 1988, a replacement vehicle may be ordered. Vehicle
orders received in Fleet Administration subsequent to the
August 15th cutoff will be returned to the requisitioner.
Q: How do these changes compare to the plans offered by other
companies?
A: Digital performs annual surveys of almost thirty companies
which compare fleet plans. Digital's offerings favorably
compare to our competition.
Q: Is the long term vision really just a cost cutting measure?
A: Control of cost is and will continue to be, an important part
of Digital's strategy, however the primary motivation of this
direction is to provide our employees and Digital with greater
flexibility in the selection and management of tools.
|
| 565.21 | A few more questions | MSDSWS::DANTONI | Gaitan D'Antoni | Thu Jul 07 1988 18:47 | 23 |
| This new policy brings up a few questions.
What do I do if the vehicle I'm driving doesn't qualify for Plan B?
(too old, not enough seats, truck, etc...)
Must I go out and purchase a new car?
Do I switch to the "no-plan" plan (22.5 cents/business mile)?
If so, I must keep up my "business use" insurance" without the benefit
of the $180/mo.
What if I want to abide by the letter of the policy and not use my car
at all for Digital business?
Do I rent a car for every business trip?
How long will mtg. put up with this attitude?
It looks as if all choices have the same result: I pay for Digital's
benefit.
Any thoughts?
Gaitan (I faced these questions in January and switched to the
"no-plan" plan but I'm still not happy!!)
|
| 565.22 | time 4 a new job? | CHGV04::KAPLOW | sixteen bit paleontologist | Thu Jul 07 1988 19:10 | 59 |
| I've been on plan B since I started with DEC on February, 1980. In
the first 6 months, the reimbursement was raised twice from $165
to $180. Since September of 1980, this is the first change in that
value. In that time, the IRS has started taxing the reimbursement,
so in effect we are being reimbursed LESS than in 1980!
Since 1980, car purchase prices, insurance, maintenance, and just
about everything having to do with a car have at least doubled in
cost. Regardless of being taxed, I hardly think a 10% increase
covers that expense.
I never was on plan A because I had a car when I started, and only
lived a mile from my office. Last summer, I was informed that I no
longer had the option to switch to plan A in my area (Chicago), a
local cost cutting policy. It seems that management figurted out
that plan A cost their cost center $350, while plan B only cost
them $180. As a budget constrained manager, which would you hope
your people choose. Shortly after that, our office moved, changing
my 1 mile commute to 13 miles and anywhere from 45 minutes to 2
hours! I'm now stuck on plan B.
What is the "official" corporate policy? If I choose to buck
local management, can I still change over to plan A in the
next month?
As far as plan B goes, have they relaxed any of the rules.
Last I heard, your car could not be over 4 years old. These
days no one replaces cars that soon. I just replaced a 9 year
old car, I'd like to keep the two we have at least that long.
BTW, it is true that there is some point where it is better to be
on no car plan at all than on plan B. Just solve:
2160 + .08x = .22x
and you will find that for x = 15429 miles the reimbursements are
equal. If you travel more than that per year, you will be
reimbursed more on no car plan than on plan B. Further, if you
consider the tax consequences of plan B, the break even point can
be as low as 11K.
For those like me, there is a justification for much higheer fixed
costs. Digital expects me to have a car sitting at the office to
run any little mission they choose to send me on. Otherwise, I
could just have my wife drop me off at the office every day, and
pick me up, or car-pool with other employees. Any trip to a
customer site, or other DEC facility would then be impossible. Out
here in the 'burbs public transportation is practically
non-existant, and there is no cab waiting at the corner to take
you somewhere unless you book it hours or days in advance. That
wouldn't be too good for productivity.
On top of all this mess, my manager wants to transfer me to
another group, where I would end up losing my plan B benefit
completely! Some deal. You can't have plan A, and you can't even
have plan B. This is what I get for buying a new car, eh?
Well, it's after 5pm here, time to go home and see if my letter
came yet, and call a headhunter or two :-(
|
| 565.23 | who's exempt? | WR2FOR::BOUCHARD_KE | Ken Bouchard WRO3-2 DTN 521-3018 | Thu Jul 07 1988 19:11 | 13 |
| Question: It says in the memo that Field Service engineers are
exempt...does that mean that only the people in branchs get cars
or does it mean that us support types are included too? There may
just be a mass movement of support people to the branch if only
branch people get to stay on plan A.
re: .8
The way it was explained to me by my manager is that if your job
code is one that is eligible for a company car or allowance,you
*must* either take a company car or use a car that fits into plan
B.You *cannot* be on no plan and take the mileage...if you want
to do that(be on no plan)...find another job within DEC.
|
| 565.24 | Coming or Going | RIPPLE::KOTTERRI | Rich (Welcome Back) Kotter | Thu Jul 07 1988 19:23 | 25 |
| The employee gets the short end of the stick from two directions
on this new plan.
The IRS says the Fair Market Rental Value of the company car [in the
example] is $3100 per year. The percentage of personal miles times
$3100 plus 5.5 cents per personal mile is what is considered the
employee's 'fringe benefit', from which is deducted his $30 per week.
Any excess shows up on his W2 as income.
DEC says the value of the employee's own car is $200 per month, or
$2400 per year, plus 8 cents per business mile. All of the $2400 shows
up on the W2. The employee may presumably deduct on his taxes 22.5
cents per business mile (or a percentage of actual costs), less the 8
cents per mile and $200 per month reimbursements.
Ok, now why the double standard? If on the one hand (IRS) the fair
value of a years use of the car is $3100, then why on the other hand
(DEC Plan) is it worth $2400? Sure, you get 2.5 cents more per mile on
the DEC plan, but you would have to drive some 28,000 business miles
per year to make up the $700 difference.
The employee gets it coming or going, it seems to me.
Regards,
Rich
|
| 565.25 | watch out for insurance! | HACKIN::MACKIN | Jim Mackin, VAX PROLOG | Thu Jul 07 1988 20:47 | 10 |
| Not meaning to put fuel on the fire, but when I left the field seven
months ago I also gave up my car. What I found was getting insurance
was VERY difficult -- see, the company was the one paying the insurance
and my name never appeared anywhere. Thus, to the insurance companies,
I was currently an uninsured driver. In some states that is an
extreme liability (can you say in excess of $2000 in insurance???).
Like Rich said in -.1 -- field folks will probably be getting this
one coming, going, and returning. The car was the only thing that
kept me in the field (and in Digital) for the past three years.
|
| 565.26 | PLAN B = *PAY CUT* for field!!!!!!! | PHDVAX::MURRAY | | Thu Jul 07 1988 22:22 | 0 |
| 565.27 | | CSOA1::ROTH | Hey Moe... what's a VAX? | Fri Jul 08 1988 00:39 | 9 |
| .23> Question: It says in the memo that Field Service engineers are
.23> exempt...does that mean that only the people in branchs get cars
.23> or does it mean that us support types are included too? There may
A cover to the memo that I posted indicated that T2F, T3F, T4F and T5F were
the exempt job codes. It would seem that if you are a T7S or T8S then you outa
luck.
Lee
|
| 565.28 | another 2 � | CSOA1::ROTH | Hey Moe... what's a VAX? | Fri Jul 08 1988 00:44 | 9 |
| I would be interested in finding out what cost savings this all means to the
company.
I too have seen company cars used infrequently for business by those that were
assigned to them and others run the wheels off in about 18 months. I think
that the cc mgr should have the say of what employees get cars. I also think a
'floater' car per cc should take care of those people that only need a company
care for a few hours every few weeks. That should save a lot of $$ and let the
people that need a plan 'A' car keep one.
|
| 565.29 | P&P verbage | CSOA1::ROTH | Hey Moe... what's a VAX? | Fri Jul 08 1988 01:02 | 43 |
| Re: .9, P&P manual
Here's an extract from section 5.11 of the "Personnel Policy and Proceedures
Manual" that is now available via VTX. This section was revised April, 1988.
I see nothing that stipulates that an employee must be a member of any form of
car plan (A/B/D/?)
----
Business Expense Policy
Mileage Allowance
Employees are encouraged to use regularly scheduled Company
aircraft/shuttle vehicles whenever possible. Where personal vehicles
must be used, the amount of reimbursement is based on actual
business miles driven.
It is Digital's intention that employees will pay for their own
mileage between their place of residence and their work place. Any
required business mileage incurred during the workday in excess of
that normal commute will be compensated in accordance with our
Business Mileage Policy.
This policy also applies to those employees who are using vanpools
or carpools to commute to work. Mileage reimbursement is provided
to these employees only when they drive their personal vehicle and
the mileage incurred in a workday exceeds that of the normal
commuting mileage as defined above.
Reimbursement for U.S. locations is as follows:
| 22.5 cents per mile.
This provision does not apply to field personnel who are
governed by the U.S. Auto Plan Policies or to Digital employees
outside the U.S. where local mile/km. policies are defined.
-----
Wish we had a copy of "U.S. Auto Plan Policies" online somewhere....
Lee
|
| 565.30 | Business use of car is a tax break | ODIXIE::JENNINGS | Dave Jennings | Fri Jul 08 1988 09:36 | 14 |
| re: < Note 565.22 by CHGV04::KAPLOW "sixteen bit paleontologist" >
> I've been on plan B since I started with DEC on February, 1980. In
> the first 6 months, the reimbursement was raised twice from $165
> to $180. Since September of 1980, this is the first change in that
> value. In that time, the IRS has started taxing the reimbursement,
> so in effect we are being reimbursed LESS than in 1980!
Not so... If you do your taxes properly. The business portion of
your car expenses is an adjustment to income, that is, it comes
right off the top before you calculate your adjusted gross. If
you have enough business milage and expenses (gas, oil, tires,
depreciation, etc.) you wind up with the whole $2400 _plus_ a tax
savings on top of that.
|
| 565.31 | Your Driving Costs | RIPPLE::KOTTERRI | Rich (Welcome Back) Kotter | Fri Jul 08 1988 10:43 | 45 |
| I stopped by the local AAA office and picked up a copy of "Your Driving
Costs" (they only had the 1986 edition). The memo says they used this
study to come up with the $200 per month car allowance.
According to it, the ownership costs per year of a 1986 Chevrolet
Celebrity, including comprehensive insurance ($100 deductible),
collision insurance ($250 deductible), Property damage and liability
insurance ($100,000, $300,000, and $50,000), License, registration,
taxes, depreciation (based on trade-in value at the end of four years
or at 60,000 miles), and finance charge (20 percent down, 13.5% loan
for 4 years), comes out to a total of $2,596. Air conditioning adds
another 109.50 per year, for a grand total of $2705.50. This works out
to be 225.46 per month, not the $174 per month mentioned in the memo.
Note the following:
This was from the 1986 study, *not* the 1987 study used by DEC. I
assume the costs would be higher for the 1987 study.
Insurance costs in the study were based on *personal* use of the car,
not business use. I presume insurance for business use is more
expensive.
Insurance rates include a deductible that the employee would not be
liable for, if he were driving a plan A car.
Depreciation is included for *four* years, yet we are required to have
a car that is no older than *three* years, if I have my plan B facts
straight.
Finance charges assume a 20 percent downpayment, that the employee
would not have to come up with when driving a plan A car.
Conclusion
----------
The $200 per month does not cover the cost of car ownership, and does
not include all of the costs as they relate to use of such a car on the
DEC plan B.
Regards,
Rich
|
| 565.32 | new tax laws can ANY writeoff for me :-( | CHGV04::KAPLOW | sixteen bit paleontologist | Fri Jul 08 1988 11:35 | 16 |
| Re: .30, Re: my .22
Unfortunately not so. The new IRS restrictions on both deductable
business expenses and business use of a car eliminate all car
deductions for me. Last year I did about 7000 business miles.
Since that was just less than half (about 46%) of the total
mileage, I could not take any depreciation or other writeoff on
the car. Since $.14 (the difference between DECs 8 cents and the
IRS 22 cents/mile) * 7000 miles is $980, which is less that 5% of
my meager DEC salary (yup, I earn over $20K in this job!), I can't
even take my business mileage writeoff that I could claim in the
past.
If someone out there knows a way that I can get around any
of the new IRS regulations and at least offset some of the
$180/month, I'd like to know them.
|
| 565.33 | from the horses mouth... | CHGV04::KAPLOW | sixteen bit paleontologist | Fri Jul 08 1988 12:28 | 43 |
| Rather than speculating around in this conference, I called fleet,
and after a dozen trys I finally got thru to Frank Spence. Frank
explained to me that fleet is only implementing policy from above
(corporate VPs), the usual "don't shoot me I'm only the
messenger". He did admit that the timing of the notice is poor,
and that it would have been better to give a six month notice of
the impending changes. Here is a sumary of the information I got
from him.
We no longer have the option to switch from plan B to plan A,
effective immediately. It's nice to be informed of this change
after-the-fact.
The company that generates the numbers used by fleet for computing
reimbursements is not the AAA as stated in the letter, but a firm
named Run-Timer in Wisconsin.
If we qualify for plan B we do NOT have the option of declining
that plan and taking the $.22/mile flat rate. Plan C is ONLY for
the casual user. I could not get a specific answer as to what
would happen to an individual who continued to refuse to comply
with plan B regarding type or age of car, insurance requirements,
etc. Frank did state that they are looking into extending the 4
year age limit to 5-6 years, or removing it entirely. They may
also relax or eliminate the vehicle type restrictions. Then again,
they may not.
The letter is vague, and specualtions in previous notes are
wrong about the implementation of the "Fringe Benefit Value".
This amount will NOT be reported for the 1988 calander year,
but will take effect in 1989.
Frank also mentioned that while the expense to a cost center is
currently $387 for Plan A vs $180 for plan B, the actual expenses
to Digital, as a result of capitalization of assets, tax benefits,
etc. that it is actually better for the company to have drivers on
plan A than plan B. So why the changover?
Finally, Digital (maybe thru Run Timers) surveyd the plans
of other companies in the computer business. Aparantly IBM has
already eliminated its car plan. Apple offers $400/month but
NO additional mileage reimbursement. He claimed that we are
competitive with other firms.
|
| 565.34 | | BIGTEX::RESENDEP | following the yellow brick road... | Fri Jul 08 1988 12:40 | 45 |
| RE: .23
> The way it was explained to me by my manager is that if your job
> code is one that is eligible for a company car or allowance,you
> *must* either take a company car or use a car that fits into plan
> B.You *cannot* be on no plan and take the mileage...if you want
> to do that(be on no plan)...find another job within DEC.
If you're really interested in collecting the 22 cents a mile (or
whatever it is now), I'd suggest asking your manager (in a
non-confrontational way) to show you the written policy that precludes
you from "Plan C". I don't believe such a policy exists. I myself
used "Plan C" for about a year in my previous job. I've known other
people who did the same. I explicitly told my boss what I was doing,
and did not get any pushback at all. Wish I could remember where I saw
it described as a valid option -- maybe U.S. Fleet Policy is the
document.
RE: .29 (I think)
The major complaint I'm hearing around here is that the cancellation of
Plan A is indeed a pay cut. The corporation has made it *very* clear
that company cars were a tool for doing your job, not a benefit or part
of your salary. But many, many employees (including myself) were told
when we were hired that the car *was* a benefit. In fact, I was told my
salary would be $XXX plus the car which was worth another $5K or so
(funny how it's depreciated in value, huh?).
When I lost my Plan A car nearly 2 years ago, I did consider it a pay
cut. I still do. It was simply one of those battles that I obviously
wasn't going to win, so I chose not to fight it. I was told that
pushing hard would be very career-limiting, and that's a verbatim
statement from my manager who also opposed the decision. I made my
feelings clear to my management, then dropped the subject and bought a
car. I had people working for me who also lost their cars and
experienced real financial hardship because of it. I felt much worse
about them than I did myself. Bottom line is, when employees have been
told for the past 10 years by responsible Digital management that the
car is a benefit, I think the company should feel some obligation and
shoulder some of the responsibility for the misinformation that its
managers have proliferated. But the company obviously doesn't plan to
do that. And there's nothing that can realistically be done to change
it.
Pat
|
| 565.35 | help me understand... | WORDS::BADGER | Follow the Sun Stream | Fri Jul 08 1988 13:40 | 21 |
|
I hope that one of you guys crying about loosing this benefit could
educate this poor engineer here.
As I understand it reading just this note, that regular field service
people still get plan A. They are the ones that regualarly service
the customers and do a lot of driving.
Now, just what do you folks do that justifies having a company car?
In my position, I have to travel thoughout New England on co. business.
Never even entered my mind to think I should have a co car. Most
engineers I know also do the same. Maybe the new policy is bringing
all employees in line with each other?
I didn;'t imply that there might not be a good reason, I'm just
inquireing so I could cry with ya. Just like missing the trip to
Hawaii. No engineer back home I know of gets a chance at that.
I really did a lot a crying with that group!
regards, ed
|
| 565.36 | unfair is unfair | CHGV04::KAPLOW | sixteen bit paleontologist | Fri Jul 08 1988 13:57 | 30 |
| Re: .35
I've felt that way for a long time! I think that is part of the
reason that a company car is considered a benefit ad not a tool,
both by the employee and the IRS. Until 1987, I probably averaged
around 1-2K business miles per year. On plan B, that $180/month
that was taxed by the IRS really looked like salary to my
checkbook. Last year I ended up well over 7K business miles.
Repeated trips to a customer site 90 miles from my office add up
real fast.
The reality of the situation is that the car plan should reflect
how much YOU PERSONALLY need a car for business use. Not someone
else in your group, not the "average" DEC employee with a similar
title, but YOU. The expected business mileage should drop you into
plan A, plan B, or plan C, depending on the business mileage you
drive over a year. While I made a couple dozen trips to that
site, others did it daily for over a year. There is NO WAY
that I would do that on a regualr basis with my personal car,
especially given the environment there and what it does to
a car over time (steel mill). A car given that treatment would
last for a year if lucky. That person DESERVES a plan A car.
Someone with my previous business needs deserves NOTHING, beyond
the plan rate of $.22/mile.
The current plan, regardless of this change, is UNFAIR to
employees and stockholders alike. Further, changing it in this
manner is equally unfair to people who have been misled or
otherwise coaxed by management to treat this alledged tool
as a benefit.
|
| 565.37 | Others need cars too | CSOA1::ROTH | Hey Moe... what's a VAX? | Fri Jul 08 1988 14:02 | 23 |
|
.35> As I understand it reading just this note, that regular field service
.35> people still get plan A. They are the ones that regualarly service
.35> the customers and do a lot of driving.
.35>
.35> Now, just what do you folks do that justifies having a company car?
.35> In my position, I have to travel thoughout New England on co. business.
.35> Never even entered my mind to think I should have a co car. Most
.35> engineers I know also do the same. Maybe the new policy is bringing
.35> all employees in line with each other?
In the past, employees were eligible for a car based on their job code. From a
field perspective this included F/S techs, F/S managers, SWS specialists,
SWS managers and Sales staff. Indeed, F/S techs need a wagon or a van and
that's why they have one. But the SWS and sales folkes rack up a lot of
business miles, i.e. "In <their> position, <they> have to travel thoughout
<their geography> on co. business." - just like you do- servicing customers
EVERY DAY. Their tools are just different ones, that's all.
Lee Roth
8+ years in fs
11+ years at DEC
|
| 565.38 | Try a field job and find out for yourself! | WAV12::HICKS | Tim Hicks @BXO | Fri Jul 08 1988 14:06 | 11 |
| Re .35
The primary function of sales and support personnel is to work with
the customer. Customers don't come to us, we go to them. Sales
and support people in large geographic areas and dispersed customer
locations can end up nearly _living_ in their car; having been in
sales a long time it is inconcievable to me that anyone with this
kind of job wouldn't be adequately reimbursed for their means of
transportation. I don't think Plan B is nearly adequate.
Tim Hicks
|
| 565.39 | RE: .35 Since you asked... | BIGTEX::RESENDEP | following the yellow brick road... | Fri Jul 08 1988 15:01 | 25 |
| RE: .35
> Now, just what do you folks do that justifies having a company car?
Since you asked...
A field service tech often drives the full 60,000 business miles
a year. A great many of them qualify for a new company car every
year.
As a software unit manager for a two-state geography, I was putting
approximately 30,000 business miles a year on my car. I happen to
believe support organization management should maintain close business
relationships with the customers their people support, and consider
that practice one of the most important factors that enabled me to be a
successful manager. When I was forced into Plan B, I found myself
putting that same 30,000 miles a year on my own personal car. That
gets real expensive. Over the long term, I would not have continued
doing it; I would have either found another job in Digital, or changed
my goal of keeping in close contact with my customers. While the
former option might have had debatable benefit to Digital (^;, I
sincerely believe the latter would have been to the detriment of the
company.
Pat
|
| 565.40 | While your still asking... | MARRHQ::ARABIA | | Fri Jul 08 1988 16:06 | 41 |
|
RE: .35
> Now, just what do you folks do that justifies having a company
car?
This question can be mildly debated because some folks definetly
(myself included for the first year) are on plan A just because
their job code says they can be and they do not log any business
related miles but certaintly there is plenty of justification for
being on plan A.
Lets put the justification issue aside for now and look at it this
way. When I first went onto plan A, it was my goal to obtain a postion
in SWS which would provide me with a company issued vehicle. For
some dumb reason I thought a certain amount of prestige went along
with having a company car. I too did not have it explained to me
that it was a "tool" to do my job. My job was system manager for
an in-house SWS admin system. So much for justification. I've since
taken a position where I do log many business mile a week.
My point is, since this is a re-evalutation of the use of one of
the "tools" we use to do our jobs and not a cost cutting manuever,
why not then are other "tools" used by other groups of employees
also being evaluated? Tools which will cut into their salaries thereby
possibly forcing them to make decesions like we may have to make
because of these changes to the car plan. Digital offered this tool
to us and many of us took the neccessary steps school wise, training
wise or just plain hard work wise to attain the positions that issued
these "tools". Now, Digital pays us back by yanking the thing out
from under us with no notice. The folks who have positions that
do not have a car plan available are of course not sympathetic,
but I'd like to see their reaction if DEC takes away one of their
"tools" and it cost them money.
The car was NOT the only reason I worked toward a postion in SWS
but no-one cany deny it being a pretty good incentive. Now of course
Digital wants to smooth it over by reducing a car down to the same
level as a VT220 or set of manuals.
Wonder whats next?????
|
| 565.41 | At least I used to be able to get the *car* | NEWVAX::PAVLICEK | Zot, the Ethical Hacker | Fri Jul 08 1988 16:23 | 8 |
| re: .40
> Digital wants to smooth it over by reducing a car down to the same
> level as a VT220
Yup. Now I won't be able to get either of them. :^(
-- Russ who_uses_a_VT100_which_works_most_of_the_time
|
| 565.42 | ok | WORDS::BADGER | Follow the Sun Stream | Fri Jul 08 1988 16:51 | 14 |
| Ok, I've been educated enough. I can feel for the person that really
uses the car for a lot [>10K mile/yr]. I got the feeling from reading
some of the replies that some people thought the car was a benefit,
not a tool. Just because a job code said someone could have a car,
should not be a justification for it. The person should need it.
now, lets work the figures a little closer. If one had a co car,
it cost him $30/wk or $120/mo.
on plan b you get $200/mo&millage. the neet difference is $320/mo
or $3840/year.
ed
[now how do I get that trip to Hawaii for just doing my job good?]
|
| 565.43 | And furthermore! | MARRHQ::ARABIA | | Fri Jul 08 1988 17:10 | 14 |
| RE: .42
I agree with what you say about the job code not being the
justification alone and a need should presented for a car
THIS is where I have the biggest problem with this whole thing.
Digital created this by NOT defining who really needed cars and who
did not. At least not in this area (MAA). Now they want to absolve
themselves of this at the expense of the employees who participate
in the car plan by not offering any kind of equitable compensation.
You don't want to get into the Hawaii thing. Its political and driven
by dollars only. Your district meets its numbers maybe you get to
go if they like your face. The district does'nt make its numbers,
you don't go no matter how hard you work.
|
| 565.44 | your numbers are confused | NYEM1::MILBERG | Barry Milberg | Fri Jul 08 1988 17:35 | 42 |
| <Note 565.42 Official So Long, Plan A 42 of 43
<WORDS::BADGER "Follow the Sun Stream" 14 lines 8-JUL-1988 15:51
< -< ok >-
<
< now, lets work the figures a little closer. If one had a co car,
< it cost him $30/wk or $120/mo.
< on plan b you get $200/mo&millage. the neet difference is $320/mo
< or $3840/year.
WHOA!
the correct math is:
cost of car under Plan A = $30 x 52
cost of car under Plan B =
cost of ownership (payments, depreciations, etc.)
+ cost of operation (insurance, maintenance, gas)
- $200 x 12
- mileage x $ 0.08
+ TAXES on $200/month - tax breaks (if any)
I'll leave the costs to the individuals, as they vary by locale.
Here in NJ, the REQUIRED (by Plan B) insurance alone is about $900 per
year (for a 'mature', married individual with a clean record). Now, add
a minimum lease cost of $200 per month (Hundai??) for the car plus
maintenance, gas, cleaning, etc.
See the earlier replies for a more reasonable discussion on cost
of ownership.
-Barry-
|
| 565.45 | Plan B senario | NEWVAX::PAVLICEK | Zot, the Ethical Hacker | Fri Jul 08 1988 17:57 | 27 |
|
re: 44, 42
Also, I may be wrong, but consider this senario as well:
You buy a car from the showroom and finance the bulk of the
transaction. (I haven't met a SW spec yet that was able to pay
cash for their wheels)
You are a fairly "heavy" user, and tend to rack up about 36K miles/yr
(my current rate over the last 4 months -- likely to continue).
You run your car for 2 1/2 yrs, and then you have an accident with
the vehicle -- not your fault, mind you. Your insurance company
looks at the claim and says "Okay, market value of this 2 1/2 year
old vehicle with 90K miles is 3 bags of peanuts and a used teabag".
You, however, are left with months of payments on a non-existant
vehicle which yielded you little cash because you beat the thing
into the ground in order to do your job. The insurance company
is so pleased with your performance, that they decide to raise your
rates on your next car because you cost them money.
Maybe there is a realistic way around this, but it seems to me that
I've heard of this senario before.
-- Russ
|
| 565.46 | bye bye $$$$ | DPD01::ROBINSON | | Fri Jul 08 1988 19:17 | 2 |
| to me it is worth a 10,000 cut in pay. (6 k out of pocket, implies
10k take home) that speaks fot itself....
|
| 565.47 | Explanations, and a GOTCHA! | MERIDN::BAY | You lead people, you manage things | Fri Jul 08 1988 20:22 | 69 |
| re: Rationale for who gets what plan
If you have a desk job, you have a fixed distance to and from work
every day. If you have to go somewhere on company business besides
from your home, to your desk and back, its business milage - fairly
simple. As for what the fixed distance to and from work is, YOU
choose. Wherever you choose to live determines your fixed commute.
In SWS, your workplace is the customer site, not the building that
has a desk with a doc set with your name on it. Thats where the
tax considerations get hairy. If you go to your DEC office every
day, make some calls, read your mail and then go to the customer
site, its obviously business milage. But if you are on a residency,
then you travel from home, to the customer site, then back home
for time periods of six-months to FOUR years. Once a week or so
you might go to the DEC office, but you WORK at the customer site.
The problem with this scenario is that there is NO CONTROL over
where the customer site will be ot how long you will be there.
You may have found a groovy pad two blocks from the DEC office,
but if you get a residency in Oshkosh, kiss your car goodbye. You
MAY luck out and get a residency CLOSER to where you live than where
the DEC office is, but its all luck and circumstance.
There are different job responsibilities for SWS folks in the field
- some involve residencies, some don't. Some involve a lot of
sporadic, unpredictable travel, some don't. But the biggest handicap
as far as travel goes, is that it is unpredictable. There is no
way a person can move their residence to keep up with changing
assignments. An additional kicker, is that depending on your
district's locale, it might even make sense to move if you change
UNITS since most have different geographical responsibilities.
Thats why SWS have cars and car plans. The business milage is part
of it, but the unpredictability is too. THere is no way to easily
move people back and forth from different plans, because that means
buying or disposing of expensive automobiles. Its easier to assume
a high risk of need and make the person eligible based on that.
Probably EVERYONE will have to travel at sometime or another, but
with SWS there is a much higher probability. (just for contrast,
a VERY high number of people in SWS DON'T HAVE DESKS! Why should
we, we are never around to use them, and they are a waste of expensive
office space. Given your choice, would you prefer a desk or a car?)
re: $30 per week
Some just called to my attention one of the clarifying questions
on the memo that wasn't fully explained in the text:
"The average personal miles per month in the Digital fleet is 849
miles. for the average employee this calculates to an annual Fringe
Benefit Value of $1,925. Divided by 52 weeks, this would equal an
average Personal Use Charge of **** $37 **** per week."
"We chose the approach of a small weekly increase and inclusion
of the balance in your W-2 form to minimize the out of pocket expense
to you."
As I understand this, you are paying $37 a week for personal use.
However, by having you not pay it out as cash, DEC is treating the
$7 as income (if you didn't pay it to DEC, then DEC must have paid
it to you) and is including it as taxable income in your W2. (tax
whizzes correct me if I'm wrong).
So, don't quote $30, its closer to $40!
Jim
|
| 565.48 | It's both. | BACKSD::MEIER | My Tool Is No Longer Flexible!! | Sat Jul 09 1988 11:26 | 21 |
| There should be no confusion over tool vs. benefit. There is
just a little sloppy language going on here.
An employee on Plan A is given a car to use both during the day
for business and at night and weekends for personal use.
Plainly, the car serves a dual purpose.
During the day, it is a tool used to perform the job of customer
service. This portion of the car's use can is not a benefit.
At all other times, the car is at the employee's disposal to use
as s/he sees fit. Historically, there has only been a nominal
charge for this use. CLEARLY, THIS PORTION OF THE CAR'S LIFE
CAN IN NO WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM BE CONSTRUED AS A TOOL. IT IS A
SIGNIFICANT BENEFIT THAT IS A PART OF THE EMPLOYEE'S TOTAL
COMPENSATION PACKAGE. AS SUCH, IT HAS BEEN USED AS BAIT TO
LURE PEOPLE TO JOBS AND TO JUSTIFY PAYING LESS SALARY THAN
COMPETITORS.
The capital letters are intentional. -- harrY
|
| 565.49 | Venting's okay, coming to a conclusion is needed. | SRFSUP::HOUCK | | Sat Jul 09 1988 20:27 | 44 |
| Now that I have lost a few points off of my vision reading the
previous 49 notes, I ought to add my personal feelings on this matter.
Prior to four months ago, I spent 9 (and change) years in direct
support of customers as a Software Services representative both
in the Sales Support and Delivery organizations. Before I go on
to cannonize myself, I should bring it back to relevence and say
that it was all covered by PLAN A cars. I have driven the wheels
off of five PLAN A cars and considered them to be both a valuable
tool and a significant benefit (and a somewhat unique experience driving
the same distance to the moon in DECWrecks).
It would seem that our choices are now clear. The determination
of the value of the car versus our value on the job market can easily
be computed. Management must have analyzed the results of this
move and, it seems to me, rationalized that they can hold down the
damage through the celebrated DEC Culture and we field folks own
unique ways of rationalizing these policy changes.
It is amazing to me that these changes have already been endured
in other Areas and their rationale seems to have been effective
at keeping them with the company. Maybe we
should poll those Areas which have already put their employees through
this and see what percentage chose to hang on.
I feel fortunate that the company invested the $$ in my career through
this particular tool and am discouraged to now see it fall by the
wayside. I intend to 'drive the wheels' off of my (recently ordered
but not delivered) new DECWreck for the 15 to 18 months remaining
in the life of PLAN A and am already sticking my head up to look
around for other more financially rewarding opportunities. I am
hopeful that the company can, in its re-evaluation of the usage
of tools in the field, come up with some other alternatives that
make life with DEC tolerable. For SWS the problem would be easy
to solve, fund an extra phone line, install a nice Software Engineering
Environment and let us work a portion of our days at home while
providing Sales with the responsibility and re-imbursement for getting
us to the Customer Site.
For residents, be sure from here on out to request a relocation
to a spot closer to your new workplaces (you may even try getting
your manager to move you there now).
Dreaming 'cause it's damn hot outside,
Andy
|
| 565.50 | Exploring *OTHER* CC purposes... | GUIDUK::BURKE | NEVER confuse Sales with Delivery! | Sun Jul 10 1988 03:41 | 35 |
| There is an underlying reason for plan A and plan B which has not
yet been broached (or did I miss it).
One big reason for the Milage/Age/etc. requirements (60,000 miles/or
3 years for plan A, and 4 years, 4 seats, good condition for plan
C) is that we field specialists *USE* these tools when we represent
our company.
When on site, the car is somewhat of a status symbol, which DEC
uses to show that it's people have good taste (with a Tempo though?).
Anyway, the car is supposed to be in good condition for those rare
times when we take the customer on business lunches, etc. Also,
there are sites I have worked at where the customer saw me drive
up every day. If I came in a clunker, it would most likely say
something about both DEC and I (sounds like a new musical, don't
it?). This applies to both plans of course.
Although I consider the company car (Plan A of course) to be a perk,
I must confess that it was one of the elements that I based my decision
to join this company on. It was not a deciding factor, but I know
of cases where it would have been. This benefit was really driven
home when I was on residence at one site where I spent over 3 hours
a day in the car (every day for months). It was nice when I moved
to a new residency and only had to spend 2 hours a day on the road.
Finally, I can't understand how someone can say that they are removing
an option (Plan A) and yet providing greater flexibility. It sounds
to me like "The lights were on, but nobody was home" when they came
up with that. If anything, my flexibility has been halved.
Such is the life of a field specialist...
Doug Burke
SWS Seattle
|
| 565.51 | First Max Headroom, Now the Car plan, what next? | INFACT::NORTHERN | Chin deep in meadow muffins | Sun Jul 10 1988 21:25 | 14 |
| RE .50,
I'll second that.
I have always viewed the car as part of my compensation, and
look on the whole thing as a new and flexible technique for a salary
cut.
Don't know if I will start looking outside of DEC, but it does
give one to pause...
I mean, what next?
Lou "Who is not real amused right now" Northern
|
| 565.52 | Is there something we can *DO* about this? | NWD002::BURKEDO | Welcome to Tune Town! | Mon Jul 11 1988 03:57 | 51 |
| For those of you in the Western Area, you may have noted that we
received Interact 88 within a day or two of our car plan letter.
I wonder if this "just happened", or if it was planned...we may
never know...
There is a comments section at the end of the form, and I believe
that if enough of us fill this in with our feelings on the change
in plans, perhaps there is some chance that it may change back (why
do I hear some senior management people responding to that with
a "like h*ll").
The more I think about the way all this happened, the more I start
to wonder things like:
o Why was there no forewarning about this?
o Why are those people who lose plan A cars at the end of this year,
not as privileged as those who managed to get their new car orders
in prior to 15 Aug, and will be able to remain on plan A for three
more years? Somehow that does not seem very fair to me.
o Why was the possibility of this not discussed with the field
(or was it, and there were a few of us that simply never got the
word)?
o Do the people who made the decisions have company cars? If so,
will they keep them?
o Why are there no exceptions to the Plan A described in the letter?
There are people out there who will suffer financial difficulties
because of this new policy.
o As Lou suggests in .51, is this a lead-in to further reductions?
Next I see our 401k going away, along with the stock plan, and
who knows what else.
o Is there anyone we can write to to complain about this turn of
events. As with everything else in America, perhaps there is
something substantial we can do to change the policy back?
I went car shopping today to get an idea of what I will be up against
for the plan B car I'll have to buy. After looking at a few window
stickers, I have concluded that it doesn't look good for the home
team. Perhaps I will have to go the junker route...there are some
people in some of the other major companies around here who would love
to see that.
Just pondering out loud on the situation,
Doug
|
| 565.53 | Y a car? | BOSTON::SOHN | Rage in Eden | Mon Jul 11 1988 11:06 | 26 |
| re: < Note 565.50 by GUIDUK::BURKE "NEVER confuse Sales with Delivery!" >
> One big reason for the Milage/Age/etc. requirements (60,000 miles/or
> 3 years for plan A, and 4 years, 4 seats, good condition for plan
> C) is that we field specialists *USE* these tools when we represent
> our company.
See? That's the problem! We *have* to have a car that meets Plan B!
Personally, I work in Boston SWS, and my clients are walking distance
from the office. Most of the other potential clients are on the T.
I rarely use the car for business purposes, and I even live on the
Green Line. But the company says I must have a car.
If I were allowed to, I'd get rid of my car altogether and rent if I
needed something. My savings:
$60/mo insurance
$60/mo parking in Brookline - $30 T pass
$210/mo car payment - $200/mo reimbursement
$10/mo gas
----------
$110/mo (without thinking)
There's got to be a better way.
--eric--
|
| 565.54 | you don't PAY for "BENEFITS"! | WAV12::HICKS | Tim Hicks @BXO | Mon Jul 11 1988 11:13 | 11 |
| This business of seeing a company car as a "benefit" is silly.
When I first joined DEC I was told "salary and a car." But paying
$24 (or $30) per week isn't what I call a benefit. If it were
a benefit, the personal use of the car would be paid for by the
company. If _that's_ the reason you're sore, you're a victim of
you're own fuzzy thinking.
The REAL problem here isn't the loss of plan A, but the really poor
reimbursement rate of plan B (as many have pointed out).
Tim Hicks
|
| 565.55 | A nice enticement at the time | TIXEL::ARNOLD | Ever trtied to fly into KNOXVILLE?? | Mon Jul 11 1988 11:45 | 7 |
| I remember when I joined Digital in SWS (81). The hiring manager
and I were haggling the salary. One point that he kept coming back
to was the "...and don't forget about the CAR for only $18/week".
I wonder how many people were enticed by this tool...or is it a
benefit...or...
Jon
|
| 565.56 | If you don't pay much, it's a benefit | SRFSUP::MCCARTHY | Well, it ain't shinola. | Mon Jul 11 1988 11:45 | 18 |
| re: Note 565.54
> When I first joined DEC I was told "salary and a car." But paying
> $24 (or $30) per week isn't what I call a benefit.
So, you're saying that getting a late model car with A/C and an AM/FM
cassette deck, full of gas (full-service island, if you prefer),
insured, maintained, professionally washed, etc., to drive any and
everywhere you please during your non-working hours and days for $30.00
/ week is *NOT* a benefit ?
Do you think it would cost you less than that?
I'm on plan "B" now (delivery dorks like me haven't had a choice
in S.W. Area for years). Trust me, it costs more than $30.00/week.
It also costs more than $200.00 / month for the business portion.
- Larry.
|
| 565.57 | I am confused ! | GLDOA::SRINIVASAN | Jay Vasan | Mon Jul 11 1988 11:58 | 9 |
| The memo says that average personal miles per month in the digital
fleet is 849 miles. (or 10188 miles per annum). For an average employee
this calculates to an annual fringe benefit value of $1925.Divided
by 52 weeks , this would equal an average personal charge of $37
per week.
" this works to be a benifit of 18.9 cents a mile."
( $1925.00 / 10188 ). should we pay 18.9 cents a mile under the
new scheme ?? I am confused !!
|
| 565.58 | Rough estimate of increased insurance | CSOA1::ROTH | Hey Moe... what's a VAX? | Mon Jul 11 1988 12:30 | 4 |
| I called my insurance agent and he said to figure between $350 and $410
additional per year if the auto is used for business instead of personal use.
Lee
|
| 565.59 | Can move from plan A to B ! | GLDOA::SRINIVASAN | Jay Vasan | Mon Jul 11 1988 12:38 | 11 |
|
The memo says that" the fleet vehicle currently assigned to you may
be purchased anytime prior to reaching the normal replacement criteria
and you can enroll in plan B".
I called "GELCO" for buying my vehicle and they quoted a price of
$ 8100 ( My car -FORD TAURUS is one year old and it has 21100 miles on
it). Since this will be my first car buy through GELCO, I am not
sure whether this quote is negotiable?? I would appreciate any suggestions
/ advise.
|
| 565.60 | You're out $6,000 a year! | BACKSD::MEIER | My Tool Is No Longer Flexible!! | Mon Jul 11 1988 12:46 | 39 |
| It's really clever the way some people have been convinced that
the A-Plan car is only a tool and not even in part a benefit.
But when you examine it carefully, it is no longer "silly".
Right away, you realize that just because you contribute $24 a
week, that does not mean it isn't a benefit. For example, you
probably pay a dollar or two a week if you have an HMO benefit,
but that does not mean it isn't a benefit and a significant one
at that. All it means is that maybe we should be a little more
careful in our wording; we should say "Digital's contribution
toward the cost of the car is in part a benefit ..." But that's
a mouthful, so we usually just say "the car is a benefit" if we
are trying to finish our conversation the same day we start it.
When I really noticed the value of the car benefit was when I
received a job offer from a competitor without a car plan.
Sure, I pay $24 a week, but I spend almost that much a week in
gas! So basically the deal is I buy the gas, and Digital buys
the car and the insurance and the tags and the maintenance and
the repairs.... What would I have spent if I was paying for
everything? Well, for the last car I had:
$12000 Price new
-4000 Price quoted me after 3 yrs.
------
8000 Cost for 3 yrs.
+3000 Business-Use Insurance for 3 yrs. (young,single,male)
+1000 Maintenance and repairs purchased during the 3 yrs.
______
$12000 Total Cost for 3 yrs.
That's $4000 a year of take-home pay that I would have had to
spend the last 3 years if I worked somewhere else. That's at
least $6000 a year of gross pay that the competitor would have
had to offer just to neutralize the benefit of the car. All this
is before you put a price tag on the value of not having to worry
about insurance premiums, repair costs, etc. But for now, I'll
just leave it at $6000, and humbly suggest that $6000 a year is
neither "silly" nor "fuzzy". -- harrY
|
| 565.61 | You MUST buy a car??? | BACKSD::MEIER | My Tool Is No Longer Flexible!! | Mon Jul 11 1988 13:01 | 10 |
|
.53:
>>> But the company says I must have a car.
I don't understand this. What do you mean you "must" have a car?
I don't think such a requirement is legal. Were you threatened?
I've been told never to buy a car; it's the worst investment you
could make. -- harrY
|
| 565.62 | Perks are taxable | NWD002::BURKEDO | Welcome to Tune Town! | Mon Jul 11 1988 13:01 | 27 |
| Re: .54
Actually Tim, the Plan A car *IS* a benefit, which we were paying
a flat rate for, because of tax requirements.
If the Plan A car were all payed for by the company, then it would
be considered a taxable perk, in which case we would each individually
see extra taxes levied against us in our W-2.
The flat rate is great because it solves several problems. First,
and foremost, we don't have to worry about paying the company back
X cents for every personal mile we use with the car. Second, it
eliminates a paperwork nightmare for the beancounters who would
otherwise have to account for every personal mile for every Plan
A user.
I really don't mind seeing the weekly rate going up, however, I
think from $24 to $30 is a little extreme. Even the post office
does not raise their rates in such broad increments. But to then
include the "excess" miles in our W-2's, is well out of the scope
of the original intent of Plan A.
It seems quite obvious to me that someone wants us all out of Plan
A as soon as feasibly possible, and they will do whatever they
can to "motivate" us in such direction.
Doug
|
| 565.63 | How's this for a career limiting note? | SRFSUP::GOETZE | Picture this: an artist working for a computer company | Mon Jul 11 1988 14:15 | 33 |
| It's interesting to hear that in some areas (like Boston) public
transportation reduces the need for a car to almost nil. On the
other hand, here in Los Angeles, we take our cars very seriously.
Some people don't seem to mind driving 100+ miles to work, but even
a measley 30 mile drive can take 90-120 minutes. Image is not something
to sneeze at when you are selling to Hollywood entertainment companies.
Has anyone mentioned the 5 or 6 insurance reform propositions on
the ballot in California? The reason is that to live in the city
here costs between $1500 to $3000 year for car insurance (not including
special business insurance), and some of us have multiple cars (I'm
single and have three, and that's not too unusual - unfortunately
none of my private cars meet Plan B specs, and I would hate to have
to get rid of them just to have a "business" car). Because LA is
a crazy town and full of nuts, no one seems to care that we're
subsidizing Digital to penetrate the commercial marketplace here.
In some respects it seems that Digital has learned how to do
business in cities that are more expensive (see the table of
acceptable meal costs based on city), so why can't this be extended
to cars? Surely this is one of the most highly variable expenses that
employees have to face.
Recently we have seen SW specialists leave to places like SUN because
they offer a car plan at $450/month...and thats a fact that's hard
to erase.
Regarding HAVING to be on car plan B, I'm sure I'm not the only
one who would find this difficult to impossible right now...having
just purchased a MAC II so as to be able to produce professional
looking proposals and such... Yeah I'd say I had lots of flexibility
to choose my tools, because I was footing the bill. I guess I'm
just not rich enough to work for a company like Digital.
erik
|
| 565.64 | It Stinks | HILLST::GUEST | Another Eye Crossing Question! | Mon Jul 11 1988 14:42 | 35 |
| re 52:
> If the Plan A car were all payed for by the company, then it would
> be considered a taxable perk, in which case we would each individually
> see extra taxes levied against us in our W-2.
>
> The flat rate is great because it solves several problems. First,
> and foremost, we don't have to worry about paying the company back
> X cents for every personal mile we use with the car. Second, it
> eliminates a paperwork nightmare for the beancounters who would
> otherwise have to account for every personal mile for every Plan
> A user.
I have had a plan A car for most of the 11 and a half years I have
been with the company. I remember paying 9 cents a mile for personnal
use and then 9 dollars a week flat. I myself would rather see some
bean counters somewhere count the personnal miles and add the value
to my W2. As it is now, it costs me $1248.00 per year, with the
new plan, $1560.00 per year. If this was added to my W-2, my tax
liability would be (35% for Federal Max, 15% for the State) half
of that and I would be ahead $624.00 or more.
Re: .52 (I think) Commuting Around Boston
When I was working in San Francisco, for two years (the only two
I wasn't on Plan A) I put my wife's car on Plan B and rode BART
to work and used Public Transit and Taxis to get to customer sites.
Except for this time, Plan A was the only way to go. Now San
Francisco, Chicago Loop and Metro New York Field Service people
are getting about $400 a month for not having to have a car. And
they only want to give me $200 a month and force me to get a car.
Larry TELGAR::Wakeman(la) in the Marlboro Benchmark Center this
week
|
| 565.65 | "No plan" seems not to be an option | CSOA1::ROTH | Hey Moe... what's a VAX? | Mon Jul 11 1988 15:26 | 27 |
| I found the manual entitled "U.S. Fleet Manual" on a f/s secretary's
bookshelf. It doesn't contain the most recent (July 1, 1988) changes, but is
dated 02/23/88.
Here is the section that (probably) applies to using "No Plan"; i.e. the
employee elects to operate a personal auto and receive (currently) $.225
per business mile:
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Section 20.00, "Casual Use Reimbursement"
I. GENERAL
A. The occasional use of a personal car for company business is
reimbursed via an Employee Expense Voucher, at the rate published in
section 5.11 of the Personnel Policies and Proceedure Manual.
B. Casual use reimbursement does not apply to U.S. Field emloyees who are
qualified to participate in the U.S. Fleet Plan except:
o In temporary circumstances where authorized car rental
expenditures would exceed reimbursment under this plan, or
o when a new vehicle has been ordered and the employee is awaiting
delivery.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
|
| 565.66 | W-2 adder | RIPPLE::KOTTERRI | Rich (Welcome Back) Kotter | Mon Jul 11 1988 15:31 | 16 |
| Re: Note 565.64 HILLST::GUEST
> As it is now, it costs me $1248.00 per year, with the new plan,
> $1560.00 per year. If this was added to my W-2, my tax liability would
> be (35% for Federal Max, 15% for the State) half of that and I would be
> ahead $624.00 or more.
The amount that will be added to your W-2 will not be $1560, but rather
the amount determined by the following formula. The IRS says the Fringe
Benefit value of the car is:
$3100 + ($.055 * personal miles) - $1560 = Amount added to W2
Regards,
Rich
|
| 565.67 | Overwhelmed with the possibilities... | NEWVAX::PAVLICEK | Zot, the Ethical Hacker | Mon Jul 11 1988 16:27 | 12 |
| re: .65
If this is correct, then it appears that either we go Plan B or
"no plan" with *NO* reembursement whatsoever (oh boy, what
flexibility!).
I would love to hear any clarification regarding the statements
that one *has* to have a Plan B car. Is this a corporate edict?
A local edit? Or an edict from a manager who may not understand
the *real* rules?
-- Russ Pavlicek
|
| 565.68 | | BIGTEX::RESENDEP | following the yellow brick road... | Mon Jul 11 1988 16:28 | 22 |
| RE: .65
> B. Casual use reimbursement does not apply to U.S. Field emloyees who are
> qualified to participate in the U.S. Fleet Plan except:
>
> o In temporary circumstances where authorized car rental
> expenditures would exceed reimbursment under this plan, or
>
> o when a new vehicle has been ordered and the employee is awaiting
> delivery.
That has always been interpreted by MY management and myself to mean
you can't have a Plan A car sitting at home in the driveway while you
drive your own personal car on business and collect 22.5 cents a mile.
But, reading it now, I can see how it could be interpreted differently.
Which leads to an interesting question. What happens if a valuable
employee simply refuses to buy a new car when his Plan B car reaches 4
years old? Or refuses to buy a car that meets the 4-seat, etc.
requirements? Does Digital have any LEGAL recourse in a case like
that? Could someone be fired for refusing to buy a new car? Sounds
to me like the kind of stuff ACLU lawyers dream about!
|
| 565.69 | What's the letter of the law? | NEWVAX::PAVLICEK | Zot, the Ethical Hacker | Mon Jul 11 1988 16:40 | 12 |
| re: .65, .68
> B. Casual use reimbursement does not apply to U.S. Field emloyees who are
> qualified to participate in the U.S. Fleet Plan except:
Am I "qualified to participate" if I don't have a car that meets
Plan B specs? Am I forced to participate if I *do* have a car that
meets Plan B specs?
Anyone have access to a more "legal" interpretation of the verbage?
-- Russ
|
| 565.70 | More info | CSOA1::ROTH | Hey Moe... what's a VAX? | Mon Jul 11 1988 17:04 | 32 |
| .67> I would love to hear any clarification regarding the statements
.67> that one *has* to have a Plan B car. Is this a corporate edict?
.67> A local edit? Or an edict from a manager who may not understand
.67> the *real* rules?
I just called the fleet number on the memo and the person on the other end
said that
1) The policy (that I entered in .65) is to be interpreted as "If you are
eligible for a fleet car then you are not eligible for the $.225/mi
reimbursement."
2) The 'greater flexibility' mentioned in the opening paragraph is the fact
that "You can now purchase the type of car that you had been wanting to
buy."
This person was taking comments for forwarding to the 'team' (looks like many
comments are being received). I registered my displeasure with the small
amount that was being offered for Plan B and indicated that $200 was really
quite less than $200 considering that tax must be paid on it. I told them that
it was not possible for me to purchase an auto and insure it for $200 an
month.
-=[ ]=-
Here is another aspect to consider:
If you are forced to go the 'B' plan route and finance a car then your loan
(assuming you aren't rich enough to pay cash) will go against your personal
credit... then when you need to get that home repair loan or loan for your
son's college tuition you may hear "I'm sorry Mr. Roth, but we are unable to
extend you any credit based on your current borrowing status."
|
| 565.71 | Fleet manual says who is eligible | CSOA1::ROTH | Hey Moe... what's a VAX? | Mon Jul 11 1988 17:14 | 30 |
| Re:< Note 565.69 by NEWVAX::PAVLICEK "Zot, the Ethical Hacker" >
-< What's the letter of the law? >-
From the "U.S. Fleet Manual", section 2.00:
....
B. An employee is eligible to participate if he/she meets the following
criteria:
a) A permanent, full-time employee, assigned to a position in the U.S.
Sales, Field Service or Software Services organizations and
b) The job code appears on the eligibility list approved by the
respective function, and
c) Possessed and maintains a valid drivers license issued from the
state in which the vehicle will be operated, and
d) Not a member of the U.S. Headquarters staff, and
e) Not a Field Service Terminals Engineer
....
(a list of eligible job codes follows)
|
| 565.72 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon Jul 11 1988 17:26 | 28 |
| >Could someone be fired for refusing to buy a new car? Sounds
>to me like the kind of stuff ACLU lawyers dream about!
If your job involves customer contact, a car meeting company standards is
just as valid a part of the measurement of your performance as whether you
wear a clean suit and shine your shoes.
Image is important in the customer contact business. In my first job, as
a resident at Allied Chemical, the people I was working with suggested I
wear short sleeve shirts and no tie, as they did. I did so, until the
second resident arrived and asked our district manager (David Creed) about
it. David decreed that we must show the desired DEC image to Allied
management and other visitors, even if this meant the inconvenience of
taking off our suit jackets, rolling up our sleeves, and tucking our ties
inside our shirts to meet the plant's safety requirements. I was not
reimbursed for the four suits ruined during my nine months in the filthy
environment of the fibers plant.
A car also says something about the company image. Right or wrong, people
form impressions, sometimes unconsciously, about the company based on the
habits of individuals.
But precisely because of the above, DEC should be sure that its employees
are properly compensated to allow purchase of satisfactory cars while still
valuing the differences in employees personal goals about what to spend their
own money on.
/john
|
| 565.73 | Responding Rationally | BACKSD::MEIER | My Tool Is No Longer Flexible!! | Mon Jul 11 1988 18:34 | 14 |
| In order to respond intelligently to what has happened, it is
wise to proceed painstakingly through a series of steps. The
first such step is to formulate a list of postulates that express
our understanding of what has happened. Then one can draw
conclusions, brainstorm solutions, evaluate solutions, choose the
best solution, and implement the best solution.
I have made a pass at the first step. I have attached in the
next reply a draft set of postulates that enumerate fifteen
points of Digital's action. I ask those of you reading who are
on Plan A and who received the termination notice to add any
insights you have on these fifteen points, or add any points I
may have missed. Then the list can be redrafted, then we can
proceed to the next phase. -- harrY
|
| 565.74 | Step 1: Postulates DRAFT | BACKSD::MEIER | My Tool Is No Longer Flexible!! | Mon Jul 11 1988 18:35 | 69 |
|
1. The IRS has modified tax laws that affect the Digital Company
Car Plan A.
2. Digital must conform to the new tax laws affecting Plan A.
3. The IRS has NOT disallowed Plan A. Plan A can continue if
Digital so chooses.
4. A Plan A car serves a dual role: it need be used by the
employee during work hours as a tool to perform customer service
travel; it is at the disposal of the employee at all other hours
for personal use.
5. The employee contributes an amount each week toward the personal
use of the car (recently $24 per week). This represents only a
fraction of what it would cost the employee to obtain the car,
insurance, and other services at retail. The rest of the cost is
now paid by Digital. This money spent by Digital is effectively
a benefit to the employee.
6. The dollar value of this benefit varies from employee to
employee, and depends on factors such as driving habits, distance
to work, percent personal miles, marginal tax bracket, etc.
A rough approximation at a conservative average would be that a
Plan A car is equivalent to $5,000 a year in taxable salary.
7. Whatever the dollar value of the benefit portion of Plan A,
employees on Plan A consider this benefit a significant part
of their total compensation package from Digital.
8. To continue Plan A will cost more in 1988 and beyond than it
did prior to 1988. This cost would have to be borne by Digital
and / or the employee.
9. Digital has decided it is not willing to pay the additional
cost of continuing Plan A.
10. Digital has further decided it is not even willing to allow the
employee to pay the additional cost of continuing Plan A if s/he
so chooses. Digital has canceled the Plan altogether.
11. Employees who lose their Plan A cars are being offered nothing
new to compensate for this loss.
12. There is and always has been a Plan B. However, this Plan is
more of a burden than a benefit in most cases. The after-tax
stipend received by the employee does not nearly cover the cost
of buying a new car and paying for insurance, maintenance,
repairs, etc.
13. The monthly stipend in Plan B is to be raised by $20 (less than
$5 a week) before taxes, but this amount is below the noise
level. Basically, Plan B is unchanged.
14. Paragraph 45, the final paragraph of the Changes in Fleet Plans
memo sent to each employee at home July 1, 1988 is dishonest.
This paragraph says, in part, "the primary motivation of this
direction is to provide our employees and Digital with greater
flexibility in the the selection and management of tools."
This can not logically be an honest statement because the current
flexibility to choose Plan A or Plan B is being eliminated, and
no new flexibility is being offered in its place.
15. The dishonesty in Paragraph 45 is repugnant to the employees who
are being asked to believe it. It is an insult to our
intelligence. It is a violation of Digital's corporate honesty
policy.
|
| 565.75 | Flexible Benefit or Hidden Cost? | USHS08::LUNSFORD | Frosty Doughnut Look | Mon Jul 11 1988 18:59 | 26 |
| Having developed eye strain after reading this far, I pose a
question which will soon effect me. Currently I am th e high volume
F.S. tech which means I drive a van that costs me nothing. Of course
I can't drive it after work or on weekends...no big deal, I have
my own mode of personal transportation. However, my manager and
I have been discussing changes to "better serve the needs of our
customers while making better use of our resource's" which means
in this case getting rid of the terminals van and me getting a car
on plan A "this was before the memo" and I become a Micro systems
engineer. This was going to cost me a little more than $75 a
month. Now it seems that those plans are going down the drain
as there will be no way to order a new car on plan A. There is no
way I can use my personal vehicle as it is old enough to called
a classic and about one year short of being antique. So, they only
choice I seem to have is to buy a new car that meets Digital specs,
which I CANNOT currently afford, or pass the promotional chance
and waste my Micro system skills that I haved worked hard to develope
so I can keep the terminals van. Is this fair? Digital would have
to give me a raise beyond the $200 a month given for plan B for
my to be able to afford this "tool" I would need to buy to do the
job. Anybody care to comment on the chances of this?
The way things sit right now this "advancement in my career" is
going to cost me more then any "benefit" I'm going to receive.
P.S. getting rid of my own personal vehicle will not change the
formula much...It costs me less to maintain per year then what
ONE month of plan B is going to cost me.
|
| 565.77 | FSEs are IN not OUT | NCVAX1::BLACK | just hanging around ... again | Mon Jul 11 1988 19:07 | 7 |
|
re -1
Get a copy of the letter. I interpret the letter to mean that FSEs
will be the ONLY ONEs who GET a car - possibly a DECWagon w/o logos.
|
| 565.78 | Sounds like a handy list to have ... | AUSTIN::UNLAND | Sic Biscuitus Disintegratum | Mon Jul 11 1988 19:51 | 9 |
| re .74
We might ask Fleet or whomever about that list of competitors they
polled who had lower car allowances than Digital. It would give
us an elimination list to start with when we're interviewing for
other jobs after your DEC car expenses start eating into your
take-home pay ...
Geoff
|
| 565.79 | | BOSTON::SOHN | Rage in Eden | Mon Jul 11 1988 19:57 | 19 |
| re: < Note 565.77 by NCVAX1::BLACK "just hanging around ... again" >
> Get a copy of the letter. I interpret the letter to mean that FSEs
> will be the ONLY ONEs who GET a car - possibly a DECWagon w/o logos.
Correct.
Also, how about having a pseudo-plan A? What that means is that certain sites
have company cars, which stay garaged on site until needed. All the miles are
business miles.
I'd be willing to do that.
--eric--
p.s. overheard: HP locally (Boston) pays $635/mo for its Plan B - that will
get you damn near anything you want - even after 33% taxes!
|
| 565.80 | better plans around | GRANMA::GHALSTEAD | | Mon Jul 11 1988 20:23 | 22 |
| re. 78
HP furnishes a new fully loaded Ford Taurus each year. Thats right,
a new car each year and you do not have to pay for options. You
get a gas credit card furnished by HP to bill all your gas on.
HP charges $50 per month for personal use, they then advance each
employee $50 special compensation.
It seems their management is more creative than ours. They negotiated
a deal with Ford. HP buys thousnds of cars from Ford each year at
great price. They take the depreciation for one year. At the end
of the year Ford buys all the cars back and sells them as executive
models. HP use to have our old plan A but changed to this plan because
it cost them and their employees less.
The other car plan I am familiar with is with Mitsubishi. They get
$400 per month allowance plus all gas expences.
I would be interested in other companies plans that anyone knows
about.
|
| 565.81 | fitting round pegs into square holes... | NWD002::BURKEDO | Welcome to Tune Town! | Mon Jul 11 1988 20:25 | 13 |
| Re: .79 by BOSTON::SOHN
The psuedo plan sounds interesting, but I see a few problems with
it. For instance, if there are 20 specialists who need the cars
and only 10 cars, how do you decided who gets what? Then there
is the little matter of who keeps the keys to all those cars, and
issuing them. (Sounds a little like when we were issued basketballs
in high school.)
Filling out the weekly expense voucher could get to be a real trip
if more than one person used the same car during the same week.
Doug
|
| 565.82 | Let's get moving on this... | ARGUS::CALANDRA | Mike, IND1-3/D9 DTN-262-8269 | Mon Jul 11 1988 23:32 | 45 |
|
I'd like to get the ball rolling on something constructive so here's
a few minor changes/additions to .74 draft.
> 5. The employee contributes an amount each week toward the personal
> use of the car (recently $24 per week). This represents only a
> fraction of what it would cost the employee to obtain the car,
> insurance, and other services at retail. The rest of the cost is
> now paid by Digital. This money spent by Digital is effectively
> a benefit to the employee.
...digital now proposes raising this weekly personal use charge
25% while raising the amount of weekly compensation for plan B less
than half of that, 11%.
> 6.
>...
>A rough approximation at a conservative average would be that a
> Plan A car is equivalent to $5,000 a year in taxable salary.
...Which Digital gives us slightly better than a month to react
to. We find that short notice of "the letter" from the USFMT very
nonprofessional in this regard.
> 7. Whatever the dollar value of the benefit portion of Plan A,
> employees on Plan A consider this benefit a significant part
> of their total compensation package from Digital.
...It is this compensation that management has used again and
again to attract people to various jobs. {need some wording help
here, you get my point?}...
> 10. Digital has further decided it is not even willing to allow the
> employee to pay the additional cost of continuing Plan A if s/he
> so chooses. Digital has canceled the Plan altogether.
...except for TxF job codes. This may have the effect of
grounding the field.
> 15. The dishonesty in Paragraph 45 is repugnant to the employees who
< are being asked to believe it. It is an insult to our
< intelligence. It is a violation of Digital's corporate honesty
> policy.
I couldn't agree more...
|
| 565.83 | My next job will be close to home | SRFSUP::LONGO | Ouch! Get that tool outta there! | Tue Jul 12 1988 03:46 | 18 |
| In the seven years I have worked for Digital, I have racked up an
average of 35,000 per year on my four company cars. Luckily, I
just recently took delivery of my 88 Taurus so I have about 18 months
to "plan".
Like others who have written here, my original verbal offer included
salary + car. I realize now that that probably wasn't leagal (for
tax reasons), but it was done and certainly was true - the car IS
a benefit!
In 1984 I calculated the dollar value to me of a DECmobile. Taking
into account the fact that I would have to buy a new car every two
years (35,000 per year), average repairs and maintance, insurance
in L.A., and gas, the figure I came up with was over $7,000 per
year. Do you think I'm gonna get a salary adjustment?
Bitter? You bet!
-Bob
|
| 565.84 | another 'part of the package' | NYEM1::MILBERG | Barry Milberg | Tue Jul 12 1988 09:43 | 8 |
| In 1976 when I transferred to SWS in the Field (Atlanta) from a
Product Line organization in Maynard - the justification for a pay
CUT (yes, a CUT in pay) was that I would get a company car. At
that time we paid for perrsonal mileage and commuting was considered
business mileage.
-Barry-
|
| 565.85 | And LEX Electronics pays $300.00 a month for Plan B | HILLST::GUEST | Another Eye Crossing Question! | Tue Jul 12 1988 10:07 | 33 |
| > < Note 565.66 by RIPPLE::KOTTERRI "Rich (Welcome Back) Kotter" >
> -< W-2 adder >-
>
> Re: Note 565.64 HILLST::GUEST
>
>> As it is now, it costs me $1248.00 per year, with the new plan,
>> $1560.00 per year. If this was added to my W-2, my tax liability would
>> be (35% for Federal Max, 15% for the State) half of that and I would be
>> ahead $624.00 or more.
>
> The amount that will be added to your W-2 will not be $1560, but rather
> the amount determined by the following formula. The IRS says the Fringe
> Benefit value of the car is:
>
> $3100 + ($.055 * personal miles) - $1560 = Amount added to W2
>
> Regards,
> Rich
>
$3100 + ($.055 * personal miles) - $1560 = Amount added to W2 or
$3100 + ($.055 * personal miles) = Amount added to W2
The first would be (Figures are approximate) for out of pocket expenses
are $2330 for the current manner of figuring or $1550 if Digital
adds the Fringe Benefit Value to my W-2. I would rather not pay
$xx a week and just get hit at the end of the year for the taxes
(or adjust my witholding)
This really is Larry TELGAR::WAKEMAN(LA)
|
| 565.86 | Managers not supposed to promote auto as benefit | CSOA1::ROTH | Hey Moe... what's a VAX? | Tue Jul 12 1988 10:31 | 11 |
| Dunno how long this verbage has been in the "U.S. Fleet Manual" but if it's
been in there a while managers have been ignoring it...
Section 1.00
....
IV. Under no circumstances may participation in a company car plan be used
as an inducement to employment nor as a part of any employee's
compensation package.
....
|
| 565.87 | Plan A with no personal miles better than Plan B | CSOA1::ROTH | Hey Moe... what's a VAX? | Tue Jul 12 1988 10:35 | 6 |
| I'd be happy if they would institute a 'Plan A' style system but I have to
leave the car at the office and drive my own car to/from home. I realize that
this wouldn't help the situation of a SWS resident, but it should do for people
that are regularly in the office.
Lee
|
| 565.88 | commute may not be personal mileage | CHGV04::KAPLOW | sixteen bit paleontologist | Tue Jul 12 1988 12:37 | 16 |
| If your employeer does not allow you to leave your company car at
the office, and you must use it to go to and from work, then the
IRS does not consider those miles to be personal. A while back, we
were told by Digitla that at our site, cars were not to be left at
the office overnight on a regular basis, unless you were out of
town or something like that. Our new office seems to be an
official car burglary ring target, so that probably applies here
too.
I may be moving to a job where I accumulate considerable business
mileage. There is NO WAY that I would consider such a job under
plan B. The only reason I've been on plan B this long is that I
didn't have much business or personal mileage. Now that that may
change, I'm stuck between 2 bad choices, in a job that ends this
week.
|
| 565.89 | What's a poor SWS to do? | KYOA::NEUMAN | Paul - DTN 335-6811 | Tue Jul 12 1988 15:03 | 48 |
| Now that the initial shock has worn off I'd like to add my
thoughts on this subject.
I'm relatively lucky since my car is < 6 months old. At
least I have a while before the impact of this decision
really hits home. I feel badly for those who are near the
time/mileage limit.
I drive a considerable number of business miles and one of
the reasons that I took my position was because of the car.
The personal use deal is real nice but the fact is that I
couldn't have afforded to take the job knowing that I'd use
up my car every three years or so.
What was also great about Plan A was that you just didn't have
to worry all that much about repairs, insurance, etc. I was
involved in an accident soon after getting the car. It sustained
a lot of damage, had to be towed, and was out of commision
for more than two months. When I reported the accident to GELCO
they had a rental car in my driveway within a couple of hours.
I was impressed. I didn't have any worries or costs concerning
alternate transportation, etc.
I really don't mind so much the increase in weekly payment,
taxes, etc. You can't fight taxes and I'm perfectly
willing to pay a fair rate for my personal use of the car.
And I guess Plan B wouldn't be bad IF there was a decent
reimbursement so we don't wind up paying out of our
pockets for a "tool" required by our employer.
But there is just no way that Plan B comes even close to
compensating me for the cost of buying a new car,
beating it to death, and then having to buy another new "tool".
Leasing may be a bit better but I'll still lose what with the
cost of insurance in New Jersey and the maintenance.
I guess it comes down to:
HOW MANY OF US WILL BE ABLE TO AFFORD TO KEEP OUR JOBS?
I sure hope the situation improves before I have to give up
my car. And I'm going to be real careful that
nobody hits and totals the thing before its time.
<:^(((>
- Paul
|
| 565.90 | Moved by moderator | DR::BLINN | Spam, spam, spam... | Tue Jul 12 1988 15:05 | 37 |
| ================================================================================
Note xxx.0 Blowing off some steam. No replies
KIM::ARICK 32 lines 12-JUL-1988 11:43
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
After working for DEC now for nearly 3 years now, I figure it is
time to blow off some steam. I basically think most people (myself
included) are apathetic to the changes that DEC has instituted in
the last couple years. New people come to work and hear about the
"DEC culture" and wonder what it is or was. Current employees are
just in "culture shock" and not to mention probably "future shock".
WHAT IS DIGITAL DOING!
All I ever hear or read is Customer Satisifaction, well what about
EMPLOYEE satisifaction! First they tell us that DEC salary
compensation is comparable to other companies in the industries.
Who are these other companies? WANG and HP who where laying off
while DEC was hiring, a company that was called Burroughs, who?
Did the people who came from IBM to DEC take pay cuts? Lets face
it how many companies have millions in reserve and do little with
it except collect interest!
I understand that change is never an easy thing to take, but being
patted on the back for a job well done while your pocket is being
picked is not something I like at all. If DEC management would
think for once, they would see that Plan B would be excepted a little
better if it was instituted on a regional bases instead of a national
one. Car cost, gas prices, insurance premiums, maintenance and
driving conditions are not the same throughout the U.S. Also a more
realistic reimbursement rate other than $200.00 would help.
Let's face it change is a part of life, but let's at least make
it an equitable change and not something that will take us a while
before we can sit down again!
/Scott
|
| 565.91 | my proposed alternate | NEWVAX::FILER | | Tue Jul 12 1988 16:04 | 31 |
|
I think most of the readers/noters in this file who have anything
do with "decmobiles" have a problem with the new policies. Basically
plan B is not adequate to cover the costs and those costs vary in different
parts of the U.S. (about $800 for the uplift in insurance here near D.C.).
It seems that both DEC and the IRS want to insure that we pay for the
"benefit" of having a company car. With this thought in mind I would like to
propose a new car plan.
My idea for a new car plan:
For those employees who would have qualified for plan "A" or "B" DEC
will keep a fleet of appropriate vehicles in DECs parking lot for use traveling
on company business. Employees needing to travel to customers sites or other
ligament use will provide there own transportation to the DEC facility and
pick up a company car. Since all mileage on these vehicles are "company miles"
DEC will cover all costs for gas, oil, repairs, maintenance,and insurance.
Of course there are some draw backs to this plan. It would take longer
to get to customers sites since we would all have to drive to the office to
get a company car before we left to the site in the morning and we would have
to drive back the the office at night. If called out after hours we would
again have to drive to the office before going to site and/or returning home.
DEC would have to build MUCH larger parking lots to house all the decmobiles
which used to be housed by the employees. DEC would have to provide security
for these decmobiles and perform maintenance on DECs time not the employees.
But all use of the cars except possibly a lunch stop would be company miles
so DEC and the IRS should like this plan. The employees would not have to
find a way to operate a car that meets DEC specs. for what they might get under
plan B so they shouldn't be to upset either.
Well what do you think? Would this be a viable alternate?
|
| 565.92 | Are you doing anything about it? | CVG::THOMPSON | Accept no substitutes | Tue Jul 12 1988 16:55 | 15 |
| Question:
What are people doing about this besides griping here and
among your peers?
Have you complained to your boss? Have they taken it higher?
If your boss has taken it as high as they are going to, have
you taken it higher still? Don't give me any of that career
limiting stuff either. If it's a big enough deal to make you
think about changing jobs/companies it seems like it's big
enough to fight up the ladder for. If you tell your boss you
are going to fight up the ladder then either they will support
you or you should probably be looking for a new boss anyway.
Alfred
|
| 565.93 | ba humbug | CSOA1::TEATER | No more tooling around, I guess | Tue Jul 12 1988 17:10 | 17 |
| re: -.1
A pool of cars would never work, unless you had a full time
maintenance department. Who would see that routine maintenance is
done? The car is washed? etc. I need my company vehicle a
minimum of 4 out of 5 days. I often go directly to customer sites
from my home and vice-versa.
I, too, don't mind paying for personal usage. But I can't see
myself buying a car every two years (I'm a 35,000 mile/year driver
with about 29,000 of it business).
I plan on taking this up the ladder as soon as I put together
some cold, hard numbers to show my boss.
greg_t
|
| 565.94 | | BIGTEX::RESENDEP | following the yellow brick road... | Tue Jul 12 1988 18:01 | 26 |
| RE: .-2
When it happened to me, the decision came down from an Area VP.
He told me (and this is as close to a quote as I can come) that
*he* didn't qualify for a DECmobile, so why should anyone else?
Please note that the *only* business mileage he ever incurs to
the best of my knowledge is driving to and from the airport.
This recent decision came from the U.S. Country team, even higher.
So whoever's willing to escalate this to Jack Shields please raise
your hands. I'm behind you all the way! (^:
RE: .-3
I worked for a company before Digital that had a car pool. The
cars were always broken down, and always out. If a company car
wasn't available (and one never was) we had the choice of driving
our own car for X cents a mile or renting a car. We usually rented
one. The company had an agreement with a local rental agency, so
they delivered and picked up the rental cars from the parking lot.
For occasional travel it wasn't a bad deal for the employee, but
the rental costs for the company must have been out of sight. Which
is why I wouldn't expect Digital to implement such a plan. The
intent seems to be to transfer some of the cost of doing business
over to the employee's own pocket, and a car pool would not accomplish
that.
|
| 565.95 | Some normal paths to follow | GUIDUK::BURKE | NEVER confuse Sales with Delivery! | Tue Jul 12 1988 22:31 | 30 |
| As suggested, there are several methods at our disposal to *DO*
something about this situation.
1. Elevation using the "Open Door" policy. (My manager also has
a plan A car, so I expect he will feel similarly to myself.)
2. Interact '88
3. Writing a letter back to USFMT outlining the problems this new
policy has caused.
4. Asking other people in the same situation to do the same things.
Does anyone *REALLY* know who USFMT is? It seems rather cryptic,
and the return address on the envelop just gives:
Digital Equipment Corporation
10 Forbes Road
Northboro, Massachusetts 01532-2597
They also suggest in the letter that you contact Fleet Administration
about this "in the event that your manager cannot answer a particular
question". I will start asking my manager questions tomorrow, and
I'm fairly sure that he also does not know the answers.
I have decided to give myself a cool-off and research period before
actually sending letters off. But Interact and Elevation are always
good options.
Doug
|
| 565.96 | Flexible? Must be a bean counter word | CSOA1::TEATER | No more tooling around, I guess | Wed Jul 13 1988 00:38 | 19 |
| re: < Note 565.95 by GUIDUK::BURKE "NEVER confuse Sales with Delivery!" >
> I have decided to give myself a cool-off and research period before
> actually sending letters off. But Interact and Elevation are always
> good options.
Very good medicine to practice.
Managers look very poorly at complaints that are:
1) emotional
2) without alternative ideas
3) not constructive
As I said before, I plan on presently to my boss real
numbers and the associated problems with PLAN B s it
pertains to me and some possible solution (keep Plan A).
greg_t
|
| 565.97 | A thought from a far. | JGO::EVANS | | Wed Jul 13 1988 08:24 | 9 |
| So far I don't see much in the way of comments from people who are
presently in plan B. Do they see it as bad as present plan A users
expect it to be?
Most of us here in Nijmegen come under 66ct(dutch) /km = US$.50/mile
approx. Major qualification for leasing etc via DEC is more than
15,000 business kms/year.
j.e.
|
| 565.98 | Part of USFMT is ... | NANUCK::BLACK | | Wed Jul 13 1988 09:11 | 12 |
|
re .95
USFMT includes, but is not limited to:
FS Don Zereski
SWS Bill Ferry
Sales ? maybe Chick Shue (or is he next level up?)
Personnel ?
F&A ?
|
| 565.99 | FLEET goes the way of VANPOOLS | HEIDI::WILLIAMS | | Wed Jul 13 1988 10:18 | 19 |
| It looks as though you folks are being dealt with pretty much the
way we on vanpools have been treated (refer to note 522 in this
conference). A memo was delivered to each vanpool rider notifying
us that this benefit would be going away...no one else within DEC
received the memo. There are many of us who have made career decisions
and/or life decisions based on the availability of vanpools. We
were given no warning at all that this was happening.....sounds
like the same thing has happened to you folks. We have raised the
issue all the way to the top (see note 522), but the only response
is that a "TASK FORCE" will be formed to look at alternatives.
It looks like DEC really needs to cut costs...I hope that the ways
they have chosen do not cause them to lose valuable employees.
In a time of tough competition in the computer industry...we should
be doing even more to allure the BEST in the business....not drive
them away. It seems like "Penny wise and pound foolish" decisions
are being made.
Good luck to you if you all choose to join together and fight.
|
| 565.100 | My $ 0.225 | HPSMEG::BUCKLEY | I tried to think, but nuthin' happened | Wed Jul 13 1988 15:47 | 30 |
| $0.225 from a ``former'' Plan `A, B and D' driver.
I put plenty of miles on several decwrecks during my field days (6 years) and
also drove a personal car virtually into the ground under plan `B' back in
1980-81. (70K in about 15 mos.).
I think the problem is probably quite complex, but I think that several
points should be considered. Right now, Plan `A' is just out of control
because cars have been given out to people that probably do not need them,
and also the number of people that have the ``required job codes'' has grown
significantly in the past few years. I would hope that DEC would come up with
a ``solution'' to this problem. I do not believe that by eliminating Plan `A'
you have effectively addressed this issue.
As far as the high level person that said ``I don't qualify, therefore why
should you get one'' I hope that was only in jest, as with that kind of
thinking, DIGITAL is in trouble.
re .81 Maybe DEC could get a good deal seeing as Caldwell sits on our Board
of Directors and K.O. is on Fords' BOD..
After going through all these replies, it certainly seems as though everyone
has a legitimate concern with the ``US TEAM'' (Which by the way is NOT at 10
Forbes Rd. in Northboro, that is just where it was mailed from!!). And I wish
you all good luck in attempting to resolve this issue.
Mike
|
| 565.101 | RATED 4 FOR WINDOW TINT AND PHONE | VFOFS::PHILLIPS | | Wed Jul 13 1988 16:50 | 27 |
| I have been on the "Alternate Plan" for 2 years now....
I got feed up with taking care of the "Dec-wreck", hand washing
about every week, waxing about every 6 months, installing dark window
tint to folks cant see inside (and steal things)... Infact I also
use a hidden antenna for the cellular phone (my own)... (I have
had a phone in my "Dec-wreck" since I started with Dec in 1980..
Well all this love and care of a "Dec-wreck" that was keep in near
show room condition landed me a "4" on my performance review...
Every time I looked at the "TOOL", It made me very bitter that I
was rated poorly on doing a good job taking care of this Decwreck....
I sinced moved to my own... $180 + .08 doesn't cover business expense,
but atleast I can drive it with pride.... But every time the beeper
beeps, I look at the cellular phone and get bitter knowing that
a manager gave me a "4" for having it in the "Dec-wreck"....
PS: Window tint cost $100.00 (not reinbursed), but did save me
costs of replacing stolen items..... a thief broke in the wife's
car and stole the cellular phone head... but left my vehicle alone,
I have a cellular phone, tools, and other items that could be easly
taken, but since the thief could not see inside the dark tint windows,
he did not try to steal them. (Digital saved costs at my expense)
dave
|
| 565.102 | A voice from Plan B.... | ODIXIE::RIDGWAY | For one brief shining moment | Wed Jul 13 1988 17:43 | 24 |
| RE: < Note 565.97 by JGO::EVANS >
-< A thought from a far. >-
� So far I don't see much in the way of comments from people who are
� presently in plan B. Do they see it as bad as present plan A users
� expect it to be?
In a word, YES. We here in the Southern Area have not had the option
of plan A for quite awhile. It was really great going to new hire
class with other SWS people in different areas who talked about
ordering their cars. :-(
Many months ago, our manager asked our group for one thing that
she could do that would improve our working environment. All 20
of us unanimously voted for Car plan A. It was denied. We were
told we were the "leading edge of the company" and that no one in
the South was eligible for plan A. We were assured that Plan B
was "under review" and could expect an increase. (Rumor mill had
the price around $300.00/mo)
In summary, $20.00/month increase is not enough to purchase a nice auto,
insurance, gas, etc. I am disappointed with the corporate decision.
Keith R>
|
| 565.103 | suggestion to proceed | BACKSD::MEIER | My Tool Is No Longer Flexible!! | Wed Jul 13 1988 18:52 | 23 |
| Again, I'd like to suggest that we proceed in a calm,
professional manner. I have identified a series of steps we can
walk thru, using this conference to gather input.
The steps are:
1. Formulate a list of postulates that express our understanding
of what has happened.
2. Draw a list of conclusions from our postulates.
3. Brainstorm possible solutions.
4. Evaluate the solutions proposed.
5. Choose the best solution(s).
6. Implement the chosen solution(s).
My next note is the 2nd draft of the postulates, incorporating
suggestions since my first draft. -- harrY
|
| 565.104 | Postulates, Draft 2 | BACKSD::MEIER | My Tool Is No Longer Flexible!! | Wed Jul 13 1988 18:53 | 94 |
|
1. The IRS has modified tax laws that affect the Digital Company
Car Plan A.
2. Digital must conform to the new tax laws affecting Plan A.
3. The IRS has NOT disallowed Plan A. Plan A can continue if
Digital so chooses.
4. A Plan A car serves a dual role: it need be used by the
employee during work hours as a tool to perform customer service
travel; it is at the disposal of the employee at all other hours
for personal use.
5. The employee contributes an amount each week toward the
personal use of the car (recently $24 per week). This represents
only a fraction of what it would cost the employee to obtain the
car, insurance, and other services at retail. The rest of the
cost is now paid by Digital. This money spent by Digital is
effectively a benefit to the employee.
6. The dollar value of this benefit varies from employee to
employee, and depends on factors such as driving habits, distance
to work, percent personal miles, marginal tax bracket, etc.
A rough approximation at a conservative average would be that a
Plan A car is equivalent to $5,000 a year in taxable salary.
7. Whatever the dollar value of the benefit portion of Plan A,
employees on Plan A consider this benefit a significant part
of their total compensation package from Digital.
8. Although Plan A is not an official company benefit, employees
save so much money by not having to provide their own
transportation that it is logical for them to consider personal
use of a company car as being equivalent to a benefit.
9. Digital management is aware that although official policy
states that Plan A is not an employee benefit, field managers
have successfully recruited many members of the current field
work force using Plan A as an enticement.
10. To continue Plan A will cost more in 1988 and beyond than it
did prior to 1988. This cost would have to be borne by Digital
and / or the employee.
11. Digital has decided it is not willing to pay the additional
cost of continuing Plan A.
12. Digital has now implemented a significant increase in the
employee contribution for Plan A of 25%, while raising the amount
of weekly compensation for Plan B less than half of that, 11%.
13. Digital has further decided it is not even willing to allow the
employee to pay the additional cost of continuing Plan A if s/he
so chooses. Digital has canceled the Plan altogether except
Field Service Engineers.
14. Employees who lose their Plan A cars are being offered nothing
new to compensate for this loss.
15. There is and always has been a Plan B. However, this Plan is
more of a burden than a benefit in most cases. The after-tax
stipend received by the employee does not nearly cover the cost
of buying a new car and paying for insurance, maintenance,
repairs, etc.
16. The monthly stipend in Plan B is to be raised by $20 (less than
$5 a week) before taxes, but this amount is below the noise
level. Basically, Plan B is unchanged.
17. Digital was very inconsiderate in canceling Plan A so
abruptly, with barely one month's notice. This will result in
undue expenses and hardships for many employees.
18. Paragraph 45, the final paragraph of the Changes in Fleet Plans
memo sent to each employee at home July 1, 1988 is dishonest.
This paragraph says, in part, "the primary motivation of this
direction is to provide our employees and Digital with greater
flexibility in the the selection and management of tools."
This can not logically be an honest statement because the current
flexibility to choose Plan A or Plan B is being eliminated, and
no new flexibility is being offered in its place.
19. The dishonesty in Paragraph 45 is repugnant to the employees
who are being asked to believe it. It is an insult to our
intelligence. It is a violation of Digital's corporate honesty
policy.
20. Digital has made it difficult if not impossible to provide
feedback to the decision makers in this matter. Questions were
referred to Fleet Administration, but according to the
announcement letter, the decision comes from "U.S. Field
Management Team".
|
| 565.105 | It can be done, and there is a precedent | CIMNET::MASSEY | | Thu Jul 14 1988 08:33 | 25 |
| Although time has blurred some of the details, the results are clear.
Back in the mid-70's, the the vacation plan was changed, with a similar
implementation notice as the "car plan", from adding your vacation
accrual once a year to adding a weekly accrual. One of the unintended
results is that at certain anniversary dates the new policy had
the effect of causing some employees to lose up to a week of accrued
vacation time.
One individual in our plant (Westfield) documented this discrepancy
and elevated the problem up the management chain.
The result: the company changed the policy by doing the following:
At your 5, 10, and 20 year anniversary, a week's worth
of vacation accrual is added in one fell swoop to your
accumulated vacation accrual, and then you begin accruing
at the new hours per week rate.
THE 1-WEEK ADDER WAS THE RESULT OF THIS CHANGE (all
caps intentional)
The key to this change was what has been suggested in some previous
replies: the problem was documented in an unemotional manner,
presented to the appropriate management people, and resolved.
|
| 565.106 | moved by moderator | REGENT::EPSTEIN | Bruce Epstein | Thu Jul 14 1988 09:33 | 50 |
| <<< HUMAN::DISK$HUMAN_WRKD:[NOTES$LIBRARY]DIGITAL.NOTE;1 >>>
-< The DEC way of working >-
================================================================================
Note XXX.0 FORMULA No replies
KYOA::BAUMAN 43 lines 13-JUL-1988 23:27
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROGRAM TO CALCULATE COST OF PLAN B
10 print " My watch does not tell time"
11 input "Digital or analog" A
15 rem have you asked it lately
20 print " My digital tool is not a benefit "
22 input " size of tool " B
25 rem size does not matter but must have 4 seats
30 if tool is greater then benefit go to 10
40 if benefit is greater then tool go to headhunter (50)
50 run don't walk
55 input " How big was your tool at Digital"
60 if tool is less then 4 .... plan b
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha...
couldn't resist a touch of humor ( ps mine was 4 ) now it is no
more
|
| 565.107 | think BIG!! | PH4VAX::MCBRIDE | service with a smile! | Thu Jul 14 1988 13:41 | 22 |
| It is gratifying to note that at the rate of 11% every ten years
the plan B reimbursment could reach $300 by 2036. It may even reach
$250 by the time I retire (if I am not terminated prematurely because
I can only afford a sub-standard car or can't obtain the required
insurance). What I need, because I recently went wage class 4 and
took the mandatory $10,000 per year pay cut, is a 4 year old (or
less) car for $2000 dollars. The plan states that the car must
be in good mechanical condition but doesn't say that it has to be
pretty. (Uh Oh! better get MAACO!)
I had a discussion with the DuPont fleet administrator and he was
surprised that a company with 100,000 employees was still acting
like a small business. I vaguely remember hearing that we have
a fleet of 40,000 vehicles. If we went directly to the manufacturer
(any manufacturer) and asked for 40,000 vehicles, all alike, all
with AM/FM/factory air/the good seats and asked for the rock bottom
price delivered to the employees and a 3 year maintenance contract
(like DuPont does) we would eliminate the problems this move was
designed to cure. They get their cars for $1000 cheaper than ours
and the maintenance is cheaper, too. Our trouble is that we are
not thinking big, or perhaps not thinking at all.
|
| 565.108 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Thu Jul 14 1988 14:27 | 5 |
| Trouble is, we don't need 40,000 vehicles. 10,000 is probably more than
enough to cover all U.S. sales, software, and field service people who
visit customers.
/john
|
| 565.109 | the fine print... | BMT::SAPIENZA | Knowledge applied is wisdom gained. | Thu Jul 14 1988 14:39 | 28 |
|
U.S. Fleet Manual
Section 21.00, "Alternate Car Plan, Plan B"
Issue Date: 02/23/88
Paragraph I.B.
"All persons who choose this plan must drive an automobile not
over four years of age and maintained in good operating condition.
Effective January 1, 1988, the oldest acceptable model year for
Plan B is 1984. Effective January 1, 1989, the oldest acceptable
model year is 1985."
--------
From the above, you can see that buying a used four year old
car will only be "acceptable" for one year. On January 1 of the
next year you would have to get another car that is again "not over
four years of age". Essentially, if you don't buy a brand new car
you will have to replace it more often.
On the other hand, it also says "All persons who CHOOSE this
plan..." Since we are being forced into it, maybe you can get by
on a technicality? :-)
Frank
|
| 565.110 | How much is a 2-yr old Yugo? | CSOA1::BERNARD | | Thu Jul 14 1988 15:03 | 8 |
|
I N T E R M I S S I O N
Say what you must, you gotta love a company that lets you
use it's compute & network capabilities to say unhappy things
about some of its policies!!!
|
| 565.111 | 10,000 cars is still a lot of cars | CVG::THOMPSON | Accept no substitutes | Thu Jul 14 1988 15:30 | 14 |
| RE: Number of cars involved. 10,000 is about the number of
cars Tupperware buys for its managers. Not only do the car
vendors fight like crazy (using price, special models, etc)
but they (the vendors) even give Tupperware assistance in
promoting the cars to the managers. I dare say we could
negotiate a good deal if we did things right. hard to believe
that Tupperware managers (whose sales goals are < $150,000
a year) get better car deals then DEC sales/SWS people with
sales budgets 10 times that. But true.
Alfred
Information about Tupperware's deals with vendor from a former
Tupperware VP in charge of such things.
|
| 565.112 | A free week -- you're kidding!!!!!!!!! | BIGTEX::RESENDEP | following the yellow brick road... | Thu Jul 14 1988 16:34 | 12 |
| RE: .105
> At your 5, 10, and 20 year anniversary, a week's worth
> of vacation accrual is added in one fell swoop to your
> accumulated vacation accrual, and then you begin accruing
> at the new hours per week rate.
I certainly didn't get a week dumped into my account in April when
I had my 10-year anniversary! Is that documented in P&P?
Only slightly off the subject,
Pat
|
| 565.113 | | RBW::WICKERT | MAA DIS Consultant | Thu Jul 14 1988 16:56 | 7 |
|
re .112;
Yep. I just hit 10 in June and it showed up in mine.
-Ray
|
| 565.114 | More constructive text | ARGUS::CALANDRA | Mike, IND1-3/D9 DTN-262-8269 | Thu Jul 14 1988 17:36 | 32 |
|
Posted for a fellow F/S Support Engineer...
RE:.104
21. Digital has made the transition from plan A to plan B
more difficult for individuals who are now at the 52-55,000
miles point. The criteria that U.S. Fleet is giving, is that
you must have 60,000 miles by Aug 15 1988 to be eligible to
continue on plan A. U.S. Fleet manual section 4.00 states
"Replacement orders should be initiated at approximatelly
55,000 miles or 33 months in service. Situation occur in
which vehicles may be ordered earlier, due to excessive lead
times and extraordinary mile accumulation." In some areas of
the country extraordinary lead time has been up to six month or
longer.
22. Section 4.00 of U.S. FLeet Manual states in part that "Repairs
and/or maintenance may be denied after 55,000 miles or 33 months in
service. This puts the individual in a gambling situation,
in that Hopefully the vehicle will last me long enough until in a
position to buy a vehicle for plan B.
23. The suddeness of the implmentation of this plan will put a number
of Digital employees in a hardship situation. If this will or must be
the new policy, a year from the Date of the letter would be much better.
As it is now, a number of individuals have been given a 45 day notice,
that they will no longer be on plan A.
|
| 565.115 | a trip thru time... | CHGV04::KAPLOW | Set the WAYBACK machine for 1982 | Thu Jul 14 1988 18:59 | 16 |
| Then:
Manager: The salary is $xxK, but we will also give you a car.
Candidate: Great! I'll take the job!
Now:
Manager: The salary is still $xxK, but you have to go out and buy
a new car with your own money because that old clunker you drove
here in is too old. You also have to pay more for insurance to
cover the business use of your new car.
Candidate: (polite alternative) I think I'll go work elsewhere.
|
| 565.117 | The letter says 182.5 days. | ALBANY::SCHICKEDANZ | There ARE no guarantees... | Thu Jul 14 1988 20:01 | 34 |
| re: .114
Why only 45 days? The following is right from the letter:
Q: What happens when my current vehicle is due for replacement
because of age, mileage, a maintenance no-repair decision or
an accident?
A: If your personal vehicle does not meet Plan B eligibility
requirements, you will be eligible for a six month exception
during which time you will be reimbursed and will have
additional time to purchase a vehicle which qualifies for the
Plan.
My question is: Reimbursed how? $.225/mile? Rental? Floater?
BTW. The real answer to the question "Why do SWS people need cars?"
is: Because we are required to have a car "AVAILABLE" for travel
on Co. business.
I could just as easily have my spouse drop me at
the office in the AM, if only I could convince my manager that it
was his problem to get me to the Customer site when necessary. (Not to
mention, again, that there are only 4 desks for 11 PSS specialists in
the local office.
Sign me,
Just_as_steamed_as_everyone_else_but_at_least_I_have_a_four_month_
old_car_to_nurse_along_for_the_next_32_months.
|
| 565.118 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Thu Jul 14 1988 21:36 | 11 |
| > Just_as_steamed_as_everyone_else_but_at_least_I_have_a_four_month_
> old_car_to_nurse_along_for_the_next_32_months.
Don't count on it. Since you're no longer eligible for plan A, your manager
might decide to get if off his books by having it transferred to someone in
Field Service.
Such things have happened in the past when SW Specialists have been assigned
to residencies.
/john
|
| 565.119 | random ravings... | HOCUS::KOZAKIEWICZ | Shoes for industry | Thu Jul 14 1988 22:33 | 29 |
| The thing which steams me the most about the demise of plan A is
not so much the loss of the car (which is reason enough for concern),
but the concept put forth in the announcemnet that this would give
me greater flexibility. Really? I used to be able to choose between
two plans, now I can only select that plan which I find less suitable
for me and I'm supposed to believe that's "flexible"? Please USFMT,
take my car, but don't insult my intelligence!
My manager made some calls on various auto dealerships in our area
and found (suprise!) that it is simply not possible to lease a car
and obtain insurance for the $200/month allowance. He did find
that you can get a Ford Escort for a shade over this amount, but
sans insurance.
The Field's obsession with cost control is demoralizing, to say
the least. In my book, spening money on controlling costs instead
of improving productivity is a defensive strategy. I really fail
to see how we can credibly position ourselves to overtake our
competition when we hoard a few billion dollars in the bank while
milking revenue generating Field personnel to add a few insignificant
points to our already obscene margin requirements.
I sincerely hope this is part of the Field's strategy to finally
deliver the equipment, training and commitment to excellence which
is absolutely necessary if SWS is going to be the major player in
projects that Bill Ferry wants us to be.
/Al
|
| 565.120 | Digital has YOU now! | MERIDN::BIAZZO | Can tune a VAX but can't tuna fish | Fri Jul 15 1988 01:05 | 9 |
| After reading this entire note I think that I am far from alone
with regard to being flamed as a result of being "re-tooled"
So what do we do about it?
The points documented a few notes back sound good. How can we get
them to the appropriate ears? I am all for a barrage of electronic
mail to the USFMT members. Any suggestions?
|
| 565.121 | Another strike against Plan B. | CSOA1::REARICK | Jack Rearick PTO-SWS | Fri Jul 15 1988 01:42 | 25 |
|
re: .*
I agree with all of the previous notes regarding being "forced
to by a new car" when I loose my plan A car. Today I discovered
one more reason why I wouldn't want to use my own car for company
business. I had to haul a GPX system (19" monitor, large box)
to a customer site and back for a demo. Scratched up the door
and trim getting it in and out of the back seat.
Is Digital going to pay for damage to our own cars, sustained
while hauling equipment around for demo's and such? If not
then they'd better have a few wagon's or van's setting around
for this purpose!
re .-1
I would be very willing to send mail to whoever is appropriate
concerning this issue. Maybe somebody could take some of the
suggestions/concerns/analysis from previous memos and post it
as a "form letter" that we could all extract and mail from our
accounts?
Tired-of-lip-service-to-Employee-Satisfaction-Jack!
|
| 565.122 | Not the "U" word again. | CSOA1::TEATER | No more 'tooling' around, I guess | Fri Jul 15 1988 01:54 | 9 |
| > So what do we do about it?
What we need is an official spokesperson. Seriously.
I, for one, like the way that Harry Meier has suggested.
Any volunteers (hint hint Harry)?
greg_t
|
| 565.123 | 4 or 5 years? | BOSTON::SOHN | Rage in Eden | Fri Jul 15 1988 09:34 | 17 |
| There has been some confusion as to how long one can keep a Plan B car.
The problem is that the section in the manual says two contradictory things:
1) that the car may not be more than 4 years old.
2) that the oldest acceptable model year for 1989 is a 1985 car.
Now, does this mean that if I buy a 1989 car now, I can keep using it until
Jan 1, 1994, when it will be 5 model years out of date? Or does it mean that
I must relinquish it July 1992, when it will be 4 years old?
Makes mucho difference...especially to those of us looking at possible 60-month
leases...
Does anyone know for sure which it is? Or who to ask?
--eric--
|
| 565.124 | A flood of form letters probably won't work | DR::BLINN | Mind if we call you Bruce? | Fri Jul 15 1988 10:55 | 20 |
| Re: .123 -- there's a phone number in the memo for getting
questions answered. You've got a reasonable question. Pick
up the phone and ask.
RE: Deluging USFMC with an electronic form letter. That most
likely won't work. If it's obviously a form letter, it will get
ignored, very quickly. If you really want to change the policy,
you've got to analyze what's wrong with it (some very good points
have been made, mostly that it unfairly shifts the financial
burden of maintaining a vehicle to perform DEC's corporate
business from DEC to the individual employees), and present the
flaws. The fact that lots of people don't like it does not, in
and of itself, justify changing it if it's in the best business
interests of the corporation. You've got to show that it's
basically not in the best business interests of the corporation.
Getting LOCAL management to carry the complaints up the chain
is more likely to be effective than a flood of form letters.
Tom
|
| 565.125 | What really is a business mile anyway? | ARGUS::CALANDRA | Mike, IND1-3/D9 DTN-262-8269 | Fri Jul 15 1988 11:54 | 11 |
|
I'm wondering what exactly, from the IRS's point of view, is a business
mile? Some say it's only milage in excess of your normal commute,
others say it's milage to/from anywhere that is not your office
location. Anyone know for sure?
Can we tuck it to 'em by stating we work out of our home and therefor
every mile is in excess of the normal commute of 0? There must
be many implications, red tape in doing this. Anyone know?
|
| 565.126 | The IRS won't give in that easy | NEWVAX::PAVLICEK | Zot, the Ethical Hacker | Fri Jul 15 1988 12:45 | 16 |
| re: .125
> Can we tuck it to 'em by stating we work out of our home and therefor
> every mile is in excess of the normal commute of 0? There must
> be many implications, red tape in doing this. Anyone know?
I believe that you could get yourself in *big* trouble (IRS-wise)
doing this. It is one thing if you are self-employed and can claim
your residence as your "office", but you would be *very* hard-pressed
to prove to the IRS that you didn't work at your office. If you
have a mail stop or phone number there, I think they would probably
get you on that alone.
I'm no lawyer, though...
-- Russ
|
| 565.127 | six months grace, but. | ARGUS::PARTRIDGE | | Fri Jul 15 1988 13:28 | 13 |
|
re: 114, 117
Yes you have 6 months grace in which to purchase, either the fleet
vehicle you are driving now, or one of your own. Howvever you were
giving 45 days (from date I recevied the notice) to make that
decision. One way or the other you have to come up with some extra
cash real fast to keep on trucking.
If you have problems or the vehicle needs maintenance , and its
refused due age or milage, and its not drivable, then you are really
stuck.
|
| 565.128 | Recommendation on How to Proceed | BACKSD::MEIER | My Tool Is No Longer Flexible!! | Fri Jul 15 1988 15:05 | 66 |
| .122:
>>>> Any volunteers (hint hint Harry)?
The name's harrY. :-)
Thanks for the vote, greg_t. I am reluctant to accept the title
of spokesperson at this time, though, for several reasons:
1. I am not up North; I am one of the forgotten field warriors
here in the Baltimore - Washington corridor.
2. I recommend a team leadership, maybe 3 individuals, instead
of one person. At least one person should come from at or near
HQ.
3. We are ill-prepared to present anything other than emotion to
management at this point.
If all people do is go to management and complain, the best you
will get is sympathy. However, there seems to be a strong sense
among the employees that this issue affects more than just their
finances, that this decision is bad for Digital. Field employees
are in a better position to know that than upper management, in
the sense that they see the impact around them in the real world.
Field employees can see the losses that this decision might cost
Digital. Field employees can suggest action that will best
remedy the situation and cut Digital's losses.
Recommendation on How to Proceed:
I recommend that we continue using this conference note to gather
data necessary to make a professional, informed response coupled
with proposals for effective solution of the problem. The first
step, the list of postulates to define the problem, is near
completion. Before we leave definition phase and begin
brainstorming, I suggest we need to document specific cases of
hardship that the problem has created.
The Next Step:
Therefore, I suggest all Plan A drivers sit down with a
calculator and figure out the impact on themselves. (Warning:
you may be in for a shock.) Then post a reply to this note with
the details of the case. Several of us have already done this;
my reply is .60. However, I am going to rewrite mine without the
emotional comments; such comments should not be part of a
thoughtful response. (By all means, continue to express your
feelings in this conference, but do it in a separate reply.)
If You've Done That:
When you finish that note, start thinking up possible ways to
express our concern. Be creative: this is the brainstorming
phase. There will be time for evaluation later. Don't post
these ideas just yet; let's allow people time to post the case
studies we need for documentation first.
harrY
|
| 565.129 | What Kind of Message is DEC sending? | HPSMEG::BUCKLEY | I tried to think, but nuthin' happened | Fri Jul 15 1988 15:36 | 31 |
| Hmm,...
Just thinking,
I can just see it now.
DEC Sales Rep goes out and sells $5.4 million worth of VAXcluster
gear and takes the customer out for lunch or whatever. Sure hope you
don't mind Mr. Customer having to sit in the back of a chevy nova,
but hey what the heck it meets our Plan `B' requirements, and hey
after all, with the 200 clams that DEC gives me each month (how much
after taxes?) This is all I can afford...
You always can substitute Sales Rep with Software Specialist, or Unit
Manager etc....
What kind of a message is corporate sending to both its ``valued''(?)
field force and especially to the people who made DEC what it is
today.. The customers??
Hmm,
Mike
|
| 565.130 | Another thought... | GUIDUK::BURKE | NEVER confuse Sales with Delivery! | Fri Jul 15 1988 15:46 | 39 |
| In my particular situation, I was wondering why I should not purchase
a motorcycle, and ride it to the office and to customer sites.
Then I remembered something someone said in a previous response
to this note.
Specialists are evaluated by management on their performance.
Performance, at least for some managers, includes appearance.
Appearance can also effect customer satisfaction. For example,
if I drive up to a customer site in a heavy leather outfit (for
safety) on a motorcycle, then the customer and my manager would
probably have something to say about it.
If you carry that idea forward, then it says the same thing with
regard to a junker.
Thus, I would add another postulate to your list harrY:
%%. Software Specialists are required to maintain a high standard of
personal appearance to their customers. This appearance includes the
transportation used when traveling to the DEC office, customer sites,
and when taking customers out on business occations (lunch, dinner,
etc.). Thus, to maintain high performance evaluations, the specialist
*MUST* have a vehicle which basically qualifies for Plan B, whether
that vehicle is in the Plan or not. Otherwise, the manager can
gig the specialist on not maintaining a high enough standard of
personal appearance, which in turn effects the specialist for promotion
and salary raises.
By the way, I noticed alot of concern over the amount of car insurance
for a Plan B. In the state of Washington, we also get stuck with
expensive license tabs each year. For my present Plan B car for
example, its over $250, and the cost is based upon the value of
the vehicle. Thus, we here in Washington will always be paying
alot for tabs (and insurance of course) each year since the cars
are always relatively new.
The motorcycle is looking better and better.
Doug
|
| 565.131 | Is the change THAT drastic ? | CLYPSO::BELLEW | | Fri Jul 15 1988 16:36 | 35 |
|
As I understand it, the concern expressed in this note is the
cancellation of Plan A for certain employees. Since I've never
had (and will probably never have) a company car, I'm trying to
understand the impact to you folks.
To compare plan A to plan B, I'll use harrY's example from .60 -
and the revised amounts (Plan A cost = $30/wk, Plan B cash = $200.00/mo)
.60> $12000 Price new
.60> -4000 Price quoted me after 3 yrs.
.60> ------
.60> 8000 Cost for 3 yrs.
.60> +3000 Business-Use Insurance for 3 yrs. (young,single,male)
.60> +1000 Maintenance and repairs purchased during the 3 yrs.
.60> ______
.60> $12000 Total Cost for 3 yrs.
Now to expand and look at the differences.....
$12000 Total Cost for 3 yrs.
-7200 Plan B compensation for your car ($200.00/mnth * 36 mnths)
------
$ 4800 Actual cost of Plan B car to you
-4680 Actual cost of Plan A car to you ( $30.00/wk * 52 wks/yr * 3 yrs)
------
$ 120 Actual Difference between Plan A and Plan B
Have I miscalculated or are we discussing a $40.00 per year difference ?
|
| 565.132 | let's get FACTS | NYEM1::MILBERG | Barry Milberg | Fri Jul 15 1988 16:48 | 16 |
| re .128 (and with respect to the 'math' in .131)
To add to the 'first step'-
Existing Plan B drivers (by choice or otherwise) present what their
ACTUAL costs have been on Plan B and the reimbursement.
The interesting thing is that there have been NO responses from
people who have taken Plan B voluntarily! In my 13 years in the
field, the only people I knew who voluntarily went on B were those
that had special desires in vehicles and did not want what was offered
on Plan A.
-Barry-
|
| 565.133 | Re: 565.130 | DLOACT::RESENDEP | following the yellow brick road... | Fri Jul 15 1988 16:51 | 11 |
| RE: .-1
Your postulate started out "A software specialist has to maintain..."
Don't make any of this specific to one organization or one job.
There are many jobs in the field in sales, software services, and
field service that require customer contact and travel, and no one
of them deserves cars any more than another. I know you weren't
trying to imply otherwise, but the way your postulate was stated
it could be construed that way.
Pat
|
| 565.134 | Additional costs | RIPPLE::KOTTERRI | Rich (Welcome Back) Kotter | Fri Jul 15 1988 16:58 | 14 |
| Re: Note 565.131 by CLYPSO::BELLEW
> Have I miscalculated or are we discussing a $40.00 per year difference ?
At lease one aspect that was missed in the analysis is the cost
of financing the car, which would be about $800, unless of course
you can afford to pay cash :^)
There is also the requirement for a downpayment, using up one's
credit line on buying a car, any deductible if there is an accident,
licensing fees, cost of personal use of the vehicle (included in
company car), etc.
Rich
|
| 565.135 | Here are the few points you are missing ! | GLDOA::SRINIVASAN | Jay Vasan | Fri Jul 15 1988 17:11 | 12 |
|
re .131
You are missing the following :
1. Cost of insurance,
2. Cost of maintenance
3. What happens if some one has to drive for 35,000 business miles
each year. He will run his car to the ground in two years.
4. Tax implications of $ 200.
|
| 565.136 | What are ALL the costs of plan B vs. plan A? | DR::BLINN | Mind if we call you Bruce? | Fri Jul 15 1988 17:12 | 9 |
| Good points, Rich. What this points out is that doing the
financial analysis is not as trivial as it seems.
It may help if people come up with a common list of all the
costs that have to be taken into account, so that everyone
is doing the same financial impact calculation, and no one
is leaving anything out that should be accounted for.
Tom
|
| 565.137 | Lets take it to the top! | LAIDBK::RESKE | Life's a mystery & I haven't a clue | Fri Jul 15 1988 19:02 | 40 |
|
Gotta have my two cents worth too ....
Some people in my office (I intend to be one) are going to put together
a itemized cost (payment,gas,insurance,service etc) for a leased
car and plan on moving it up the ladder. I think we're starting
to get the right idea ... we can all sit at our desks and b*tch
about it or come up with some hard facts and try to get someone
to listen. I think it might be more effective if we have more than
one spokesperson (or 2 or 3). It's easy to brush off a couple people,
but when you start hearing from each field office, that's a whole
lot harder to ignore.
Now for some unconstructive and useless yelling ....
I hired into the southwest area soon after (1 month) plan A
was discontinued for SWS (sales still had it). I wasn't too pleased
with the $180, especially when a friend who worked for a small
insurance company was getting $256/mo plus a car phone. DEC has
always been *far* behind the industry average for car benefits and
this latest move has proven that they don't plan on righting that
wrong anytime in the near (or distant) furture.
This certainly hasn't been the only move lately to prove just how
cheap (or is that 'how cost conscience') this company has become.
The message is loud and clear that Employee satisfaction is going to
take a back seat to the almighty bottom line. For those of you
who might be attending a Digital symposium in the near future ..
how about the double occupany rule??!! This isn't camp, we aren't
a bunch of children who get put to bed at the same time each night.
If I choose to stay out late or like to read at night or like to
go to bed at 9:00 I very well might be imposing my standards upon
whoever Digital sees fit to 'bunk' me with. I don't care to infringe
on someone else's life nor do I want them disturbing me.
Come on you folks in upper management .... think back to what it
was like in the ranks!
DR
|
| 565.138 | Insurance | LAIDBK::MUELLER | | Fri Jul 15 1988 19:09 | 8 |
| One other thing we should look at is ways that the company can assist
the 'dislocated' car plan A folks. One thing they could do that
wouldn't even cost anything is to negotiate a good group insurance
rate for those of us who will now be considered uninsured drivers
and who will pay a premium for that until an insurance track record
is established. I would imagine that some insurance company would
be interested in picking up the large number of customers that would
be in this pool.
|
| 565.139 | Revised Comparison to Plan B | BACKSD::MEIER | My Tool Is No Longer Flexible!! | Fri Jul 15 1988 19:14 | 52 |
| Re: .131:
Thanks for asking. Yes, the differences are confusing. For
example, someone asked if you remembered insurance, maintenance,
etc. Implicitly you did, because those are part of the costs
that make up the $12,000. However, you double-counted in your
expansion the employee weekly contribution. This was covered in
the paragraph in .60 above the derivation of the $12,000. The
$24 per week that we are used to paying approximately offsets the
average weekly cost for fuel, oil, washes, and other similar
costs. Actually, those who drive a lot actually pay a lot more
than that; those who drive little pay less than that. But it was
both accurate and simple to call it a wash. Also, please use $24
per week because we want to compare the change against what we
have now, not compare change against change.
Another thing, you need to subtract taxes from the Plan B
compensation. This has been in effect for a while now. I face
43% taxes: 28% to IRS, 7.x% to Social Security, 7.5% to
Maryland. That leaves 57% that I would ever see.
So your example is valid with the following changes:
$12000 Total Cost for 3 yrs.
-4100 Plan B compensation for your car
(57% of $200.00/mnth * 36 mnths)
------
$ 7900 Actual cost of Plan B car to you
+3744 Fuel and miscellaneous charges not included above
-3744 Actual cost of Plan A car to you
( $24.00/wk * 52 wks/yr * 3 yrs)
------
$ 7900 Actual Difference between Plan A and Plan B
Now, that's $7900 of disposable income, not salary. So indeed,
the impact is even more staggering than perhaps even the decision
makers were aware.
Of course, comparison to Plan B is valid. But I chose to compare
instead against the "no-car plan", because some of us can not
afford to buy a late-model car to be eligible for Plan B.
Others might be in a situation to buy a car if they make some
"small" sacrifice, such as buying a house. Others see a car as
one of the poorest investments you can make with your money: you
are guaranteed to lose.
So I stick with my original case study and the $12,000.
Actually, I underestimated the taxes, and forgot the cost of
financing! :-) harrY
|
| 565.140 | Tax Advantages | LABC::FRIEDMAN | | Fri Jul 15 1988 20:05 | 3 |
| Can't you deduct some percentage of the car's purchase price from
your income tax because it is required for your job? Also,
depreciation.
|
| 565.141 | Elected Plan "B" | LAGUNA::SEIDMAN | We're BEATRICE" | Fri Jul 15 1988 20:06 | 41 |
| re: .80
Wyle Labs, one of our "Authorized Distributors" receives the following
compensation;
$300/Month Car + $100/Month Car Phone allowance . . . and $.18/Mile.
When I left Wyle 5+ years ago to join Digital I received $250/Month
and $.18/Mile.
View from voluntary Plan B participant;
Since the I joined Digital, I've elected to be on Plan B (for various
reasons including improved life expectance in the event of an
accident). Prior to the 1987 tax changes my accountant convinced
me that my car essentially cost me very little. This was based
on the fact that I drove 70% business miles and that I could realize
substantial tax advantages by deducting 70% of the total annual
car expenses minus what Digital reimbursed and by depreciating the
cost of the vehicle (ITC tax credit). This worked out quiet well
at the end of the year when I would receive a substantial tax return
from my favorite uncle. (at the time I had no other tax deductions,
i.e. home or property.)
Well, when I met with my accountant to file '87 taxes the news was
not good. Because of the changes in the tax laws (elimination of
ITC tax credits, ceiling on the price of car being deducted etc)
I barely received any write off on my taxes for the business use
my car. Now my car is costing me a significant amount of money.
I was just about to sign up for a DECWreck!
So, with the tax reform act coupled with Digital's own policy changes,
As the woman said in "Planes, Trains and Automobles", "Your F#$%^&!".
Disclaimer:
No way do I claim to be a tax accountant expert. Please don't beat
me up for any mis-stated tax concepts as I can't claim to understand
it. I do know the bottom line results though and, I offer it as my
experience.
|
| 565.142 | sympathy, wish I could empathize... | MELKOR::HENSLEY | happy hacker~ | Fri Jul 15 1988 21:50 | 16 |
| Not normally one to fan the flames :-), I nonetheless found
it interesting when I spoke with an aquaintence this morning who
has worked for HP for some time. Their cars are turned in EVERY
YEAR (in fact he just turned in his order for color as July is order
month for all HP folks with Company Cars). I don't recall what
he said the cost was to him, but it was deducted from his pay, and
he didn't yet see a significant hit on taxes.
Of course the IRS may change that for more companies this year,
but the impression a professional makes on customers is important.
Believe me, I would rather fly to a customer site most times (hence
AVIS compacts are expected) than drive my non-Plan B auto. But
since Ed. Svs. doesn't participate in such programs (never has)
I guess my '80 Rabbit is OK for representing DEC...
ih
|
| 565.143 | No Saab's on Plan A :-( | ODIXIE::JENNINGS | Dave Jennings | Sat Jul 16 1988 09:45 | 15 |
| > The interesting thing is that there have been NO responses from
> people who have taken Plan B voluntarily! In my 13 years in the
> field, the only people I knew who voluntarily went on B were those
> that had special desires in vehicles and did not want what was offered
> on Plan A.
Hey, Barry, I'm a voluntary Plan B'er. For the basic reason you
stated. DEC didn't offer any Saab Turbos on Plan A.
Of course, I only average about 15% business mileage a year, anyway.
In my opinion, I shouldn't be on any car plan! I think the 'right
thing' to do was stated in a previous reply. Don't do away with
the plan, but manage it better. Make sure that the people with
the company cars are putting some minimum amount of business miles
on a car before letting them order new ones.
|
| 565.144 | We *don't* have to take this... | SKYLRK::OLSON | green chile crusader! | Sat Jul 16 1988 23:27 | 26 |
| .92 asked what people are doing about it.
My manager got the letter first, and he called *me* to
1) calm me if I'd gotten it (I hadn't) 2) warn me it was
coming and 3) schedule a meeting the next business day.
So at least when I got it that night and spent the weekend
screaming at the walls, I knew I at least had my manager
on my side.
I joined DEC 4 months ago and in this state, the verbal offer
is binding. And yes, the offer was "$ & a car". Now I've
been using an '86 fleet car while I waited for US Fleet to
accept my order (they stopped even TAKING orders in April,
I don't know what all that smoke was, about accepting normal
replacements before 15 August). The offer and the Plan A car
were *crucial* to my relocating here; I like Cal, but I don't
want to put up with the hassle of owning a new car here. I
haven't documented it, but my estimate of the benefit is closer
to $7K annually, before hassle. Hassle-freedom is also very
important.
My manager and I may resolve this, we may not. I may leave.
It comes down, for me, to breach-of-contract. Current status
quo is clearly unacceptable.
DougO
|
| 565.145 | MILES are IRRELEVANT | ALBANY::SCHICKEDANZ | There ARE no guarantees... | Sat Jul 16 1988 23:41 | 14 |
| All this talk about miles justifying or not justifying a company
car is missing the point. The company requires us to travel away
from the local office during the normal course of business. If it
weren't for the customer, I could ride with my wife. I didn't have
a car suitable for Plan B when I started working for DEC, and I
sure as H*** don't have one now.
Anyone talked to Sales lately??? It's obvious that they don't
participate much in this type of on-line discussion.
Andy.
P.S. Al, are you hiding by replying from HOCUS?? Just kidding.
:-)
|
| 565.146 | Sales rep here! | RIPPLE::KOTTERRI | Rich (Welcome Back) Kotter | Sun Jul 17 1988 01:07 | 11 |
|
Re: Note 565.145 by ALBANY::SCHICKEDANZ
> Anyone talked to Sales lately??? It's obvious that they don't
> participate much in this type of on-line discussion.
I'm sales, and I participate in 'this type of on-line discussion'. As
I've said in a few earlier replies to thius topic, the new 'flexible'
car plan stinks.
Rich
|
| 565.147 | YOUR DRIVING COSTS 1988 | ARGUS::COLLENTINE | | Sun Jul 17 1988 20:26 | 139 |
|
I recently asked for and received a copy of "YOUR DRIVING COSTS" from
the American Automobile Association. I received the 1988 edition.
The AAA acknowledges Runzheimer International for its help in preparing
the automobile costs presented in this booklet.
Runzheimer international is a management consulting firm that specializes
in travel and living costs located at Runzheimer Park, Rochester, Wis.
53167. Telephone number:(414)534-3121.
The following are some exerts from this booklet.
AAA's study used cars equipped with standard and optional accessories.,
automatic transmission, power steering, power disk brakes, AM/FM stereo,
cruise control and rear window defogger.
Gasoline costs were based on a $1.081-per-gallon charge for regular
unleaded fuel.
INSURANCE figures in the study were based on PERSONAL USE of vehicles;
cars were driven less than 10 miles to or from work, with no young
drivers.
Normal depreciation costs were based on the car's trade-in value at the
end of FOUR YEARS or at 60,000 MILES. For cars driven 10,000 miles per
year, depreciation costs were based on SIX YEARS or 60,000 miles.
YOUR EXPENSES
Car costs fall into two categories operating and ownership.
OPERATING COSTS-Gas, oil, maintenance and tire expenditures are
operating costs which directly relate to the number of miles
you drive.
OWNERSHIP COSTS-Taxes; depreciation; finance charges; and registration;
insurance and license fees are ownership costs. These costs are
incurred even if you keep your car parked in the garage.
The report lists 3 vehicles a 1988 Ford escort 4 cyl .(114 CID) 4 door
hatchback. A 1988 Chevrolet Celebrity 6-cyl (173 CID) 4-door sedan.
A 1988 Chevrolet Caprice 6-cyl (262 CID) 4-door sedan. And an Average
of all three. I have listed the costs of the Celebrity and the averages.
1988
Chevrolet celebrity
4 year/60,000 6 cyl. (173 CID)
mile cycle 4-door sedan Average COST
_______________________________________________________________________________
OPERATING COSTS COST PER MILE COST PER MILE
GAS and Oil 5.2 cents 5.0 cents
Maintenance 1.6 1.6
Tires 7.6 7.4
______ ______
7.6 cents 7.4 cents
OWNERSHIP COSTS COST PER YEAR COST PER YEAR
Comprehen insur ($100)
deductible $86 $78
Collision ($250)
deductible $203 $194
liability (100k,
$300k, $50K) $284 $284
Lic,Reg, taxes $139 $131
Depreciation $1784 $1778
Finance charge (20%
down loan @ 11.0%/4 yr) $565 $523
________ ________
$3,061 $2,988
(or $8.39 per day) (or $8.19 per day)
ADD_ONS
Air conditioning 2 cents per mile 2 cents per mile
37 cents per day 39 cents per day
Depreciation for
excess miles over 15k
annually $86 $87
CONCLUSION
YOUR HONEST TO GOODNESS DRIVING COSTS ACCORDING TO AAA USING THE
NATIONAL AVERAGE ARE $260.97 A MONTH AND 9.4 CENTS A MILE.
Remember Business insurance is not included here and the vehicle
was operated and depreciated over 4 years. In addition these are
national averages.
I Realize the U.S Field Management Team used a 1987 study and
estimated the 1988 costs, but they are not even close to the actual
costs the Employee is going to have to pay to provide DIGITAL with
a tool.
The AAA study "YOUR DRIVING COSTS" flatly states that Business
insurance is not included and the car is used and depreciated over
4 years.
I am sure if the U.S Field Management team wants to find the true
cost of operating a vehicle they could ask U.S fleet they have all
costs for operating vehicles over a three year time span carrying
business insurance.
My point is I don't feel the compensation as determined by U.S
Field Management Team is Realistic. In addition I don't believe
it to be any miscalculation on there part in determining this figure.
I will reserve judgment on the U.S Field Management team until they
are presented with "your driving costs" and explain to the employees
how they came up with a 1988 cost much different than the report.
I would also like answers to questions that others have asked in
previous notes.
I certainly hope the U.S Field Management team uses the same professionalism
and honesty Digital Equipment corporation requires of all its employees
when responding to the many questions and concerns of Digital employees
regarding the "changes in fleet plans".
|
| 565.148 | NY Times says... | NYEM1::MILBERG | Barry Milberg | Sun Jul 17 1988 21:18 | 29 |
| re: .143 - Dave, you know what Area I was in before, so don't claim
'voluntary' Plan B! (at least in the last two years).
.147 had more details, but todays New York Times had the following
synopsis (Sports section, page 10):
"New England, at 28.3 cents per mile, was the most expensive region
for ownership, while the Midwest and Southeast regions were the
least expensive at 26.3 cents. For the Mid-Atlantic states, the
cost was 27.4 cents, the same as that for the west, followed by
the Southwest at 26.9 and the Great Lakes region at 26.4."
these figures, above, were for the Escort, Celebrity and Caprice
models.
Now - the figures in .147 must be corrected for BUSINESS insurance,
but
.274 x 15,000 = $4,110 cost
200 x 12 = 2,400 monthly reimb
15,000 x .08 = 1,200 mileage reimb
------
3,600 total reimb $510 SHORT
(plus insurance dif)
-Barry-
|
| 565.149 | Air Conditioning | RIPPLE::KOTTERRI | Rich (Welcome Back) Kotter | Mon Jul 18 1988 10:00 | 9 |
| Re: .147
You state that the 1988 edition of "Your Driving Costs" shows a two
cent adder to the cost per mile for air conditioning. My 1986 edition
shows a two *tenths* of a cent adder per mile for air conditioning.
You may want to double check. I doubt it has gone up ten fold in
two years.
Rich
|
| 565.150 | Insurance is a MAJOR variable in the equation | DR::BLINN | Lost in space | Mon Jul 18 1988 11:59 | 10 |
| Re: .147 -- While it *may* be possible to buy insurance as
cheaply as they describe, I fit that insurance profile, and
I can't buy insurance that cheaply here in New Hampshire.
I wonder for which part of the USA they are quoting numbers?
There are rural areas where insurance is lots cheaper than
the primarily metropolitan areas where Digital does business.
I don't even like to *think* what business insurance would
cost.
Tom
|
| 565.151 | plan B | CHGV04::KAPLOW | Set the WAYBACK machine for 1982 | Mon Jul 18 1988 12:04 | 48 |
| Re: .132
I've taken plan B voluntarily, if you consider my initial choice
8.5 years ago between keeping the car I had just bought (VW
Rabbit) or taking the decrepit Ford Granada sitting in the lot a
choice. I never switched off plan B because I wouldn't be caught
dead in what was offered (literally). For the most part, I've been
the only plan B driver in my group. The rest of the folks seem to
have constant battles with Gelco (or whoever) just to keep their
cars maintained so that they are SAFE, much less run well.
I also stayed on plan B since the fringe benefit to me at the time
for plan A was small. Until March, I lived about 1 mile from the
office, and drove few business miles. The plan B reimbursement
really was a "benefit" to me, certainly not a tool (just ask the
IRS - they view it the same way).
Still, at any time, I might need to go to another Digital site, or
to a customer site on behalf of Digital. My car was always "on
call". My insurance had to list Digital as an additional insured,
but since my "typical weekly business mileage" truthfully was 0,
it never cost me any extra premium. What it did cost me to keep
that car in the Digital parking lot every work day was far more
than $180/month. Living that close to the office, I could have
walked, biked, down-line-loaded, or whatever to work, and
dispensed with the car entirely. Cut out all car expenses
completely for one car. We are a two car family, but could have
survived with one if I didn't have to have this one sitting here.
Costs: well, December '86, I bought a new car fror about $17K
(cash, as a result of selling off DEC stock to take the capital
gains break before it went away). Insurance is costing me about
$700/year. So far, there haven't been any repair bills, but
regular maintenance is probably at least $500/year. Licences, etc.
add another $100.
Even ignoring gas and the like (assuming I'm not driving to work,
and that other mileage would go on my other car), $180/month minus
taxes (at least 1/3 of the $180 goes to taxes), plus the $560 in
additional mileage doesn't pay for this car just sitting in the
Digital parking lot looking cute, much less give me anything back
for the money I sunk into this car. Even DCU pays some interest on
my money.
Last year I put almost 7000 miles on this car. Total tax writeoffs
for this much mileage are a big fat ZERO thanks to the new tax
"simplifusion".
|
| 565.152 | | WAV14::HICKS | Tim Hicks @BXO | Mon Jul 18 1988 12:21 | 24 |
| Re: some notes a long way back...
I stand corrected on the matter of whether Plan A was a benefit.
Obviously you looked at your own situation, did some math, and felt
that it was. My point is that NOWHERE in any official DEC policy
statements were we encouraged to think that the car was offered
by the company as a benefit, ie. compensation. The financial benefit
you derived from it was, in the company's view, a convenient
by-product, but not part of the company's purpose.
By the way, I am in sales and have been perusing and posting marginally
useful notes for a while now; we're not nearly as computer-illiterate
as you might think.
Way back at the beginning, I posted a note on a competitive car
plan which fairly broke-out fixed and non-fixed costs for given
geographic areas. The company was Sperry (UNIVAC) now part of Unisys,
and the company which designed the plan was I believe, Runzheimer
of New York.
DEC can do a LOT better job for its employees than current plan
B.
...Tim Hicks
|
| 565.153 | Business miles are important, but... | GUIDUK::BURKE | NEVER confuse Sales with Delivery! | Mon Jul 18 1988 12:29 | 22 |
| Re: < Note 565.143 by ODIXIE::JENNINGS "Dave Jennings" >
Dave, I agree that the plan should be managed better. However,
it's not necessarily as simple as "putting some minimum amount of
business miles on a car...".
Let's take me as a good example (not necessarily a good person,
just a good example *;'} ). For my previous two years, I was
racking up roughly 100 miles a day to and from a residency. However,
as of late I have been working on a project at our local DEC office,
and will probably be doing so for some time.
I received my new car just at the transition point from the residency
to DEC local office stuff. Thus, I had all sorts of business milage
to justify my present car, but if I don't make many customer calls
in the next two years...well, need I go on.
The bottom line is that it is all in the draw of the cards. That
is why there *IS* (*WAS*) a plan A.
Doug
|
| 565.154 | Liability concerns | PH4VAX::WILKINSON | | Mon Jul 18 1988 13:10 | 12 |
| other costs to consider:
I work for field service and at different times had to carry parts
and test equipment to site. Does Digital expect me to provide the
liability insurance on this equipment? Some of the test equipment
has a value in excess of $30K. If I carry the spares kit for an
8800 I am carry assets in excess of $30k. As I understand it car
insurance does not cover these parts but my homeowners does. Should I
(Do I ) have to take out a homeowners rider to cover these parts
(The cost for test equipment and parts will be much higher tomorrow)
which I HAVE TO CARRY? What about Sales who carry complete systems?
If my car should get stolen while carring this equipment it could
be ecomomically devistating.
|
| 565.156 | Another packet is yet to come... | NEWVAX::PAVLICEK | Zot, the Ethical Hacker | Mon Jul 18 1988 16:36 | 14 |
| Just called the magic Fleet number on the memo.
The person says that some type of information packet will be sent
out to explain things in the near future. When the packet arrives,
will someone kindly post the significant contents here? My copy
of the original Plan A memo just showed up at my house at the end
of last week -- just 2 weeks after the memo date.
The Fleet person also confirmed that the 1988 W2 would have *no*
Fringe Benefit Valuation added to it. Someone had posted that earlier,
but someone else I know had been told by Fleet that they "weren't
sure" about it. Seems like they're sure now.
-- Russ
|
| 565.157 | driving costs revisited | ARGUS::COLLENTINE | | Mon Jul 18 1988 22:17 | 18 |
|
RE: .149
Actually the 1988 "your driving cost" report
says to add 20 cents per mile and 37 cents per day.
I assumed that to be a typo and changed it to 2 cents.
Running A/C will certainly cut down on the gas mileage
I have to believe its more than 2 tenths. I guess
we need to contact the source for clarification.
Runzheimer international (414) 534-3121.
RE: .150
I know when I was living in Boston I could
not even purchase personal automobile insurance for
half of what is listed the 1988 "your driving costs"
report. I am certain a year of business class automobile
insurance would require a small loan.
|
| 565.158 | Call for more writers | BACKSD::MEIER | My Tool Is No Longer Flexible!! | Mon Jul 18 1988 23:41 | 75 |
| We still need more people to post their specific case studies,
showing not only the cost of a car but when you will lose your
Plan A car and the hardship that will result. Since some people
read the Vogon News Service (VNS) thru VTX, I sent the following
letter to the editor. I hope it gets published soon. -- harrY
"Don't it always seem to go that you don't know what you got til
it's gone?" - Joni Mitchell
If you are a sales rep or software specialist in the U.S. Field
driving a company car, then you undoubtedly received the memo from
the U.S. Field Management Team eliminating the company car plan.
This is a major blow to employees with company cars. Although the
cars were primarily provided for business travel, employees were
granted use of the car outside work hours for all of their personal
travel as well. The cost to the employee was only $24 per week,
barely enough to cover fuel expenses. This personal use of the car
was equivalent to a significant benefit. It saved the employee about
$5,000 - $7,000 in salary that would have otherwise been necessary
for her/him to obtain and maintain an equivalent car on her/his own.
Therefore, it helped Digital draw the best talent away from
competitors without car plans who might have tendered offers of
several thousand dollars more per year in salary. Suddenly, that
chunk of the employee's compensation is gone.
Car Plan B is still being offered, but this plan does not save the
employee money; it costs money. Furthermore, many employees can not
afford the upfront cost to purchase a late model car as required by
Plan B. As a result, there is a lot of hardship out there.
Myself and many other employees who care a lot about Digital are
afraid that many people losing their cars will be forced to leave the
company. We fear that many others will leave because of the
unfortunate way the announcement memo boasts that this move gives the
employee "greater flexibility" (paragraph 45).
We plead with those of you who are losing your cars to hang on if you
can, at least for the time being. Maybe something can be done.
People are already documenting the problem and brainstorming
solutions in the "Digital" conference in the Notes file. This is a
leisure-time conference that we use to think aloud and discuss
informally amongst ourselves the Digital way of working. By the
way, the Digital conference is on a busy node, and the moderator asks
that you read it outside normal business hours.
If you have or can get access to a system on the E-net with Notes,
maybe you can help. If you are unfamiliar with Notes, there is a
sample conference you should read before you read the Digital
conference. Here's how:
First, ask someone how to get into Notes. Usually, you either choose
Notes from a menu, or if you have the $ prompt, you type the word
NOTES. Once in Notes, proceed as follows. The commands you must
type are in ALL CAPS. Remember to press <RETURN> after each command.
notes>OPEN SAMPLE !follow directions to learn about using Notes
...
notes>CLOSE !when finished reading sample
notes>ADD ENTRY HUMAN::DIGITAL
entry added to your notebook
notes>OPEN DIGITAL
notes>565
(Notes will now display note 565.0. You may use the <ENTER> key
to navigate thru all replies. If you need to skip ahead, at the
Notes> prompt you can type .100 to skip to reply #100, for
example.)
notes>CLOSE
notes>EXIT
We all hope something can be done to minimize people's hardship and
to minimize Digital's losses.
harrY Meier
Baltimore, MD
|
| 565.159 | 20/100ths cents = .2 cents | RIPPLE::KOTTERRI | Rich (Welcome Back) Kotter | Tue Jul 19 1988 01:45 | 7 |
| Re: .157
The 1986 "Your Driving Costs" shows the added cost of air conditioning
as .20 cents per mile and 30 cents per day. I read the .20 cents as two
tenths of a cent.
Rich
|
| 565.160 | moved by moderator | REGENT::EPSTEIN | Bruce Epstein | Tue Jul 19 1988 09:28 | 19 |
| ================================================================================
Note XXX.0 Things should change!! No replies
SNOWY::LAWRENCE 14 lines 18-JUL-1988 20:00
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The problem with plan B is that DEC wants to tell us what we have
to drive based on size whether it is a Four Wheel drive you must
get it approved through your Manager. I also agree with a lot of
people here, INSURANCE is a big piece of expense!
I believe that DEC needs to look at the whole struct of Plan B
based on the requirements of DEC. The 4 year old car is outdated
since a normal lease is 5 years now. The Mail message also stated
that the 200 was based on what other companys pay, I sure hear a
different price from the employees of these other companys, like
300 to 400 a month.
It is starting to cost to much to work in the field, maybe we all
need to go to work for the CSCs or something!
|
| 565.161 | Accident liability for CUSTOMERS?? | WAV12::DENTON | All beings are always already happy | Tue Jul 19 1988 10:18 | 11 |
| Re. .154, liability for equipment, etc.
What about liability for life and limb of customers?
If a sales rep. is carting some big wigs to lunch and gets in an
accident, is he expected to have the insurance to cover these
occupants? Doesn't Digital have some liability in this case? Perhaps
I should post this in the LAWs notes file. This question really
bugs me.
-Rob
|
| 565.162 | HINT, HINT | GRANMA::GHALSTEAD | | Tue Jul 19 1988 13:32 | 11 |
| RE .158
Maybe DEC wants to loose people. Over the last two years they hired
field sales and software like crazy. This new car plan might encourage
a few to leave.
Another Subject, I think DEC should make it DEC public knowledge the
cost per month to operate plan A cars. I'm sure they have that info.
I'm in Sales and I love VAX Notes. I use it daily.
|
| 565.163 | | HOCUS::KOZAKIEWICZ | Shoes for industry | Tue Jul 19 1988 13:54 | 12 |
| RE: .160
FWIW, Plan B allows the use of 4WD (Bronco/Bronco II, Blazer, S-10
Blazer) and mini-vans now.
re: .162
The cost of a plan A car to your cost center was about $380/month
a year ago, plus whatever you expensed.
/Al
|
| 565.164 | Personal usage and extensive repairs | OZZAIB::BIAZZO | Can tune a VAX but can't tuna fish | Tue Jul 19 1988 22:06 | 18 |
| To everyone who is preparing cost models for owning/leasing a car.
DON'T forget to factor in personal usage of the vehicle. Some of
the models I have seen of late don't take this into account. If
you run a model by management that doesn't account for personal
usage you'll surely get shot down.
I personally will be using a 75%/25% business to personal ratio.
Does this seem feasible to others?
Also, Does anyone know how a plan B driver gets reimbursed in the
event of a lengthy repair which requires the participant to rent
a car in the interim?
As the saying goes... The plot thickens...
John
|
| 565.165 | shoes for the dead! | CSOA1::REARICK | Jack Rearick PTO-SWS | Wed Jul 20 1988 00:45 | 15 |
| RE: .-1
>> DON'T forget to factor in personal usage of the vehicle...
I agree that this needs to be considered. However one also needs
to compare the cost of what they have to buy/lease to meet current
Plan B criterea .vs. what they would buy/lease if they could get
whatever they wanted.
Additionally, the insurance cost uplift for high milage/business
use is totally a business cost that would not be incurred if the
vehicle was strictly for personal use.
Jack.
|
| 565.167 | | GLDOA::SRINIVASAN | Jay Vasan | Wed Jul 20 1988 11:26 | 111 |
| I was playing with the numbers last weekend.Here is an analysis for
Income Vs expenditure for plan A and plan B based on my limited
knowledge on accounting. I am not an accountant - Hence I might have
have missed out few things.
Following is the analysis for Income Vs Expenditure for plan B :
Assumptions :
Cost of car 12,000. Car was financed with 36 months loan @ 12%,
with zero down payment.
Description Total cost for 36 months Monthly expenditure
Car payment : 12,000 + 12 % Interest Apprx 450.00 (12000/36+Int)*
Insurance : 3000 84.00
Maintenance : 1800 50.00
Total cash out flow 16,800 + 12 % Interest 584.00
on 12,000 for 3 years
* 12000/36 = $ 333.00 Plus 12% interest
INCOME ANALYSIS
For 36 months For 1 month
[a] Cash Inflow 7200 200
[b] Less
Fed Tax 28% 2016 56
State Tax 6% 432 12
FICA tax 7.5% 540 15
Total Tax 2988 83
[c] Net Cash
In flow [a]-[b] 4212 117
[d] Add $ 30 weekly
fee which need
not be paid in
plan B 4680 130
[e] Tax adder *
(28% +6% +7.5%)
Total 41.5% 1942 54
[f] Total Net
Income
[a] + [b] + [c] 10834 301
* The logic behind the tax adder [e] is that in order for one to pay $30 a
week, he must actauly earn $ 30 + 41.5 % for covering various taxes. If one
reduces the income of $200 by taxes we will owe, it is fair to add the tax
adder for the amount one might give out under plan A.
Now here is summary
Net expense 16800 + 12 % Int 584
Net Income 10834 plus 301
$4000 for salvage value 111 ( $ 4000/36)
of the car
Diference between
Income & Expenditure ( 584 - 301 - 111) = 172 per month.
Now Here is the analysis for Plan A
For 36 months For One month
Cost of Car 0 0
Insurance 0 0
Maintenance 0 0
[a1] Weekly Payments 4680 130
[b1] Tax adder * on
Weekly Payments 1942 54
[c1] Tax on Personal Use 1545 43
( 20000 Miles,
40% personal Miles
IRS rule of $3100
Net addition in W2 =$1240
Tax @ 41.5% = 515
For 3 years 515 x 3 = $ 1545
Total Cash Outflow for 8167 227
Plan A [ a1 + b1 + c1 ]
SUMMARY OF COMPARISON BETWEEN PLAN A & PLAN B.
Total Net Cash Out Flow 36 Months One Month
PLAN A 8167 227
PLAN B 16800 + Interest 584
Out of this $584, if we deduct ( $ 301 from line [f] above and $111 for the
salvage value of the car at the end of 36 months, ADDITIONAL cost incurred
will be $ 172 per month (Over and above $200).
DISCLAIMER : In case any one thinks, these calculations does not make sense
,please do not flame me. As I said in the begining, I am not an accountant.
|
| 565.168 | | CSOA1::ROTH | Hey Moe... what's a VAX? | Wed Jul 20 1988 12:01 | 10 |
| Re: .167, calculations
Looks good to me. Although you cannot arrive at an exact figure one must also
consider that the burden of insurance deductables (in case of accident) or
unforseen maintenance problems ($$$$) are borne by the employee in Plan B.
As I said, you can't come up with a $ figure for those kinds of things but it
should be considered somehow.
Lee
|
| 565.169 | Still more Plan B expenses | ATLAST::LAMPSON | VAX is a valuable trademark too. | Wed Jul 20 1988 12:18 | 7 |
| Re: .167
Looks good to me though I'm not an accountant either.
You still forgot the cost of gas, oil, other fluids & car washes
which must come out of my pocket on Plan B.
_Mike
|
| 565.170 | Need Insurance/Depreciation Data (was .166) | BACKSD::MEIER | My Tool Is No Longer Flexible!! | Wed Jul 20 1988 13:19 | 29 |
| Forget VOGON News Service! They do not accept any letters that
discuss any DIGITAL policies. VOGON is not for customers, is it?
Why can't someone express an opinion about a Digital policy
change? I thought people were allowed to speak up and speak up
freely in this outfit. The last few weeks have really been
eye-opening.
The purpose of my letter to VOGON was to increase participation
in this leisure-time conference. I still don't think anyone has
to fear for their life for thinking out loud in an informal
dialogue with their friends such as this one. If anyone does get
ostracized, please let us know. In the meantime, please let
others know this conference is here, and let them know what we
need.
Right now, we still need more data about people's real cost of
maintaining a vehicle. The AAA/Runzheimer Report in .147 says
insurance costs are only $573 a year and depreciation costs are
only $1784 a year. I suspect this depreciation figure is for a
car in ready-to-resell condition with no excess miles. These
assumptions are too ideal. I believe both these figures are low,
but we need a few real world examples to prove it.
To everyone reading who is/was on Plan A, could you please post
the price of your car new and the price quote after 3 years?
To everyone reading who is on Plan B, with a car comparable to a
Plan A car, could you please post your current annual
business-use insurance premium? -- harrY
|
| 565.171 | No insurance difference for my Plan B car | ODIXIE::JENNINGS | Dave Jennings | Wed Jul 20 1988 13:58 | 10 |
| re: insurance cost
I don't know about the rest of the country, but here in the southeast
there is _NO_ increase in car insurance for business use. In fact,
the default category on most insurace applications is "business
and pleasure". Note, however, that Digital requires your Plan B
car to carry $300K liability (more than the default here in GA)
and name them as an additional insured. I don't know about everyone
else, but I sure as heck wouldn't drive any kind of car with less
than $300K liability.
|
| 565.172 | rathole alert | CVG::THOMPSON | Accept no substitutes | Wed Jul 20 1988 14:03 | 17 |
| > Forget VOGON News Service! They do not accept any letters that
> discuss any DIGITAL policies. VOGON is not for customers, is it?
> Why can't someone express an opinion about a Digital policy
> change? I thought people were allowed to speak up and speak up
> freely in this outfit. The last few weeks have really been
> eye-opening.
The VOGON News Service is a voluntary effort by a number of DEC
employees around the world. It is *not* an official DEC instrument.
While I don't believe it is sanctioned I would be very surprised
if some issues of the VNS were not circulated via gateway outside
of DEC. VNS policy is an issue to take up either off-line or in
a separate topic. The policy in VNS about discussion about DEC
policy is a long standing one and it is the editors right to have.
Alfred
|
| 565.173 | Metpay bonanza | EMASS::BARNETTE | I'm ready...where's the Teacher? | Wed Jul 20 1988 15:05 | 3 |
|
I bet the folks at Metpay are eating this up.
|
| 565.174 | Found in Employee Purchasing Notes... | KYOA::CLEARY | Bob Cleary, SWS @KYO, New Jersey | Wed Jul 20 1988 15:09 | 42 |
| <<< SHALOT::USR$:[NOTES$LIBRARY]EMPPURPRO.NOTE;6 >>>
-< Employee Purchase Program >-
================================================================================
Note 255.0 Discounts on Ferrari? 2 replies
DIXIE1::GARABO "physically ph-f-f-f-t in Orlando" 4 lines 19-JUL-1988 21:33
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I noticed in the recent quarterly report that DIGITAL is sponsoring the
Ferrari racing team, as evidenced by the DIGITAL logo on the nose of one
of their racers. Does anyone know if we can get emplyee discounts on a
Testarossa, and would it qualify for plan B?
================================================================================
Note 255.1 Discounts on Ferrari? 1 of 2
ATLAST::VICKERS "Listened to a customer lately?" 8 lines 19-JUL-1988 23:07
-< Never hurts to ask does it? >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frank,
I am pretty sure that the answers are no but it does sound like
a good idea doesn't it?
Keep smiling,
Don
================================================================================
Note 255.2 Discounts on Ferrari? 2 of 2
VAXRIO::NATAL 2 lines 20-JUL-1988 11:18
-< Fleet Cars? >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why not Dinos as fleet cars?
If we have a great deal with Mr. Enzo...
|
| 565.175 | | GLDOA::SRINIVASAN | Jay Vasan | Wed Jul 20 1988 15:13 | 10 |
| re .169
> You still forgot the cost of gas,oile and other fluids & car washes
> which must come out of my pocket on Plan B.
In plan B one gets 8 cents for each business mile. I made the
assumption this will more or less cover the cost of Gas and other
fluids. Also another $50 per month is assumed in my calculations
for general maintenance.
|
| 565.176 | Call AAA for Quote | LAGUNA::SEIDMAN | We're BEATRICE" | Wed Jul 20 1988 16:05 | 12 |
| re: .170
Regarding the AAA report and your request for insurance premium
data;
I suggest calling AAA for a quote. I recommend this due to the
number of variables required. You'll be surprized (than again,
maybe not.)! My manager called AAA. They quoted him an annual
premium fee of $1,800. He told them that according to their own
published data, he anticipated a premium of $500-$600 and requested
an explanation. Only rhetoric followed.
|
| 565.177 | Higher Still | SRFSUP::GOLDSMITH | Only 65.9% of my former self. | Wed Jul 20 1988 17:14 | 15 |
|
I've been on Plan B for a few months. When I came to DEC (over a year
and a half ago) , my car would not qualify, and our area was not
putting anybody new on Plan A.
I am insured with AAA to the tune of over $2000 a year. My insurance
went up by about $300 a year for business and the higher limits.
In LA, insurance rates are very high. I have a clean record, if
I had an accident or tickets, the rate would be even higher.
I was hopping Plan B would go up to a least $300, $200 is simply
not enough in this area.
--- Neal
|
| 565.178 | Now What About the Cost of the Car Itself? | BACKSD::MEIER | My Tool Is No Longer Flexible!! | Wed Jul 20 1988 18:19 | 13 |
| Okay, it seems insurance rates do vary widely. I've heard low
figures of $600 and $800, and a high figure of $2000 (I'm not
sure if that is for a Celebrity/Taurus class car). But I think
$1000 would be good to use in your calculations if you want to
use a generalized round number that is a conservative estimate.
This is the value I used in my example. The bottom line was
still staggering.
Now, does anybody else have the before and after price for their
last car that we can use as examples to calculate depreciation?
harrY
|
| 565.179 | Plan B sounds better! | TARKIN::BELLEW | | Wed Jul 20 1988 19:36 | 30 |
|
The model in .167 shows that Plan B is actually MORE beneficial to the
employee than Plan A. If you want to PROVE that Plan B will cost YOU
money, I'd advise that you don't use that model !!
The bottom line in the model is that it "costs" $172.00/month for the
employee to be on Plan B and $227.00 a month for the employee to be on
plan A. Is this what you want to demonstrate ??
Does this lend more credence to my conclusion in .131 ??
.167> SUMMARY OF COMPARISON BETWEEN PLAN A & PLAN B.
.167>
.167> Total Net Cash Out Flow 36 Months One Month
.167>
.167> PLAN A 8167 227
.167>
.167> PLAN B 16800 + Interest 584
.167>
.167> Out of this $584, if we deduct ( $ 301 from line [f] above and $111 for the
.167> salvage value of the car at the end of 36 months, ADDITIONAL cost incurred
.167> will be $ 172 per month (Over and above $200).
.167> Diference between
.167> Income & Expenditure ( 584 - 301 - 111) = 172 per month.
|
| 565.180 | Just doesn't sound right... | IND::SAPIENZA | Knowledge applied is wisdom gained. | Wed Jul 20 1988 23:39 | 19 |
|
.178> Now, does anybody else have the before and after price for their
.178> last car that we can use as examples to calculate depreciation?
In the process of putting together my own case study, I called
Gelco to find out what the "employee sale quotation" for my current
Plan A car would be. However harrY, I don't think you can use the
price quoted to determine depreciation because we don't know how
much Gelco paid for the car.
FWIW, my current 1987 Ford Taurus L with 31,000 miles on it would
cost a mere $6735 if I were to purchase it from Gelco today. My
copy of _Edmund's_Used_Car_Prices_ indicates that the Taurus originally
listed at $11438. This would suggest a depreciation of $4703 in
one year, or just over 41%.
Frank
|
| 565.181 | | WINERY::BOUCHARKE | Ken Bouchard WRO3-2 521-3018 | Wed Jul 20 1988 23:55 | 7 |
| .67> If this is correct, then it appears that either we go Plan B or
.67> "no plan" with *NO* reembursement whatsoever (oh boy, what
Sorry,as it was explained to me,being on no plan with *no*
reimbursement is *not* an option...if you are eligible for plan
B then you must have a plan B car...or else...
|
| 565.182 | I thought so, but... | BOSTON::SOHN | W'happen? | Thu Jul 21 1988 09:28 | 13 |
| re: < Note 565.181 by WINERY::BOUCHARKE "Ken Bouchard WRO3-2 521-3018" >
> Sorry,as it was explained to me,being on no plan with *no*
> reimbursement is *not* an option...if you are eligible for plan
> B then you must have a plan B car...or else...
Strangely enough, I thought the same thing. So I asked my manager.
She said, if I didn't want a car, Digital was not going to make me
have one. (I'm in SWS, BTW)
Hmmmmm...
|
| 565.183 | or else ... WHAT ? | BACKSD::MEIER | My Tool Is No Longer Flexible!! | Thu Jul 21 1988 09:49 | 37 |
| .181:
>>> Sorry,as it was explained to me,being on no plan with *no*
>>> reimbursement is *not* an option...if you are eligible for plan
>>> B then you must have a plan B car...or else...
or else ... WHAT ? ? ?
Seriously, is this anything other than a perceived fear on some
nervous people's part? Does anyone really have any REASON to
believe that they absolutely MUST go out and buy a late model
car?
On the contrary, look at the evidence in this note:
1. Someone cited part of the fleet manual earlier. Nowhere did
it say an employee MUST participate in anything. It said that if
the employee is eligible, then .... As the noter pointed out,
having a late-model car was treated as though it was a
prerequisite, without which you are simply not eligible.
2. I asked many notes ago whether anyone was forced or
threatened in any way. No one has replied in the affirmative.
Be alert:
Of course, if I was your manager, and my scruples were of a
certain kind, I might engage in manipulation tactics, using
phrases such as "It is expected that ... " or "You should ...",
but if you were persistent and cornered me, I would have to
concede that there is no such written policy. "But boy, I'd sure
appreciate if ...."
harrY
|
| 565.184 | Cost of Car | BACKSD::MEIER | My Tool Is No Longer Flexible!! | Thu Jul 21 1988 09:51 | 36 |
| .180:
>>> In the process of putting together my own case study, I called
>>> Gelco to find out what the "employee sale quotation" for my current
>>> Plan A car would be. However harrY, I don't think you can use the
>>> price quoted to determine depreciation because we don't know how
>>> much Gelco paid for the car.
That's irrelevant. You or I could not buy the car on our own at
Gelco's discount (I assume they must get some discount). We
would have to buy it retail. So everyone please give us the
retail price as the "before" price. You can get this from the
sticker if you remember or have a copy, or you can look it up in
a price book.
>>> FWIW, my current 1987 Ford Taurus L with 31,000 miles on it would
>>> cost a mere $6735 if I were to purchase it from Gelco today. My
>>> copy of _Edmund's_Used_Car_Prices_ indicates that the Taurus originally
>>> listed at $11438. This would suggest a depreciation of $4703 in
>>> one year, or just over 41%.
Wow, what an investment for your money! Why do you suppose they
don't have mutual funds that invest in late-model domestic cars?
Anyway, in this example, you have a 1987 car with 31,000 miles.
Is that in only 12 months? In order to be fair, you really
should round the age of the car to the nearest month, not the
nearest year. I think that is what the guide books do. Also,
was the guidebook trade-in value within reason of the Gelco
quote? Don't forget to subtract for high miles. -- harrY
Frank
|
| 565.185 | News from my district | NEWVAX::PAVLICEK | Zot, the Ethical Hacker | Thu Jul 21 1988 11:27 | 12 |
| Our district (SWS) just had a meeting yesterday. Our local fleet
representative was there. She says that Plan B is not a requirement
for us and that we are eligible for the "no-plan" 22.5 cents/mile.
I put the question to our district manager: How will our not having
a Plan B car (i.e., a late model, good looking set of wheels) affect
our performance appraisals? His response: It shouldn't. Digital
doesn't do your P.A. based on your personal house, so why should
Digital base your P.A. on your personal car? It's your property,
not Digital's.
-- Russ
|
| 565.186 | Don't forget the Taxes! | PH7VAX::MCBRIDE | do it, try it, get sued, fix it! | Thu Jul 21 1988 11:37 | 12 |
| Some of the previous entries include comparisons of the two plans.
I noticed, however, that they don't include the tax due on these
reimbursements. The $200 from plan "A" is taxable, the difference
between $.225 and $.08 for business miles is deductible. Opinions
vary on what the benefit amount for "new"plan A is. $3100 plus
personal miles minus employee contribution? $3100 x ratio of business
to personal miles minus employee contribution. To me it's irrelevant.
I have 47k on my DEC heap in just 15 months. No matter what happens
I'm broke. I took this job without relocation because the bulk
of the expense was the cost center's...all I have to do is put in
3 hours a day to commute. Now I shell out the bucks...if I gotta
I gotta...If I can't I can't.
|
| 565.187 | Yet more FBV info... | NEWVAX::PAVLICEK | Zot, the Ethical Hacker | Thu Jul 21 1988 12:00 | 10 |
| re: .156
Following up on another point, the person at the Fleet number says
that although the Fringe Benefit Valuation will not appear on our
1988 W-2 form, the FBV will begin accruing as of Nov. 1, 1988.
So, if you scrap your Plan A car in December of 1988, you will pay
for the FBV in the Spring (i.e., before April 15) of 1990!
-- Russ
|
| 565.188 | | BMT::SAPIENZA | Knowledge applied is wisdom gained. | Thu Jul 21 1988 22:16 | 72 |
|
Re: .184
The price quoted by Gelco is lower than the "average retail"
price listed in _Edmund's_. When I joined Digital, some employees
mentioned this as another benefit of the job ("you can buy the car
after 3 years and probably sell it at a profit..."). Since Gelco
must clearly determine the employee price based on their original
purchase price, we would in fact need to know their cost in order
to get a better handle on the depreciation.
According to _Edmund's_, the average retail price for a 1987
Taurus L Sedan is $9100. They suggest adding $75 to this for the
power brakes, and deducting $500 for the excessive mileage. This
would leave us with an average retail of $8675. Comparing this figure
to the original list ($11438) suggests a depreciation of only $2763,
or just over 24%. Note that this is significantly lower than the
depreciation calculated using Gelco's employee quotation.
Re: .* and taxes
If Digital considers the $200 per month Plan B stipend as
reimbursement for use of a personal car, I don't think taxes would
be witheld from it. If you look at your last W-2, in the "Detail
of Box 10" section, you will see that there is a separate line item
for "Fleet". I imagine this is where the $200 + .08/mile would be
listed, with taxes witheld on only the "Adj Gross YTD".
At tax time, you have to determine how much it cost you to use
the car for business purposes. This can be done by using a flat
rate of 22.5 cents per business mile, or by determining your actual
fuel, oil, maintenance, insurance, depreciation, auto-loan interest,
etcetera, and then figuring the actual percentage of business use. This
amount is used to offset the reimbursement from Digital. If there is
an excess (that is, Digital reimbursed you more than it cost), then
the excess is reported as regular income and you have to pay taxes
on it. If there is a deficit (that is, it cost you more than you
were reimbursed), you don't pay taxes on the reimbursed amount,
and you get to deduct the deficit (if you itemize, and only to the
extent that it exceeds 2% of your adjusted gross income). If the
reimbursement equals your costs, you pay no taxes and get no
deductions.
Unfortunately, there are limits on the amounts which you can
claim for depreciation and other things. I'm planning on paying
a visit to the nearest IRS office to pick up the appropriate pamphlet
which details the limits and such. Once I think I really understand
what the IRS will allow, I will complete my case study and post
the results here.
In any event, the prior models have not properly considered the
tax consequences or BENEFITS of using your personal car for the
convenience of your employer. It would help if someone currently
on Plan B were to post a reply here indicating how the current $180
per month + .08 is reported to the IRS, and when and if any taxes
are being witheld. (Again, I don't think taxes should be witheld,
but I'm not certain.)
One last thing, although it might turn out that there are tax
advantages to using your own personal car, I am in no way in favor
of doing away with Plan A. The main reason being that I can't afford
to go out and buy a car at this time (whether it be new, used and
less than four years old, or used and over four years old). I just
don't have the "financial resources" at this time, and the Plan
B reimbursement clearly could not support the costs of a personal
car.
Frank
|
| 565.189 | have to participate? | WINERY::BOUCHARKE | Ken Bouchard WRO3-2 521-3018 | Thu Jul 21 1988 22:28 | 6 |
| I didn't realize that there isn't a written policy governing mandatory
plan participation.(I never looked,just took my manager's word for
it) You can be sure that such a policy will appear in writing when
and if enough field people start showing up for work in undesirable
cars.(USFMT will see to *that*)
|
| 565.190 | Some tax related info for .188 | LAGUNA::SEIDMAN | where miracles never cease | Thu Jul 21 1988 23:10 | 42 |
| re: .188
As a five year veteran of Plan "B" I can tell you taxes are not
witheld from the $180, now $200 per month car allowance. It is
added to the W-2 as untaxed income.
If you don't have a tax deduction to counter the untaxed income
(like business use of an auto) you'd pay Uncle Sam the taxes due
when you file taxes by having them subtracted from your refund due
(if your so lucky) or by paying them directly.
As I mentioned in .?, due to the tax reform act, very little benefit
is gained from the tax deduction of an auto used for business use.
Prior to '87 the out of pocket money not covered by the $180/m was
realized as a tax deduction. (car expenses minus reimbursments
* your business mile percentage = tax write-off). My business milage
usually ran about 73% So . . . I paid for only about 27% of what
the car actual cost me to own and operate (there is some ITC
depreciation figured into the formula also - way over my head).
This I was willing to cover for the freedom that owning my own vehicle
offered me.
Not so today. My tax accountant said while reviewing my '87 return,
"ask your employer to raise your car allowance, the tax deduction is
not very good now." (can't describe new tax formula due lack of
understanding).
You may ask, "If you;ve been on Plan "B" for so long what do you
care?"
Well, due to the low tax benefit I made the decision to switch to
Plan "A". I placed an order in May for a DECwreck. I was told
that fleet was not excepting any new car orders until August/Sept.
time frame except for emergency orders. This time is required for
Digital to negotiate their deals for the '89 models, I was told.
So I decided that would be just fine, time to sell my car, get a
nice new '89.
As they say, "the rest is history."
|
| 565.191 | More noise - maybe. | ALBANY::MULLER | | Fri Jul 22 1988 08:56 | 3 |
| Y'all might be interested in seeing what happens in the RAINBO::LAWS
conference in the note entitled "Company Car Question" just placed
there. - Fred
|
| 565.192 | don't count on it... | NOVA::M_DAVIS | Put me in a home for the ridiculous. | Fri Jul 22 1988 12:06 | 6 |
| I wouldn't look for too much, Fred... asking that attorneys who
receive their salary from DIGITAL provide ammunition against
the corporation is pretty futile. If anyone answers your note,
I'd be surprised.
Marge
|
| 565.193 | Real tarnish on Digital's sterling image | GLASS::HULL | 20 minutes into the Future | Fri Jul 22 1988 23:28 | 44 |
|
I guess it's time I added my $.02 worth here.
I have had a plan A car since my first day at DEC over 6 years
ago. While I was never even told about getting a car during the
hiring process, as soon as I was in the company, it was certainly
touted as a benefit of being in the field in SWS. I see it as a
$6K/yr salary cut.
Fortunately, I just got my Taurus in January - so I have some
breathing room before the true impact of all this B.S. hits home.
I was totally dumbfounded when I got the infamous "tool" letter.
What a crock. Repugnant (re: -.something) hits the nail right on
the head. Who are they kidding??
Since we are stuck with the situation, to get an idea of the
financial impact to me I called my insurance agent today (State
Farm) to get a rough idea of the business insurance costs, etc.
Here's the data and results:
My age - over 25 - no tickets in over 3 years. Already have 1
family car though State Farm (discount for car #2).
Quoting on a fictitious 1988 Taurus sedan used for 70% business,
and compared against just insured as a home-to-work-and-back car,
here were the approximate rates:
no business use: $348 for 6 months
business use, plan B guidelines: $435 for 6 months
the quote was with $300K liability, etc.
I live in the 'burbs 30 miles out of Detroit, so rates aren't too
bad. Downtown Motown is an insurance nightmare, though.
Please keep the info on real-life costs of plan B coming in. If
anyone who did the full tax stuff for last year could post the
relevant info, it would sure help us all understand the true impact
of this.
Regards,
Al
|
| 565.194 | US Field Management Team | ARGUS::COLLENTINE | | Mon Jul 25 1988 13:26 | 20 |
|
There have beem numerous questions as to who comprises the
US Field Management Team. It is made up of the following
Digital Employees.
Chick Shue (VP) MR03-3/B14 297-6067 VAXMAIL oreos::shue
Ray Wood (VP) MR03-3/B14 297-2789 VAXMAIL oreos::wood
Don Zereski (VP) WFR-2/C8 268-3100 VAXMAIL usfshq::dzereski
Bill Ferry (VP) PK03-2/5E 223-2262 VAXMAIL greco::ferry
|
| 565.195 | I'm standing up to be counted | NCVAX1::BLACK | just hanging around ... again | Mon Jul 25 1988 15:44 | 113 |
| I am a SWS unit manager in Minneapolis. I have worked in the field for
about 14 years and have had a 'Plan A' car all that time. I always
questioned the policy that you got a car cause you had job code
xxx (rather than basing the availability on miles driven or something
like that). I don't see the demise of the plan as being a huge issue
- I do see some issues that I have outlined in a memo that I just
sent to my Country Manager, Area Manager & District Manager. A copy
of the memo is contained below. If you really believe that there
are issues, you will not solve them here. Put together your ideas
and exercise the open door (er EM mail slot) policy.
Do not extract the following - write your own ideas and put your
own name on it!
I N T E R O F F I C E M E M O R A N D U M
Date: 25-Jul-1988 13:01 CDT
From: David M. Black
BLACK.DAVID
Dept: SWS
Tel No: 442-2024
TO: Remote Addressee ( BILL FERRY @PKO )
TO: Remote Addressee ( ARNDT.RAY@A1@CHFV03 )
TO: Allen Short ( SHORT.AL )
Subject: Comments on the demise of car plan A
Gentlemen, I feel it necessary to comment on the recent announcement
of the demise of Car Plan A. I am not acting as a spokesman for my
unit. Rather, the ideas and comments contained here are my own.
Overall, I believe that most of us (except the high business mileage
drivers) can understand why Plan A is going away; there have been too
many people who have had a car because of their job code rather than
their job!
My comments and concerns fall into three areas.
The first area for comment is the situation into which this change puts
our employees who do run up lots of business mileage. As a necessity
of doing some pieces of business, we sometimes have employees driving
up to ~ 100 miles ONE WAY on a daily basis for extended periods of
time. One of the residencies in my own unit was about 65 miles from the
office. The sales representatives who cover places like northern
Minnesota and other rural areas often use up a car in a year and a half.
The number of people in this type of situation varies with time. It
seems that Digital should carry a larger share of the financial burden
of doing that type of business since the employee is bearing the
personal burden that comes with all those long drives.
My second area of comment concerns the financial impact which Plan B
places on the individual (especially the younger drivers). I am making
a basic assumption that we would like people to drive something
similiar in nature to the current Plan A cars (rather than a bunch of
Yugos). While I understand that the $200 a month is meant to assist one
in obtaining a car, it does not appear to be enough to offset the
additional costs which will be incurred in obtaining a car that
qualifies (versus just any car) plus the business insurance which is
required. The national survey which your letter refers to does not apply
to any ONE driver in the US. In addition, there are other national
surveys which show higher costs of ownership. Even in Minnesota, a driver
cannot get insurance and buy a car similiar to the current Plan A cars
for anything approaching $200 a month. This situation must be much worse
in the high insurance areas of the country. This is particularly true for
one who has had only a Plan A car (ie no other vehicle) and is treated
as a first time buyer by the insurance companies. In addition, there are
many drivers whose business mileage doesn't exceed 10 or 15% of their
total mileage and it seems senseless to require them to to buy insurance
which implies that the car is PRIMARILY for business use.
My final area of comment concerns the method by which we received the
message. The letter omits readily available information which, if
provided, could assist the employee in determining what to do and when
to do it. An example of omission is that the fringe benefit value will
not be added to our W2s in calendar 1988. The letter contains what
might generously be called 'a different point of view' when it states
that the reason for the demise of Plan A is to provide the employee
greater flexibility in the choice of tools. That is an outright
fabrication; we previously had Plan A, Plan B and 'no-plan'; we now
have Plan B and 'no-plan'; this results in less options (and
flexibility) not more. Reaction to that particular phrase seems to be
that allowing such verbage must question the intelligence and
perception of our employees and that this letter is NOT the Digital
way of doing things.
My suggestions are 1) have a 'Plan A' option for high business mileage
drivers 2) realistically evaluate what you expect in a 'Plan B' car and
insurance versus what you are providing as a means to obtain same AND
look at what the competition is providing and 3) quickly issue a
sincere, complete and truthful letter explaining what and when. A nice
touch would be to then follow that letter up with an overview of
information about such related subjects as leasing versus buying, tax
implications, Q&A (using real questions actually received at Fleet), etc.
Although these related topics are being handled by some of us on a local
basis, such information from on high might provide a sense of 'we are
all in this together'.
I would like to compliment the people in Rick Catino's Fleet
organization on how well they are handling what must be an extremely
frustrating situation.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback.
|
| 565.196 | Do managers read VAXmail? | KYOA::CLEARY | Bob Cleary, SWS @KYO, New Jersey | Mon Jul 25 1988 16:26 | 17 |
| RE .194
You have given *VAXmail* accounts for high ranking members of
management. From my vantage point, every one with any form or
management in their title were unable or unwilling to use VAXmail and
only read ALL-IN-1 mail or DECmail. I have used FINGER when building
distribution lists to see how recently one has signed on and how many
"unread" VAXmail messages they had. I would then send mail to the
account that appeared to be used most often (in our area, the ALL-IN-1
is on a different system/cluster than where we do our real work, this
way we must remember to sign on the other system several times a day to
check for our mail vs "... you have new mail ..." when it arrives). Are
teh VAXmail addresses the right place to send the mail to? Do they each
have their own RA81 to receive all the mail or are we going to fill out
their disk and or quota?
Bob Cleary
|
| 565.197 | I wouldn't bet that we will bury them! | NCVAX1::BLACK | just hanging around ... again | Mon Jul 25 1988 17:33 | 17 |
|
Re .196
You raise an interesting possibility - that we could fill up their
disk space. I'd bet an administrator keeps their mail caught up
and they might not have the same limits that we do!
Based on the huffing and puffing going on, those EM lines and accounts
should be burning up! But, I really wonder how many people have
actually put themselves in print over this. My hunch is we don't
have to worry about filling up someones disk quota.
Writing here isn't going to get you anywhere (although Rick Catino -
the fleet manager - is aware that this topic exists) - if you really
believe, write to your USFMT member.
|
| 565.198 | loophole | SRFSUP::MORRIS | Dirty Ashley | Mon Jul 25 1988 17:55 | 9 |
| I have decided how I'm going to handle this situation when January
rolls around and my 84 Daytona no longer meets plan B requirements.
I'm gonna buy an 86 Yugo, get the 100-300-50, get my $200 a month,
put it on blocks, and drive my Kawasaki to work.
Of course, if my 84 Daytona is a better image car than an 86 Yugo,
why don't I just get reimbursed for that. Vicious circles, man,
just vicious.
|
| 565.199 | Do both. | BACKSD::MEIER | My Tool Is No Longer Flexible!! | Mon Jul 25 1988 20:38 | 32 |
| Re .197
>>> if you really believe, write to your USFMT member.
By all means!! If you are not convinced by signs that Digital
has changed, and you still believe Digital is the same place it
always was, and that the Open Door Policy still exists, please
write a letter to the USFMT members, now that we have their
addresses. I have reason to be skeptical; I've learned in
conversation that most employees in my office are afraid for
their jobs even to post their comments in this leisure time Notes
file, let alone write to any level of management. (Isn't that a
big difference already from 5 or so years ago?)
Please when you write leave your emotions behind and write a very
professional letter. Cite specific hardships as did the letter
posted here. Offer constructive suggestions. State that you
expect a reply.
>>> Writing here isn't going to get you anywhere (although Rick Catino -
>>> the fleet manager - is aware that this topic exists) -
Can we make that, "writing here is not enough"? If you do care
about this problem and are serious about following up,
participating in this discussion is very helpful. I have gotten
a lot of useful facts to put in my letter from this discussion.
I still hope to get more data from Noters about real-life
depreciation costs. I really hope people will continue to
participate in this discussion in addition to their other
efforts. Thanks. -- harrY
|
| 565.200 | One guy refused to give up his 'Vette! | YUPPIE::COLE | You have me confused with someone who gives a $%^&! | Tue Jul 26 1988 09:54 | 10 |
| RE: Note 565.198
The "garaging" of your Plan B car is an old trick. I know several
people that let the wife drive the Plan B car because they have a better older
car that is paid for. Frankly, I would rather squire my customers around in a
well-kept late seventies Cadillac or Lincoln than an '88 Chevy whatever!
You also bring up an interesting point - the "expiration" of the four
year period. Is it at the end of the CALENDAR year that corresponds to the
MODEL year plus 4? I thought it was MODEL year based.
|
| 565.202 | IRS VIEW OF BUSINESS MILES | LAGUNA::BRUNER | | Tue Jul 26 1988 14:53 | 18 |
| A COMMUTE IS THE DISTANCE FROM YOUR HOME TO YOUR "PRINCIPLE PLACE
OF BUSINESS". IF DIGITAL IS OFFERING YOU AN OFFICE IT COULD BE
THAT IS YOUR PRINCIPLE PLACE OF BUSINESS AND THE DRIVE IS NOT
DEDUCTABLE.
IF YOU SENT A LETTER TO YOUR BOSS INDICATING THAT YOU WERE SETTING
AN OFFICE UP IN YOUR HOME, AND THANK YOU VERY MUCH, BUT I WILL NO
LONGER REQUIRE SPACE IN THE DIGITAL BUILDING, YOU COULD CLAIM ALL
MILES DRIVEN AS BUSINESS (KEEP GOOD WRITTEN RECORDS).
ALSO THIS COULD ENTITLE YOU TO TAKE AN EXPENSE CALLED THE OFFICE
IN HOME EXPENSE. THIS IS A VERY TOUCHY POINT WITH THE IRS. BUT
THIS COULD LEAD TO LARGE DEDUCTIONS.
BEST OF LUCK
TOM
|
| 565.203 | | LAGUNA::BRUNER | | Tue Jul 26 1988 15:06 | 9 |
| INVESTMENT TAX CREDITS ARE A THING OF THE PAST.
YOU CAN DEDUCT THE UN-REIMBURSED BUSINESS EXPENSES ON A IRS TAX
FORM 2106 EMPLOYEE BUSINESS EXPENSE FORM. GOOD WRITTEN RECORDS
ARE REQUIRED.
GOOD LUCK
TOM
|
| 565.204 | Let the company shell out for insurance | NYEM1::TURNER | | Tue Jul 26 1988 15:37 | 7 |
| If business insurance could be expensed, and a reasonable cost per
business mile were reimbursed, most of the concerns over the demise
of Plan A would be covered. Those who drove more would receive a
higher reimbursement, and no one would be paying DEC's insurance
costs out of their own pocket.
Group insurance directly paid by the company would be even better.
|
| 565.205 | Good try, but no go. | CLO::FORNER | And you thought *YOU* were wierd! | Tue Jul 26 1988 23:20 | 8 |
| re: .202,.203
Agreed, but digital *DOES* give you a place at the office which
will nullify your claiming your business at your house. Sorry to
bust your bubble. We had the same talk with our management when
we got a RESIDENTS LOUNGE.
/p
|
| 565.206 | Use the Open Door | ALBANY::SCHICKEDANZ | There ARE no guarantees... | Wed Jul 27 1988 03:02 | 175 |
|
The following is the entire unedited text of a memo I sent to my
District Manager (and copied to my manager) regarding this issue.
Some of you might be interested to know that this was a direct
response to his request for feedback from every specialist in the
district. More managers should make it known that the "Door is Open".
I N T E R O F F I C E M E M O R A N D U M
Date: 27-Jul-1988 00:13am EST
From: Andrew C. Schickedanz
SCHICKEDANZ.ANDREW
Dept: SWS
Tel No: 344-2208
TO: MIKE DELVECCHIO @WHO ( DELVECCHIO.MIKE AT A1 at HOCUS at PCO )
CC: MAYNARD LASSONDE @ALO ( LASSONDE.MAYNARD )
Subject: RE: request for information
Dear Mike,
Thank you for your invitation to comment on the recent
letter regarding the demise of Fleet Plan "A".
As I am sure you are aware, this issue is a very
emotional one for many of us. The manner in which this
information was conveyed was abrubpt, and in my opinion,
not handled in "the DIGITAL way". I would offer the
following comments:
1. The view that the goal of eliminating Plan "A" for
most employees in the Field is to "provide ...
greater flexibility" is a narrow one at best.
For those individuals that felt selection of a
vehicle was more important than the financial
benefits of Plan "A", Plan "B" was available (but
I would argue insufficient). For the rest of us,
elimination of Plan "A" allows less flexibility,
not more.
This "cloak and dagger" approach to the issue of
rising Fleet costs has reduced my confidence in
the "value" that DIGITAL as a company places on
its employees.
The letter goes on to suggest that "other tools"
are being evaluated. I seriously hope that someone
is evaluating the 10-year old technology
(VT100-AA) that I am using to write this note.
2. The overriding justification for a company car
should be the fact that as representatives of
DIGITAL, we are required to have a vehicle
available for use on company business.
If this were not the case, I personally would
choose to not own another personal car, and would
car-pool with my spouse or avail myself of public
transportation where available. The fact that my
job can require me to travel up to 50 miles each
way on a "commute" for indefinite periods of time
to locations that do not offer the amenities of
public transportation makes this option
impossible.
3. The "Cost of Ownership" survey referred to in the
letter is completely inappropriate to the current
requirements of Plan "B". It does not take into
account the business insurance required, the
potential for high-mileage and the types of
(metropolitan) locations where DIGITAL typically
does business.
4. The availability of a company car is a tangible
benefit to each and every employee that has one.
The loss of the company car has the same effect as
a (significant) cut in salary.
If this were not the case, the IRS would not be
implementing such stringent rules surrounding
Fringe Benefit Valuation, etc... Personally, I can
appreciate paying a higher price for the personal
use of a company vehicle.
The availablity of the Plan "A" option was a
significant factor when I accepted DIGITAL's offer
of employment. If the car hadn't been available, I
would have been forced to purchase a car (as I
will be forced to when my Plan "A" car is
retired). If that had been the case, I would have
ben compelled to attempt to negotiate a
substantially higher starting salary (about $3K -
$4K), that would be equivalent to between $4K and
$6K today. While my written offer made no mention
of the car, the verbal offer most certainly did.
5. A preliminary estimate of the out-of-pocket costs
for me to purchase a new car would be about $4K
down and $225/month over and above the $200/.08
that Plan "B" will offer. If my Plan "A" car were
to be "totaled" tomorrow, I would not have the
financial resources to purchase a new car. My
manager would have to assume the responsibility of
providing transportation to a site other than the
local office.
6. When the time comes, I fear that my only option
will be to purchase a vehicle that does not
conform to any plan, and take the .225/mile
instead. My concern then will be how does my
vehicle reflect on me, and on DIGITAL? Will my
performance in part be evaluated on the basis of
the car that I [choose] can afford to drive?
I would offer the following suggestions.
1. Reinstate Plan "A" with a higher charge for
personal use. Encourage Fleet to contain costs by
shopping for better purchasing and service
arrangements. Surely a multi-year contract with a
major US manufacturer with guaranteed turnover of
vehicles could be cheaper than GELCO/PHH.
2. Raise the monthly allowance for Plan "B" to a more
realistic amount. I would suggest $300/month and
$.14/mile.
3. Relax the requirements for Plan "B" vehicles so
that they would have a longer in-service lifetime,
and therefore a lower overall cost of ownership.
4. Negotiate a group insurance policy to satisfy
DIGITAL's need to cover the liability of
transporting customers, etc. Perhaps the
requirement for 100K/300K liability coverage on
the part of the employee could be eliminated
altogether.
5. USFMT should followup QUICKLY with a much more
open statement on this issue. They should also
attempt to provide as much other information as
possible to employees that are faced with the loss
of a Plan "A" car. Information such as tax
consequences of using a personal car for business,
advantages/disadvantages of leasing etc... would
help an employee assess the impact of this policy.
6. Every manager in the field who has employees that
are affected by this policy should read note
number 565 in the DIGITAL conference on node
HUMAN::. Many employees are afraid to even use the
Open Door to address this issue.
7. Within SWS, serious consideration should be given
to the other tools that we have available to do
our jobs. I would suggest that a VAXstation per
specialist would not be unreasonable in this day
and age. We must consider what resources we have
available that can add value to the DIGITAL
Specialist in the marketplace, and tools of that
caliber would be a giant leap forward.
Thanks, Mike, for the opportunity to share my thoughts
and concerns on this issue. I sincerely hope that there
will be some serious reconsideration of this policy by
USFMT.
Regards,
Andy
|
| 565.207 | Why Don't They fix the Problem? | USHS08::LUNSFORD | Frosty Doughnut Look | Wed Jul 27 1988 16:42 | 33 |
| After reading this far, I conclude that there's alot of upset people
and I don't blame them. A lot of people are being told that they
WILL have to accept what is the equivelent to a cut in pay due to
the loss of thier company car and they meager retributions being
offered. What I've noticed is that no one has mentioned is that
if Digital is losing money or having hardship over this car plan
why don't they consider weeding out the abuser's of the plan instead
of cutting everyone off at the knees? I work in field service, I
drive a van, it costs me nothing and I DO NOT drive any personal
miles in it. I use my own vehicle for my personal driving and do
not expect Digital to pay for that...be reasonable!!!
Now, for me to "move up" in Digital I will have to surrender the
van for a terminals tech (to fill my current position) and I will
need to have a car to do my job in. I feel that if Digital wants
me to drive 40,000 miles a year (real figure) to do the work for
them they can provide me with a car or they can reinburse me for
the REAL cost of using my car (which does not meet plan B requirements)
I do not feel that I should be penalized for Digitals need for me
to have a car! If the problem is that people have a car who don't
need one just because of thier job code then a review of that situation
should be done and problems corrected. If the problem is that people
are not reporting and paying for thier personal miles they should
be the ones penalized. The bottom line of whats bothering me is
that after watching Digital's sales and profits climb nicely
for a while now I feel that my efforts to do me job efficiently
and trying to be an asset to DEC were mostly a waste because obviously
DEC is more concerned with being piss-anny with all thier employes
rather than weeding out the ones who are abusing the system and
privilages.
Flame Burning Brightly
|
| 565.208 | Will Fleet personnel leave with the cars? | KYOA::CLEARY | Bob Cleary, SWS @KYO, New Jersey | Wed Jul 27 1988 18:57 | 7 |
| Some one in my office has made an observation. The people who work for
Fleet did not have anything to do with this decision. Also, what will
those people be needed for when there are no more Plan A cars left? Are
the people in Fleet being made to work hard and take our abuse so their
jobs can go away?
Bob Cleary
|
| 565.209 | moans and groans ignored in Maynard | WINERY::BOUCHARKE | Ken Bouchard WRO3-2 521-3018 | Wed Jul 27 1988 20:14 | 4 |
| Let's take a poll...
How many of you think that all our moaning and groaning will have
*any* effect on USFMT? (don't forget that none of them are eligible
for a car therefore don't expect any sympathy)
|
| 565.210 | no cars in southern area? | WINERY::HOPKEDI | | Wed Jul 27 1988 21:08 | 7 |
| We heard out here on the west coast (western area) that the
southeast area already lost there cars. they were the test
case for the decision of the usfmt to take away the cars.
Any of you in the southern area please confirm this of not.
it seems to me that if this were true you would really be
screaming before we got the infamous letter from USFMT.
|
| 565.211 | At least you're getting Plan B | DIXIE1::LOWE | ALL-IN-THE-DARK | Wed Jul 27 1988 22:26 | 34 |
| Vote # 1 -> No effect...
As Manny stated a few hundred notes back, this policy has been in
effect in the Southern Area for years. What he didn't say is that
for the past year, all new hires have not even had the option of
Plan B. I transferred from Co-op to full-time a few months too
late.... yep, you guessed it... no car for me (or the other 5
new SWS specialists in my Unit).
I think that answers the previous questions about Plan B being
mandatory.
And before someone asks, no, Digital does not make up $180/month
difference in my salary. I do not think that I will see a
$20/month raise when Plan B goes to $200/month.
And I really don't understand how some of you think that you can
make more money at $.225/mile if you cannot expense the drive to
the customer site (for us residents anyway).
I have also seen how some of the people in this area get around
putting those tremendous miles on their Plan B cars... It's called
Hertz (or Avis). If that's not double dipping, I don't know what
is.
I don't want to be the bearer of bad news, but if I were you I would
enjoy Plan B while you still have it.
Just in case you're wondering, this rule applies to all (so we've
been told) transfers into the Southern Area.
Brett_who_wonders_if_we_all_work_for_the_same_company_and_enjoy_
the_same_benefits
|
| 565.212 | Don't bother praying for rain ... | AUSTIN::UNLAND | Sic Biscuitus Disintegratum | Wed Jul 27 1988 22:58 | 27 |
| My vote: We won't ever revert back to Plan A. They made a major
policy decision, and we'll have to live with it, for better or worse.
However, I see one of two things happening eventually. "They" may
reconsider the Plan B reimbursment amount. If enough people point
out to "them" that the average figures they used were a fantasy,
and that it costs substantially more than $200 a month to provide
a car for Digital's benefit, maybe the amount will be made a little
more reasonable.
Or, a lot of good people will start drifting away as DEC becomes
less and less competitive in the job market, and the conditions
that made DEC the preferred place to work worsen. They will then
hire in people who will accept things as they are without kicking
up a fuss about things like company cars. Of course, it will mean
that a lot of Digital-paid-for training and experience will be gone,
but that's a hard quantity to measure and put a dollar amount on.
I'm sorry if that sounds cynical, but you have to understand the
timing of this whole mess. At our unit meeting, the District Mgr.
got up and gave us a presentation on how our Area did the best in
the country, how we met all our goals, and how he was proud of us.
Then he proceeds to announce that those of us with Plan A cars will
be taking the equivalent of a major pay cut. Gee, what would have
happened if we *hadn't* been the best Area? Corporal punishment?
Geoff
|
| 565.213 | LIKE IT OR NOT | MAMTS1::TAMICO | | Thu Jul 28 1988 11:57 | 11 |
| It seems to me that "DEC" has learned how to manage their resources
a lot better lately. And the old story (like it or not) and i don't,
is "If you don't like it, move on, there is no ball and chain clamped
to your feet. There is always someone else looking for a job and
would be very happy to take yours or mine, not complain about using
their own car and say "thank-you" to "DEC" That seems to be the
"NEW DEC" mentality. The "OLD DEC" is gone people, get use to the
"NEW DEC". It will survive without "YOU"
That may sound cold, but it's the reality.
DECie with 10 years in.
|
| 565.216 | the company can take it | WINERY::BOUCHARKE | Ken Bouchard WRO3-2 521-3018 | Thu Jul 28 1988 16:10 | 11 |
| .215> for a lot of the "OLD DEC" talent that made us what we are today.
Let's address that...there was a time,not too long ago,when this
talent was really needed and such a major policy change was
unthinkable.I'm talking of the time when computers took up lots
of space,were loaded with parts and 'talent' was oftentime needed
to fix them.What do we have now? Entire computer systems can be
replaced by someone in a van...this 'talent' is not critical
anymore...sad to say,we've come to the point where a segment of
employees can be made mad and the corporation can take the defections
which are bound to result.
|
| 565.217 | additional insured a pain in the .. wallet | SHINDO::MCALLISTER | Shindo...the art of the mind | Thu Jul 28 1988 16:53 | 12 |
| As to the additional insured bit
From my actual quote - (for Houston TX)
On my Plymouth Colt model year 1985, safe driver et al
my insurance went up 121.9% (over double). This was based solely
on the additional insured clause, as I had met all of DEC's other
requirements previously, unaware of that clause.
And I don't think "Goodbye, Plan A" is fair either.
|
| 565.218 | Runzheimer article | NEWVAX::PAVLICEK | Zot, the Ethical Hacker | Thu Jul 28 1988 17:31 | 82 |
| re: a couple hundred replies ago
Someone mentioned Runzheimer (not AAA) as the root of the Plan B
numbers. Seems that these folks are in the business of helping
management cut costs. No wonder the figures seem so "conservative".
[Reproduced from the Baltimore Sun, July 28, 1988, without permission]
CONSULTANT PROPOSES BELT-TIGHTENING ON MEAL COSTS
Knight-Ridder News Service
--------
PHILADELPHIA -- If there are any business travelers out there still enjoying
long, luxurious lunches or dinners at the best restaurants on the road,
they'd better watch out. Their bosses may subscribe to _Runzheimer's Reports
on Travel Management_.
Runzheimer, a Northbrook, Ill., consulting firm that does research on travel
topics, targeted meal costs in a recent report as one part of business-travel
expenses ripe for employers who want to save money.
According to Runzheimer's resear4ch among its clients, businesses spend
about 13.7 cents of each travel dollar on meals, a relatively small percentage.
Airfares, for instance, eat up 46.7 percent of each dollar.
If a company that spends $5 million a year on travel could cut its meals
expense by 10 percent, that means savings of about $68,500 a year.
Runzheimer's suggestions to managers who need to cut back on food costs
include writing a policy that spells out in general terms what is expected
and setting guidelines for the maximum reimbursement for meals.
Among the popular techniques for cost-cutting that the consulting company
recommends are:
o Limiting employees to one cocktail with dinner and not reimbursing any
alcoholic beverages at lunch.
o Eliminating meal reimbursements if the employee had an airline meal.
o Encouraging travelers not to eat in their hotels, where costs generally
are higher than at other restaurants.
o Prohibiting the use of "expensive" restaurants, a term that isn't defined
by Runzheimer, except for entertaining an important client.
In a sample meal-reimbursement policy, Runzheimer spells out in some detail
what it considers good guidelines for travelers.
Among the rules suggested, an employer should offer to pay all "reasonable"
costs of meals for anyone traveling away from home overnight. The actual
costs of each meal should be recorded on an expenses report, separately
from hotel expenses, with those over $10 requiring a credit-card receipt
or a hotel bill.
"A restaurant stub is not considered a valid receipt," the suggested rules
state, since that kind of receipt is too easy for an employee to obtain
and fill in himself.
Runzheimer also has compiled some interesting statistics on average meal
costs in U.S. cities and abroad.
Three average restaurant meals a day are most expensive in the Pacific states,
at $35.45, followed by $33.35 in the Northeast and $31.55 in the Mid-Atlantic
states (including Maryland, Pennsylvania, Delaware and New Jersey). The
Southeast, at $29.75, and the Great Plains, at $28.80, are the least costly.
Looking at the costs worldwide, Runzheimer found that travelers who stay
in the United States generally have lower expenses than international
travelers.
The Far East has the highest expenses, by far, at $58.20 for three meals,
but average prices in Tokyo of $100 push up the average for the whole region.
In Europe, the average cost has reached $39.50. The costs get progressively
lower in the Middle East, Australia, Central America and Mexico, Africa
Canada and other parts of Asia. South America brings up the bottom of the
list.
|
| 565.219 | Let's Just Hope It Isn't So | BACKSD::MEIER | My Tool Is No Longer Flexible!! | Thu Jul 28 1988 19:00 | 39 |
| It is with deep sadness that I read the postings here, including
many recent notes, grieving the passing of OLD DEC and the
onslaught of NEW DEC. I have heard such rumblings around my own
office here in Maryland, but I had hoped it was a temporary and a
local phenomenon. I can understand, especially with the car
crisis, why people are upset. I understand why a lot of people
are seriously considering a career move, especially with some of
our most appealing competitors such as Sun, HP, and Apple
offering a better car deal to employees who must drive as part
of their work. The first people to go will be the best people;
they are the ones who are most marketable. As someone who cares
deeply about the future of Digital, this gravely concerns me.
I suspect it concerns a lot of you. This is no longer a "ME"
issue. We've had our chance to react on an emotional, selfish
level. Cooler heads prevail now. We're thinking on a community
level, and our concern is greater.
Give a Chance
A small group of people, well-intentioned but far removed from
the field, wanted to increase profits by saving a few bucks.
Maybe they have other reasons we are not privileged to know.
Anyway, they did not realize the hardship and blow to morale they
would cause. But I haven't given up hope. Maybe they still do
care and would take action to make the situation better. I think
we should at least give them a chance. Their addresses are
posted back in .194. Write them a letter. Some great letters
have already been drafted: .206 by Andy Schickedanz and .195 by
David Black are terrific! Now write your letter. Send it to the
USFMT. Tell them you've been hurt, and explain why. Post a copy
here.
All-at-1 ?
Question: should we compose our letters asynchronously and send
them all at approximately the same time, say in a couple of
weeks? -- harrY
|
| 565.220 | at least that's what they say | SRFSUP::MORRIS | maybe we'll leave come springtime... | Thu Jul 28 1988 21:28 | 15 |
| Re: the past few
After *LENGTHY* discussions with fleet admin, I discerned that DEC
does *not* need to be listed as an 'additional insured', but just
an 'interested party'. Apparently this involves the insurance company
or agent sending a 'certificate of insurance' to fleet admin.
I say apparently, because I have been carrying on this conversation
for far too friggin long, I sent fleet admin a copy of my insurance,
and gave my agent a copy of my plan b application, gave everyone
each others phone numbers, got assurances that everything was
hunky-dory, and haven't seen a penny of my plan B bucks.
Ashley_who_could_really_use_$1980_that_fleet_admin_owes_him_and_is
so_preterbed_he's_shopping_his_resume_around.
|
| 565.221 | vote 'n' note | PH4VAX::MCBRIDE | service with a smile! | Thu Jul 28 1988 21:50 | 30 |
| I vote no. Nothing anybody has to say is going to change this.
Sure, a van can pull up and, to quote an IBM engineer, everything
can be changed but the cabinet and the wheels. What used to be
a four bay cabinet is now put in a terminal server box. Every time
they do this some other bright guy (unisex) says "I wonder how much
performance we can get if we fill the old cabinet with this junk?"
Sure the old DEC is dead, but this didn't kill it. The eager,
hardworking experienced and inexperienced perople who populate the
field didn't kill it. The dedicated (am I laying it on too thick?)
professional but underpaid plant workers didn't kill it. I think
that, like a giant poplar tree, wee grew so big we had to fall.
There was a policy of one of our key people "do it, try it, fix it!"
When we do it now, we do it as cheap as practical. That is supposed
to prevent any undesirable problems from costing us in the long
run. Then there was the RA81 fiasco. Not only didn't they work
but it took 6 months to find out that they didn't and three years
to fix them. By the time we do it and try it and get ready to fix
it there are 100,000 units in the field.
Waht am I getting at? This is another cost cutting measure. They
are going to do it. It will have the desired result (same much
$$$). There will be some undesirable aftereffects. The plan is
obviously that people will be lost. Hopefully not the key people.
Just as a sucker is born every minute there is another key person
to take the place of those who leave, however. If you can't afford
to work for the new DEC (and I can't, there's no way) there will
be someone to take your place. If they do this stuff the first
to go are the ones who aren't happy here. The ones who stay are
not financially impacted or are desperate.
|
| 565.222 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Thu Jul 28 1988 23:50 | 15 |
| It should be obvious from our earnings announcement why the cars are going away:
For the quarter, the company reported total operating revenues
of $3,339,439,000, up 25 percent from the $2,669,064,000 of the
comparable quarter a year ago. Net income for the quarter rose to
$401,013,000, up 6 percent from last year's fourth quarter net income
of $377,250,000.
Announcements like this scare the people with thousands of shares of DEC stock,
because they often mean the stock will be diving.
When expenses are rising faster than revenue, unpopular decisions tend to be
made.
/john
|
| 565.223 | Lamentation For The Late Plan A | ASTRIL::DOGGEREL | formerly from the field | Fri Jul 29 1988 11:14 | 7 |
|
I once had a car from PLAN A
Til they told me it WOULD go away
Now I drive just as far
But I drive my OWN car...
And I'm a tad poorer today.
|
| 565.224 | I love it when a plan comes together. | PH4VAX::MCBRIDE | do it, ship 100,000, try it, fix it! | Fri Jul 29 1988 11:55 | 2 |
| This action should achieve the desired result. Is it really the
cause?
|
| 565.225 | giving the benefit of the doubt | CVG::THOMPSON | Accept no substitutes | Fri Jul 29 1988 12:25 | 7 |
| I realy doubt that the purpose behind dropping plan A is to
get people to leave DEC. It's just an attempt to better manage
the high cost of sales. My guess is that it's just being handled
badly and could have been done better so as not to get so many
people upset.
Alfred
|
| 565.226 | Change is tough---so is DEC!!! | USRCV1::FRASCH | | Fri Jul 29 1988 14:54 | 21 |
| Lets face it, the most difficult thing for people to accept is CHANGE.
DEC is constantly in a chenge mode. We always have and always will
be. This is just an example of a poorly implemented change.
There are lots of notes suggesting leaving DEC for a better car
plan. Somehow that doesn't compute!! Havinh been here for 12 years
and knowing something of where we are going with products, market
focus and the way we want to do business with our customers, I'd
hate like hell to have to compete with us!!!
Every month you read more and more situations where we beat IBM
at their own accounts. We are taking business from SUN by the buckets
full and it will get MUCH worse for them. Two years from mow a $450.00
car plan won't feed a SUN reps family because he won't be able
to sell enough to make a commission check (he can't eat the nice
car).
Sorry folks, I don't like it any better than anyone else, but we
are still the very best game in town!!!!
Don
|
| 565.227 | You ought to read SUN's financials more closely! | AUSTIN::UNLAND | Sic Biscuitus Disintegratum | Fri Jul 29 1988 18:59 | 28 |
| re: .226 "Change is tough"
I have no doubt that change is difficult to accept. It's especially
difficult to accept when it involves reducing your total compensation
from the company by $3000 to $5000 dollars a year. If they came to
you and said "Gee, we only grew by 25% last year, so we're going to
cut your salary by 10 percent", what would you say??
You bring up a valid point about leaving DEC for a better car plan.
That doesn't compute. But leaving DEC for a better compensation
package overall *does* compute. Your remarks about DEC being difficult
to compete with, well, I compete with IBM and HP and SUN every day,
and it's not just a walk-away for DEC. NO ONE can accuse IBM of
being unsuccessful, as they are the most respected company in the
world. NO ONE would be less than proud to work for HP or Apple,
because they are also well-respected companies. Digital has been
an extrordinarily successful company, but NO ONE can say that there
is not life after Digital, and a potentially lucrative one at that.
Just ask some of the former DEC senior executives who work for those
companies like SUN (and are making BIG bucks at it).
Digital must remain competitive in all aspects of employee relations,
not just for Engineering, or Marketing, or the Field. If not, it
will follow the example of previous "leaders of the industry", like
Sperry-Univac, Burroughs, and CDC, all of whom had the days in the
forefront of the industry, and have suffered declines since then.
Geoff
|
| 565.228 | | BENTLY::FARLEE | Insufficient Virtual...um...er... | Fri Jul 29 1988 21:15 | 17 |
| What scares me about this move is not so much the fact
that I will be taking a major financial hit (although that
*is* causing heartburn), but the attitude that it seems to
represent. In a former life, I worked for an Aerospace company.
Their method of regulating costs was to keep squeezing salaries
and benefits until the number of engineers abandoning ship reached
some threshold. That was bad enough just for the conditions, but
what was worse was the fact that the first to go were the most
talented... they were the ones who could easily find better positions
elsewhere. What that left behind was a concentration of mediocre
to poor employees that nobody else wanted... I got out fast!!!
When I joined DEC, turnover locally was VERY low. It is not so
low now... I do not want Digital to go this route!!! It would
doom us in the long run.
Kevin
|
| 565.229 | I'm depressed! | PH4VAX::MCBRIDE | do it, ship 100,000, try it, fix it! | Fri Jul 29 1988 23:05 | 11 |
| I don't know if I could stand to find out what that next, as yet
unnamed tool is. I have additional, self inflicted financial
obligations that put me in a bad enough bind. My parents are now
nursing home bait. Since I have to buy a car anyway I will investigate
a closer (less than 45 miles one way) commute. A job with regular
hours nearby and I could ride a bike. Using the new DEC job change
philosophy and I could stand a $10,000 pay cut and break even.
But where can you get a job that pays 28.5K?
Maybe I should just get a part time job at McD's? Do volunteer
work at the red cross? Take tolls on the turnpike?
|
| 565.230 | | SRFSUP::MORRIS | maybe we'll leave come springtime... | Fri Jul 29 1988 23:39 | 8 |
| re: .220
Please ignore my flame, as I got the check today. But I'm still
peeved that Plan A can no longer be used as an alternate to a flat
out gimmer-more-money kind of benefit, and that Plan B only covers
4 year old cars. Even tho I still have another year of warranty.
Ashley in smogland
|
| 565.231 | No sympathy | CVG::PETTENGILL | mulp | Sat Jul 30 1988 17:54 | 18 |
| I'm not very sympathetic to those elegible for any car plan. In my view
these plans should only cover the incremental cost of company travel. I
travel more in engineering than I did in SWS, but because I live in a central
location, it is called commuting. I have considered relocating, but my
recent job changes haven't been far enough apart to qualify for relocation,
and I expect more transfers in the next few years.
One thing I have a hard time believing is a blanket qualification for a given
car plan. Not everyone needs a car, but that is presumably determined by
your manager. That being the case, it would seem simple to convince any
reasonable manager that if you work with customers most easily reached by
public transportation, that you don't qualify for a car plan. (If he wasn't
reasonable, I'd make sure that I used the car for every trip and expensed
the undoubtedly outrageous parking fees).
BTW, the IRS doesn't require justification of up to 23.5� for the first 10k
or so miles and then it only allows about 8� per mile, so you don't get off
tax free if you are reimbursed 22.5� per mile for 20k miles.
|
| 565.233 | | SBLANC::MOEHLENPAH | | Mon Aug 01 1988 13:52 | 9 |
| RE: personal property being damaged. I don't take any DEC equipment
in my personal truck anymore after getting it damaged moving
VAXstations one time. You don't get reimbursed for damages if
something happens to your car/truck. With my company car, I'll
move a workstation or whatever, but I can't take that risk with
my personal vehicle. Sign me out about $350 bucks for trying
to conserve on costs...
|
| 565.234 | Theft on 'other' PLAN? | ARGUS::CALANDRA | Mike, IND1-3/D9 DTN-262-8269 | Mon Aug 01 1988 14:34 | 11 |
|
Speaking of property damage or property theft, what about those
who choose the $.225/mile option so they don't have to pick up the
hefty business insurance...What happens when the $24k+ logic analyzers
(don't forget the hardware support folk's tools are no longer flexible
either) are pinched out of the trunk or back seat? Home owners?
I doubt it.
The more I think about this the more we need a survival kit of rules,
regulations, tax considerations...
|
| 565.235 | self insured | NCVAX1::BLACK | just hanging around ... again | Mon Aug 01 1988 14:59 | 7 |
|
re 234 and other questions about theft
Digital is self insured for theft of it's stuff from your car or
their car.
|
| 565.236 | Where have all the company cars gone...long time passing? | GUIDUK::BURKE | NEVER confuse Sales with Delivery! | Mon Aug 01 1988 16:42 | 26 |
| Re: 235
Do you happen to know where that is in writing?
Re: others on car damage
Sounds like good justification for a motorcycle. Then you can explain
to your boss that you have no method of moving equipment, manuals,
etc. around, and they will have to supply appropriate transportation.
Re: other on Privileges (ops, I mean tools) we might lose
Well, up here in the Northwest District, we used to have what were
known as "district meetings" which consisted of a few days away
from the office in a combination business/fun environment. It looks
like those also have gone the way of all good things!
I have a feeling that the next thing you will see go will be company
credit cards, or something else that makes life convenient and
managable for the employees, but causes overhead for management.
Have you ever noticed that upper level management enhances s benefit
or privilege just before they get rid of that benefit or privilege?
Start looking for those enhancements!
Doug
|
| 565.237 | | CVG::PETTENGILL | mulp | Mon Aug 01 1988 17:33 | 19 |
| re: .232
I'm not sure what you are saying.
Virtually no one in engineering qualifies for any car plan other than 22.5�
per mile, yet occasionally we find ourselves moving equipment in our cars
or escorting customers around. Why do we do it ? Well, because that is
the most expedient way of `doing what's right'.
So, why don't people in engineering get company cars ? Well, I assume it's
because engineering managers have decided that we don't need company cars
based on the kind of travel we are required to do. That isn't to say that
some engineering jobs don't require a car; a large number of people in
engineering drive their cars into the ground in two years because of travel
between facilities. If they don't have a personal car, they can't do their job.
In the three years that I had a company car, I never took anyone for a ride
in it on company business. Besides, it was a two door because it was
assumed that I had no reason to carry customers.
|
| 565.238 | car insurance?!? This is robbery! | BENTLY::WILDE | Time and Tide wait for Norman | Mon Aug 01 1988 17:35 | 27 |
| Re: Quoted costs of moving to plan B
I don't know where they get their figures for insurance, but I have a
completely clean driving record - not even any tickets for parking - and
I am 41 years old. I requested insurance rates for a Dodge Shadow,
5 door coup, with A/C, Power steering, brakes, etc....not a hot rod
by any means and the agent quoted me $2,400.00/year!!! I have had
a company car for 10 years, therfore, I've been uninsured for 10
years as far as they are concerned! My $200.00/month allowance, once
you figure how much I will be taxed on it, won't even cover my
insurance - it certainly won't defray any part of my car payments.
This means that DIGITAL just took back my last 4 raises, at least.
And, yes, this means I'm radically underpaid starting the day I turn
in my company car. I love this job and will try to find some way to
keep it, but I no longer feel that I am being paid anywhere near the
industry standard for my experience and the requirements for my work.
I figure my car to be worth $6,600.00/year to me in maintenance,
insurance, and car payments....Now, obviously, DIGITAL isn't going
to pay me the difference between the $1800.00 they give me on plan B
(2400.00 minus taxes) and the $6600.00 figure.
Add me to the list of those who are deeply offended that they expect
me to swallow the garbage about giving me more options....NOBODY
is that stupid!
|
| 565.239 | I think the Air Travel card was costly... | YUPPIE::COLE | You have me confused with someone who gives a $%^&! | Mon Aug 01 1988 17:44 | 15 |
| RE: .236
If the "company" credit cards your mean are the Diners' and AmEx, I
don't think the company pays any more for those than the $5 you charge back.
They might pay some extra for the reports they get on the expenses, but those
reports are extremely valuable to serious cost center managers, and worth every
penny! Otherwise, that card is YOURS!
Frankly, I would look to the Travelletter program for the next salvo.
Remember the "offer" a while back to direct deposit all your expense checks!
Why would you need a Travelletter with a "benefit" like that! :>)
And with the latest set of rules on "misuse" of the Travelletter,
there may not be many places accepting them in the near future, once they
start bouncing!
|
| 565.240 | Adding fuel to the fire | DLOACT::RESENDEP | following the yellow brick road... | Mon Aug 01 1988 19:27 | 15 |
| I had a conversation with someone this afternoon who has a friend
in Fleet. He said his friend had told him the following:
The goal is to have no car plans at all in effect within 5 years.
Next January, the 4-year-old limit for Plan B cars will be reduced
to 3 years. Well, it will be ANNOUNCED in January, to be effective
July 1. In conjunction with that announcement, a 60,000 mile limit
will be announced for Plan B cars. The mileage will be verified
by a requirement to send in your annual safety inspection form.
Please be aware that this is NOT official information, but is a
rumor from a reliable source.
Pat
|
| 565.241 | Ughhhh!!!!!!!!! | LAIDBK::RESKE | Life's a mystery & I haven't a clue | Mon Aug 01 1988 19:53 | 14 |
|
re: 240
I wouldn't venture a guess as to what impact such a change would
have on this company. I just finished putting 1000 miles on my
car in 6 days and spent 23.5 hours driving those thousand miles.
I have a leased car with 15,000 miles annually (I only had a chance
for plan B). I have now had my car for 6 months and have 10,000
miles on it. More than half those miles are DEC miles. Is DEC
going to reimburse me for the 'over-miles' I have to pay???
This is just crazy and it makes me angry ... wake up and take a
look at the rest of the industry!!!
|
| 565.242 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon Aug 01 1988 23:14 | 9 |
| >The mileage will be verified by a requirement to send in your annual safety
>inspection form.
*What* annual safety inspection form?
Maybe this is something specific to Massachusetts. No other state I ever
lived in had any sort of form associated with the inspection.
/john
|
| 565.243 | So when I get to 'B' it won't be there?? | AUSTIN::UNLAND | Sic Biscuitus Disintegratum | Tue Aug 02 1988 03:04 | 48 |
| re: < Note 565.242 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >
>>The mileage will be verified by a requirement to send in your annual safety
>>inspection form.
>*What* annual safety inspection form?
When you get your inspection sticker here in Texas, the sticker
itself has your mileage written on it, and you get a receipt at
most places that's just their standard car-repair form. Maybe
you'll have to get them to write down the mileage on the receipt
(or do it yourself). It would be kind of hard to photocopy the
sticker itself ...
re: Plan B going away rumor
I don't see how we would have *any* salespeople left after this
manuever. Every one of them that I deal with chalks up huge
amounts of mileage on company business, and just about every
competitor I know of already has a car plan superior to ours.
Maybe they intend to dispense with the sales force altogether
and start selling computers mailorder (a great cost-saving move!)
If DEC is looking to simplify its compensation strategies in light
of all the new IRS regulations, I understand and agree completely.
But they have to have some sort of alternate strategy in place to
keep from severely impacting their employees, otherwise both sides
are going to lose, and we'll become another company like Continental
Airlines, where labor and management are fighting a bitter war, while
the company goes down the tubes.
It's one thing to tell employees that times are tough, and we all
need to make sacrifices to ensure that DEC can be successful. But
it is another thing *entirely* to single out a particular group and
try to foist upon them the idea that this is a move to "help" them,
and to "give them greater flexibility". That smacks of the standard
"divide and conquer" routine, where you pick out someone or something
that a lot of people don't like, and make them your test case (like
the differences in Field and Corporate resources). Whenever the
dust settles, and people are used to this mode of operation, just
move to the next item on the agenda ...
I tried to be philsophical about all of this, but I got this E-mail
message the other day that said "Year-End Results" on it, and it
was real hard to infer any financial hardship in the Company.
Geoff Unland
|
| 565.244 | I've stood it as long as I could! | YUPPIE::COLE | You have me confused with someone who gives a $%^&! | Tue Aug 02 1988 09:13 | 9 |
| See also Topic 583 for another example of cost cutting!
Why does it seem to me that the upper levels of this company are
forgetting who goes out and gets the customer's money? All the R & D or
product marketing, or DECworlds, won't be worth spit if the folks who issue
the quotes, receive the PO, get the CLAR's signed, etc. feel they are being
sacrificed to get "great Wall Street results"!
This is NOT an auspicious beginning to FY89.
|
| 565.245 | Look at what's happened so far | DLOACT::RESENDEP | following the yellow brick road... | Tue Aug 02 1988 16:03 | 20 |
| Southern Area SWS has been the leader in eliminating car plans.
They discontinued Plan A a full 2 years before the corporation did.
And, if you want to see the shape of things to come, see a few notes
back where someone said the Southern Area does not make ANY car
plan available to new-hires now. Not Plan A, nor Plan B.
What's interesting is that, despite all the talk in this string
of notes, I don't believe the Southern Area lost any good people
due to the car situation. They've lost folks for OTHER reasons,
but I don't believe any attrition can be attributed to the elimination
of car plans.
What that tells me is that Digital has every reason to believe they
can do it and get away with it.
Pat
P.S. For those of you advocating the ODP, it has been presented to at
least one member of the Country team and the presentor was handed her
head on a platter. Apparently it's a verrrryy sore subject...
|
| 565.246 | No Open Door Policy ?!? | BACKSD::MEIER | What Kind of Tool Am I? | Tue Aug 02 1988 19:10 | 24 |
| RE: .245:
> What's interesting is that, despite all the talk in this string
> of notes, I don't believe the Southern Area lost any good people
> due to the car situation. They've lost folks for OTHER reasons,
> but I don't believe any attrition can be attributed to the elimination
> of car plans.
I'd be willing to bet the loss of a car was a major influence in
some percentage of the departed employees. But we'll never know
for sure. There is no place to look up "reason for leaving", is
there?
> P.S. For those of you advocating the ODP, it has been presented to at
> least one member of the Country team and the presentor was handed her
> head on a platter. Apparently it's a verrrryy sore subject...
This is devastating news. So the Open Door Policy is just Lip
Service? Is this the NEW DEC in full operation?
Is there any way to validate this information, or is it just
rumor? Could said employee explain what happened in a reply?
|
| 565.247 | Insurance may be hard to get | MERIDN::BIAZZO | Can tune a VAX but can't tuna fish | Tue Aug 02 1988 23:40 | 20 |
| Got a call from my friendly automobile insurance agent today. I
called him a week or so ago to explain my need for additional
automobile insurance in the near future.
Seems that the companies that he writes insurance for (several since
he is an independent) will not write a policy for me naming Digital
as an additional insured party. I guess that I am now forced to
disrupt another part of my life. That being a personal friendship
with someone who has taken care of my insurance needs for many years
now. This situation is becoming more than irritating.
Do I have the requirements for Plan B screwed up? Can someone on
Plan B give the real story and the name of their insurance company?
By the way, the cost to "business insure" a 1988 Chevrolet Celebrity
with $300,000 liability and $200 collision deductible was $880.00
annually. I am 30 yrs old and married with a clean record living
in southern Connecticut. This however was from a company which
refused to include DEC as an additional insured.
|
| 565.248 | order of magnitude | DPDSAL::VETEIKIS | | Wed Aug 03 1988 00:06 | 7 |
| Easily 90% of the sales force doesn't use or know how to use VAXnotes.
If they did I imagine this topic would have 10 times as many replies
as it currently does.
Curt
(in sales for 4 years now)
|
| 565.249 | Sarcasm... | LAIDBK::FANG | Surfers Motto: If it swells, Ride It! | Wed Aug 03 1988 02:51 | 5 |
| Re: .245 & .246
I guess the New ODP is: "The Door is Open, if you don't like it,
Leave!"....
|
| 565.250 | That's nothing new | CLO::FORNER | And you thought *YOU* were wierd! | Wed Aug 03 1988 12:06 | 8 |
| re: .248
> 90% of sales doesn't even know how to use VAXnotes...
I would say that 90% of the sales force doesn't know how to use
any of the software products except electronic mail.
/p
|
| 565.251 | | DLOACT::RESENDEP | following the yellow brick road... | Wed Aug 03 1988 13:05 | 41 |
| I'm in Texas, and just got my annual safety inspection in July. In
addition to the sticker, I received a little certificate showing the
make, model, and year of the car, the license tag number, the mileage,
and the automobile serial number. If that isn't required by law, then
I guess the folks who did my inspection just do it voluntarily. BTW, I
got it done at one of these 10-minute oil change places. When I lived
in North Carolina and Alabama, I received essentially the same
information at inspection time. Guess I just assumed it happens
everywhere. Maybe Fleet also assumes the same thing.
The situation I cited was not exactly an attempt to invoke the ODP; in
fact it was something much more innocent than that. I realized after I
entered that note that it might have been misleading, so here's what
happened. Someone who reports to a manager at PKO had been trying to
order a car for literally months. He had been unable to for reasons
other than the demise of Plan A. He finally got his order ready to go
and sent it to his manager for signature. His manager signed it and
sent it on to Fleet, but it was returned to the manager with a note
stating that the policies are changing and no new orders would be
accepted without the signature of a member of the USFMT. The manager's
secretary opened the mail. She knew one of the USFMT members and very
comfortably and innocently carried it over to him and asked for a
signature. Turns out that the person she took it to was apparently the
architect of this whole new policy, and he absolutely exploded at her.
Exactly what was said I don't know, just that he became extremely angry
at the mere mention of a company car.
Now I know all the parties involved, and can verify that none of
them is the type employee who would invite such an outburst by
displaying a bad attitude, etc. In fact, the secretary who received
the abuse was TOTALLY innocent in the whole thing -- a classic case
of shooting the messenger.
I'm not ready to make a blanket statement that the whole ODP is a
farce; I don't believe it is. I sincerely believe that people like Ken
Olsen and Win Hindle believe in and practice the kind of management
style this company was founded on. But there is some management 'tween
them and us that has totally lost sight of what made Digital what it is
today. But that's another topic entirely, isn't it? Sigh...
Pat
|
| 565.252 | Lovely! Just F*ckin' lovely! | BOSTON::SOHN | Never Turn Your Back on Mother Earth | Wed Aug 03 1988 14:10 | 26 |
| re: < Note 565.240 by DLOACT::RESENDEP "following the yellow brick road..." >
> The goal is to have no car plans at all in effect within 5 years.
Hoo Boy! That is going to get *current* employees *real* pissed...
I noticed the note about the Southern Area not having any car plans,
and that got me to thinking. One of the reasons why I took the job
with Digital was that I could figure the extra $2K into my salary
total. Without it, I probably would not have taken this job. Now,
does this mean I will quit when it goes away? No, but it does mean
I won't turn over my car as often and maybe not for a new car. I always
wanted a late model Mustang or Triump Spitfire...
Actually, if this does happen, this probably will cause chaos in the
field. I can see employees lined up outside their UM's office, trying to
recoup a lost $2k reimbursement...
> Next January, the 4-year-old limit for Plan B cars will be reduced
> to 3 years.
Wonderful. So that means your car must be financed in a maximum of
36-48 months. If you bought a car before the change, do you get
grandfathered or screwed? I'd guess the latter...
--axe--
|
| 565.253 | inspection? | WINERY::BOUCHARKE | Ken Bouchard WRO3-2 521-3018 | Wed Aug 03 1988 16:52 | 7 |
| 251.> and he absolutely exploded at her.
Let me guess...were his initials DZ ?
In response to whoever says that mileage will be verified by your
inspection form...HA!...In Calif. there is *no* inspection.How do
you inspect a motorized beer keg? (much less figure out it's mileage)
|
| 565.254 | well, a "no car plan" policy won't fly everywhere | WR1FOR::WILDEDI | | Wed Aug 03 1988 17:18 | 40 |
| The day DIGITAL decides to have no car plan is the day "they" will have
to figure out how to get the software consultants they are marketting
to the customers out there to their current assignments. I cannot
even begin to rely on rapid transit because where I have to go changes
from project to project and there IS NO RAPID TRANSIT in this part
of the country.
If my job demands that I have transportation in order to perform
my work, either DIGITAL provides vehicles and drivers to get me
to the customer site from the office every day, or they provide
me with some form of compensation to off-set the expense of using
my own vehicle. If DIGITAL does not offer any form of compensation,
there are an average of 4 other companies in any given year who
will hire me or anyone else doing my job....and pay more...and have
one location at which I must perform my job rather than forcing
the constant moving around that is a feature of this work. Perhaps
a "no car plan" policy will work in other areas of the U.S., but
the silicon valley is cronically short of technical talent (hardware
and software) and the travel required to work in this valley is
significant enough that there WILL be a large number of employees
bailing out FAST if the onus of vehicle wear and tear falls on our
shoulders. I'm very sure Field Service Engineers will never stand
for driving their own cars as much as they must drive around this
valley. The other option besides a car plan is to increase salaries
enough to offset the expenses associated with vehicle wear and tear.
This might be a reasonable option in some areas of the U.S., but
again, I feel it would be awfully expensive to compete in this valley
on straight salary with no perks. I know of people doing the
equivalent of my job who make $7,000.00 to $12,000.00 a year more
than I do..ALOT of people. DIGITAL has discovered how to make money
in software services in the last few years (we do around here, anyway)
and the key to our success story is EXPERIENCED TALENT. If we lose
the talent we have in our district right now, it could take 5 years
of no profit to rebuild with junior people. The "word of mouth"
reputation hit that DIGITAL would suffer in that case could cost
millions in lost sales in silicon valley....we're a very tight-knit
community here, word travels fast.
Somehow, I don't think local management is going to settle for that
scenario without one hell of a fight.
|
| 565.255 | | DLOACT::RESENDEP | following the yellow brick road... | Wed Aug 03 1988 18:00 | 7 |
| RE: .-1
I didn't specifically ask, but when I was told "no car plan" I assumed
that meant we would be reimbursed at the rate of $.22 a mile for
business mileage. I don't think they mean no reimbursement at all. At
least I hope not...
Pat
|
| 565.256 | Is this affecting Europe as well? | TIXEL::ARNOLD | Never repeat yourself. Never. | Wed Aug 03 1988 18:11 | 5 |
| Just curious -- is Plan A being taken away in Europe as well (do
they even have a Plan A?), or just in the US? Not that what Europe
does makes much impact on the US hardships, I was just curious.
Jon
|
| 565.257 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Thu Aug 04 1988 00:53 | 10 |
| re .256
In the U.K., lease cars are such a common perk that they are available to
essentially everyone, whether there is a business need or not.
I know software engineers who had no need to travel *at*all* who were able
to have lease cars. They had to contribute to the cost, but it was still a
benefit worth several thousand a year.
/john
|
| 565.258 | | DPDMAI::BEAN | free at last...FREE AT LAST!! | Thu Aug 04 1988 01:17 | 4 |
| my understanding is that in the U.K. each field employee (and i
think it is limited to them) is given a yearly allowance (I heard
it was about $12K) and they are able to lease or buy whatever they
desire. but, then they don't have the IRS. (yet) ;^)
|
| 565.259 | A perk is a very subjective enducement... | GUIDUK::BURKE | NEVER confuse Sales with Delivery! | Thu Aug 04 1988 01:30 | 31 |
| Re: .245
Yes Pat, it is true there is no way to actually *SEE* that an employee
leaves because of the loss of the company car.
I myself am one of those employees who have been given so much by
this company that the loss of the company car for me could in no
way provoke me to leave. The company has simply been too good to
me.
However, Plan A has afforded the company with a vehicle (excuse
the pun) for enticing desirable employees during the hiring process.
I myself would have found it 10 times harder to make a decision
about joining DEC if it were not for Plan A.
Thus, what we have here is known as an intangable. We really have
no idea how many *EXCELLENT* employment candidates our company will
lose (has been losing) because our managers are no longer able to
say "...and we can provide you with a company car...". It is a
*VERY* subjective question, and just another of the many issues
surrounding this affair.
The bottom line is that companies compete for many things, and one
of them is people. If DIGITAL does not wish to use the company
car as a method to help it compete, it will not be as competitive.
It's just that simple.
O.K., now that I'm warmed up, go ahead someone and start me on the
cost cutting issue! *;'}
Doug
|
| 565.260 | | BUNYIP::QUODLING | Anything! Just play it loud! | Thu Aug 04 1988 03:00 | 15 |
| re .258
Here in Australia, everyone of level 8 or higher ( and some
lower) get a sliding scale of car allowance. It is about 6K
per year for a level 8, this goes towards a 3 year lease on
a car of your choice. Anything over the allowance value comes
out of your own pocket, and the company charges $30/month for
tax purposes. This may seem like a lot, but bear in mind, a
mid range car like a Mazda 626 now sells for about $26,000
here
A Company Car, is regarded in this country as such a "standard"
perk, that I can't see us ever getting rid of them.
q
|
| 565.261 | In the UK we do quite well, thank you... | STOAT::BARKER | Jeremy Barker - NAC Europe - REO2-G/K3 | Thu Aug 04 1988 10:11 | 31 |
| Re: .258 and .260
The situation in the UK is very similar to Australia. Everyone level 8 and
above gets a "market supplement" that can be used to pay for a lease car.
The higher the level the higher the supplement (in general). This is
supposed to reflect the benefit you allegedly would get of you worked for
another company where company cars are automatically provided.
Anyone who "needs" a car for their job (I think this is actually defined as
anyone who works in SWAS or FS - this includes some people who don't really
need a car) and is below level 8 can have (I think in most cases has to
have) a lease car at much reduced cost (zero cost for an "average" car).
Anyone who does not fall into either of the above categories can also have
a lease car, paying the full amount. It is not unknown for secretaries to
have lease cars.
In all cases the choice is theoretically unlimited. In reality, your
manager must approve the amount you are having deducted from your salary
which should not exceed a certain percentage. Also, if you primarily use
the vehicle for company business, the vehicle must be "appropriate".
Any cost to the employee of the lease car is taken out of salary *before*
income tax is deducted. Everyone who has a lease car pays income tax on a
nominal "car value" amount that depends on the cost, engine size, and age
of the car and on the number of miles of business travel the car is used
for during the tax year. If you want a new car this can be a fairly tax-
efficient way of having one. (Although less than it used to be, the "car
value" amounts for income tax were doubled this year).
jb
|
| 565.262 | The UK scheme explained | SPGOPS::MAURER | We come in peace; Shoot to kill | Thu Aug 04 1988 10:11 | 40 |
| As a recent emigr� from the UK and having been a recipient under
two of the UK's car schemes, I'll explain how it works.
All employees whose jobs are deemed to need a car in order to perform
the tasks associated with the job get a car, regardless of level.
The car can be chosen by the employee - anything from a Yugo to
a Porsche (I have known several software specialists with Porsches).
There is a line drawn about how much of the lease cost the company
will pay and the employee pays the remainder. Field Service people
are discouraged from having sports cars due to the limited amount
of room for tools, spares etc.
The alternative scheme is for all employees at level 8 and above.
Depending on your level, you get what is called a 'market supplement'.
This supplement is supposed to make DEC salaries competitive and
for level 8 and 9 employees stands at around 4K pounds ($7K). Level
10/11 get more and 12/13 get more still. If you're over level 13,
a different scheme applies but since I never got that far, I don't
know what it is and as far as I could see, it wasn't published.
Most people use their market supplements to lease (2 or 3 years) a car
through the company, which has the added benefit that the lease cost is
deducted before tax, making the benefit even more worthwhile. Schemes
such as this are a tax efficient way of remunerating people in the
UK. It also saves DEC from having to pay competitive salaries.
Many overseas (especially US) visitors to Reading (UK HQ) are surprised
to see the car parks brimming over with brand new Mercedes, BMWs,
Porsches, Lotus's, GTIs, and all other manner of performance and/or
luxury cars.
I think the total employee population in the UK is aound 7000. The car
fleet is around 3300. A fairly high percentage isn't it !?
Any significant change to the UK car schemes which was perceived as
negative would result in people leaving in droves to go to companies
who pay much better than DEC (even with market supplement) and give
company cars as well.
Jon
|
| 565.263 | put your tools back in the box! | PH4VAX::MCBRIDE | do it, ship 100,000, try it, fix it! | Thu Aug 04 1988 11:14 | 8 |
| What could the other tools be?
Travelletter?
A.T.&T. calling card?
Pagers too, I hope!
Me?
You?
|
| 565.264 | Could the industry standard be changing? | NEWVAX::PAVLICEK | Zot, the Ethical Hacker | Thu Aug 04 1988 11:28 | 19 |
| re: comparisons of Digital car plan (or lack thereof) and other
computer firms.
Could it be that it is known to USFMT and above that other companies
might be contemplating this move as well? Could it be that Digital
is just being the "industry leader" for what it perceives as an
inevitable death of an industry perk? That Runzheimer article I
posted a little while back indicates that some people are getting
*serious* in limiting unnecessary expenditures (read: perks). Could
it be known to the powers-that-be that our competitors are also
receiving this information and might well be waiting for an excuse
to do the same thing?
Just speculating. Seems that such an accessment of the situation
would make it a *whole* lot easier to pull off. You don't have
to be overly concerned with employee dissatisfaction if you can
expect other companies to follow suit.
-- Russ
|
| 565.265 | | USRCV1::NADROWSKIC | | Thu Aug 04 1988 14:32 | 11 |
|
RE .263
But company ATT calling cards are already gone in my district/area ..
Saveing the company big bucks too...so we've been told
All you do is CHARGE ALL CALLS TO YOU'RE HOME and submit the bill
in you're expenses
_-carl-...-calling card...-car...
|
| 565.266 | Where does the savings come from?\ | NEWVAX::PAVLICEK | Zot, the Ethical Hacker | Thu Aug 04 1988 14:53 | 12 |
| re: .265
> But company ATT calling cards are already gone in my district/area ..
> Saveing the company big bucks too...so we've been told
Hello?
I was unaware that businesses pay *more* per call than individuals.
Is this true? Or, is the savings from people not calling unless
*really* needed? Or, is it that people are *forgetting* to file
for reimbursement, with the employees actually footing the bill?
|
| 565.267 | question unanswered? | WINERY::BOUCHARKE | Ken Bouchard WRO3-2 521-3018 | Thu Aug 04 1988 16:22 | 6 |
| .256> Just curious -- is Plan A being taken away in Europe as well (do
.256> they even have a Plan A?), or just in the US? Not that what Europe
.256> does makes much impact on the US hardships, I was just curious.
Well,...is it going away in other countries,or just the US? Seems
a bit unfair if it is only US.
|
| 565.268 | Other Computer Company's Car Plans | USRCV1::POLINOJ | | Thu Aug 04 1988 17:13 | 14 |
| Re: Note 264 - Car plans from other computer companies
This note seems to indicate that the other computer companies all
offer company car plans. Not so. I have first hand knowledge that
both Unisys and Data General offer Runzheimer-based Plan B type
car plans ($180-185/mo + .08/mile) exclusively. Neither, however,
stipulates the type of car or insurance coverage that must be used.
I'm not sure of the reimbursement scheme that they use but I'm also
sure that IBM doesn't offer company cars to field sales and software
specialists.
It appears that Digital is not starting a new industry trend, we're
conforming to what most of the rest of our industry is already doing
in an attempt to maintain a competitive "cost of sales".
|
| 565.269 | Include Plan B as a possible non-entity | NEWVAX::PAVLICEK | Zot, the Ethical Hacker | Thu Aug 04 1988 17:27 | 17 |
| re: .268
Forgive my lack of clarity, but my comment had to do with the possible
demise of Plan B, as well as Plan A.
Yes, I realize that most Plan A-style car plans have seeming hit
the dirt, with Digital "hanging in there" for an admirable duration
after others have abandoned the notion.
My concern is that the whole notion of non-mileage compensation
may be going the way Plan A. Hence, the stipend-plus-mileage plans
might be the next ones on the table, leaving the mileage-only
"non-plans".
Thoughts? Comments?
-- Russ
|
| 565.270 | institutional firms vs. entreprenurial firms | SRFSUP::GOETZE | Picture this: an artist working for a computer company | Thu Aug 04 1988 20:12 | 13 |
| re: 268...
Yes, and I'm sure that Nixdorf Computers doesn't offer a company
car either, but how many good SWS employees have you heard of recently
who left to go to work for UNISYS, IBM, or DG? Around here, its
like zero. We're talking real leading edge computer companies like
Apple, (much as I hate to say it) Sun, etc which are attracting
talented professionals from our ranks, and who have some kind of
superior car allowance. Of course the possibility exists that we're
just becoming another large institution, with the same kind of
internal philosophy. If that's the case, then I'll go out to the
parking lot so I can eat my lunch in my car like the other inmates
of institutions.
|
| 565.271 | Read Me | GRANMA::GHALSTEAD | | Thu Aug 04 1988 23:18 | 21 |
| Re. .264 Could the industry standard be changing
NO ! I have lots of friends at HP. They're plan is a new fully
loaded Ford Taurus every year. HP looked at alternatives and found
that the current plan was the least expensive.
Re. .248 Sales REPS not using VAX NOTES
Print out a few of these replys and distribute them to the sales
reps, they will come running to you to teach them how to use.
I came to Digital 2 years ago. I have always had a company car,
If Digitalfhad not offered a car I would not be here no matter
what kind of increase it may have been.
|
| 565.272 | Who get's a car? | BACKSD::MEIER | What Kind of Tool Am I? | Fri Aug 05 1988 00:48 | 7 |
|
These other progressive companies with attractive car plans -
do they offer the cars to all of Field Service, Software, and
Sales?
|
| 565.273 | | SALSA::MOELLER | DECblocks Product Support | Fri Aug 05 1988 15:01 | 7 |
| < Note 565.272 by BACKSD::MEIER "What Kind of Tool Am I?" >
> These other progressive companies with attractive car plans -
> do they offer the cars to all of Field Service, Software, and
> Sales?
Rumor has it that SUN will offer up to an additional $5.5K (taxable)
to both Sales and Technical (SWS types) reps.
|
| 565.274 | <HERE'S MY 2 CENTS WORTH> | BMT::JBARNES | JBARNES | Fri Aug 05 1988 17:25 | 82 |
| I'm not sure that an employee who intends to leave Digital will
only go to another computer company with a superior car plan or
any car plan. Depending on their salary range a 10-20% salary increase
will go a long way toward purchasing a car and maintaining one's
current standard of living. If you made $30K and took a $4k annual
hit because you lost your Digital car you are down to $26K. If you
got a 15% increase by changing jobs you will end up making $34500/yr.
You can buy a car and be ahead or at least break even. The math
is simple and doesn't consider taxes, interest, etc. My point is
that a better car plan isn't even necessary to improve one's financial
situation as a result of losing plan A, it would just sweeten the pot.
If you make even more money because you have really marketable skills
the numbers and the enticements only get better.
In reading these notes I keep seeing reference to including Digital
on "my" Plan B insurance. I'm curious as to why this is required,
anyone out there know why? I'm not a lawyer but what is the difference
legally if I'm driving for business and I'm on 22.5 cents per mile
versus a Plan B car and get in an accident? Either way the other
party can probably sue Digital because they placed you in position
to be involved in the accident.
I'm new to Digital but I've gone through one Plan A vehicle and
am half way thru my second. Personnel was very careful not to include
the car in the letter of offer even after I inquired about it. Digital
can stand on whatever principal they want but the car was positively
used to get me to accept employment at an annual salary that would
have been more without the car. Even the Head Hunter I dealt with
passed that information on to me.
I would prefer not to believe that the manner in which this was
done was with the idea that some people would leave the company.
I believe that some individuals will be severely pressed financially
by the current plans and will leave Digital in an attempt to alleviate
their plight. For some others I know this may be the final straw
and they too will leave. While most companies do exit interviews
to find out why people leave the sad truth is that very few of them
do anything about the reasons until long after serious damage is
done. Most of them view employees that have resigned as "deserters"
and do not value what they have to say until too many of them have
repeated the same story.
I have worked for organizations that used this cost cutting approach
and they saved lots of money on the front end. What they lost wasn't
as obvious because they didn't want to look at the downside effects.
It is definetly and "action = reaction" type of cost over the long
haul. When enough people have left the recruitment, retraining and
other costs rarely get tied to the things that prompted people to
leave. Some people will give a lot of thought to the 60 hours work
they give freely to Digital for 40 hours salary on an ongoing basis.
Lost productivity because of reduced morale will cost a lot more than
the fleet costs saved.
If we are to be stuck with Plan B the company could make it easier
by picking one or two standard cars as in the past and negotiating
a fleet price for employees purchasing one of those two as their
Plan B car. This would reduce the cost of a new car by perhaps $1-2K.
They could also, without too much trouble, negotiate a Group Insurance
arrangement for employee owned company cars which would reduce that
cost somewhat. With a little more effort they could negotiate some
discounts for standard maintenance items further reducing the cost
of employee ownership. The same thing goes for auto loan financing.
It wouldn't take a lot of effort, thought and dollars to make this
switch a little more palatable. With some effort they might reduce
the cost of owning and maintaining a Plan B vehicle closer to the
$200/.08/mile figure. I wouldn't mind having to own a Celebrity
under those conditions. What is bothersome is that if I
can think of some ideas like this why didn't someone else think
of them before they unleashed the demise of Plan A.
On a final note, just to keep things in balance, if company cars
were being provided to impress customers (as well as provide
transportation to and from customer sites) I have seen too many
DECwrecks whose interior looked like the LI Garbage Barge on land.
I would be more embarrassed to put a customer in one of those than
in my 9 year old personal car in a cream puff condition. It would appear
that some clear thinking about the transportation requirements
associated with one's job might yield some different approaches
in terms of compensation /reimbursement for business travel.
Jim
|
| 565.275 | Second memo on CAR plan???? | GLDOA::SRINIVASAN | | Fri Aug 05 1988 17:51 | 3 |
|
I heard that a second letter was sent to every one on the car plan.
In case any one has received it, could they post it here......
|
| 565.276 | cost cutting | WR2FOR::BOUCHARD_KE | Ken Bouchard WRO3-2 DTN 521-3018 | Fri Aug 05 1988 19:13 | 3 |
| Back in April,I wrote a note about a rumor concerning possible
confiscation of flight bonuses...maybe that entry was ahead of it's
time...
|
| 565.277 | Numbers Tell a Story | BACKSD::MEIER | What Kind of Tool Am I? | Fri Aug 05 1988 19:59 | 71 |
|
Effective % Drop
Annual Annual Income by Losing
Salary with Car Car
________ ________ _____
$ 20,000 $ 26,000 23.1%
$ 25,000 $ 31,000 19.4%
$ 30,000 $ 36,000 16.7%
$ 35,000 $ 41,000 14.6%
$ 40,000 $ 46,000 13.0%
Why $6,000 ? Summarized from many previous notes:
$ 2,000 federal and state income taxes
$ 2,000 cost of car (i.e., depreciation)
$ 1,000 cost of financing
$ 1,000 insurance
0 gas and maintenance offset by $24/week charge
For some people, these numbers are a little lower.
For some people, these numbers are a little higher.
"Why the harsh reaction to the loss of Plan A Cars? Why not just
help us cut costs and go out and buy a car for Digital?"
The answer is that people would love to help Digital, if they can.
But number one, nobody was asked to make a sacrifice for Digital;
instead they were _told_ they were being given "greater
flexibility". Number two, this is a sacrifice that some people
are unable to make, no matter how pure their intentions.
Oh sure, a lot of senior people who are financially well off
might be able to get by without too much sacrifice. But think
also about the junior people just hired in the last couple of
years. Granted, these people might not be the most valuable
players today. But they are the hope for Digital's future.
Yet they may have no choice but to leave. Look at the numbers.
MANY PEOPLE ARE BEING FORCED TO TAKE A 20% CUT !!
It's not like they were asking us to provide our own pencils (or
asking anything)! This is the type of ultimate sacrifice that
may be necessary under the most dire of circumstances. This
might be necessary if Digital were on the brink of bankruptcy.
However, its employees have given what it takes to make Digital
one of most successful companies over the last five years. And
this is the reward they get.
Many people need to take into account their financial commitments
in this situation. They feel an obligation to their family to do
so. Indeed, would it be anything short of irresponsible to
neglect your obligation to your family, if it comes down to that,
simply because Digital is listed as one of the top one hundred
companies to work for? Rumor has it that there are 99 other
companies on that same list. It is thus inevitable that many
people, including both top performers and others, will be forced
to look elsewhere. Sadly for Digital, the top performers will be
the first ones to get offers from our progressive competitors.
I think they forgot about these people when they made the
decision. It may be too late to change the decision. But
clearly, if something isn't done to make the transition easier on
the families involved, many valuable employees will have to make
a very tough decision. I hope an adjustment is made before you
or I come to that crossroads.
harrY
|
| 565.278 | Tidbits | RIPPLE::KOTTERRI | Rich (Welcome Back) Kotter | Fri Aug 05 1988 21:45 | 37 |
| The following tidbits came from a memo that was circulated locally, for
what it's worth:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based upon several requests for more information, I have
contacted Fleet Management and will shortly receive the Task
Force report, commissioned by Chick Shue and Don Zeresky,
that resulted in the changes to the Fleet Plan. The report
encompasses competitor fleet plan information.
Other bits of information I picked up in my conversation with
Fleet personnel:
The flexibility is there to use a car older than 4 years.
(check the Fleet Manual for specifics)
You may use a 2-door car if authorized by your Area Mgr (I
checked, it has happened)
They were receiving a lot of flack with only having options
for a Tauras or Celebrity so change was inevitable.
It is meant as a business tool (as always) not a personnel
use convenience.
The Fringe Benefit value for tax reporting begins in calendar
year 89 but you won't see it till 1990.
They reduced the time and mileage requirements to order a new
car by the 9/15 cut off. [I think this should read 8/15.]
A second communication on the changed Fleet Plan is due out
any day.
|
| 565.279 | A better idea would have been... | SRFSUP::LONGO | Bob Longo | Sat Aug 06 1988 17:44 | 20 |
| I realize that Plan A is very expensive for Digital, especially
with recent tax law changes regarding depreciation. Given that
the Company wanted to eliminate this expense, I believe that a far
better approach would have been by employee attrition.
By "grandfathering" existing employees and simply not offering cars
to new hires, Digital would have prevented the current morale problem
that will result in the incalculable loss of many of it's most valued
employees.
Look around you - how many of your fellow field employees have been
around for five years or longer? A very small percentage. So
what if the Company still has to order cars for a few employees
for many years? Promises were made to them when they were hired
which Digital has the responsibilty to keep.
I believe the cost cutting saved by this approach over a few years
would have been adequate without the associated problems.
-Bob
|
| 565.280 | Sun, HP? NFW! They don't do DEC. | SRFSUP::LONGO | Bob Longo | Sat Aug 06 1988 17:53 | 17 |
| I'm really surprised that most of the replies in this note where
people have talked about finding employment elsewhere mention working
for other computer vendors.
I've spent the last 13 years of my career learning Digital products
and have no intention of throwing that away to go to work for Sun,
HP, or anyone else who offers me [possibly temporarily] a car.
I will go to work for a customer that uses DEC equipment, is close
to my house, and does not require me to drive my new PERSONAL car
on company business.
Am I the only one who feels that all this knowledge of DEC stuff
is too valuable to be thrown away on Sun or HP for the sake of "a
tool"?
-Bob
|
| 565.281 | Sun = HP = DEC | LAIDBK::FANG | Surfers Motto: If it swells, Ride It! | Sat Aug 06 1988 18:54 | 10 |
| re: .280
Well Bob, don't you think you can put your DEC knowledge to good
use at another vendor such as Sun or HP?? For instance, see HP's
latest ads about networking to DEC and Sun computers...
Besides, why lock yourself into a "one-vendor" career?? Our customers
certainly don't!!! 8^).
---Yubert
|
| 565.282 | Let yourself grow! | CSOA1::REARICK | Jack Rearick PTO-SWS | Sat Aug 06 1988 23:44 | 12 |
|
re: .280
Although I would probably consider a career with a customer that
uses DEC equipment first; I certainly would not consider going to
work for Apple, Sun, or HP as "throwing away my DEC knowledge".
Instead, consider it as "expanding your horizons..."
Not-wanting-to-have-to-make-a-difficult-decision-Jack.
|
| 565.283 | Fishy complaint - only two car choices | IVOGUS::BARTH | Karl - studying aeroporcine topics | Mon Aug 08 1988 13:24 | 17 |
| .278 was very interesting and informative. Thanks.
I'm surprised that they received "a lot of flak" about only having
Taurus and Celebrity. When they added Taurus, there were a LOT of
people (at least that I talked to) who said they didn't care what
the other car(s) were.
Apparently, many folks viewed the Taurus as a primo choice and I
question the use of only two choices as a part of the justification
for blowing the whole PLAN A away. I certainly haven't met anyone
who has said, "I'll go to plan B because of my plan A choices."
Maybe it was just someone from Fleet who wanted to pass on some
of the inevitable bellyaching they hear. That seems like a better
explanation to me...
K.
|
| 565.284 | sad but true | WINERY::BOUCHARKE | Ken Bouchard WRO3-2 521-3018 | Mon Aug 08 1988 21:29 | 14 |
| DEC *never* meant that $200/mo. would buy a car,insure it, etc...what
they intend is that the $200/mo. will cover the *business* use of
that car.After all,looking at it from the company's point of view,why
should they buy you a car?You *will* use it for personal use too,won't
you? (they aren't buying cars for other employees)
What the corporation chooses to disregard is that many,many employees
have that company car as their *only* car.They took the job because
some manager said that they could do just that.(some of these same
managers are now back east and agreeing with this policy) These
employees now have to go out and buy a car. USFMT says so what? It's
about time you people start living like us.
DEC made the correct decision as far as money goes. How many people
think that they did the "right thing"?
|
| 565.285 | Did I think I see what I thought I saw? | GUIDUK::BURKE | NEVER confuse Sales with Delivery! | Mon Aug 08 1988 23:09 | 14 |
| Re: -.1 < Note 565.284 by WINERY::BOUCHARKE "Ken Bouchard WRO3-2 521-3018" >
Excuse me Ken, but I can't quite figure out what your view is
here? Are you trying to say that you disagree with the policy,
agree with it, or are you suggesting that we all have to consider
this issue from the company's side?
I read some blanket statements in -.1 and can't decide if they are
meant to be critical, amusing, blunt, or what...could you please
clarify what you mean?
Thanks,
Doug
|
| 565.286 | embarrassingly naive | PH4VAX::MCBRIDE | the syntax is 6% in this state | Mon Aug 08 1988 23:15 | 27 |
| Some of us took our initial hire with the stipulation that there
was a DEC supplied vehicle involved that justifies the slightly
smaller DEC salary. Then there was a period of time, for some of
us years, that that stipulation was reinforced on our performance
appraisals. Despite the fact that new people were being told that
the vehicle was a "tool" the old people were not necessarily told
that and were continually told at their salary reviews that the
company car was worth some undetermined amount of money. Then some
of us graduated to other positions in the company and relocation
was not offered, again with the stipulation that there would be
some cost center subsidy for the excessive mileage though no
compensation for our time. Further, we still ahve the need of the
"tool just like we did when we "carried the bag". Just because
we are wage class 4 now we don't go on site anymore? We don't go
to the steel mills and glass factories and drug houses in the middle
of the night? I do!
What the company is doing is fair. It is reasonable. It is cost
effective. It will probably even get the IRS off their back. I
think the worst thing for me is the realization that I have had
the pork put to me by no less that 7 managers in the first 10 years
I have been here. My current management is so good that there is
virtually no chance of getting better at any other company. With
22 years in the business no other company will touch my salary
requirements. I may have to work at McDonalds or something (IKEA
is hiring) to make the insurance payments.
|
| 565.287 | | CSOA1::ROTH | Watching for His return! | Tue Aug 09 1988 11:36 | 21 |
| Re: < Note 565.284 by WINERY::BOUCHARKE "Ken Bouchard WRO3-2 521-3018" >
> DEC *never* meant that $200/mo. would buy a car,insure it, etc...what
> they intend is that the $200/mo. will cover the *business* use of
> that car.After all,looking at it from the company's point of view,why
> should they buy you a car?You *will* use it for personal use too,won't
> you? (they aren't buying cars for other employees)
Not all employees drive late-model, four-door vehicles as their personal cars.
Some drive old pickup trucks or sedans in order to not be in debt. Is $130 a
month (about what you have after *YOU* pay the taxes on the $200) enough money
from DEC for an employee to make payments and additional insurance on the kind
of car that DEC wishes for them to drive? I seriously doubt it.
If the $200 is really to compensate me for the use of my personal car for
business then I'd rather take the $.225 per mile. At least then I'm not forced
to get a car loan and increase my personal debt. But there is a [fleet] policy
that says I can't do that, I must take the $130 and buy a late model four door
auto as my business *and* personal car.
Lee
|
| 565.288 | KODAK's plan | VFOFS::PHILLIPS | | Tue Aug 09 1988 12:12 | 19 |
| Just a note on other company's plans....
I heard KODAK's plan is..
Take the total miles per week xxx.x
subtract the business miles - yyy.y
you pay .08 per personal mile zzz.z
This is better than paying $30.00 per
week to drive the vehicle home every night..
(Then get rated a 4 on it because you wax/wash it and put in a cellular
phone *without drilling holes*)
You can have the Dec-wreck, why take care of a car then get beat
up on it on you P.A.
dave
|
| 565.289 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Tue Aug 09 1988 12:15 | 5 |
| > Take the total miles per week xxx.x
> subtract the business miles - yyy.y
> you pay .08 per personal mile zzz.z
That's what DEC's Plan A used to be, back when I was in it in the seventies.
|
| 565.290 | I left Plan A 'cause I didn't like the choices... | DACT6::COLEMAN | Polish the Mirror; Darken the Smoke | Tue Aug 09 1988 17:47 | 30 |
| Hi Karl!
.283> I certainly haven't met anyone
.283> who has said, "I'll go to plan B because of my plan A choices."
Now you have. That was one of the main reasons I dropped Plan A
and went to Plan B about 4 years ago.
FWIW: When I came to Digital about 6.5 years ago, I was told that
the reason they couldn't give me much of an increase was because
(you guessed it!) I was going to get a CAR!!! They figured it to
be worth about $3000/year at the time. So, I came to Digital for
$500/year increase in pay and a car. I was not allowed the option
of keeping my very sharp pickup truck and getting the $0.nn/mile.
I had to have a car. I couldn't afford a new car that qualified
under Plan B, so I took what was offered. I hated that car! Two
and a half years later, I switched to Plan B. The worst part of
all of this, was I was considering switching back to Plan A now
that I am married and trying to cut down on the bills. I guess
not, huh?
The bottom line is that it is difficult, if not impossible, to buy (and
maintain and insure) a car that meets the Plan B requirements based
upon the current $180/mo (or $200.) Even allowing for the fact that
since I use it for personal mileage I should be willing to pick up part
of the tab is not fair. If I didn't have to meet the Plan B
requirements, I could get any number of cars that I would like that are
less expensive, but still nice (including a pickup truck!)
Perry
|
| 565.291 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Tue Aug 09 1988 18:47 | 8 |
| I think there might be less complaint about Plan B if the employee were really
free to use a personal car of choice.
It seems to me that if DEC wants to limit an employee's choice of what car
to provide on Plan B that DEC should pick up the entire cost of the car and
charge the employee for personal use.
Ooops. That's Plan A.
|
| 565.292 | a little clearer | WINERY::BOUCHARKE | Ken Bouchard WRO3-2 521-3018 | Tue Aug 09 1988 21:32 | 8 |
| re: .285
You're absolutely right...I made that as clear as mud...
What I was doing was pointing out some realities.
For the record let me state: I think taking away plan "A" was a
gross injustice.The corporation has a duty to make this easier to
take.They should *not* have crammed it down people's throats and
said "here,take this you'll like it".
|
| 565.293 | re. .284 and bus. use | LAGUNA::SEIDMAN | where miracles never cease | Tue Aug 09 1988 21:36 | 14 |
| re. .284
Ken, your point is valid regarding that Digital is paying for the
business use of the car. And, that is the problem with the $200/m
allowance. In the five years I've been in sales at Digital, the
business use of my car is about 73%/yr and growing. My account
responsibilites go from San Diego to Santa Barbara (about a 300
mile range). That's a lot of driving on a daily basis.
The $200/mo. is less than 50% of what it costs me to own and operate
a plan B vehicle. It is *not* in line with the amount of milage
and abuse my poor car receives for GOD and for country.
|
| 565.294 | Plan participation is voluntary | ODIXIE::JENNINGS | Dave Jennings | Tue Aug 09 1988 22:18 | 18 |
| RE:< Note 565.287 by CSOA1::ROTH "Watching for His return!" >
>If the $200 is really to compensate me for the use of my personal car for
>business then I'd rather take the $.225 per mile. At least then I'm not forced
>to get a car loan and increase my personal debt. But there is a [fleet] policy
>that says I can't do that, I must take the $130 and buy a late model four door
>auto as my business *and* personal car.
But you CAN drive whatever you want and take the $0.225 per mile!
You DON'T have to participate in either car plan if you don't want
to.
RE: - a few by Karl Barth
Karl, I too switched from Plan A to Plan B because I just could
not stand to drive the then current Plan A cars. (I don't care if
it was almost free. There are some cars that I just won't drive).
|
| 565.295 | Not unless USFMT pushes it | OZZAIB::BAY | You lead people, you manage things | Wed Aug 10 1988 00:39 | 24 |
| Perhaps you can take the $0.225. But I haven't seen any definitive
quotes in here from P&P, etc., that unambiguously make it clear
that any and all employees can opt for $0.225 (are we calling that
Plan C?) Everything I have seen here quoted and otherwise is wide
open to interpretation.
We already know for a fact that different areas behave in different
ways, either because they are involved in pilot plans, or just because
they WANT to. I think that in the long run, the districts or areas
will do as they want to (subject to the fine print of the P&Ps).
Bottom line is that US field management, in the case of eliminating
plan A, is really excercising their central control and authority.
But the implementation at the district level has always been subject
to interpretation, and the end result will vary.
If a district finds that it is financially better off to MAKE employees
go on Plan B instead of Plan C, and the district places financial
concerns over personal and personnel concerns, then employees in that
district will be MADE to go on plan B. And I doubt there will be any
appeal.
Jim
|
| 565.296 | ...voluntary in whose book? | GUIDUK::BURKE | NEVER confuse Sales with Delivery! | Wed Aug 10 1988 01:13 | 8 |
| RE:< Note 565.294 by ODIXIE::JENNINGS "Dave Jennings" >
If you take a good look at .65 you might change your mind, Dave.
The question really is: "How steadfast is this policy, and is local
leeway allowed?"
Doug
|
| 565.297 | FAMILIES | IND::COMAROW | Software Exile-Human for Rent | Wed Aug 10 1988 09:14 | 2 |
| But the .225 says you must get a car, which in a family means you
must buy a car.
|
| 565.298 | Digital can make tax-free loans for down payment | KYOA::KOCH | Any relation?... | Wed Aug 10 1988 11:42 | 18 |
| I recently read an article in my local business paper that a
corporation has the ability to make TAX-FREE loans to employees without
incurring tax LIABILITY. The corporation can deduct the imputed interest as
a deduction and an expense because the imputed interest is salary to the
employee. The deductibility of the interest income to the employee is based
on what it is used for. Since in our case it would be for a car, which is
consumer interest, it would not be deductible.
My point is Digital will cause me to put aside at least $150/month
for the next 18 months to save the down payment for my new car which will be
approximately $12-14K to purchase.
I think the correct path for Digital is to look into this as a
method to soften the blow of us acquiring our new cars. We could sign loan
agreements to repay the amount over 48 months. If we leave the company, they
can sell the loan at a discount, take that as an expense, and let the buyer
of the loan collect on it.
|
| 565.299 | plan "C" | WINERY::BOUCHARKE | Ken Bouchard WRO3-2 521-3018 | Wed Aug 10 1988 20:38 | 8 |
| .294> But you CAN drive whatever you want and take the $0.225 per mile!
.294> You DON'T have to participate in either car plan if you don't want
.294> to.
Plan "C" (22.2 cents/mi) is supposed to a temporary thing,if you're
eligible for plan "B".Like I said before...if and when it becomes
necessary to have that in writing,the powers that be will do that.
|
| 565.300 | creampuff | PH4VAX::MCBRIDE | the syntax is 6% in this state | Wed Aug 10 1988 23:44 | 10 |
| I was driving down the road today and I saw a car I fell in love
with. It was at that very moment that I realized exactly what
flexibility is. After a little haggleing with the owner, who wanted
to display this beauty in a place of prominence behind his shed,
I managed to get a rock-bottom price on a '50 Dodge. Talk about
flexibility! With this baby I can save the turnpike tolls I normally
pay out of pocket because tis thing won't go over 40 MPH. I figure
any car 35 years old has another 35 in it. The first thing I do
after I get a dashboard installed, I'm going to disconnect the odometer
so I can resell it as a "low mileage creampuff".
|
| 565.301 | VAN PLAN | DPDMAI::SWENSON | | Thu Aug 11 1988 13:08 | 12 |
| Look at the terminal Vans.. The people that drive them take them
home at night for security reasons. They are not allow to drive
them for personel reasons after that. Why not allow us to do this
with the car? They company would be putting up a car for us to
do our job and the IRS would have nothing to screem about for personel
use. If some one uses it for personel reasons it could be taken
away just like the van. We can contend that the benifit of driving
it to and from work is offset by the cost of us storing it at the
house so personel gain is zero. This way no hardship is placed
on a person dishing out $30 a week or having to finance $10 to 15
grand for a car. Would this be ok or is it not supplying the
employee with enough discomfort and personnel liability.
|
| 565.302 | ?in support of excellence | MORO::WALDO_IR | | Thu Aug 11 1988 13:56 | 19 |
| re:301
I could go for that as a compromise. I recently moved my family
to a new home 40 miles from the office partly based on the fact
that I drove a company car and mileage was not a factor. (That's
20K/year in comuting mileage.) We are fortunate enough to have
a former DECwreck as a personal car so we don't need the company
car for that purpose. However, the new Taurus wagon is nice! It
will last about 2 and a half years then I have Plan B or whatever
to face. I guess I am lucky to have such a long lead time!
Just one more reason why district engineers (T5F's) won't even consider
trying for support positions. The promotion pay raise doesn't cover
the overtime they get, they get to travel to "exciting" places like
Yuma in the summer, they work/fix everything, and now they lose
the company car. Step right up!
Irving Waldo
SWA System Support
|
| 565.303 | Cost of entry now too high! | DR::HAIGH | | Thu Aug 11 1988 14:40 | 17 |
| I work in MKO in Channels Marketing. I have on several occasions
thought about joining the field and was planning such for a couple
of years out, when my daughter finishes High School.
I drive a 4*4 pick up and my next, paid for by me, vehicle will
be another 4*4 pick up.
The cost of a Plan B car will completely prevent me from joining
the field.
I dont feel bad about not going but the company will loose the
exeperience of a 14 year DEcie wanting to "help in the trenches".
Just another view point on this issue.
David.
|
| 565.304 | IMPORTANT! 30 mos. or 50K!!!!!! | METM11::DENTON | | Thu Aug 11 1988 18:34 | 8 |
| For current Plan A-ers: If your car is eligible for replacement
on or before Aug. 15, 1988, you can apply for a new Plan A car.
Fleet just told me on the phone (DTN 223-1322) that the replacement
criteria has been changed to
50,000 miles or 30 months
You must apply by Mon. Aug 15. Good luck!!
|
| 565.305 | Followup memo from Fleet | DLOACT::RESENDEP | following the yellow brick road... | Fri Aug 12 1988 11:18 | 55 |
| Here is a memo I found in my INBOX this morning from Fleet Administration.
Subject: SUPPLEMENTAL FLEET INFORMATION
A Document is attached to this message
Distribution suppressed.
Attached please find a copy of the supplemental question and answer
piece regarding the fleet program changes which was distributed
by Chick during the recent Team meetings.
Based on the volume of telephone calls received in Fleet
Administration and the types of questions being asked, I suspect that
this information did not flow down through each organization in some
of the areas and/or functions.
Two specific changes and some additional information in the supplement
may/will have a significant effect on many employees:
1. New hires and internal transfers may order vehicles if
the offer was made prior to August 15th.
2. New replacement vehicle orders will be accepted by Fleet
Administration if the current vehicle has reached or will
reach 50,000 miles by August 15th. Replacement orders will
be accepted after the 15th only on the condition that the
vehicle being replaced reached the 50,000 miles by
8/15/88. It is anticipated that the District Manager will
verify the odometer reading at the time the replacement
order is approved.
3. Specific employee help programs are being developed.
Those being either developed or investigated include an
Employee Leasing Program, Employee Maintenance Purchase
Program, Group Insurance Program, DCU/Used Vehicle Loan
Program, Employee Used Vehicle Leasing Program, Employee
New Vehicle Purchasing Program. The first of these
programs will begin formal announcement in September.
I ask your help in getting this message out to the district and unit
managers so that each employee will have the opportunity to make the
appropriate decision based on these changes.
Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation.
Regards.
|
| 565.306 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Fri Aug 12 1988 11:41 | 6 |
| re .-1
Interesting. I wonder if these programs will be made available to all
employees -- not just those formerly eligible for Plans A & B.
/john
|
| 565.307 | re.294...I hate to disagee BUT | CARLSN::STUART | | Fri Aug 12 1988 11:52 | 39 |
| RE .294
Read the fleet manual section 20 part B
Field employees who qualify for any of the fleet plans do
NOT qualify for the casual reimbursment except when temporary
rental exceeds this plan or when awaiting delivery of a new car.
Further, it is not possible the way the fleet manual is written
that an individual can leave the A Plan car docked, drive his/her
own choice of vehicle to/from work and use the fleet vehicle for
business only. Even if A Plan (or anything similar) should reappear
it is assumed that you are using it for personal use and will pay
the $30+/wk.
For the guy who lives across the street and can walk to work,
and those who can commute for less than $30+/wk ($1560+/yr)
there is no consideration.
For $1560/yr I can own a fender flapper 4X4, I don't like "cars",
I took the damned thing home because DEC wanted me to be able to
blast off at anytime to anywhere they wanted for such is the life
of us ground pounders.
At first it was .08/mile then $9/wk, then $18/wk followed by $24/wk
now it is $30+/wk. Even the current A Plan is not cost effective
for some people.
So now I'm stuck with a "car" that I don't like or use for personal
mileage other that back and forth or to site (since DEC wants it at
home) which is not cost effective, which will go away in 20k miles
and I have to replace it with an even less cost effective "car"
that I don't have any use for.
For what it's worth, I work weekends on a dairy farm and there is
a lot of this sort of thing there too...but we generally spread
it on the fields!!!
|
| 565.308 | The virtual q&a document might tell you | DLOACT::RESENDEP | following the yellow brick road... | Fri Aug 12 1988 12:07 | 11 |
| > Interesting. I wonder if these programs will be made available to all
> employees -- not just those formerly eligible for Plans A & B.
Well, if you noticed, the memo said a question-and-answer document was
attached. But there was nothing following the text. Perhaps your
question was answered in that virtual attachment. I assume it was an
error and a corrected copy will be sent out when it is discovered.
Whoever gets it, please post.
Pat
|
| 565.309 | The manual may not be the "new" manual | NEWVAX::PAVLICEK | Zot, the Ethical Hacker | Fri Aug 12 1988 12:47 | 21 |
| RE: .307
I suspect that the letter of the law may be enforced by some areas
and not by others. As stated earlier, at a District meeting a few
weeks ago, *both* our District manager and our Fleet rep concurred
that the $.225/mi reimbursement *was* available to us, in lieu of
Plan B.
Also, previous notes have indicated that there may well be an
unannounced intention to bag Plan B as well. If this is the case,
we might find that the Fleet policy may be altered in the near future,
or perhaps, managers will be instructed to "encourage" non-Plan
B participation.
Then again, I guess you never know. Any policy that gets announced
in July, implemented in August, and then doesn't begin to address
employee issues until September (.308, was it?) is obviously not
in its final form (although certain elements have been clearly cast
in concrete).
-- Russ waiting_for_the_"new_Q&A"_stuff_like_everyone_else
|
| 565.310 | What models do you have in stock for 22 cents? | BACKSD::MEIER | harrY / Baltimore, MD | Fri Aug 12 1988 13:23 | 25 |
| RE .307
> Read the fleet manual section 20 part B
>
> Field employees who qualify for any of the fleet plans do
> NOT qualify for the casual reimbursement except when temporary
> rental exceeds this plan or when awaiting delivery of a new car.
This was never in dispute. We already went thru this a couple
hundred notes ago. Somebody did a little extra digging to
find the definition of who qualifies. I believe they posted
something here from the fleet manual that said to qualify, an
employee must of the right job code and must have the right kind
of car and must have the right kind of insurance. If you fail
any of these tests, then you do not qualify for Plan B. If your
job code no longer qualifies you for Plan A, then indeed you are
not a "field employee who qualifies for any of the fleet plans"
and yes, you are therefore eligible for the casual reimbursement.
If that works for you, then do it. The only problem is, where
are you going to get a car for 22.5 cents?
Someone might suggest that the author of the manual passages
intended differently. That's irrelevant. The reading of the law
is very clear.
|
| 565.312 | full of it on plan A | DPDMAI::SWENSON | | Fri Aug 12 1988 19:11 | 16 |
| As for docking cars. The company policy say's this is a no no but
most or all field offices do just that with the terminal vans.
The engineers can't drive them for personnel use and they must leave
them at the house.
What I would like to know is why can't the same thing be done to
the cars. If the vans drivers are trusted not to drive the vans
for personnel use then should the car drivers be trusted less.
Why doesn't the management just come out and say that they are trying
to do away with plan A in the long run. Or reinburse us for the
miliage not use from the $30/wk we would pay in. It is a very one
sided deal and the engineers are the ones getting scre--- no matter
how you look at it.
Nice way to treat the workers,
|
| 565.313 | 49812 and counting... | PH4VAX::MCBRIDE | the syntax is 6% in this state | Fri Aug 12 1988 19:47 | 9 |
| Gee! Now there is an addendum to the fleet plan letter...I can
get a car if I get 50k miles by aug 15 and get my manager to verify
it. I have 49812 on my car and expect to hit 50k in the next hour
and a half. (o.k. ...maybe a little more) I'll be out of town monday
and so will my manager. I haven't seen this addendum in writing
and neither has he. It'll be great to know that my car will sit
in the airport parking lot and the deadline will expire on it.
I love DEC... I'll bet we are a little flexible in this matter.
|
| 565.315 | ALL-IN-1 must be more "flexible" than a "$"...8^) | MISFIT::DEEP | | Mon Aug 15 1988 15:12 | 7 |
|
FWIW... if you are driving more than 17K miles per year, you are
better off with plan C than plan B... plus you don't pay an insurance
difference to add Digital.
|
| 565.316 | Rick Catino's Memo and the Official Q&A | HJUXB::ADLER | Ed Adler @UNX / UNXA::ADLER | Mon Aug 15 1988 17:07 | 455 |
| I n t e r o f f i c e M e m o r a n d u m
To: see "TO" DISTRIBUTION Memo: 5391569577HJU57
Date: Thu 11 Aug 1988 9:17 PM EST
From: RICK CATINO
cc: see "CC" DISTRIBUTION Dept: US FLEET ADMIN
Tel: 223-5000
Adr:
Subject: SUPPLEMENTAL FLEET INFORMATION
Attached please find a copy of the supplemental question and answer
piece regarding the fleet program changes which was distributed
by Chick during the recent Team meetings.
Based on the volume of telephone calls received in Fleet
Administration and the types of questions being asked, I suspect that
this information did not flow down through each organization in some
of the areas and/or functions.
Two specific changes and some additional information in the supplement
may/will have a significant effect on many employees:
1. New hires and internal transfers may order vehicles if
the offer was made prior to August 15th.
2. New replacement vehicle orders will be accepted by Fleet
Administration if the current vehicle has reached or will
reach 50,000 miles by August 15th. Replacement orders will
be accepted after the 15th only on the condition that the
vehicle being replaced reached the 50,000 miles by
8/15/88. It is anticipated that the District Manager will
verify the odometer reading at the time the replacement
order is approved.
3. Specific employee help programs are being developed.
Those being either developed or investigated include an
Employee Leasing Program, Employee Maintenance Purchase
Program, Group Insurance Program, DCU/Used Vehicle Loan
Program, Employee Used Vehicle Leasing Program, Employee
New Vehicle Purchasing Program. The first of these
programs will begin formal announcement in September.
I ask your help in getting this message out to the district and unit
managers so that each employee will have the opportunity to make the
appropriate decision based on these changes.
Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation.
Regards.
*******
"TO" DISTRIBUTION:
Deleted - eca
"CC" DISTRIBUTION:
Deleted - eca
I n t e r o f f i c e M e m o r a n d u m
To: Memo: 5391569605HJU58
Date: Wed 10 Aug 1988 7:05 PM EST
From:
Dept:
Tel:
Adr:
Subject:
FLEET CHANGES
=============
Q: During the transition to Plan B, who may continue to order
fleet vehicles?
A: Field Service Engineers (Job codes T2F, T3F, T4F and T5F)
may continue ordering Plan A vehicles indefinitely, as their
current vehicles reach replacement criteria. These
individuals may not place orders for new Plan D vehicles.
In order to provide employees with an ample planning horizon
during this transition period, all current Plan A participants may
order a replacement vehicle provided their currently assigned
vehicle reaches 50,000 miles or 30 months in service by August 15,
1988.
All new hires or internal transfers with eligible job codes
may order a new vehicle provided the job offer was made
prior to August 15, 1988. It is anticipated that the offer date
will be reviewed by the District Manager at the time the
new vehicle application is approved.
Q: Can you give me more detail around the fringe benefit
calculation and when it takes effect? I would like to see
how it will affect me personally.
A: For calendar year 1988, the payment of the weekly Personal
Use Charge by the employee negates any fringe benefit value
for the personal use. That is, we are "averaging" the entire
fleet and the fringe benefit value (on average) will eliminate
the need to include any amounts in the employee's W-2 form.
For calendar year 1989, the fringe benefit value will be
calculated on a "per-individual" basis. At the end of the
calendar year, each employee's FBV will be individually
calculated. This calculated amount will then be reduced by the
amount paid via personal use charges. Any excess or deficit will
be included in that employee's W-2 from as a debit or a credit.
We anticipate that the 1989 tax year (for the purposes of
collecting personal use data) will begin on November 1, 1988
and end on October 30, 1989. These dates are not firm however
look very probable.
An external vendor is now working on the collection and reporting
system and we expect that specifics will be made available
shortly. We envision the data collection method using weekly
vehicle expense summaries will continue. The data from that
process will be dumped into the personal use reporting system.
All miles not reported are assumed to be personal miles.
We will have the capability of providing periodic (quarterly ?)
reports to each employee so that s/he understands the current
FBV of the vehicle on an ongoing basis. Such information would
also be available to the cost center manager. Prior to
implementation, an information package will be distributed.
The FBV calculation is simple and is peculiar to each employee.
Digital uses a "fleet average" method to determine the vehicle
cost range (we are in the $10,000 to 10,999 range). In this range
the IRS table states that the Fair Market Rental Value is $3,100.
Assume an employee drives 20,000 miles per year; 12,000 business
(60%) and 8,000 personal (40%). The calulation would be as
follows:
I. Fair market rental value
from IRS Table $3,100
Percentage of Personal Use 40 %
_________
Employee Fixed FBV $1,240 (1)
========
II. Number of personal miles 8,000
Fuel value from IRS table $ .055
---------
Employee Variable FBV $ 440 (2)
========
III. Employee Fixed FBV $1,240 (1)
Employee Variable FBV 440 (2)
Personal Use Charge Paid
(52 weeks x $30) (1,560)
_________
Net Fringe Benefit Value (W-2) $ 120
========
The $120 is the number that would appear on the W-2 form
effective with calendar year 1989. To do this calculation
for your own circumstances, you will need to determine your
personal miles and the percentage of personal use.
Q: In the original announcement, you said that this transition
would provide me with more flexibility. I feel like I have
less flexibility. What did you mean?
A: During the past two years, a significant number of employees
have voiced opinions on the types of fleet vehicles being
offered, a dissatisfaction with the types of repairs being
approved and disapproved, the fact that station wagons
were only offered in one color, limited choice of repair
facilities, etc. The flexibility we envisioned was to provide
each employee with more control and personal choice over
the make and model they choose to drive. Further it allows
the employee the choice of selecting repair and maintenence
facilities and specific maintenance performed, while offering
a fair and equitable reimbursement for that portion of the
vehicle associated with business use.
Q: I am currently in Sales Training. What options will be
available to me when I complete the program?
A: Employees entering the Sales Training program by August 15,
1988 may participate in either Plan A or Plan B. Employees
entering the Sales Training Program after August 15, 1988 may
only participate in Plan B.
Q: Don't most of our competitors offer company-provided
vehicles?
A: Some companies such as IBM, Data General, Prime, Wang
and Honeywell Bull do not have a company-provided car
plan. Instead, these companies offer a reimbursement
plan similar to Plan B. A few of the other companies
in the survey are considering the phase-out of company
provided vehicles.
Q: What prompted the decision to eliminate Plan D?
A: The original intent of vehicle markings was to gain
advertising exposure while our vehicles were being driven.
Because our vehicles became distinguishable, they also
became very vulnerable to theft of equipment. Losses have
consistently increased over time.
Q: When my current vehicle reaches 3 years or 60,000 miles, what
is the process to turn in my vehicle and enroll on Plan B?
A: As your vehicle approaches the retirement criteria, you should
complete a Plan B application so that your monthly checks will
begin when the vehicle reaches 36 months or 60,000 miles.
When one or the other is reached, the Cost Center Manager
should notify Fleet Administration to pick up the vehicle.
Q: How is/was the Plan B rate determined?
A: There are several different analyses which help develop the
rate. These include a competitive survey among companies
which are similar to us and published data from consultants
such as Runzheimer.
Q: What companies are included in the survey?
A: Periodically companies are added or deleted from the annual
survey. The companies included in the last survey are:
ATT Control Data
Data General Honeywell
IBM Prime
Unisys Tandem
Wang Hewlett Packard
NCR NEC
Apollo Apple
Codex Compugraphic
Xerox Raytheon
General Electric Hughes Aircraft
Computer Science GTE
Rockwell
Q: How do our plans compare with those in the survey?
A: The majority of companies surveyed use a reimbursement rate
structure developed by Runzheimer which varies the
reimbursment rate according to geography.
Q: Who is Runzheimer?
Runzheimer International is a private consulting company
that specializes in travel, relocation and reimbursement
system consulting. They develop the mileage reimbursement
numbers published by the Internal Revenue Service and,
they develop the numbers published in the AAA publication,
"Your Driving Costs".
Q: What did they do for Digital?
A: In the analysis developed for Digital, Runzheimer
gathered data around vehicle ownership and
operating costs from each area where we have a large
concentration of employees. The costs and assumptions
used in this business use analysis included:
- Chevrolet Celebrity, 4 door sedan, 2.5L 4 cylinder
- Geographic assumptions such as the annual cost
of insurance, cost per gallon of fuel, maintenance
and tire expense per mile, license and registration
fees, and vehicle taxes.
Q: If all of this data is developed on a geographical basis, why
does Digital use a flat rate across the United States?
A: For the most part, this business decision was made to allow
for consistency across the geographies and administrative
simplicity for both the employee and the company.
Q: I know several employees from other firms who use the
Runzheimer Plan who seem to be getting different reimbursements
for fixed and operating costs. If Runzheimer is so accurate,
how can there be differences between companies?
A: Many companies consult with Runzheimer using essentially
the same concepts. They do not all use the same parameters
or standards. For instance, our analysis is based on a
Chevrolet Celebrity. Other companies may base the analysis
on a Ford Escort or a Cadillac.
Q: In the announcement, it stated that the rate was based on
the number published in the AAA publication; "Your Driving
Costs". It now appears that you are basing it on something
else. Why the change?
A: The primary reason the AAA booklet was referenced is because
it is readily available to the general public and could
be used for reference purposes. Some of the input comes from
private sources and companies and is generally not available
to the entire employee population.
Q: Back to the AAA number. Show me how it relates to the $200
and 8 cent reimbursement.
A: The Plan B reimbursement rate is not intended to cover all of
the ownership costs of a vehicle. The plan is designed to
reimburse the employee for that portion of the expense associated
with business use. Assuming that the average vehicle is available
for business use five days out of seven, the fixed cost
reimbursement is calculated at 5/7th's or 71.4%.
The information was taken from the most current publication
which was 1987. For the Chevrolet Celebrity with a 4 year,
60,000 mile life are as follows:
Fixed Costs
- Comprehensive Insurance $ 87
- Collision Insurance 196
- Property Damage & Liability 252
- License, registration and fees 140
- Depreciation 1506
- Interest (20% down, loan @ 12%) 601
_________
Total Annual Fixed Costs $ 2782
===
- Adjustment for business insurance $ 400
- Adjustment for air conditioning 142
---------
Total Adjusted Annual Fixed Costs $ 3324
===
Times the % of business use x 71.4%
_________
Annual Adjusted Reimbursement $ 2373
===
Divided by twelve months = $ 198
===
Operating Costs Per Mile:
Gasoline & Oil 4.8 cents
Maintenance 1.6 cents
Tires .8 cents
__________
Total Cost Per Mile 7.2 cents
=====
-Adjustment for air conditioning .15 cents
__________
Total Adjusted Cost Per Mile 7.35 cents
=====
Q: When will the rate be increased again?
A: The rate will be reviewed annually and adjustments will made
where appropriate.
Q: Plan B has rules which state that the vehicle must be less
than 4 model years old and must carry proof of insurance.
If I were on the Casual Use Reimbursement of 22.5 cents per
mile, I could drive anything.
A: Almost all of the analyses supporting the rate are based on
a 4 year vehicle life and include the cost of insurance. For
the average employee, this equals a monthly Plan B
reimbursement of $328 as opposed to a casual user reimbursement
of $248. In addition, Digital wants to present an
appropriate image to our customers. The insurance limits are
to ensure that the employee and the company are protected in
the case of an accident, claim or loss. The casual user rate
is designed for those employees who seldom drive on company
business and it is not a requirement of their job to drive
on company business.
Q: I do not currently have automobile insurance and, in my state,
will be forced to enter a high risk pool with rates that are
higher than average. What should I do?
A: Digital is currently working with a major insurance carrier
to provide the required limits of insurance at a below market
rate for people on Plan B. Additional details will be made
available shortly.
Q: I can get insurance from my own carrier but I am a high risk
driver because of moving violations or accidents. Does the
insurance portion of the reimbursement take that into
consideration?
A: No. The reimbursement does not reflect higher than normal
insurance costs attributable to a poor driving record.
Q: The flat rate of $200 per month is included in my W-2 form
as income. What options do I have when filing my income
taxes.
A: There are several alternatives. You may declare all of
your reimbursements as income and write off your actual
expenses. You may declare all of your reimbursements as
income and use the IRS limits as a write off (currently
22.5 cents per mile for the first 15,000 miles and 11.0
cents per mile thereafter. Each employee must evaluate
all circumstances and make the final decision. Consultation
with a tax advisor may be appropriate.
Q: I know what you are doing around insurance coverage. Are
there any other programs being developed and if so, when
will they be made available?
A: Digital is developing several programs designed for employees
either migrating to, or currently participating on Plan B.
One such program is an employee leasing program which will
offer both open and closed end leasing at very competitve
rates. Other programs under review involve new vehicle
purchase discounts and maintenance purchase discounts. The
employee leasing program will be available in September.
|
| 565.317 | $200 is taxed | DPDMAI::SWENSON | | Tue Aug 16 1988 11:11 | 10 |
|
REP 316
The $200 /mon is taxable. This is one thing that does not get
mentioned. So now if you take out local, state, and federal taxes
you end up quite abit less then $200. So with all the charts and
graph that show that $200 is fair, well it really isn't. If a person
it in the right income bracket they will be lossing 40 to $60 dollars
in taxes. Where does the company make up for this or is it just
our tough luck.
|
| 565.318 | Nothing up their sleeves...Presto! | IVOGUS::BARTH | Karl - studying aeroporcine topics | Tue Aug 16 1988 12:39 | 21 |
| Re: .316
The nifty table that calculates $200 is also performing a bit of
prestidigitation. (In addition to the tax mentioned in .317)
The adder for business insurance ($400/yr) is tossed into the
pile of things to pay for, then multiplied by the .71 factor to
account for business use. But NONE of the $400 would be required
for a personal use automobile.
The other thing I take exception to: geographic differences were
eliminated for simplicity. Gimme a break. When my insurance is going
to be double/triple the estimated amount, I'll go through a little pain
to get the extra money.
Also, .316 is the first time I've seen the 30-month replacement rule
for plan A termination. That is, nowhere else had I seen that I could
order a car if it were 30 months old by yesterday. Was it distributed
anywhere else? I don't recall seeing that in my letter or prior notes...
K.
|
| 565.319 | huh? | WR2FOR::BOUCHARD_KE | Ken Bouchard WRO3-2 DTN 521-3018 | Tue Aug 16 1988 14:50 | 3 |
| .318>The adder for business insurance ($400/yr) is tossed into the
^^^^^^^^^
What? Is DEC really going to give us $400/yr. to help with insurance?
|
| 565.320 | sure | DPDMAI::SWENSON | | Tue Aug 16 1988 17:34 | 1 |
| .319 YES ofcourse, just as soon as hell freezes over.
|
| 565.321 | tax info ?? | DPDMAI::SWENSON | | Tue Aug 16 1988 18:09 | 8 |
| It would be very helpful in seeing something on doing taxes when
it come to the company car. Since the company is putting up this
great new policy for the car and we are being stuck with a bunch
of company cost out of our own pocket. How about some info at the
end of the year when taxes are do. Are we able to deduct some NON
REIMBURSED COMPANY EXPENCES? How much can we deduct, and just some
general info on expenses and taxes.
|
| 565.322 | I FEEL LIKE A MUSHROOM | GRANPA::TAMICO | | Tue Aug 16 1988 18:35 | 28 |
| ref.316
In ihe Q&A section it states that some employes voised opinions
about the type of fleet vehicles offered, and only one color, just
to mention a few. so for that reason DEC will make everyone happy
and clean up the problem and discontinue plan "A". What kind of
a fool am i supposed to be and believe that. I had better start
living in a damp dark place and become a mushroom because I am being
fed a lot of mushroom food. Further more this Runzheimer and AAA
should be in the insurance buisness, for I surely would be insured
with them. $535.00 for collision,liability, and comprehensive ins.
I can't get that for 6 months in N.J. I guess we masses out here
are supposed to be a bunch of hinge heads.(that means that every
time we get told something we just rock our heads back and forth
on the hinges and say "yup, yup that must be right because RUNZHEIMER
said so".
I sometimes wish DEC would just come out and say Tough stuff
people, no more CO. cars. WE don't want to spend the money,nor bear
the adminstrative costs involved. You are on your own, instead of
quoting all these companys who know how much it costs to run an
auto. DEC dosn't have to quote anyone, they have their own records
on how much it costs to own and operate an automobile, they've been
doing it for quite sometime. I would like to see those records on
costs, then take my percent of company mileage out of that sum of
money. I also think they could shop around for better deals on maint
and lease costs, but for the "flexibility" of the employee, it's
best to drop it all.
thats enough gripping for now, every time I read thes notes
I get depressed.
|
| 565.323 | Taxes BLEAH! | LAIDBK::GRANT | ether surfin' | Tue Aug 16 1988 20:51 | 23 |
| RE: < Note 565.317 by DPDMAI::SWENSON > -< $200 is taxed >-
Unless I did my taxes wrong (which I just turned in yesterday), the
$200 is potentially taxible. The $200/mo is shown on your W-2 but has
not had it's tax taken out yet. The $0.08/mile is not shown on your
W-2.
You file a form 2106 "Employee Business Expense" with your car expenses
either figured on actual expenses * percent business use or at the std
rate of 22.5 cents/business mile. If you are lucky, your expenses are
greater than your $200/mo plus mileage and you don't owe any taxes on
it. Otherwise, pay up (it becomes part of salary and wages).
BTW I too wish somebody would explain all the intricacies of FORM 2106
as it applies to the car plan. I read the instructions multiple times
and I'm still confused. I've always done my taxes without professional
help and now maybe I'll have to start paying someone to figure it out!
:-(
Bob
Disclaimer: I am obviously not a tax lawyer so take all my statements
with a moderate grain of salt.
|
| 565.324 | General agreement | SRFSUP::GOETZE | Picture this: an artist working for a computer company | Wed Aug 17 1988 00:48 | 13 |
| re .321 on tax advise:
Of course the same memo from fleet recommends consulting a tax advisor
in order to fully understand or deal with the changes most
successfully. Now last time I heard, these guys (or women) were
not cheap. But, as part of the new high productivity plan, we will
of course accept these additional costs with no problem, even though
most of these tax problems didn't exist for me before joining Digital.
<Side effect>. I had a similarly hard time figuring out the taxes
for this last year myself (as .323), and will not be able to do
it on my own again safely. I sure hope the JEC is going to compensate
for all this extra expense. Or perhaps the lottery. I think that's
becoming the last hope these days.
|
| 565.325 | unreal numbers | DPDMAI::SWENSON | | Wed Aug 17 1988 10:32 | 30 |
|
.316 QUESTION: 4.8c per mile
Lets look at this little number. First DEC is using a 4cyclinder
Celebrety. Now this little jewel isn't worth a flip in areas with
any hills. I drove mine through some mountain states and it acted
like it was dieing on each hill and this was with high test gas.
It looks like at 4.8c/m you are spending about $1.06/gal. at
22miles/gal. Something is wrong here. Driving my car in town it
doesn't get 22m/g. It is closer to 17 to 18. Also if you are driving
in the hills you are getting far less the 222m/g. Now while I was
in Mass. I saw gas prices vary as much as .20c.
What I would like to know is what data is DEC using for 4.8c/m it
must be the sticker info.
If real data is used. The average driver will have a 6cyc and be
getting an average of 17 to 18m/gal. Also a good across the country
gas price is about $1.10/gal to $1.05/gal. This will come out to
be between 6.2 to 6.6c/mile. Now if DEC would be realistic the
reimbursement should be 10c and not 8c/mile.
Then again are you going to use the sticker information or realistic
data. Where are you buying gas, in town our next to a refinrey[s.p]
The insurance price is another joke. Where are you looking for
insurance? The cost of insurance varies a little from down town
Boston to Las Vagas. Just looking at the average doesn't cut it
since many of the DEC field personnel are in high rate areas. Just
what areas were they looking at for the $400 number??
|
| 565.326 | Red Herring | DWOVAX::YOUNG | Feet of Klaatu | Wed Aug 17 1988 17:58 | 12 |
| From my perspective this second letter is just a large red herring
because it gets us talking about what I consider to be the less
important issues and fails to address the really tough questions.
The question that I wanted to see was:
Q. When I was hired by Digital I was told that my Plan A car
represented an "non-taxable benefit" and that I should consider
it part of my total compensation package. Why is Digital now
revoking approximately $7000 of my total compensation without
providing any comparable substitute?
-- Barry
|
| 565.327 | IRS rates | DPDMAI::SWENSON | | Wed Aug 17 1988 19:44 | 11 |
| Just thought of something. Why doesn't DEC do away with all the
plans and everyone drive their own car and pay them what the IRS
says that business mailes are worth. Next year the IRS may go to
30c a mile for deduction on business miles so lets look at that
from this point.
Yes we would need our own car... If a person drove 1000 miles a
month the IRS says that is $300 for business. DEC would pay $280
and the first 200 is taxable so a person may end up with $220.
That is some what off from the IRS. Just let us put it on our
expenses and not pay taxes on it. How is that???
|
| 565.328 | Just the facts Ma'am. | SCADMN::BOYACK | All things being equal...aren't! | Wed Aug 17 1988 20:35 | 26 |
| I just called AAA about insurance for:
CELEBRITY TAURUS
========= ======
$962/yr $1004/yr
I have no tickets nor outstanding warrants and LUCKILY, I live in
the 95129 zip code because one zip code over and the rates skyrocket!
I am over 30 (better rate), married (better rate) and have another
car (better rate). I feel for the guy that is <30, single and has
one car.
Now, as to "competitive"...
My data is as follows (not "official" but TRUSTED $:-)
Apollo - 300/mo + .09/mile
Sun - 500/mo
HP - NEW model Taurus (loaded) every year), + $50/mo allowance
Oracle - 600/mo
Matra - 350/mo + all gas expenses
This data comes to you from Sunny-Silicon Valley, CA
Steve
|
| 565.329 | It made DIGITAL REVIEW | WINERY::HARVEY | | Wed Aug 17 1988 21:31 | 9 |
| Guess what.... DIGITALS plan A just made page #3 of DIGITAL
REVIEW dated August 15, 1988.
The title of the article is "DEC puts brakes on buying cars for
sale force." The last paragraph said the most, "For the first time
in recent memory, quite a few people are openly talking about leaving
DIGITAL." This was a quote from a unidentified sales person.
Renis
|
| 565.330 | | WORDS::BADGER | Follow the Sun Stream | Wed Aug 17 1988 22:20 | 22 |
| I read our dirty laundry aired in Digital Review. I'm not to proud
about it! In the past 18 years, I've suffered through a pay cut
and a couple wage freezes, not to mention those nine hour days
imposed on wage class 4 people who were already working 10 hour
days. I found that at the end of each cost cutting era, that
Digital took care of its own.
I guess I'm just tied of hearing all the whinning about this matter.
There's been NO new information, just continueous whinning
. All those who claim that $5-6K
pay cut never told the IRS about it. Also in that article, they
mention that IBM pays for no car. I know why I wouldn't go to one
of those other places that offer betters cars: JOB SECURITY!
We may make a little less in salary here, but I don't worry about
that pink slip on firday morn. I LIKE,no LOVE my job here at
Digital. I doubt that I'd work it if I didn't. Its a shame that
others try working a job that they don't like.
Yes, this is a new Digital. In the old Digital, we used to talk
the problems out like family. Now we speak to digital review.
Next year a union? ug.
ed
|
| 565.331 | What about annual mileage used?? | MERIDN::BIAZZO | Can tune a VAX but can't tuna fish | Wed Aug 17 1988 22:38 | 18 |
| re .330 I just finished a 13 hour day (6 of which were spent in
DEC's car.
SET FLAME ON>
Either you're not affected by the car plan or you like having money
taken from your pocket. Maybe we'll hear back from you when some
other cost cutting measure affects you. I'll remember to
offer no sympathy.
SET FLAME OFF>
Back to the topic of this discussion.
One point in the new fleet memo that disturbs me is the mileage
comparison used. Most of my colleagues average 25-30 thousand
annually. 15000 is fantasy land for field people!
John_who'll_crawl_under_his_new_car_to_implement_an_extended_mileage_program
|
| 565.332 | Let's try to make it better, not just cheaper! | AUSTIN::UNLAND | Sic Biscuitus Disintegratum | Wed Aug 17 1988 22:59 | 28 |
| re: .331 by MERIDN::BIAZZO and the flames
Here, here!
re: .330
I too have gone through some of DEC's lean years, but they never
hosed me and sent me a letter telling me they did me a favor!
But even so, I will if you will. If you're willing to see your
total compensation from the Company reduced by a similar amount,
then I am willing to joins arms with you and carry DEC into a
new era of prosperity and profitability. Just think, a $5,000
savings for each of 120,000 employees, why, we would be one of
the most profitable companies on the NYSE next quarter. And
a ghost-town on the second quarter ...
I do agree with you about unions, though. The only thing that
a union would guarantee is that we all really do get the shaft,
collectively! No, I think the answer is to temper cost-cutting
with a realistic view towards making things work better, not
just cheaper. If company cars are really that expensive, find
a *better* alternative, not just a cheaper one. Doing things
the Digital "way" means that both the Company *and* the people
get benefits, not one at the total expense of the other.
Geoff
|
| 565.333 | GOOD | DPDMAI::SWENSON | | Thu Aug 18 1988 18:44 | 3 |
| RE: .332
GOOD GOOD GOOD..
|
| 565.334 | An idea of the scale we're talking about | SDSVAX::SWEENEY | Patrick Sweeney | Thu Aug 18 1988 19:15 | 9 |
| $5,000 from 120,000 employees would yield $600,000,000 (six hundred
million).
$600,000,000 is the ENTIRE profit earned from operations of Digital
Equipment Corporation in Fiscal 1986 (which ended June 28, 1986): THE
ENTIRE YEAR.
This hypothetical $600 million would not be recurring. Technically,
it would be called extraordinary income.
|
| 565.335 | last reply... | PH4VAX::MCBRIDE | the syntax is 6% in this state | Thu Aug 18 1988 21:17 | 24 |
| re> .334
fortunately not all employees had cars, in fact only about 12,000(?).
re> Ed Badger's reply
Ed I have nothing but respect for you and the depth of experience
people of your caliber provide for the company. Yes there is a
lot of whining by the field people, teh people who are most directly
affected by this policy change. Some of us have had our share of
wage freezes. A lot of us have seen people hired in from the outside
who are getting more money and doing less and then leave. I can
comiserate with you. I even made the mistake , once, when my boss
asked me how I like DEC I said "I like this so much I'd do it for
free!" He tried to accommodate me. My situation is severe. It
is not DEC's fault, this move was for the betterment of the
corporation. I've also heard rumors that DEC was a "focussed employer"
at the IRS. When added to a lot of the cost cutting measures the
field has had to go through that specifically affected me and a
series of personal events of the last 5 years this is deadly.
Nuf said,
Bob
|
| 565.336 | | WORDS::BADGER | Follow the Sun Stream | Thu Aug 18 1988 21:51 | 12 |
| Didn't really want to attack my brothers in the field. Was just
sick seeing that article in Digital review. I can see where thr
trouble is. its that 5 or 6K of undeclared income. I'd fight arm
in arm with you if dec was giving you a 5 K pay cut. but it isn't
so on paper! Not one of you has said you claim it on your income
tax return, have you? Then its NOT income, and Your NOT loosing
it. ;-)
the field software types gotta understand that you started off not
gaining any feelings here after taling about the Hawii trips!
we don't even get a meal at burger king for our work done.
ed
|
| 565.337 | | CSOA1::TEATER | Greg | Thu Aug 18 1988 22:32 | 25 |
| When I hired in the field (over 9 years ago) I inquired about
tools. The Field Service Manager indicated that all tools would
be provided including transportation via a company vehicle. Now,
it was never stated that the car was part of my compensation, but
it was cleary stated that I would not have to provide any TOOLS
to perform my job.
To make the car plan work as stated, the 4 years stipulation
would have to be removed. The right car properly maintenanced
could last more than 4 years and 100,000+ miles.
I am happy to see what the company is planning to do about
acquiring group insurance and maybe the DCU will come through
with a cheap, no down payment loan for vehicles registered for
DIGITAL use.
But I really hope some policy *adjustment* is in the works.
And it is a shame that our dirty laundry is out in the public, I
had a customer the other day ask if I was impacted by the new car
policy. My answer, "I can't comment on DIGITAL internal
policies". I think the customer caught a glimpse of hostility in
my answer.
greg_t
|
| 565.338 | semantics on TOOL/BENEFIT | SRFSUP::GOETZE | Picture this: an artist working for a computer company | Thu Aug 18 1988 23:26 | 12 |
| re: .336
I wouldn't recommend bringing "Hawaii trips" into this issue. There
are those among us who feel that the motivational awards
programs are executed in the same inflexible way as taking away car plans.
After all, do you have any choice in the way your "award" is provided?
Nope - you just take the "scheduled activities" and suffer the W-2
consequences. I'd just as soon bring up the "benefit" or lack thereof
for SW engineers to have VAXstations at home. There is no need to
ask if they are listing the VAXstation's use on their W-2 as income.
It is a TOOL and that is that, but tools often feel like benefits
or can be used as if they were benefits.
|
| 565.339 | Try this on for size. | MERIDN::BIAZZO | Can tune a VAX but can't tuna fish | Fri Aug 19 1988 00:50 | 17 |
| RE .336
Sorry for being pig-headed but I just can't let this go. First
Digital Review, my feeling is that almost anything printed in that
rag is disturbing.
Regarding income/compensation losses, let me draw an analogy. Let's
assume DEC cancelled your health, life insurance, and dental benefits
tomorrow. By your logic I assume that since you don't declare these
items on your tax return that you would not view their cancellation
as a loss.
It's basically the same thing. You would now be forced to pay out
of pocket for what previously was a non-taxable form of compensation.
Just because it doesn't come in a blue envelope doesn't mean its
not compensation.
|
| 565.340 | The grass is always greener | MERIDN::BAY | You lead people, you manage things | Fri Aug 19 1988 01:20 | 44 |
| re .336
> the field software types gotta understand that you started off not
> gaining any feelings here after taling about the Hawii trips!
> we don't even get a meal at burger king for our work done.
I'll describe my emotional state simply and coolly: I'd strangle
you if you were here in person.
Now for a little explanation. (I've gone through this before, but
everytime someone insists on stating something as uninformed as
that, I feel obligated to set them straight).
First off, you make it sound like every software specialist in the
country goes to Hawaii every year. Not even close!
Unofficially, 17 out of 100 specialists in our district are going to
excellence awards this year (numbers will vary for other districts, AND
based on customer sat. scores). For the less mathematically inclined,
thats one trip per person, every five years. Truly a LAVISH reward
system. EXCEPT... that the awards aren't rotated among all the
specialists. Odds are that, in the field, the awards go to an elite
group year after year. And the population is not static.
And the normal working conditions for these 100 people? No desk in a
DEC office. No phone. No terminal. No account on a VAX with DCL
access.
Compared to software developers VAXstations, dual telephone lines
at home paid for by DEC, etc. etc. this pitiful two-day trip every
five years (IF THAT) is about as meager as it comes. Not to mention
the amount of resentment and bad attitudes it causes (except for
field people, I doubt if many people begrudge you your VAXstation).
Our entire district of 100 specialists (plus others) have an 11/780
with 10 MB of memory and a handful of VT100s that don't even have
AVO cards to call their own.
And you dare to talk about a stupid trip, that most field employees
will never get to take?
Jim (who would be perfectly happy just to get the tools he needs
to do his job)
|
| 565.341 | PLEA FOR FAIRNESS | NCVAX1::GETSCH | Dave Getsch | Fri Aug 19 1988 13:55 | 32 |
| This is all fine and interesting, but let us remember that a car
is required for me to do my job as a DEC sales person. I do not
have the luxury of taking public transportation to work, or car
pooling. If I do not have a car, I cannot perform my job.
Since a car is required, then it would be logical to assume that
the company that requires that I have one would make it possible
at a reasonable cost.
Maybe I am just misguided in my faith in this great company we work
for in expecting fair treatment. I have been here going on 10 years
now in sales and have found this a GREAT place to work. It has
seemed almost like family.
When I review the two justification memos, I get the same feeling
as when an insurance company tries to justify why they cannot pay
me a fair price for a car which has been totaled in an accident.
They always seem to minimize my investment, and maximize the
deductions.
I am still having trouble understanding how $200 taxable (less 28%
Fed tax and 10.5% State tax giving a net yield of $123) is somehow
supposed to help me buy a $13,000 car and not end up costing me
an arm and a leg.
I don't expect things to be the way they always were, just to be
treated FAIRLY.
Regards;
Dave
|
| 565.342 | trip to Hawaai | WINERY::BOUCHARKE | Ken Bouchard WRO3-2 521-3018 | Fri Aug 19 1988 14:16 | 9 |
| .338> Nope - you just take the "scheduled activities" and suffer the W-2
.338> consequences. I'd just as soon bring up the "benefit" or lack thereof
How I feel about motivational awards is neither here nor there.What
I'd like to comment on right now is that statement about W-2
consequences.Doesn't DEC give you a tax adder to cover any taxes
you might incur?The trip is *totally free* is it not?Nobody forces
you to go,do they?
|
| 565.343 | | DIXIE1::JENNINGS | Dave Jennings | Fri Aug 19 1988 17:35 | 16 |
| > I am still having trouble understanding how $200 taxable (less 28%
> Fed tax and 10.5% State tax giving a net yield of $123) is somehow
> supposed to help me buy a $13,000 car and not end up costing me
> an arm and a leg.
That's because it doesn't (and isn't intented to)! It's supposed
to cover the _additional_ costs of using your _personal_ car while
on DEC business.
And as I (and others) have noted, you don't have to pay income tax
on the money if: 1) you have enough business miles
AND: 2) fill out form 2106 when you file
Dave
a_happy_car_plan_B_driver
|
| 565.344 | | HYDRA::ECKERT | Jerry Eckert | Fri Aug 19 1988 17:43 | 10 |
| re: .343
> That's because it doesn't (and isn't intented to)! It's supposed
> to cover the _additional_ costs of using your _personal_ car while
> on DEC business.
In the case of those whose personal cars don't meet Plan B
restrictions, the cost of purchasing a new car IS an additional
expense.
|
| 565.345 | Did you have to say that on a FRIDAY? | NEWVAX::PAVLICEK | Zot, the Ethical Hacker | Fri Aug 19 1988 17:52 | 34 |
|
re: .343
Please don't take this too personally, Dave, but it's late Friday
and I need to "express" myself...
> That's because it doesn't (and isn't intented to)! It's supposed
> to cover the _additional_ costs of using your _personal_ car while
> on DEC business.
Oh, I see. I'm _SUPPOSED_ to be driving a $13,000 _personal_ car
because I work at Digital, and at Digital we get paid _SO_ well
that we can _afford_ a $13,000 _personal_ car while feeding a family
of four and holding onto a mortgage.
Yes, this is much clearer now :^(.
> And as I (and others) have noted, you don't have to pay income tax
> on the money if: 1) you have enough business miles
> AND: 2) fill out form 2106 when you file
Neither do you have to pay income tax on the money if your personal
car just happens to be a 1973 VW Camper which is sooo loud that
you can hear it coming from a distance of about 1/2 mile. In that
case, you get business mileage reimbursement only. (Gee, wonder
if I should paint a Digital logo on the side? It is a white camper,
after all :^)
> Dave
> a_happy_car_plan_B_driver
Glad to hear it. At least someone found a way to make this work.
There. I feel a little better. :^|
|
| 565.346 | I know I promised but... | PH4VAX::MCBRIDE | the syntax is 6% in this state | Fri Aug 19 1988 21:27 | 5 |
| A VW camper!!!! Thanks for the idea...I've allways wanted one of
those and Inever got one. Today I was driving through Bethlehem,
Pa ( about 132 mile form where I live, on company business) and
I saw a "for sale" sign on a 52 Plymouth. Now ther is a reliable
car!!! A V W Camper...My Goddness I love it!!!
|
| 565.347 | Plan B _is_ fair! | DIXIE1::JENNINGS | Dave Jennings | Sat Aug 20 1988 10:46 | 16 |
| re: .345
The point I was trying to make, is that the $200/month for Plan
B is _not_ supposed to provide you with a car. So don't flame at
the plan, it's doing exactly what it intends to do; that is, paying
the _additional_ expense of using a personal car for business.
I already had a personal car that met the requirements when I came
to work for DEC 5 years ago. I thought the $180/month + $0.08 a
mile was adequete compensation for the extra business use that I
had to drive. I agree that you _can't_ buy and operate a car on
$200/month, but you don't have to try. Drive what you want and
take the $0.225 per mile instead.
PS: Remember, I'm in the Southern Area where management is pushing
Plan C!
|
| 565.348 | What does "fair" mean? | ALBANY::MULLER | | Sat Aug 20 1988 20:11 | 1 |
|
|
| 565.349 | WE'RE TALKING "REQUIRED TOOL" HERE!!! | GUIDUK::BURKE | NEVER confuse Sales with Delivery! | Sun Aug 21 1988 01:42 | 38 |
| Time out. Let's take a look at the *REAL* issue here.
I had a talk with my district software manager this week. One of
the questions was "I have been considering riding my bicycle into
work, but understand that one of the reasons for the company car
was so that we (software specialists) could immediately dash out
to a customer site when necessary."
She confirmed for me two things.
1. My performance is measured by having immediate personal transportation
available. Thus, in order to be rated high in performance (upon
which my salary is based) I can't use the bus or my bicycle to get
to work.
2. My performance is measured by how "clean" and in some respects
on how old my car is. Thus, in order to be rated high in performance
(upon which my salary is based) I can't use a motorcycle, VW Bus,
or other beater.
The bottom line is that my salary raises are in some degree based
upon the fact that *I MUST DRIVE A CLEAN CAR*.
Now, in the past, DIGITAL has seen this, and given us the option
of either supplementing our incomes to maintain this standard with
our own personal cars (PLAN B), or providing us with a car which
we reimburse DIGITAL for personal use (PLAN A).
For those who didn't mind paying for the extras necessary
for PLAN B, great. They can get the *BETTER* car and keep up with
the Jones'. But for those of use who have financial considerations,
and were happy with whatever the company gave us, *WE ARE OUTA LUCK!!!*
Besides that, I hate dealing with car salesmen! I am very interested
in seeing these new car purchase, insurance and other programs DIGITAL
is planning on providing.
Doug
|
| 565.350 | American Business persons always drive new cars | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Sun Aug 21 1988 19:13 | 2 |
| Sounds like we've reach the point at DEC in America that a clean car is your
responsibility, just like a clean suit is.
|
| 565.351 | Some corporation presidents usually use the Bus! | GUIDUK::BURKE | NEVER confuse Sales with Delivery! | Sun Aug 21 1988 23:28 | 15 |
| I would not group clean cars with clean suits. After all, I *NEVER*
drive my car into the customer computer room, conference room, or
building in general.
If we were simply talking about transportation from my home to my
normal place of business and back, I agree, That is my responsibility.
Now, where does my responsibility lie with regard to:
1. Having to travel 100 or more miles a day for a year or more
to a customer site (your milage or time may vary *;'}).
2. Having to have a clean car to perform the travel.
Doug
|
| 565.352 | To dream is nice... | CLO::FORNER | And you thought *YOU* were wierd! | Mon Aug 22 1988 01:54 | 8 |
| re: last whole bunch
Regarding: If you don't like plan B then go to Plan C
Good trick, my management isn't even recognizing that there is a
plan C. If you are on plan A, you go to plan B, Period!
/p
|
| 565.353 | Wanna know what I'd pick???? | DLOACT::RESENDEP | following the yellow brick road... | Mon Aug 22 1988 12:41 | 29 |
| RE: .336
> the field software types gotta understand that you started off not
> gaining any feelings here after taling about the Hawii trips!
It's a shame we can't conduct an experiment. I'd like to see everyone,
field and Engineering alike, given a choice. They would have the
option to choose one of the following:
(a) A chance at a company-paid trip to Hawaii for a week, for the
employee and a guest. This chance would be approximately 15:100
odds, and would be based on your manager's perception of your
contribution for the preceding year. The trip would be really
nice, first class all the way with little expense spared.
(b) A workstation on your desk. For everyone. And access to DCL
whenever you feel like seeing a $ sign.
Now realize that if you go for the chance at Hawaii, you get no
workstation. You get the use of a terminal room, where there are
maybe 4 VT-100 terminals for 35 or so people to share for the sole
purpose of reading ALL-IN-1 mail and noting, in captive accounts
that allow no DCL access at all.
I suspect that Digital would never again sponsor a trip to Hawaii,
because it would be cancelled due to lack of interest.
Pat
|
| 565.354 | A new topic | ATLAST::LAMPSON | VAX is a valuable trademark too. | Mon Aug 22 1988 13:15 | 12 |
| Re: .353
I think I've seen this discussed elsewhere. It was
either here or in the SWS conference.
Anyway, this "experiement" should be conducted in its
own topic.
_Mike
P.S. I'll take the workstation! I'll hold off on receiving
it until we come out with our next model, however.
|
| 565.355 | service charge | DPDMAI::SWENSON | | Mon Aug 22 1988 18:14 | 10 |
| OK So now we get stuck with $30/wk. Now we can start charging DEC
for parking the DEC car at home. I don't see that $2/night week
days and $3/day weekends is to much to ask. After all we are providing
a service to the company, security. Now if you are already on plan it
will make no difference. You have to keep certain things in your car for
when you get called out. The same charge can be applied to storing
the tools and equipment you normally have in your DEC car. Storage
is a service also.
|
| 565.356 | Was RC's memo to mgmt only? | NEWVAX::PAVLICEK | Zot, the Ethical Hacker | Tue Aug 23 1988 12:20 | 10 |
|
re: .316 (Rick Catino's Memo/Follow-up Q&A)
Who was supposed to receive this?
I know of no one in my district who has seen this, except for the
posting here. Someone extracted and posted the text on a bulletin
board, but I have yet to see an "official" copy anywhere!
It's been 12 days. The mail shouldn't be THAT slow.
|
| 565.357 | Yes, I *DO* talk to myself... | NEWVAX::PAVLICEK | Zot, the Ethical Hacker | Tue Aug 23 1988 13:25 | 10 |
| re: .356
I just called Fleet. Seems that this memo was desitined for area
management. The information was to "trickle down" to the field.
I vaguely recall some memo from our local Fleet rep who said that
the mileage & service qualifications had changed for replacements
by August 15. She didn't include any of the Q&A stuff, though.
Call DTN 223-5000 if the information didn't "trickle down" to you.
|
| 565.358 | Didn't anybody else notice | MJBOOT::OWENS | Oh sure...ABUSE THE ALIEN | Tue Aug 23 1988 13:37 | 3 |
| I'm surprised nobody noticed the 20% down in .316 used to figure
the loan costs. I know I can afford to put 20% down with two kids
in college!!!!!
|
| 565.359 | Another flame about .316 | EDFVZ0::B_WOOD | Brian [>*<] Wood | Tue Aug 23 1988 14:29 | 115 |
|
SET FLAME/Crash_and_burn
This is great, when I first transfered to the field, Plan A was
an alternative, but cars weren't being approved by local management.
At the time, I was financially pinched, had a broken down car, and
a bitching give me everything wife. The company responded by
loaning me a "DECwreck" (heavy on the wreck - it barely ran better
than my wreck) that I was constantly fighting with locals to hold
onto. I finally in despairation went Plan B to satisfy both wife
(soon to be ex) and get myself to work (my junker and plan A both
left me stranded). What I ended up with was a basic Chevrolet
Cavalier that cost me $380 per month to operate. After I
go to Plan B, suddenly 6 months later there is a change in heart about
new Plan A cars and the Tarus's start ariving. Fourteen months
later (You must stay on Plan X 12 months) as I get ready to cut my
expenses, Fleet Services cuts Plan A. Am I pissed?
SET FLAME/Refute_the_bs
RE: .316
> The FBV calculation is simple and is peculiar to each employee.
> Digital uses a "fleet average" method to determine the vehicle
> cost range (we are in the $10,000 to 10,999 range). In this range
> the IRS table states that the Fair Market Rental Value is $3,100.
Since when can you buy a Celebrity for $10,999. I priced them last
weekend and the MSRP was 12,000 to 14,000. Good dickers can cut
800 to 1200 of that price. The models Digital supplies run about
13,000. I have a cousin who owns a Ford Dealership and gives me
Taraus prices at Cost and can't get me one for under $11,000.
Given a purchase price of $12,000 plus Washington State sales
tax (8.1%) and registration ($300), my *new* decwreck costs 13,500
per year. After my initial modest down payment of $1,000 I must
fianance $12,500 for 48 months at 11%, the payment is $323 per month.
> Fixed Costs
>
>(1) - Comprehensive Insurance $ 87
> - Collision Insurance 196
> - Property Damage & Liability 252
>(2) - License, registration and fees 140
>(3) - Depreciation 1506
>(4) - Interest (20% down, loan @ 12%) 601
> _________
> Total Annual Fixed Costs $ 2782
> ===
>(1) - Adjustment for business insurance $ 400
> - Adjustment for air conditioning 142
> ---------
> Total Adjusted Annual Fixed Costs $ 3324
> ===
> Times the % of business use x 71.4%
> _________
> Annual Adjusted Reimbursement $ 2373
> ===
> Divided by twelve months = $ 198
===
(1) Insurance. I'm over 30 and a low risk
driver. No accidents until recently and only
2 moving violations in my life. I with
a very reputable and inexpensive insurance
carrier that I've been with for 13 years.
(Not Alstate or any of ripoff agencies)
I also live in a region with very low insurance
rates. The rate for a new car full coverage to
Digital limits (which I carry anyway) was approximatly
$525 per years. Plan B requires that Digital
be assigned a liability rider, this increased my
insurance costs $350 per year.
Since I've lived and payed insurance in 5 western
states (California, Colorado, Idaho, Utah, and
Washington) and Washington is second lowest in
cost. I wonder where this fictional insurance
figure comes from. Those who live in California
or Mass. probably pay 1500 to 2500 per year.
(2) Washington is very high compared to the national average.
This figure would probably be comparable to California,
Colorado, and Utah. States like Idaho and Oregon have
nominal fees.
(3) Depreciation - In the west, most states don't Salt for
Ice and Snow removal. Where they do, the life expectancy
of a car is 4 to 6 years before they rust out. Lets
say we have a 12,000 car depreciated over 4 years.
That annual rate is 3000 per year. In the west, we
could probably salvage $2000 so our cost is about
$2500.
(4) Interest - The first year alone that is $1200.
If you don't live close to a DCU location, don't
even try to get a DCU car loan.
Given my adjustments and the 71% factor, the cost per
month that Digital should be paying for the program is
about $325 per month before the 8 cent business mile.
SET FLAME/back_to_normal
Given all the problems, I'm still not considering leaving
Digital. I do seriously question the facts and figures
that were used in determining the $200 per month compenstation.
Brian Wood
SWS, Seattle
|
| 565.360 | Sure, you can get a DCU loan!!! | DLOACT::RESENDEP | following the yellow brick road... | Tue Aug 23 1988 15:22 | 11 |
| > If you don't live close to a DCU location, don't even try to get a DCU
> car loan.
I got a DCU car loan when I lived in Alabama. The closest DCU location
to me was in Westminster, MA. It took a coupla weeks for the
paperwork, mainly due to having to mail everything, but essentially the
process was straightforward and hassle-free. And the interest rate was
lower than I was able to find locally. I'd recommend a DCU car loan to
anyone!
Pat
|
| 565.361 | reaction #1 | FORTSC::EVANS | | Wed Aug 24 1988 12:26 | 33 |
| I sat down and read all the replies 2 nites ago, after finding that
I was not the only person affected by this "decision". I've gone
through all the various emotions regards this issue: anger, distrust,
frustration, then reflection, vague resentment, back to
anger/frustration, and finally: disappointment.
In talking to my co-workers in Santa Clara, I'm left with the message:
Digital hired me to be intelligent, creative, resourceful, and
analytical. Then the same management sends out messages that refute
all of those tenets, indeed even acting covert, distrustful, and
hypocritical.
What I finally come down to seeing in this "decision" is the following
real DECISION: Digital is a business, and so makes business decisions.
Businesses are run by finances. Turning that around, I have a family
business. That business is also run by financial issues. To operate
my business in the Santa Clara area (you supply your area), it costs
me $"n" per month for the various expenses I incur by existing.
If I cannot even meet those expenses, then I go out of business
(usually, this means I move my family to a less expensive area of
the country, but this is not always possible -- indeed, it may also
mean I leave the company, despite the desires I feel about that
company).
This has already happened to several talented people in this area,
and my co-workers and I are evaluating how soon we may be forced
to "go out of business" by Digital making these kind of operating
reactions. It has been a strained emotional experience for me, since
I feel (for the first time) like I have access to a family of excellent
people. However, like most business decisions in this world, I am
not allowed the "luxury" of losing money in favor of maintaining
a "nice" relationship, since money is *tangible*, and nice is *not*.
|
| 565.362 | purchase vs lease | FORTSC::EVANS | | Wed Aug 24 1988 12:48 | 57 |
| re .-1
I finally have some preliminary figures that I plugged into Excel
(in case you want to duplicate them...) on car costs. I also want
to thank all those previous noters who gave me the insight into
the *intangible* parts we all tend to overlook (things like additional
insurance, etc). The monthly figure was obtained by using the
=ABS(PMT((<int rate>/12)%,<num months>,<total cost>)) in Excel.
Acura Integra LS Mazda 323, stripped
48 month loan, 13% 12,600 6,000
monthly purchase cost 338.03 160.96
per month cost for:
gas 43.33 43.33
oil, parts, maint 8.33 8.33
insurance (*) 20.83 20.83
add'l ins. for DEC -- --
============= ===========
total monthly cost to me! 410.53 233.46
minus the $200 from DEC = 210.53 33.46
-------------
(*) insurance is assumed, I am checking into "real" figures from
AAA, but this assumes married, over 30, no accidents, 2 cars,
drive less than 10 miles home to work. In other words, almost
IDEALIST!!!!
*******************
On another tack, my folks called me last nite (since I pi**ed and
moaned about this to them) and read to me the figures for LEASING
a car:
$135-$220/mo Ford Escort GL, Toyota Corolla DLX, Nissan Sentra
E, Ford Mustang, LX, Honda Accord DX....
$221-$302/mo Camaro, Le Baron, Prelude, Taurus, Cutlass Ciera,
Camaron, Integra, 626, Grand Am, S-10 Blazer...
$303-$385/mo Rx7, Volvo 740, New Yorker, Nissan 300-SX, Maxima...
Food for thought, eh?! OOOps, this is based on USAA (Los Angeles),
closed end, 48 month lease. USAA offers lease or purchase, leasing
usually only requires you to cover the cost of the depreciation
for the vehicle plus other *incindiary* expenses (pun intended).
You can purchase the vehicle after leasing it.
No down, deposit refunded at end of contract, and by increasing
the security deposit, you can lower the monthly charges....
<<pretty incongruous to me... seems like if I put a "security deposit"
into their hands, it's the same *cash* that I could have called
a DOWN PAYMENT!!!>>
Oh well, it's primarily meant for general information anyhow....
|
| 565.363 | | CAMLOT::WITHERS | | Wed Aug 24 1988 13:01 | 21 |
| This may have been asked before in the 400 replies so far, but as
an unaffected person (no company car, period), it strikes me that
all the folks who are required to go from plan A to plan B can clain
the cost difference on the 1040 as an un-reimbursed business expense.
Here's my thinking:
Digital says (in WRITING) that you are REQUIRED to have a Plan-B
car to to your job.
Digital says in writing that they pay you $200 +8c/mile per month.
You (as an accounting problem) show that the car costs you (say)
$325/mo + 22.5c/mi for business use deducting your personal
use and a proportional piece of your maintenance costs.
The difference is a cost you are required to make for your job
that is not reimbursed by Digital.
It seems like a simple spreadsheet application to solve.
Thoughts?
BobW
|
| 565.364 | | NEWVAX::PAVLICEK | Zot, the Ethical Hacker | Wed Aug 24 1988 13:44 | 21 |
| re: .362
One problem about leases -- most of the ones I have seen (in this
area, at least) have significant penalties for "excessive mileage".
I am running about 35-36K miles per year (with a high percentage
considered commutation, and, therefore, not business mileage). I'd
get toasted *BIG TIME* on a lease, from what I've heard.
re: .363
Has *ANYONE* been able to get Digital to say *IN WRITING* that you
are *REQUIRED* to join Plan B? I know that the Policy posted earlier
in this note looks that way, but I also know that our District *isn't*
looking at it that way! I wonder if any manager *anywhere* would
put himself out on a limb by declaring *in writing* that you MUST
have a Plan B car, unless the manager *knows* that USFMT and Legal
are willing to back him up on a statement like that.
I wonder if the IRS has any rules which address this specific issue?
I know that they have rules on car reimbursement, but being forced
to *purchase* a car? Does anyone have any source of IRS information?
|
| 565.365 | Trust Cal Worthington and his dog Spot | EDFVZ0::B_WOOD | Brian [>*<] Wood | Wed Aug 24 1988 14:58 | 65 |
| re .363
Bob,
It only takes a complete review of the Tax Code, IRS regulations,
and etc. to realize that car expenses are next to impossible to
claim. This last year, with the Tax Reform Fantasy Act of 1986,
claims for employee automobile expenses were deductable only if
and to the amount they exceeded x% of adjusted gross income (the
amount at the bottom of page 1 of form 1040). With my plan B car,
my deductable expenses for mileage was well below that figure.
Also, the only miles that are deductable are ones that are business
related and those are usually done on a proration of sorts. The
time I spend on maintaining records to determine deductability
would be excessive for the nominal deduction that would result.
My former Tax Instructors in college stressed the two easiest ways
to get audited were:
1) Declare depreciation and expenses for office in home.
2) Deductions for use of personal automobile for company business.
It's not nice to increase Ronnie Reagan's budget deficits.
RE: .362
A friend who used to be very successful in the automobile business
recomends avioding leases. Automobile dealers started pushing them
in the early 80's when Ronnie was keeping interest rates very high
to sell cars. Leases are just another form of seller financing,
except they don't have to disclose the true costs under truth in
lending regulations. These vehicles of financing served several
purposes for the automobile dealers two of which were:
1) Sell more cars.
2) Make more money on the cars they sell. Dealers usually
get lender kick backs on financing. They get more on
leases.
The true cost of a lease to a prospective buyer is much higher
on leases becuase the imputed interest rate usually exceeds the
cost to finance the car with a standard loan. In addition,
the residual value on the lease is the amount you must pay at
the end of a lease to buy the car outright. This figure is
usually determined by a mileage/depreciation allowance. Most
contracts state that you will not drive more than 12000 miles
per year and excess mileage is charged at .08 to .20 cents per
mile. When you turn the car back (or buy it), the dealer will
often hit you for the difference in mileage.
The only people who can win on leases are usually the very wealthly.
These people lease the cars for their businesses and because it
is a lease may take the expense as a direct deduction. The changes
in the tax law was designed to attach a benefit value to negate
this tax dodge. The lease was also benifical to the company because
it would only incure direct expenses and wouldn't have to capitalize
the asset and depreciate it (messy business). For the average
Software/Sales person, this has no benifit.
The bottom line is simple, auto dealers are businesses people
who are out to make a buck. They will do it any way they can.
Since they deal with a generally naive public, it pays to be
deceptive and predatory. Don't trust them.
|
| 565.366 | | SMOOT::ROTH | Watching for His return! | Wed Aug 24 1988 16:01 | 7 |
| Re: .362 calculations
As said before, you don't really get $200 from DEC... you get $200-taxes.
Be sure to put in a factor for that.
Lee
|
| 565.367 | Call to Write | BACKSD::MEIER | harrY / Baltimore, MD | Wed Aug 24 1988 22:01 | 52 |
| May I have your attention, please.
I decided to take the plunge. The abrupt termination of Car Plan A
is having miserable consequences for Digital and its employees.
This change is causing severe hardship for some families. This
change is hurting Digital thru poor morale and attrition. Someone
had to write to their Field Management Team representative. So I
did.
I spent many nights on my letter. I tried to do as professional a
job as possible. This letter is probably the best thing I have
ever written. I hope it is received in the positive, caring manner
in which it was written. It was a labor of love.
I absolutely expect a reply. I appealed to the Open Door Policy.
If a letter so written is discarded or ignored, then the open door
is closed. It would signal the end of "old DEC". I can not
believe that this will happen. I absolutely expect a reply.
I want to thank the 300 or so people who have written here, and the
many people I have spoken with in person. Many of your ideas found
their way into my letter. I also wish to thank the moderators of
this conference.
* Right now, there are several important things you can do: *
1. Write a letter. Write to your Field Management Team rep (listed
in .194) if you can. I understand there may be some risk involved.
Please weigh the risk and make the decision that is best for you.
You may wish to write to your line manager instead. We need more
people to write to show this isn't just one person's ravings. This
is a corporate problem. By all means, feel free to cut and paste
from my letter or to refer to it in your letter.
2. Share my letter (and your letter) with other employees who may
not read this note. Invite them to participate in the feedback
process.
3. I need your feedback. Reply here or send mail to
BACKSD::MEIER. I invite your constructive criticisms. I also need
some support right now.
My next note is my outline; my second subsequent note is my letter.
The letter is long, so you may wish to print it and read it when
you have time. But please read it, and please help in any way you
can. I think good will come of all of this. Thank you for your
support.
|
| 565.368 | Outline for Letter | BACKSD::MEIER | harrY / Baltimore, MD | Wed Aug 24 1988 22:03 | 36 |
| INTRODUCTION
Set positive theme - offer immediate thank you
Appeal to Open Door Policy
CAUSE FOR CONCERN
Name subject: abrupt termination of Plan A
Emphasize we-oriented, not me-oriented
SIDE EFFECT 1: HARDSHIP
Sharp blow to employees - $6000 per year
Plan B is beyond means
SIDE EFFECT 2: INSULT
Saying "less is more" is a lie
Lying for any reason is repulsive
This effect is the worst
RAMIFICATIONS
Morale at all time low
How can we ever trust management again?
Forced attrition
Erosion of quality
Market impact
SOLUTIONS TO HARDSHIP
Significant boost to plan B
Significant help with transition
Abolish model-year limitation
SOLUTIONS TO INSULT
Suggest apology
Institute employee satisfaction program
CONCLUSION
Call for action
Explicitly request reply
|
| 565.369 | * The Letter * | BACKSD::MEIER | harrY / Baltimore, MD | Wed Aug 24 1988 22:17 | 266 |
| I N T E R O F F I C E M E M O R A N D U M
Date: 24-Aug-1988 08:55pm EDT
From: harrY Meier @DCO
MEIER.HARRY
Dept: SWS
Tel No: DTN 341-2457
TO: Remote Addressee ( BILL FERRY @PKO )
Subject: Urgent
*** AN URGENT LETTER FROM A FIELD EMPLOYEE ***
INTRODUCTION
Thank you for reading this letter. I am writing because I
believe that feedback from the field can help management make
Digital a more successful company. I was encouraged to write by
my understanding of Digital's Open Door Policy. I must say there
is a great deal of trepidation on the part of many employees as
to whether or not partaking of the Open Door Policy is still
encouraged. If it is not, then I apologize for this letter, and
no reply is necessary.
CAUSE FOR CONCERN
My concern is over the abrupt termination of Company Car Plan A.
My goal is not to complain about the inconvenience this change
causes me, but rather to report the impact on Digital. The
letter announcing this change did not give a truthful reason for
the decision. Some people speculate the purpose of the change is
to cut costs. Although nothing has ever been said, there is a
lot of further speculation that cutting Digital's cost of sale is
the single biggest focal point for fiscal year 1989. If that is
true, field employees stand ready to make that our battlecry for
1989. The termination of Plan A makes sense when viewed in light
of this goal. Unfortunately for Digital, losing Plan A has very
bad side effects. Though not obvious at first, these side
effects extract a price that is so high as to outmatch the money
saved upfront. I am writing to urge you to take action to
reverse these side effects before they become hazardous to
Digital.
SIDE EFFECT 1: HARDSHIP
The first side effect I have seen is the impact on the personal
finances of the employees losing their cars. While the company
car was never classified by either employee or manager as pay or
benefits, the car nonetheless effectively saved each employee
approximately six thousand dollars ($6,000) in annual gross
income. The exact amount saved varies according to where the
employee lives, how much she or he drives, her or his marginal
tax bracket, and other factors, but the above round figure is a
reasonable approximation of an average.
I have talked with a large number of employees about how this
change will affect them. What I have learned is that most
employees will be able to take the hit of the lost effective
income. But a striking number have come to depend on this
supplement and will not be able to survive without it. I deduced
from the announcement letter that the U.S. Field Management Team
hoped these individuals would be able to adjust by switching to
Car Plan B. Unfortunately, Plan B by design does not provide
adequate income after taxes to acquire, insure, maintain, and
operate the type of vehicle Digital would like employees to have
for customer purposes. Acquiring such a vehicle would require
the employee to dip into life savings, if any, that are
oftentimes already committed to the purchase of a home, the
children's education, and other major expenses. As a result,
Plan B is simply not an option for many employees. These
individuals will likewise be unable to commit to the high cost
and long term contract of a leased vehicle. Corrective action is
needed for these employees to avoid financial disaster.
The effect of this hardship is very regressive and very unfair,
as the accompanying chart shows:
Effective % Drop
Annual Annual Income by Losing
Salary with Car Car
________ ________ _____
$ 20,000 $ 26,000 23.1%
$ 25,000 $ 31,000 19.4%
$ 30,000 $ 36,000 16.7%
$ 35,000 $ 41,000 14.6%
$ 40,000 $ 46,000 13.0%
Why $6,000 ? Summarized from many real-life cases:
$ 2,000 federal and state income taxes
$ 2,000 cost of car (i.e., depreciation)
$ 1,000 cost of financing
$ 1,000 insurance
0 gas and maintenance offset by $24/week charge
For some people, these numbers are a little lower.
For some people, these numbers are a little higher.
SIDE EFFECT 2: INSULT
The second side effect I have seen is even more damaging:
insult. The announcement letter eliminates one of two possible
choices to employees and fails to supply any new choices not
already available. Yet the letter then boasts that "the primary
motivation of this direction is to provide our employees and
Digital with greater flexibility in the selection and management
of tools." This statement can not be true given the facts. It
must be an attempt to employ blatant dishonesty to mitigate the
response of the employees. However, every employee I have spoken
with, including those who are not affected by the plan change,
find this use of dishonesty repugnant. The follow-up memo from
Rick Catino really rubbed it in. It has been Digital's strongest
policy to always be honest, to always do what is right. Telling
falsehoods, for whatever gain, violates this policy. Allowing
the violation to go uncorrected is tantamount to killing the
policy.
RAMIFICATIONS
Employee morale in the field is absolutely at an all time low.
Never before has there been so much talk about an "old DEC" and a
"new DEC". Never before has there been so much talk of leaving
Digital. This bad morale is causing a great deal of stress and
depression among the employees. It is impacting their personal
lives and their business performance. It is consuming a great
deal of time for employees who are forced to solve transportation
and financial crises. Corrective action is necessary before this
stress impacts the quality of the goods and services we deliver
to our customers.
The transgression of dishonesty also weighs heavy on the minds of
most employees. This transgression violates their code of
ethics. They must decide whether they can continue employment
here in good conscience. They also must ponder that there had
existed a mutual commitment between the employee and the company,
and that that commitment included mutual honesty and respect.
Digital has violated that honesty. Is the mutual commitment now
null and void? How can the employees ever trust anything
management says from this day forward? Corrective action is
necessary to restore faith between parties and reaffirm the
mutual commitment.
When I ask what people in hardship cases or people with
conscientious objections plan to do, I learn that all too many of
them are seriously considering leaving Digital. Those who
contemplate leaving do so painfully, because they are loyal and
professional. They enjoy working here. However, they have an
obligation to their families that they can not shun. So they
regretfully call a headhunter, explain what their needs are, and
request interviews elsewhere. The quality of these employees is
such that many will get offers and flee the nest.
We are in danger of losing many of our greatest contributors of
the past, present, and future. When this loss is felt, the
quality of Digital products and services will inevitably
diminish. With our precarious position in the marketplace and on
Wall Street right now, we can ill afford for this to happen. We
must not allow the Digital standard of quality to be compromised.
The ultimate ramification of these side effects is the steady
erosion of the quality of our products and services. The
consequences in the marketplace of allowing our quality to erode
can be debilitating. Corrective action is necessary.
SOLUTIONS TO HARDSHIP
The first corrective action must reverse the transportation and
financial hardship imposed on our valued employees. I do not
have the means available to me to fully evaluate specific
solutions in terms of costs and benefits. I do have a humble
suggestion.
Consider the wisdom of a generous increase in the reimbursement
rate for a personal vehicle used for business under Car Plan B.
A generous reimbursement plan would make Digital more attractive
to employees and prospects than its most progressive and
aggressive competitors. The announcement of a generous increase
would be hailed by the employees as a real "team" move. Morale
would skyrocket. Employees would have the means, if they were
willing to go into debt, to acquire, insure, and maintain a car
without contributing substantial life savings.
I humbly further suggest a minimum appropriate figure for the
improved Plan B. The figure should be the rate that would net
$200 per month in after-tax yield, rather than before-tax gross.
From my conversations, an approximation would be that employees
typically pay 28% in Federal Income Tax, and anywhere from 0-10%
in state and local income and personal property taxes. To keep
the reimbursement uniform for all employees in all areas of the
country, we will use the highest case scenario and take a
combined 38% tax rate. This is equivalent to a new reimbursement
rate of $322 per month. Some competitors offer even more. I
recommend that this be the minimum amount considered. The eight
cents per business mile additional reimbursement should continue.
If $322 becomes the new monthly reimbursement, it can be
explained as an adjustment to compensate for the impact of taxes.
So it is a minor error correction, rather than a major overhaul,
to the master plan announced in July.
Even at a decent reimbursement rate, the costs to transition to
Plan B can be prohibitive. A significant discount on the vehicle
price over retail and United Buying Service prices, a significant
discount on automobile insurance, and a significant discount in
the cost of financing could mean the difference between financial
ruin and solvency for some families. These measures should be
given high priority. As it is, the car plan change should never
have reached implementation phase without these assistance
programs already in place.
The limitation on the model-year age of a Plan B vehicle is
arbitrary and imprecise. This limitation should be abolished.
At the very least, this limitation should be abolished for
vehicles continuing on the Plan.
SOLUTIONS TO INSULT
This is a tough one. The wounds are deep. Announcing a
substantial increase to Plan B would be seen as a team move,
while the previous change was seen as very much an "us versus
them" move. However, to repair a lot of damage in a short amount
of time, an apology for falsely stating the primary motivation
would go a long way.
One other suggestion to address this situation and the ongoing
morale climate would be to institute an employee satisfaction
program not unlike our highly successful customer satisfaction
program. The charter of this new program would be to actively
poll the employee population on job satisfaction issues, to
identify dissatisfaction issues at their onset, to originate
constructive solutions to problems, to make recommendations to
management, and to implement these solutions. Had a viable
program been in place today, the acrimony of this recent fiasco
could have been abated.
CONCLUSION
There is a great deal of human suffering going on right now.
That fact alone should be basis enough for corrective action.
Digital has fallen on some tough times. Our leaders needed a
plan to improve our profitability and insure our future success.
A major cost cutting measure was enacted. The leaders could not
have foreseen the ill side effects that would be felt by some
valued employees. Yet these employees are our single most
precious resource. Therefore, both good business sense and
decent human compassion dictate that corrective action be taken.
The right response at this time could bond employees and
management together in a colossal team effort to fight and WIN
against our real problems in fiscal 1989. Digital would again
become a desirable company for which to work and in which to
invest.
I strongly urge you to consider the problems and solutions
related in this letter. I look forward to your reply.
|
| 565.370 | Congrats on a well thought-out memo! | TIXEL::ARNOLD | Never repeat yourself. Never. | Wed Aug 24 1988 23:15 | 21 |
| Although I don't have a company car now, I had one for my 5+ years
in field SWS, and have been following this note. For me, moving
from a field SWS position to a corporate position was a tough decision,
based primarily on the loss of my "tool", but it's one that I decided
to make. I would have liked to do it sooner than I did, but the
financial loss would have been too great. I can sympathize with
what's happening now, as employees in the field are being forced
to take this cut, financially ready for it or not.
Harry, that's an excellent memo, and for the sake of the company,
I hope more people will also take the initiative to write similar
letters. You mentioned that there might be "risk" for some employees
to do this. I'm not sure I agree, but in any case, an employee
sending such a memo might want to at least CC: their local management
on it. My fear would be that if such a memo is sent *only* to local
management, that memo may not make it as far as the country management
team, who are (apparently) the people who really need to see all
such memos like this.
Kudos Harry!
Jon
|
| 565.371 | ...It'll never get past the secretary... | MISFIT::DEEP | | Thu Aug 25 1988 17:12 | 28 |
|
Nice memo, Harry, but its too long to be read by upper management. It'll
probably never make it past the secretary, and you'll get the rubber stamped
form letter that says thank you for your concern, we are taking your ideas
under advisement, etc, etc, etc, and thats the last you'll ever hear about
it. Welcome to the real world of a Fortune 50 company who's stock is on
the decline. The last thing Digital is concerned about now is losing
people... we hired 11,000 high caliber people last year, and paid them
enough that the car didn't matter much... Digital isn't worried about
losing some disgruntled employees over the demise of the car plan... In
fact, if they are willing to leave just because of that, then they would
probably have been too expensive to keep around anyway...
Digital NEEDS to lose people right now!
re: .364 (Drives 33-36K miles per year)
36,000 x $.225 = $8,100/yr = $675/mo...
Not a hard number to try and get a car with. In fact, the break even point
is about 17K miles between plan B and plan C... so if you drive that much,
the demise of plan A should be a benefit to you.
My $.02
Bob
|
| 565.372 | I wish I *COULD* get the money! | NEWVAX::PAVLICEK | Zot, the Ethical Hacker | Thu Aug 25 1988 18:55 | 9 |
| RE: .371
Check my note again. Most of the that 35K/yr is "commutation". I
actually live closer to most of my potential residencies (in Washington
D.C.) than I do to the office, so resident or not, it's "commute".
Any Plan C reimbursement would be minimal.
-- Russ
|
| 565.373 | | THRILL::MACOMBER | Real Skiers don't have jobs! | Thu Aug 25 1988 19:27 | 11 |
| < Note 565.371 by MISFIT::DEEP >
Re: 11,000 new employees
This is second hand so...
But a friend of mine was recently at a meeting where
a person-in-the-know said that we hired a lot more than
11,000 people last year. The number I was told was larger
than 20,000 - The press just *thinks* it is 11,000
|
| 565.374 | They are all One-Minute managers at the top! | GUIDUK::BURKE | NEVER confuse Sales with Delivery! | Fri Aug 26 1988 02:23 | 26 |
| Please forgive me for my ignorance, but I thought that one of the
reasons for cutting the car plan was to also drive people out of
the company.
Is this incorrect?
< Note 565.371 by MISFIT::DEEP >
Re: Long letters
Unfortunately I have to agree. I love the letter harrY! However,
high level managers don't take time to go through letters such as
this concisely. I regretfully learned this in the military, after
getting many memos and letters chopped to pieces...
The is an outside chance that your letter will be read by the right
people, but don't hold your breath. I too considered such a letter,
until I was informed by my own management how it might affect my
career. Of course, that is still part of the "old DEC".
However, if you are asked for specific people to help back up your
letter, please include me.
Good Luck, and let us know if and how it turns out,
Doug
|
| 565.376 | | MISFIT::DEEP | | Fri Aug 26 1988 12:01 | 48 |
| re: < Note 565.372 by NEWVAX::PAVLICEK "Zot, the Ethical Hacker" >
>> Most of the that 35K/yr is "commutation".
>>
>> Any Plan C reimbursement would be minimal.
Sorry... I assumed, of course, that you were stating business miles, which
would be reimbursable. It is, of course, unreasonable to ask your employer
to pay for your commute, unless of course the employer mandates where you
must live... (never heard of such a case.) How many actual BUSINESS miles
are you driving?
While I agree that taking the car plan away will cause a hardship for some,
this IS 1988, and "most people" have a car. Of course, there will always
be exceptions, but I would number that at less than 5%. (SWAG!)
I think that I agree with HarrY, in that the WAY the cancellation of the plan
came about was *seriously* mismanaged, and that will probably show up in that
persons review. At the same time, I'm glad it wasn't me! 8^)
As for those who were told by their management that the company car was a
benefit, or that it was in lieu of a larger salary, all I can say is I hope
you got that in writing, (doubtful) because if you didn't, then you were
foolish to accept an offer with such vague terms. When I was interviewing
with DEC, I was specifically told that the company car plan was NOT a benefit,
and subject to be discontinued at any time. For those of you who weren't
told either story, then you are defaulted to the Orange Book. (I know, that's
just a typical management cop-out, but it's an official, and legally binding,
cop-out.) 8-(
Yes, there is a "new DEC." It's called being a "major player," in the
fastest growing, most profitable, most revolutionary market in the history
of the world. But it doesn't have to be "worse than the 'old DEC.'"
Like all conversions, this one will involve some pain. I hope it doesn't
cost us too much in the line of good people, but if it does, there is a
whole company full of equally good people just waiting for a chance to
fill their shoes.
Dec is going to turn the century neck and neck with Big Blue... and I'm
looking forward to helping us expose IBM to its customers for what it is...
all hype and no product!
"IBM...selling yesterday's technology today...for delivery tomorrow!"
Ok... deassemble soapbox... go back to work... apologize for tangent, etc.
Bob's_other_$.02_give_or_take_a_buck_two_eighty. 8^)
|
| 565.377 | | DLOACT::RESENDEP | following the yellow brick road... | Fri Aug 26 1988 12:58 | 18 |
| > While I agree that taking the car plan away will cause a hardship for
> some, this IS 1988, and "most people" have a car. Of course, there will
> always be exceptions, but I would number that at less than 5%. (SWAG!)
Yes, most people do have a car. But I'd wager it's a far larger
percentage than 5% if you consider how many people do not have a car
that meets the Plan B requirements. And that doesn't count the people
like myself who DO own a car but, if not required to have access to a
car, would (a) commute with my husband and save a bundle, (b) ride a
bicycle or motorcycle or walk to work, (c) take public transportation,
or (d) car pool with other Digital employees.
Note to harrY: That was a *really* well-written letter. You managed to
make your points without interjecting the emotion, something I would
have been hard pressed to do had I been the author. I hope Bill reads
it and responds in a positive, concerned way.
Pat
|
| 565.378 | Holy Sacrafice | EDFVZ0::B_WOOD | Brian [>*<] Wood | Fri Aug 26 1988 17:47 | 22 |
| RE: .371
Although the goal may be to discourage employess from staying with
the company, thereby reducing the 11,000 (excess) personel. You
don't do that by stabbing the people who generate sales and
revenue, you do it by attacking overhead. The field service
people are still on Plan A because they generate revenue and must
carry parts and equipment. The one's who are targeted are
Sales personnel, Sales software support, and Professional
Software Services. Myself, being in PSS, take this seriously
as a slap in the face. The average PSS specialist should
be generating in excess of $150,000.00 revenue for Digital.
You want to cut those out who are paying everyone elses
salaries. Sales people sale computers, get rid of sales
people, you loose other peoples salaries through lost sales.
Cut Sales Software Support, you loose Software and Hardware
sales becuase they are integral part of Digital's Solution
Selling.
Don't shoot the horses pulling the Wagon, throw off some
of the dead load.
|
| 565.379 | Somebody Read It | BACKSD::MEIER | harrY / Baltimore, MD | Fri Aug 26 1988 18:18 | 8 |
| I received a read-receipt dated Thursday at 8:33 a.m.
We need to allow some amount of time for a reply.
Stay tuned.
harrY
|
| 565.380 | Update from Fleet Administration 8/29/88 | DLOACT::RESENDEP | following the yellow brick road... | Mon Aug 29 1988 13:08 | 39 |
| I received this a few minutes ago. I've deleted millions of
distribution lists, but that's all I changed.
Attachment to Number: 004008 File: Fleet
ATTACHMENT - INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM Date: 27-Aug-1988 10:27am CDT
SWSCAM - TEXAS INSTRUMENTS From: RICK CATINO
CATINO.RICK AT A1 AT FDCV13 AT PKO
Dept: US FLEET ADMIN
Tel No: 223-5000
Subject: CHANGES TO THE FLEET PROGRAMS
The USFMT has recently made two significant changes to the current
Fleet Plan B Policy relative to the age and type of vehicle eligible to
participate in the Plan.
Effective immediately, individuals in the Sales organization no longer
require a four door vehicle to participate in Plan B. It is expected
that the vehicle of choice has the capacity to seat four people.
The current policy of vehicles having to be four model years or
younger to be eligible for the plan has been changed to five model
years or younger. This means that as of January 1, 1989, the oldest
eligible vehicle would be a 1984. This change was made to reflect the
current trend of five year financing and/or leasing of vehicles.
As a reminder, the increased personal use charge ($30 per week) took
effect as of the week ending August 20, 1988. Also, Field Service
Engineers now have a color choice when ordering a station wagon.
Please pass this information down through your organization. These
changes and reminders will be included in the next "Fleet Bulletin".
If you have any questions or comments, please call me at DTN 223-5000.
Regards.
|
| 565.381 | adding fuel to the fire... | WINERY::BOUCHARKE | Ken Bouchard WRO3-2 521-3018 | Mon Aug 29 1988 22:44 | 11 |
| Two things:
1) re:.379,excuse my ignorance but what is a "read receipt"?
2) Isn't it time for someone from USFMT to explain their move in
this note? (maybe it's not company policy for them to respond in
such a forum...maybe it's against policy for them to respond at
all,after all,the members of that committee have received lots of
memos about this and nobody that I know of has gotten a reply.)
|
| 565.382 | Answers and questions... | DOOBER::FARLEE | Insufficient Virtual...um...er... | Tue Aug 30 1988 00:09 | 15 |
| Re: .381
1) a "read receipt" is an option in ALL-IN-1 which allows you to
be notified then the addressee has read the mail which you sent.
Sort of an electronic "return receipt requested".
2)
A) Yes, I think that it is about time that we got some straight,
direct answers, in the widest forum possible.
B) Unfortunately, the memo in .380, while certainly good news,
is probably the closest to a direct reply that we're likely
to get...
|
| 565.383 | Hidden by moderator - Jim Stratton | FORTSC::EVANS | | Tue Aug 30 1988 13:41 | 45 |
| 565.384 | Its not how many, its why | MERIDN::BAY | You lead people, you manage things | Tue Aug 30 1988 22:30 | 23 |
| re: 5% don't own cars
I don't think thats really the point. Theres the shakey issue about
whether ANY ole car is acceptable for the plan, and whether plan B is
"required".
Moreover, there are a LOT of people that don't "own" cars cause
the company gave them one for free when they started working for
DEC. I didn't own a car for three years because DEC bought one
for me and paid for EVERYTHING on it, INCLUDING gas, except for
$24 a week. There was no way I could have owned a car for $24 a
week.
When I saw the writing on the wall in '86, I bought my own car and
ditched the free-bee, because I didn't know EXACTLY when the ax would
fall (or how hard), and I didn't want to get caught short.
I don't regret my decision (too much). One nice thing: if I leave
DEC, I don't have to buy a car at the same time, and a LOT of people
can't say that.
Jim
|
| 565.385 | Bill Ferry's Response | BACKSD::MEIER | harrY / Baltimore, MD | Thu Sep 01 1988 13:46 | 33 |
|
THERE HAS BEEN A DEVELOPMENT:
Bill Ferry passed my letter to Rick Catino. Bill asked Rick to
reply to me on behalf of the U.S. Field Management Team (USFMT).
Rick sent me a brief ALL-IN-1 message last night, and I received
it this morning. In the message, Rick said he is researching the
points raised in my letter, and he hopes to respond within two
weeks. He then thanked me for my feedback. Bill Ferry was sent
a courtesy copy (CC) of the message.
I consider Rick's ALL-IN-1 message positive, encouraging, but
noncommittal. I presume that Bill Ferry, and probably other
USFMT members, read my letter. Well, perhaps they just skimmed
it, since it is so-o-o-o lengthy :-) . Anyway, it is reassuring
to know that feedback is still received, and at least read,
around here. Maybe some employees have been too hasty in turning
cynical; maybe not. Believe it or not, I have actually been
accused of being an optimist once or twice. But I would like to
reserve further judgment in this case until we see the reply.
Will we get corrective action, or will we get lip service? I
suggest that we stay, if not optimistic, then neutral, for a
couple of weeks. Those of us who feel compelled to investigate
outside opportunities should try to hold off during that time.
How do people feel? I think it is safe to talk about this now;
do you?
harrY
|
| 565.386 | 95% of us have another car??????!!!! | NEWVAX::FILER | | Thu Sep 01 1988 15:16 | 16 |
| ref .376
Do you really think that 95% of the people that will lose an
A plan car have another car which they could place on the B plan!!!??
I think you may find that about 95% do NOT have a car that is suitable
under the current plan B. Many may have another vehicle but...many
are not suitable for plan B. They may have a car that some one else
in the family uses (we do get called out on nights an weekends).They
may have a truck,van or sports car which doesn't qualify for plan
B. They may have a car which is to old or unreliable to be used
under the B plan.
In my office I don't know of any one who is on the A plan who
will not have to by a car in order to go to the B plan. Some of
us are thinking of getting older used cars because we can not afford
to get a new car and pay the additional insurance costs. Maybe these
new things that are to be announced this month will help.
|
| 565.387 | What 'other' car? | SAACT3::GRADY_T | tim grady | Thu Sep 01 1988 15:39 | 15 |
| Re: .386
Having been in and out of the field since 1981, and currently IN,
I recall whenever I've heard of anyone going from Plan A to Plan
B, that meant buying a car - usually a new one. That was the case
for me last year. Few of us have a spare car, less than five years
old, sitting at home waiting for the DECmobile to croak.
Re: .385
As for the letter, Congratulations on your courage. Sounds like
the jury is still out, but nice work anyway.
tim
|
| 565.388 | SO WHAT ELSE IS NEW? | BOGUSS::WHITLOCK | | Thu Sep 01 1988 17:32 | 7 |
| THATS WHAT DEC'S PLAN A WAS WHEN I HIRED IN IN 1984. I'VE SEEN
IT GO FROM $18 A WEEK AND .08 PER MILE, TO $24 A WEEK AND NO PERSONEL
MILAGE CHARGE, TO $30 A WEEK AND THE LOSS OF MY CAR WHEN ITS TIME
IS UP. SOON I WON'T BE ABLE TO AFFORD TO WORK HERE ANYMORE.
C W
|
| 565.389 | Re -1 | WINERY::HARVEY | | Thu Sep 01 1988 19:09 | 24 |
| The changes to the plan doesn't effect Field Service Engineers
in job codes T-3 through T-5 in that they will lose the wagons.
The changes are that there will be no logo'd wagons, the wagons
can be ordered in different colors, it will cost $30 a week to drive
them and the FBV-fringe benefit value will also be added to the
engineers W-2 at the end of the year. This FBV will not start until
Nov. 1st for 1989 pay year.
The changes had the most effect on sales, software, field service
management and us in support. Guess what they are doing now????
Flame on
THEY NOW WANT TO TAKE AWAY OUR DESK AND STORAGE SPACE TO CRAM
IN MORE DESK CUBES.
Flame off
Maybe this should be a new topic but with everything else being
cut what if anything can be held as sacred?
Renis
|
| 565.390 | pleasant suprises are nice! | SKITZD::EVANS | | Thu Sep 01 1988 22:05 | 12 |
| re: harrY, There has been a development...
Congratulations!! It was especially pleasing to see that the upper
levels of our management *DO* read length memoes. I, for one, have
been more or less <trained> to think that managers just did not
have the time....I'm glad you did not make so many assumptions!
Thank you from me.
I'm pretty sure there are alot of us folks waiting eagerly to see
the response in 2 weeks. I'll stay tuned for sure!
-bwe
|
| 565.391 | Going for a WIN-WIN | BACKSD::MEIER | harrY / Baltimore, MD | Sun Sep 04 1988 19:19 | 52 |
| We need to prepare on our end, if management makes the important
corrections suggested in my letter, to make this a * WIN-WIN *
situation for Digital.
My question to all of you currently on Plan A is:
If Digital makes restitution for the earlier insults, and if
Digital takes our recommendations to make Plan B place less
burdensome on the employee drivers, specifically to:
o reimburse the employee $322 or more per month plus .08 per
business mile
o offer discounts on new vehicles more substantial than United
Buying Service (UBS)
o offer discounts on financing more substantial than Digital
Credit Union (DCU) currently offers
o offer substantial discounts on insurance (maybe they could
just tell us where Runzheimer buys their insurance :-) )
o eliminate the arbitrary model-year age limit for cars to be
eligible for Plan B, at least for cars continuing on the plan.
In other words, no car older than 5 model years could be entered
into the plan, but newer cars once on the plan should not have
to be sold just because they reach age 5.
would YOU pledge to do the following:
o relinquish your Plan A car within the next 3-6 months, even if
you do not reach replacement criteria by then?
Remember you could buy the Plan A car you drive now at a good
price from the fleet company. Also, Digital has already improved
Plan B by relaxing the oldest model-year age allowed from 4 years
to 5 years, so you can keep that car longer, hopefully longer
than the life of the financing. There will still be some pain,
of course. You will have to pay the down payment and other
upfront costs. You will have to pay federal and state taxes on
the $322 plus .08/mile every month, so you will only have about
$200 left, not enough to pay the car loan, insurance, etc. So
some of the burden will still be on you. But if Digital does try
to implement a management-employee team approach to slashing
costs in FY '89, would you be willing to relinquish your company
car early? Obviously, Plan A is a major cost to Digital.
Could we get at least 70-80% of current Plan A drivers to Plan B
if these corrections are made? -- harrY
|
| 565.392 | No reflection on the rest of your note | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Sun Sep 04 1988 21:42 | 7 |
| > o offer substantial discounts on insurance (maybe they could
> just tell us where Runzheimer buys their insurance :-) )
Just a note: discounts on insurance aren't legal in Massachusetts; all rates
are set by the state insurance commissioner.
/john
|
| 565.393 | normal level feedback | DOOBER::EVANS | | Tue Sep 06 1988 13:40 | 21 |
| re: harrY's latest...
I don't know about others on PLAN A, but I am financially unable
to turn over my "A" car to a "B" car in less time than 9 months.
It's going to be tight even then.....
Further, the PLAN A car is exhibiting the same symptoms the other
DEC cars have over time -- namely, squeeks, rattles, odd noises
and decreasing acceleration capacity. The only thing that makes
this interesting is that I've had a Mazda wagon over the same time
period as 2 (!) DEC cars, and it's still going strong (!!!). Nah,
I'll be getting a non-DEC car for plan B -- financially more reasonable
for me (i.e. - my "company" :-) ). I just have to shake my head
when I constantly see the DEC cars falling apart almost precisely
within their operating lifetime.... <sigh> oh well...
Bottom line here -- I too am looking for ways to work within the
framework being constructed by DEC on this issue, but it's getting
"creative" to say the least.
-bwe
|
| 565.394 | | BOSTON::SOHN | If you don't slow down, you're gonna crash | Tue Sep 06 1988 13:47 | 27 |
|
A suggestion:
Drive down to NY and lease a car there. I was looking in the
Sunday NY Times and the lease rates (at least at Crest Leasing)
are *much* lower than I've seen in the Globe.
Example:
Chevy Cavalier (a four door)
no money down, 48 month lease for $109 (maybe $119)
Now, that aint bad! My Pontiac Sunbird (same car) was leased
to me for 48 months in 1985 for $199 a month. Shows you it
pays to shop around.
Leasing, although leaving you no residual value, usually
(except for sports and luxury models) requires no down payment
(except for a small security deposit - < $500, and maybe first
month payment in advance) and will generally require a smaller
monthly payment than purchasing. A friend suggested looking for
models that hold their value - since half of your payment is
depreciation, you get more car for your buck. For example,
a Porsche 924 (if you could get a 2 seater) is only $299 a
month with no money down in *Massachusetts*...
--axe--
|
| 565.395 | Careful about leasing | NEWVAX::PAVLICEK | Zot, the Ethical Hacker | Tue Sep 06 1988 14:00 | 14 |
| re: .394
Somewhere, buried in the endless commentary on this subject, are
a few notes which discuss the leasing "alternative". Bottom line
is that the price may be okay, as long as you don't intend to drive
above 1,000 miles per month (depending on contract). You'll find
yourself shelling out the bucks *BIG TIME* if you log lots of miles
under many leases.
Also, I seem to remember some discussions going around (dating back
to the passing of CT's state Lemon Law) that any Lemon Law protection
you might have by purchasing a car is usually non-existent when
leasing a car. I don't know if this situation has changed any,
or if some states may have laws that work for leasing as well.
|
| 565.396 | Tax info... | BMT::SAPIENZA | Knowledge applied is wisdom gained. | Tue Sep 06 1988 18:08 | 35 |
|
.190> As a five year veteran of Plan "B" I can tell you taxes are not
.190> witheld from the $180, now $200 per month car allowance. It is
.190> added to the W-2 as untaxed income.
.391> .... You will have to pay federal and state taxes on
.391> the $322 plus .08/mile every month, so you will only have about
.391> $200 left, not enough to pay the car loan, insurance, etc. So
harrY,
The amount you pay in taxes will vary with each individual. The
current tax laws provide for the following:
� If the reimbursement from Digital exceeds your actual business
expenses, you pay tax only on the excess reimbursement.
� If the reimbursement from Digital is less than your actual
business expenses, you DO NOT pay tax on the reimbursement, and
you may deduct the excess expenses on Schedule A. (However, the
deduction is limited to the amount over 2% of your adjusted gross
income.)
� If the reimbursement equals your actual business expenses, you
pay no taxes and do not take any deduction on Schedule A. The
reimbursement "washes" your expenses.
There are two ways of computing your "actual business expenses". I
won't go into that here, let's just leave it as "an exercise for the
student". (Or you can talk to your accountant. :-) )
Frank
|
| 565.397 | WHAT ABOUT LEASING ?? | USRCV1::FRASCH | | Wed Sep 07 1988 12:29 | 14 |
| RE .396
Frank,
Can you comment on tax laws as they pertain to leasing? From what
I have heard, leasing may be a very cost effective solution for
my particular needs (now on plan-A). The problem is I don't know
how this would impact my tax situation. I understand each individual
would have a specific scenario, but in general how do the tax laws
apply??
Thanks,
Don
|
| 565.398 | From a former Tax Accountant | EDFVZ0::B_WOOD | Brian [>*<] Wood | Wed Sep 07 1988 14:49 | 40 |
| re: .397
> Can you comment on tax laws as they pertain to leasing? From what
> I have heard, leasing may be a very cost effective solution for
> my particular needs (now on plan-A). The problem is I don't know
> how this would impact my tax situation. I understand each individual
> would have a specific scenario, but in general how do the tax laws
> apply??
Prior to the 1986 tax law, leasing expenses were not deductable
where the interest on your auto loan was. The new law removes
the interest deduction gradually over a 3 year period. Interest
was 100% deductable in 1986, 66.7% deductable in 1987, and
33.3% deductable in 1988. 1989 and beyond, there is no interest
deduction for consumer loans (credit cards and auto loans etc.).
The only tax advantage for leasing was for cars owned and operated
in conjunction with a business. The business need not be a corporation
but was more difficult for sole proprietors and partnerships.
When a business leased a car, it could deduct the lease payments
as direct deductions against income. If the car was purchased,
only the interest portion of the payments were directly deductable.
The cost of the car was carried as a capital asset and depreciated
over it's usefull life. There were immediate tax reduction advantages
to purchase and depreciate becuase the early years interest and
depreciation exceeded the lease payments. In later years, the
deduction was nominal. When the car was sold, any value the company
recieves over book value is income (recapture). The advantage for
leasing in a business is the clarity of the deduction and the reduced
record keeping requirements.
If we (field employees) were independent contractors running our
own businesses, we might have an advantage in leasing. As employees,
our expenses must exceed 2% of AGI (Adjusted Gross Income).
Brian Wood
|
| 565.399 | Reply to HarrY's question in .391 | NANUCK::SCOTT | Greg Scott, MPLS SWS (DEC has 2 Greg Scott's) | Wed Sep 07 1988 19:33 | 20 |
| re .391 from HarrY
(BTW, just curious, why HarrY and not Harry? Is it the pronounciation
- accent on the "Y"? Just curious.)
From my selfish point of view, the car plan change has little effect.
My new DECmobile arrived in March '88 and today has less than 10,000
miles. I have plenty of time to react. Also, I don't do that many
business miles currently.
Having followed this topic, though, I would be EXTREMELY emotional
if I were in some other peoples' shoes. And I, too, was insulted
by the new "flexibility" offered with the car plan change.
My bottom line - If DEC makes it financially attractive enough for
me, I would certainly buy my own vehicle and switch to plan B.
HarrY, I agree with everything in your letter - good stuff.
- Greg Scott (the one from Minneapolis)
|
| 565.400 | F/S Support getting their wheels back? | ARGUS::CALANDRA | Mike, In-DEC Sys Supt, 262-8269 | Wed Sep 07 1988 23:40 | 9 |
|
I'm not writing this to spread rumors, it's been several days since
I've heard this one and I wish only to know if anyone else has heard
the same thing. The story goes that Don Z. told a group of District
Managers that PLAN A would be re-instated for F/S Support Engineers
(that's T7S, T8S, & T9S job codes).
Anyone heard this?
|
| 565.401 | Consumer interest phased out over 5 years, not 3 | BOSTON::SOHN | If you don't slow down, you're gonna crash | Thu Sep 08 1988 13:40 | 18 |
| re: < Note 565.398 by EDFVZ0::B_WOOD "Brian [>*<] Wood" >
> The new law removes
> the interest deduction gradually over a 3 year period. Interest
> was 100% deductable in 1986, 66.7% deductable in 1987, and
> 33.3% deductable in 1988. 1989 and beyond, there is no interest
> deduction for consumer loans (credit cards and auto loans etc.).
Outdated info, Brian...
1986 - 100% deduction
1987 - 66.7%
1988 - 40%
1989 - 20%
1990 - 10%
1991...0%
eric
|
| 565.403 | | IND::SAPIENZA | Knowledge applied is wisdom gained. | Thu Sep 08 1988 16:48 | 29 |
|
.399> From my selfish point of view, the car plan change has little effect.
Selfish or otherwise, you're wrong.
First, you will be (actually, you are by now) paying $30 per
week for your personal usage of the car instead of $24.
Second, starting this November, the amount of your personal use
of the car will be recorded so that by the end of October 1989 your
personal Fringe Benefit Value (FBV) can be computed. The amount
of the FBV will be added to your 1989 W-2 as untaxed income, so that
you may have to pay additional taxes (in calendar year '90).
.399> My new DECmobile arrived in March '88 and today has less than 10,000
.399> miles. I have plenty of time to react. Also, I don't do that many
.399> business miles currently.
I assume this also indicates that the percentage of personal
use of the car may be relatively high. If that's the case, you can
expect to see a sizeable amount show up on your W-2.
Bottom line is that the new policy affects everybody currently
on Plan A. You have to take a good look at how badly it will hurt
your wallet -- in the long- as well as short-term.
Frank
|
| 565.404 | Damntaxes is ONE word | NANUCK::SCOTT | Greg Scott, MPLS SWS (DEC has 2 Greg Scott's) | Thu Sep 08 1988 19:22 | 33 |
| re .403 and .399
Woops! I forgot about the tax angle. Isn't America (and DEC) great,
where we can make rules so complex that nobody understands them?
Tell me if this makes sense - I still don't understand the taxable
part of all this:
Here is my idea of the WORST case, from a tax viewpoint. Assume
I drive 0 business miles (I really do more than that, but let's
assume zero for now). I pay $30 per week for the car, but the IRS
says it's worth $37 per week, or $7 per week more than I pay. So,
according to the IRS, my taxable income ends up $364 per year more
than my normal salary ($7 per week x 52 weeks).
If we put business miles back into the picture, then the taxable
amount is adjusted by the percentage of business miles.
Is this correct?
If so, the cost (for me) of continuing on plan A for the next 3
years is still much less than going to plan B - unless DEC makes
plan B more financially attractive.
Your point in .402 is still well-taken. I'm paying more per week
now than a couple weeks ago and of course I don't like it.
However, in my case - and I am NOT representative of the entire
population - it is not yet financially devastating because I still
have plenty of time to react to the new, "flexible" rules.
- Greg Scott
|
| 565.405 | I've heard it, too! | PH4VAX::MCBRIDE | the syntax is 6% in this state | Thu Sep 08 1988 22:00 | 9 |
| re> .400 new rumor
I've heard the same rumor...from my manager. He said "hold on,
I'll confirm this.". He came back and confirmed it. Talk about
the nick of time! I had my stock plan numbers ready, and was about
to dump them all when the reumor broke. Now I have 52K miles and
a bad main bearing in the Celebrity. It couldn't have ahppened
at a better time. I sincerely hope it is true!
|
| 565.406 | Recalculation needed | NEWVAX::PAVLICEK | Zot, the Ethical Hacker | Fri Sep 09 1988 10:57 | 16 |
| re: .404
Start again on your calculations. DEC says that $37/wk would be
for an "average" driver who drives a certain number of business
miles & personal miles per week.
Use the formulas. Assuming that you have no business miles, you
would be liable for 100% of $3100 FBV + $.055 per personal mile.
You pay in 52 * $30, or a total of $1560. You are then responsible
for $1540 + $.055/pers-mi on your W-2.
Your business to personal use ratio is key. Lack of business usage
(or heavy personal usage) can mean big bucks. Drive one personal
mile and no business miles in a year and you'll owe tax on over $1500
of FBV.
|
| 565.407 | What $.055/personal mile??? | DWOVAX::EROS | Six months out of every year... | Fri Sep 09 1988 17:07 | 11 |
| Whoa, just hold on a minute!
What's this 5.5 cents/personal mile stuff? Where did that
one slip into the calculations? I don't remember seeing
any personal mileage charges detailed in the letter.
Are the USFMT types adding yet another 'incentive' to switch
to Plan B? I didn't believe I could get even _more_ pissed
off, but there it is...
-- Tony
|
| 565.408 | And you want a job promotion? | ARGUS::RICHARD | | Fri Sep 09 1988 18:00 | 24 |
| I saw it!
($3100 X Percentage of personal use)+(personal mileage x $.055)
= a
Then
a - $1560 = amount added to your W2.
Note: the amount of $1560 is the $30 per week for 52 weeks.
Uncle Sam is now going to collect for your commuting use, so the
further you live from your office, the MORE HE GETS! That's because
the ratio of personal mileage versus business mileage will be different
depending where you live in respect to your office.
This presents a problem when my office tries to hire certain Senior
Branch Engineers. If a Senior Branch Engineer lives close to his/her
present office, and coming to the Area Support office is quite a
distance, then one has no choice but to consider the added expenses
of commuting taxes if joining the Area Support group.
And we all can thank Ronald Reagan for that!
|
| 565.409 | Look at the original memo Q&A | NEWVAX::PAVLICEK | Zot, the Ethical Hacker | Fri Sep 09 1988 18:02 | 24 |
| re: .407 ($.055/personal mile)
I refer to the following text (contained in 565.20) from the letter:
> For example, an individual drives a fleet vehicle 20,000 miles
> per year; 8,000 miles of which are personal. In this example,
> the percentage of personal use is 40%.
>
> The Fair Market Rental Value of this vehicle is $3,100 per the
> IRS table. Based on the percentage of personal use, ($3,100 x
> 40%), the fixed Fringe Benefit Value in this example is $1,240.
> Added to this number is a 5.5 cent fuel adjustment from the IRS
> table. In this example, ($0.055 x 8000 personal miles) the
> variable Fringe Benefit Value is $440.
>
> The total annual Fringe Benefit Value in this example is $ 1,680.
>
> This assessment is then reduced by amount of personal use
> charges paid during the year. In this example, let's assume
> that you paid $30 per week for 52 weeks. The net Fringe Benefit
> Value that would be assessed to your W-2 form would be $120
> ($1,680 less $1,560 [$30 x 52 weeks]).
This is the IRS's rule, not Digital's.
|
| 565.410 | Itemize? Who, me??? | MDVAX1::MCGUIRE | Mike `Hiram' McGuire, St. Louis | Mon Sep 12 1988 11:35 | 7 |
| re: tax impact
The key word is Schedule A of the 1040. Not only does the 2% of
AGI apply, but if, for some reason, you do not itemize, you are
S.O.L.!!!
|
| 565.411 | stop complaining | TRADE::BLATT | Rob Blatt LTN1-1/D07 226-6203 | Tue Sep 13 1988 16:18 | 10 |
| RE: < Note 565.408 by ARGUS::RICHARD >
> Uncle Sam is now going to collect for your commuting use, so the
> further you live from your office, the MORE HE GETS! That's because
> the ratio of personal mileage versus business mileage will be different
> depending where you live in respect to your office.
Everybody else in this country pays to commute. They even pay more the further
they live from their job. Why do DEC field people think they're so special?
|
| 565.412 | it's my car I'll cry if I want 2 | DWOMV2::MTHOMPSON | | Tue Sep 13 1988 16:52 | 13 |
| RE: NOTE 565.411
BECAUSE:
1. as field service, I am not allowed to use my own
car to commute.
2. I must either a: use a Dec car and pay FBV
or b: use a car spec'ed by Dec (ie 12k+)
3. I can drive my motorhome (paid for) and beat 30
dollars a week for my commute. But it doesn't
meet the high standards of Dec's image.
|
| 565.414 | Maybe we'd be better living in motorhomes! | OZZAIB::BIAZZO | Can tune a VAX but can't tuna fish | Tue Sep 13 1988 18:56 | 9 |
| and... Presumably if one were commuting to the same place each and
every day then one might consider locating their home close to their
place of work to reduce their commuting time and expense. If one's
place of work is changing daily, then you have far fewer options
available with respect to locating your home.
I presume that the USFMT has not considered these minor ramifications
either.
|
| 565.415 | Not practical | PHLACT::ARNOLD | Live from Valley Forge, PA??? | Tue Sep 13 1988 21:02 | 10 |
| re located one's home near one's place of business. Having been
a software resident several times before escaping the field, this
isn't practical in most cases. I lived about 2 miles from the DEC
office, but my residency was about 35 miles, and not in a part of
town that I would care to live. (Or even visit after dark!) Then
when that residency ended, I was faced with another residency about
20 miles from home -- in the *opposite* direction of the first one.
2� worth
Jon
|
| 565.416 | ?????? | CASV01::FLOOD | What am I doing here | Tue Sep 13 1988 22:01 | 15 |
| re.413
> BTW all the WC4 field folks get to do this for no overtime!!
Last I knew WC4 employees who get called out at night are on
standby and get standby pay whether or not they get called and if
they get called, then they get something for being called in. Last
time I checked WC3/4 got one hours pay for eight hours on
standby and I believe one hundred dollars for each 4 hours they were
called in - may not be overtime, but you are still getting paid.
Want to work in a corporate administration job where RESPONSIBLE
EMPLOYEES do what is right and work many hours extra and get no
compensation but the hope that their manager will take care of
them at review time???????
|
| 565.417 | Overtime? We thought that was extinct! | AUSTIN::UNLAND | Sic Biscuitus Disintegratum | Wed Sep 14 1988 00:51 | 24 |
| > Last I knew WC4 employees who get called out at night are on
> standby and get standby pay whether or not they get called and if
> they get called, then they get something for being called in.
Standby? What's that? No such thing in Sales Support, but the
Sales reps call me at home more than just about anyone else, in-
cluding my girlfriend. I did get lucky today though; left the
office by 7 pm ...
Officially, we don't get comp time, rarely get evening meal
allowances, and *never* get overtime. Sorry, but you hit a
sore spot on this one.
Back to the Plan A business, has anyone had a performance and/or
salary review since the Plan Termination? I would be interested
to see if anyone has discussed the possibility added "points" on
their raises to offset the loss of the Plan A car. I know this
is probably a lost cause, but one never knows 'till one tries.
"Don't lose heart ...
They might want to cut it out ...
And they want to avoid a lengthy search ..."
Geoff
|
| 565.419 | It'd be nice...someday | CLO::FORNER | And you thought *YOU* were wierd! | Wed Sep 14 1988 14:36 | 7 |
| RE: .last-few
I don't know about the rest of the field employees but the software
employees that get put on "STANDBY", don't see a dime of pay 8 hours
or otherwise. It's basically, you do it! (It's your job.)
/p
|
| 565.420 | getting deep here... | PH4VAX::MCBRIDE | the syntax is 6% in this state | Wed Sep 14 1988 18:00 | 25 |
| re> .411
I eased the RP06 kit into my former plan "B" car 5 years ago and,
because of its size, it had to go into the front seat. The Southco
fastener used to latch the kit tore a 12 inch gash in the seat.
I paid $125 to get the seat fixed because of the location of the
tear. Some time earlier I had a Dranetz line monitor in the car.
The guy in front of me stopped suddenly for some reason and so did
I. The Dranetz tore the door off my glove box.
Wear and tear increases with the type of "light hauling" field service
(and even field support) people do. Field people are not in the
same situation that most non-field people are in. We can't car-pool.
We can't ride motorcycles to work on good days nor bicycles if the
ride is reasonable. We can't take mass transportation in most areas,
even if there is reasonable mass transit. Basically, we can't
economize and now we are being billed for the luxury we are forced
to enjoy.
If an employee who lived in Chelmsford, for example, worked in Bedford
and had an opportunity for a promotion in Littleton, there is an
insignificant difference in the commute. If a person working in
State College, Pa. had an opportunity for an MAA promotion, the
nearest place he could work would be 150 miles from his home. Hence,
relocation.
|
| 565.421 | Travel == tougher | MERIDN::BAY | You lead people, you manage things | Wed Sep 14 1988 19:12 | 49 |
| I don't remember if I had to fill out a form with something like this
on it or not, but one of the questions I was asked when I came on board
was "are you willing to travel?".
I think when most field people answered "yes" and accepted thier
job, thier mindset was that the company car increased the salary
and in other ways compensated for this "willingness" to travel.
Car plans were created because there was recognition that jobs
involving travel have hardships associated with them that jobs that
don't require travel DON'T have. With all the companies that have car
plans and all the companies that live to support them (like Gelco), it
would appear that this is a widely accepted belief - jobs that involve
travel are tougher than equivalent jobs that don't involve travel. I
don't consider this debatable.
The question that arises is, what is the compensation for job "X" if it
is percieved as tougher than job "Y". Usually it is some form of
monetary compensation. President is tougher than peon (so I'm told),
therefore, more money.
Well, since DEC salary ranges don't take into account anything -
location, cost of living, etc., much LESS whether travel is involved,
money is not the compensation.
The point is that there are a lot of jobs, some harder than others. In
a LOT of cases, pay is not equitable (I guess thats what JEC is about).
But it seems that the "world" agrees that, of two equivalent jobs, one
involving travel and one not, the travel job is tougher
Its a personal decision as to how much compensation is necessary
to justify accepting/keeping the travel job.
So, is $200 a month and $0.08 a mile sufficient compensation to
accept/keep a job with travel involved as opposed to a desk job?
Jim
(BTW, of all the "hardships" mentioned in this topic by non-field
people, I haven't heard one yet that doesn't apply to me, as well.
One big difference is that I don't know at which end of the state
I'll be from one day to the next, when I work late hours, with no
O.T., etc., etc., ad infinitum, ad nauseum...
And to clarify - the car plan is the ONLY compensation for software (as
well as for field service and sales) - there is no standby pay (or
whatever) that field service has, and there are no incentive programs,
as there are for sales. Just work, and LOTS of travel)
|
| 565.422 | Like to walk a few hundred miles in my shoes? | MERIDN::BIAZZO | Can tune a VAX but can't tuna fish | Wed Sep 14 1988 22:57 | 15 |
| re .416
I don't know what a job in corporate administration entails but
field people are not the ones to look for sympathy with respect
to putting in long hours with no compensation. I'd be willing to
bet that many of us put in more hours just driving to customers
than you do for "overtime".
re: -1
Thanks for steering us back toward the topic. I apologize for my
detraction.
|
| 565.423 | Fleet Transition Assistance Programs memo | DPDMAI::RESENDE | Life is not a dress rehearsal | Mon Sep 26 1988 12:38 | 705 |
| Just received the following "update" on the fleet plan changes.
ATTACHMENT - INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM Date: 23-Sep-1988 20:03 CDT
From: RICK CATINO
CATINO.RICK AT A1 AT FDCV13 AT PKO
Dept: US FLEET ADMIN
Tel No: 223-5000
Subject: FLEET TRANSITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
********************************************************
* *
* THIS MEMO IS FROM THE US FIELD MANAGEMENT TEAM *
* *
********************************************************
Attached is an advance communication on programs designed to assist
employees in the transition from a company-provided vehicle to a
monthly allowance plus mileage reimbursement (Plan B). This
announcement will be sent to the homes of all fleet participants next
week.
It is extremely important that you review this pre-announcement and
disseminate the information throughout your organization. We expect
that you will ensure that all unit managers of fleet participants are
pre-briefed on these programs. We encourage the use of conference calls
with your managers and meetings with employees to facilitate the
communication.
We recognize that we caused some concern through the timing and
introduction of earlier plan changes. We also recognize that it is
imperative that we, as managers, fully communicate Digital's
commitment to our employees and their needs. Let's ensure that this
and any future communication conveys this commitment.
Distribution suppressed.
FLEET TRANSITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
During the past few months, several programs have been developed
that utilize Digital's purchasing leverage to assist our employees
with the transition to personal vehicles. All of the programs
listed below are being introduced to current car plan employees
during the last week of September, 1988.
EMPLOYEE USED VEHICLE PURCHASE PROGRAM
Historically, employees have had the option of purchasing their Fleet
vehicle at the time it reaches the replacement criteria of 36 months
or 60,000 miles. As part of the transition plan, employees are now
able to purchase their assigned vehicle at any time, regardless of age
or mileage.
The Digital Credit Union has agreed to assist employees in buying
their assigned Fleet vehicles at a reduced finance rate and with
little or no down payment.
The variable rates and terms are:
RATE: 11.50% 11.75% 12.00% 12.25% *
TERM: 12 MO. 24 MO. 36 MO. 48 MO.
* For a four-year term the loan must be at least $5,000.
These rates are 1% below the current DCU used car loan rates and
guaranteed for loans closed before December 31, 1988.
Downpayment is dependent upon the car's value in relation to the NADA
BLUE BOOK average retail price. In general, the DCU will require some
downpayment on newer vehicles.
The DCU is preparing a direct mail piece for all employees affected by
the change which is scheduled for mailing during the last week of
September, 1988.
EMPLOYEE USED VEHICLE LEASE PROGRAM
This program was designed to provide an alternative over purchasing
the assigned fleet vehicle, and will generally result in lower monthly
payments if elected.
The program will be administered by PH&H for assigned fleet vehicles
registered to D.L. Peterson Trust, and G.E. Credit Corporation for
vehicles registered to Gelco.
EMPLOYEE INSURANCE PROGRAM
Digital has negotiated a program with Metropolitan Insurance (Metpay)
to provide discounted automobile coverage to car plan employees. The
discount will range from 5% to 10% under market, vary from location to
location and reflect the employee's driving history.* Digital has provided
Metpay with a listing of employees and a direct mail piece will be sent
to each employee by Metpay during the first week of October, 1988.
*NOTE: Metpay does not provide coverage for Pennsylvania, Hawaii,
Alaska and the District of Columbia. Metpay will provide
coverage to individuals of Columbia. Metpay will provide
coverage to individuals in other states provided the
employee meets insurability standards.
Negotiations are continuing to provide insurance for those
areas not supported by Metpay and a plan will be announced
shortly.
EMPLOYEE NEW CAR LEASE PROGRAM
An employee either migrating to or currently participating in
Plan B, may lease any type of new vehicle at a preferred rate
negotiated by Digital.
A specific lease package has been negotiated for a "fleet-equipped"
1989 Chevrolet Celebrity at a current rate of less than $180 per
month.
In addition to the Chevrolet Celebrity, almost any four passenger
other make and model can be leased under this program. The program
offers a myriad of open and closed end leasing options for varying
time periods and mileage, at a discounted rate to our employees.
The leasing company selected to provide this service to our employees
is INC.RATE, a subsidiary of General Electric Credit Corporation.
Digital has had several years experience with this vendor. The finance
rates, markup on the vehicle and the fee structure have been mutually
agreed upon by Digital and G.E.C.C. and are very competitive in the
leasing marketplace.
.___.___.___.___.___.___.___.
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! d ! i ! g ! i ! t ! a ! l !
!___!___!___!___!___!___!___!
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: U.S. Fleet Plan Participants DATE: September 22, 1988
FROM: U.S. Field Management Team
Subject: Fleet Transition Assistance Program
We are pleased to announce a number of programs designed to assist employees in
the transition from a company-provided vehicle to a monthly allowance plus
mileage reimbursement (Plan B). These programs were developed during the past
several months to provide each affected employee with additional alternatives
around transportation.
The Transition Assistance Program consists of the following packages:
- An Employee Lease Program enables employees to lease a vehicle of their
choice at a discounted vehicle cost and finance rate which is below market.
- The Employee Insurance Program offers discounted insurance rates to
employees migrating into or currently enrolled on Plan B.
- The Used Vehicle Leasing Program offers leasing arrangements for employees
wishing to lease their currently assigned company-provided vehicle.
- A Used Vehicle Purchase Program is being offered through the Digital
Credit Union which allows financing for your currently assigned fleet
vehicle at a discounted loan rate.
In this communication, we have included descriptions of each program with
anticipated questions and answers as well as contacts and telephone numbers
where you may get additional information about any of the programs.
EMPLOYEE LEASE PROGRAM
=================
Digital has finalized an agreement with INC.RATE to offer an employee leasing
program that provides our employees with a preferred rate.
INC.RATE is a totally new way to lease a car and can save you as much as 20%
over a dealer lease and even more over a monthly loan payment.
This program has many advantages such as:
- You don't pay the traditional 10 - 20% down payment required for bank
financing. You only pay the first and last months lease payments in
advance, which are credited to you. This represents a significant
cash flow savings. For example, a 10% down payment on a Ford Taurus
averages $1380. With an INC.RATE lease, you would pay less than $400.
- Under this program you always get a preferred rate. INC.RATE can
save you up to 20% over a dealer lease and even more over a monthly
loan payment.
- There is no hassle or haggling over price. The cost of the vehicle
has already been negotiated for you and ordering a car from INC.RATE
is easy and convenient.
- Virtually any model and any option is available.
- Optional "GAP" insurance coverage is available to protect you from
financial liability in case of total loss or theft.
INC.RATE offers two kinds of leases, open-end and closed-end, to suit your
specific need. Here's how the program works:
1. Choose one or two vehicles to lease and select the options you want.
2. Effective October 5, 1988, call the toll-free number (800) 451-0932,
and a personal leasing representative will give you a free, no
obligation quote.
3. If you wish, INC.RATE will send you more information including a
credit application and order form.
4. Return the forms. If approved, INC.RATE will send a confirmation
letter. When you sign and return it, your car will be ordered.
5. Within 8 to 10 weeks you will receive a lease to sign and your car
will be delivered to a dealer near you.
As a special advantage for you, Digital has negotiated significant incentives on
the Chevrolet Celebrity with lease rates as low as $175 per month. Ask your
INC.RATE representative for a quote on this special offer.
Q: Why is leasing a car through INC.RATE better
than buying?
A: There are several reasons why an INC.RATE lease may be an attractive
alternative for you, the biggest of which is a lower monthly payment.
INC.RATE eliminates the middleman, and passes the value of his costs and
profits on to you. The actual cost of the vehicle is less than the average
buyer could negotiate. You have the advantage of choosing your own terms
rather than adjusting to conventional bank terms. Also, you are not paying
for the whole car, but only for the depreciation, that is, the portion of
the car's life that you use.
Q: What is the difference between a closed-end and an
open-end lease?
A: A closed-end lease features fixed terms ranging from 24 to 60 months. This
lease has a flexible mileage cap up to 22,000 miles per year. At the end
of the lease term, you can "walk away" (provided there is no excessive
wear or tear) with no obligation for the car's value. Or, you can purchase
the car for a fixed price which would appear in your lease contract.
An open-end lease period can be as short as 12 months or as long as 42
months. It offers the advantage of unlimited mileage and a shorter term.
The monthly rate is based upon a 15% residual (the car's forecasted value
at the end of a lease). At the end of the lease, if the car sells for more
than its book value, you receive the difference from INC.RATE. An open-end
lease requires that at least 50% of the car's use is for business.
Your INC.RATE personal representative is trained to advise you on which
type of lease will best meet your needs.
Q. Is a security deposit required?
A. Many dealer leases require a sizable security deposit however none is
required by INC.RATE. At the time of the order, the first and last months
lease payment is required and is applied to those two months lease expense.
Q. What kind of car can I get?
A. You can lease virtually any domestic or foreign car by contacting your
INC.RATE representative. The best pricing is available on domestic cars
ordered from the factory for you. Vehicles which the leasing company has
to purchase from dealers have a higher mark up and are less of a value to
you. Vehicles which you intend to enroll on Plan B must be four-seaters.
Q. Do the manufacturers warranties apply to
leased vehicles?
A. Yes. In general all warranties apply, just as if you had purchased the
vehicle.
Q. What equipment can I get?
A. You receive all standard equipment and can select any options available for
the vehicle you choose.
Q. Will there be a credit analysis?
A. Yes. Your credit is reviewed by INC.RATE when they process your lease
application. The credit analysis is strictly between INC.RATE and you.
Digital has no involvement in the process and that information will not be
disclosed to anyone other than yourself.
Q: If I order a car and later decide to cancel,
what happens?
A: When an order is placed, INC.RATE has made a commitment on your behalf. If
the order is cancelled, a charge must be assessed. In the case of a
factory order, the cancellation charge is $500. For a dealer stock order,
the charge is $750.
Q: Are there any penalties imposed if I want to end my
lease before the term is over?
A: There may be. You will be provided with an amortization chart so that you
will always know, from month to month, what these costs, if any, might be.
Q: What lease expenses are not covered by the monthly
lease payment?
A: Maintenance and insurance are not covered by the lease payment, although a
special "GAP" insurance program is offered as an option under this program.
You are also responsible for title and registration fees, and local taxes.
Q: What is "GAP" Insurance?
A: GAP insurance is a form of coverage which protects a lessee (you) from
financial liability if a car is declared a total loss through an accident
or theft. This complete protection is not included in standard auto
insurance policies and covers any difference between the reimbursement
from your insurance company and the outstanding lease balance. GAP
insurance is available from INC.RATE at a cost of $125.
Q: What about insurance?
A: You must be insured and are responsible for maintaining insurance on your
leased car. The lease agreement requires you to obtain and pay for
insurance in the amounts of $100,000 for each person, $300,000 for each
accident for personal injury, and $50,000 for property damage in each
accident. Deductibles cannot exceed $500 for collision and $500 for
comprehensive.
Q. What is Digital's involvement in this program?
A: Digital has negotiated this program with INC.RATE, a subsidiary of the
nation's largest independent auto lessor, on your behalf. The contractual
relationship will be strictly between you and INC.RATE.
Q: What happens if I terminate my employment,
either voluntarily or involuntarily?
A: You may continue to lease the vehicle directly from INC.RATE.
Q: Is this the best deal? I've seen better deals
in the Sunday newspaper.
A: You should be very careful (and skeptical) when comparing INC.RATE prices
to dealer ads in the newspaper. Very often these are "come ons" based on a
closed-end lease and a stripped down model with none of the options you
require. The annual mileage cap is generally 15,000 miles and based on the
longest available lease term (60 or 72 months) rather than one that
appropriately fits your needs. Also, watch out for ads that specify
"capital reductions". Capital reduction generally means a sizable down
payment. You should ensure that you fully understand all the components of
a lease prior to signing any agreement.
Q: How can I get additional information on the
employee lease program?
A: Within the next two weeks you will receive additional information in the
mail about this program. Also, you may call INC.RATE at their toll free
number.
EMPLOYEE INSURANCE PROGRAM
====================
Digital has negotiated a program with Metropolitan Insurance (Metpay) to provide
discounted automobile coverage to affected employees with certain exceptions.
The discount will be as much as 10% under market, which varys from location to
location and reflect the employee's driving history. Metpay does not offer
coverage in the states of Pennsylvania, Hawaii, Alaska and the District of
Columbia however we are continuing to pursue additional alternatives for these
exceptions.
Q: What is the U.S. Fleet Metpay Program?
A: The U.S. Fleet Metpay Program is a special arrangement between Digital and
the Metropolitan Property & Liability Insurance Company. This program was
designed as an insurance alternative for employees migrating from
company-provided vehicles or current participants of Fleet Plan B.
Q: Who is eligible to participate in this program?
A: All Digital employees who are migrating to, or currently enrolled in Plan
B, with few exceptions.
Q: What are the exceptions?
A: Those employees and/or resident operators who have been convicted of
vehicular homicide, driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs or
driving to endanger during the last five years.
Q: Will I save money with Metpay?
A: Metpay is a Mass Marketing Program and as such offers up to 10% discount
(where allowed) to Digital employees. The amount of discount depends on
the state in which you live.
Q: Would everyone pay the same premium?
A: No, your automobile premium is based on location, year, make and vehicle
model, and on your needs and the coverages selected. Your driving record
and that of your resident operators and other insurance industry criteria
may also affect your premium.
Q: How much insurance does Digital require me to
carry on the car I use for work?
A: The minimum required limits are:
Bodily Injury to others - $100,000 per person
- $300,000 per accident
Property Damage to others - $25,000 per accident
The employee must furnish a current Certificate of Insurance which names Digital
as Additional Insured or Interested Party, and that the insurance company will
provide a minimum written notice of ten days in the event of cancellation or
material change in coverage.
It must also be stated, that such notice will be sent to:
U.S. Fleet Administration
Digital Equipment Corporation
129 Parker Street
Maynard, MA 01754
Q: Will Metpay sell me the insurance required by Digital?
A: Yes, Metpay offers amounts equal to the limits required by Digital. In
addition, Metpay offers a $1,000,000 "Umbrella" liability policy which will
not only exceed the required limits, but will give you and residents of
your household $1,000,000 personal liability coverage worldwide. In this
way you get much more protection for your insurance dollar. The "Umbrella"
liability coverage is currently not available in New Jersey, North
Carolina, South Carolina, Alaska and Hawaii.
Q: How can I take advantage of the U.S. Fleet Metpay program?
A: New Jersey 800-356-9243
North Carolina 800-672-0026
South Carolina 800-247-3407
Maine and Vermont DTN 264-7188
All other States 800-541-8483
In Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Enfield CT, call or visit your Metpay
representative.
Q: When does this program begin?
A: October 3, 1988.
Q: How can I pay my insurance premiums?
A: Automatic payroll deductions. Spread the premium over 52 weeks with no
finance or carrying charges. You may, if you prefer, pay the premium all
at once. In either case, you will qualify for the Digital employee Mass
Marketing discount.
Q: How do I receive service on my policy?
A: New Jersey 800-356-9243
North Carolina 800-672-0026
South Carolina 800-247-3407
Maine and Vermont DTN 264-7188
All other states 800-422-4272
In Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Enfield CT, call or visit your Metpay
representative.
You will receive the claim telephone number for your area when you receive
your policy from Metpay.
Q: Where can I get additional information?
A: Within the next two weeks, you will be sent additional information directly
from Metpay. You can also call one of the telephone numbers listed above.
EMPLOYEE USED VEHICLE PURCHASE PROGRAM
==============================
Historically, employees have had the option of purchasing their fleet vehicle at
the time it reaches the replacement criteria of 36 months or 60,000 miles. As
part of the transition plan, employees are now able to purchase their assigned
vehicle at anytime, regardless of age or mileage.
The Digital Credit Union has agreed to assist employees in buying their
assigned fleet vehicle at a reduced finance rate and with little or no down
assigned fleet vehicle at a reduced finance rate and with little or
no down payment.
The variable rates and terms are:
RATE: 11.50% 11.75% 12.00% 12.25%*
TERM: 12 MO. 24 MO. 36 MO. 48 MO.
* For a four-year term the loan must be at least $5,000.
These rates are 1% below the current DCU used car loan rates and guaranteed for
loans closed before December 31, 1988.
Down payment is dependent upon the car's value in relation to a published
guide. If the employee sale price of the car is 15% below the NADA BLUE BOOK
average retail price, the DCU will finance the entire amount of the purchase.
average retail price, the DCU will finance the entire amount of the
purchase. This will almost always be the case for vehicles in service greater
than 24 months.
Those individuals currently assigned a fleet vehicle and are eligible to
participate in this program will receive more information in the mail from the
Digital Credit Union within the next few days. You may also call the DCU
Customer Service Center at DTN 223-8444 or (508) 493-8444.
EMPLOYEE USED VEHICLE LEASE PROGRAM
===========================
This program was designed to provide you with an alternative to purchasing your
assigned fleet vehicle. In a closed-end leasing arrangement, the monthly
payments are a function of the acquisition cost (employee sale price) and the
residual value (expectation of resale value at the termination of the lease
period). This alternative offers a lower monthly payment to the employee.
Open-end leases are also available. Explanations of open-end and closed-end
leases are explained in a previous section of this package.
The program will be administered by the leasing company who currently owns your
vehicle.
Q: What lease terms are available for used fleet vehicles?
A: You can take advantage of a 24 or 36 month closed-end lease with a fixed
price purchase option. Open-end leases are available for a 24 month term.
Q: Who can I contact for additional information?
A: For additional information about leasing a company vehicle you should
contact the numbers below for a lease vehicle quotation.
Gelco: Colleen Parks (612) 828-2432
PH&H: Michelle Bosley-Smith (301)-771-2806
Q: Who is eligible to participate in this program?
A: The Used Vehicle Lease Program is available to all employees migrating from
Plan A, who wish to lease their currently assigned fleet vehicle.
Q: Who is responsible for providing insurance for the
leased car?
A: You are responsible for providing insurance coverage at the limits required
by the leasing company.
Q: Are all current fleet vehicles covered under
this program?
A: No. To be eligible, a vehicle must have less than 36,000 miles and must be
less than 18 months old. The advantage of leasing decreases significantly
when the vehicle exceeds that age or mileage.
Q: What if my vehicle exceeds the age or mileage limit?
A: You can opt to purchase the vehicle from the leasing company and finance
the vehicle through the previously announced program with the Digital
Credit Union. You may also want to look at the possibility of leasing a
new car under the Employee Lease Program.
Q: Are there any other lease restrictions?
A: Yes, in either an open-end or closed-end lease, mileage exceeding 18,000
miles per year will result in a mileage penalty of 8c/ per mile.
Q: Will I be required to fill out a credit application?
A: Yes. The approval process takes less than one business day and is strictly
between the employee and the leasing company.
Q: Is there a down payment required under this program?
A: No. You will be required to pay the first and last month's lease payment.
There is no security deposit required.
Q: Do I have the option to purchase the car at the
end of the lease?
A: Yes, in a closed-end lease, you may purchase the vehicle for the fixed
price option cost. In an open-end lease, arrangements can be made at the
termination of the lease for you to retain the vehicle.
Q: Are any warranties offered to cover the vehicle if I wish to lease?
A: Both Gelco and PH&H have a number of used vehicle warranty plans available
at varying costs dependent upon the coverage included. These warranties
are available whether the vehicle is purchased or leased by you. For
specific information contact:
Gelco: Colleen Parks (612) 828-2432
PH&H: Michelle Bosley-Smith (301)-771-2806
The Transitional Assistance Programs outlined in this communication have been
designed to meet the specific needs of Digital's employees. We are pleased to
offer these value added, quality programs to you. For your convenience,
telephone numbers have been included with each program outlined in this package.
If you have any additional questions regarding these programs, please discuss
them with your manager or call the Fleet Hotline at DTN 223-4420 or (508)
493-4420.
We appreciate and encourage your continuing feedback and input to Fleet
Administration so that future programs, changes and enhancements are best
designed to meet your needs.
|
| 565.424 | How do we treat all employees equally? | KYOA::KOCH | Any relation?... | Mon Sep 26 1988 15:20 | 13 |
| I would like some comments on the fact that all employees will not
have to terminate their use of a company car at the same time. I work with
someone who is going to be receiving a new company car which will last them
for the next 3 years. I however, given my current mileage and usage will
only be able to use my company car for the next 18 months ( I have 25,000
miles on my car). This mean an implicit raise for them and an explicit salary
reduction for me.
Given that we are going to lose the company car, how do we treat all
employees "equally under the law"?
Comments please. I want some ideas in drafting this question to
senior management.
|
| 565.425 | We Don't | MERIDN::BIAZZO | Can tune a VAX but can't tuna fish | Mon Sep 26 1988 17:03 | 14 |
| There are numerous inequities in Plan B. You (and I) have the
luck of the draw against us. My car will be history in around 8
months.
One point that bugs me is the flat compensation. There are
clearly large differences in operating costs for an automobile in
one area of the country when compared to another. Insurance in
New Jersey is much more expensive than in Colorado for example.
Even gasoline costs can vary. In parts of NY, gasoline (same
brand and grade) can be purchased for as much as 15 cents a gallon
less than here in Connecticut.
How do we deal with inequalities? We don't.
|
| 565.426 | They are doing it to us again! | GUIDUK::BURKE | Happiness is a long bachelorhood! | Tue Sep 27 1988 13:14 | 54 |
| After reviewing .423, I would like to make a few pointed observations:
>We recognize that we caused some concern through the timing and
>introduction of earlier plan changes. We also recognize that it is
>imperative that we, as managers, fully communicate Digital's
>commitment to our employees and their needs. Let's ensure that this
>and any future communication conveys this commitment.
If they, as managers really wanted to show how committed they are to us,
the employees, they never would have dropped Plan A.
I noticed three very important "read between the lines" items in this document:
1. Notice that the first two programs are specifically designed to *HELP
DIGITAL* in its financial crisis by making it as easy as possible to
get its employees to take its automobile assets off its hands! When you
think about it, the first letter we got informing us of the demise of Plan
A was the first step. Now since there seems to be a good many who financially
can't just go out and get a new car, DEC is going to profit on that by making
it easy to get rid of all those automobiles lying around that DEC has to
pawn-off on someone anyway. Notice also that they want it done right away?
This second document is like adding insult to injury in this respect!
2. *METROPOLITAN*!!! They must be high!!!!!! Are they talking about
Metropolitan Property & Liability? If so, they should take a good look
at the October '88 issue of Consumer Reports. Metropolitan gets knocked
down three times in the text of their article (they rated 51 auto insurance
companies), which is highly unusual for Consumer Reports. Metropolitan
was rated next to the bottom as far as customer satisfaction was concerned.
If you read through the premium tables in Consumer Reports, you would
notice that Metropolitan has some of the highest premiums for "urban"
drivers. So the 10 percent cut DIGITAL was kind enough to get for us,
will, in the final analysis, probably not be any better than most of the
better insurance agencies!
If it is not Metropolitan Property and Liability, then is Metpay a subsidiary?
If so, then we are most likely going to be paying higher premiums than normal
to start with (of course these are reduced by 5 to 10 percent, which will
end up giving us standard market prices...right).
3. Now, my *BIG* issue. Notice that we are provided with a "New Car Lease
Program". I thought sure that a company as large and respected as ours
would come up with a buying program. If nothing else, they could at least
set-up to help us buy cars by using local fleet agents in combination
with the Hearst Black Book New Car Invoice Guide. Even my insurance agent
(USAA) provides this service, which allows you to purchase a car at hundreds
or even thousands less than you could haggling over prices with dealers!
In summation, I find this new document to, in some ways, be more insulting
and degrading as the last one. It seems obvious to me now that DIGITAL
is trying to take care of itself through its employees.
Doug
|
| 565.427 | Management Error? Nah!! | ARGUS::HARVEY | The UGLY American | Tue Sep 27 1988 15:32 | 21 |
|
I have read all of the replies in this note....What a sad day.
DEC has gone the way of "CORPORATE AMERICA", that is to say, the
"bottom line" is all important. People don't count here anymore.
The bottom line of all this is that the management has made a
decision, and regardless of the outcome, that, shall we say,
is that. Management never errs, jusk ask them!
I know of no leasing plan that has "unlimited mileage", in fact
most of the lease plans charge in excess of $.10/mile over
60000 miles in three years.
Is this the best they can do for "employee satisfaction"?
Dick
B*)
|
| 565.428 | Just when you thought you were safe... | MDVAX1::MCGUIRE | Mike `Hiram' McGuire, St. Louis | Wed Sep 28 1988 10:51 | 14 |
| An interesting thought occurred to me, and I am just now able to
share it. I have been (so I thought) very comfortable with only
35K on my present plan A car, knowing that I have a lot of time
to save up for a down payment, etc.
_What happens if the car gets trashed!!!_
Oh, I can drive real careful and all that, but I lost one car through
an act of God. (A record breaking hailstorm clobbered my car.)
In that event, I can see that I am not on such safe ground as I
thought!
Just venting frustration.
|
| 565.429 | | VMSNET::WOODBURY | Atlanta Networks/VMS Support | Wed Sep 28 1988 23:00 | 8 |
| While this does not directly impact me, I also noticed a serious
omission from the insurance provision. Some people pointed out earlier
that the plan A drivers were starting fresh in terms of insurance with
correspondingly higher rates as a result. The new memo only assures that
insurance will be available (at one of the higher priced companies). Since
you can get insurance anyway, if you are willing to pay enough, this may not
help at all. More details on exactly what Metropolitan has offered would be
helpful.
|
| 565.430 | Lease programs sounds reasonable | EDFVZ0::B_WOOD | Brian [>*<] Wood | Fri Sep 30 1988 14:04 | 9 |
| I'm going to look into the leasing program and see how really
good it is. I'm currently on Plan B driving a 2 year old
Chevrolet Cavalier that has payments of about $236 per month.
I currently average 22,000 miles per year. My biggest concern
about leasing programs is that many severely restricted the
mileage below what an average software specialist might generate.
If the base costs of a lease vehicle are below what it costs
to purchase the car, it may be advantageous to take the lease.
|
| 565.431 | Please reply about new offer, and please write | BACKSD::MEIER | harrY / Baltimore, MD | Tue Oct 04 1988 00:25 | 33 |
| I am back in Maryland after a long but successful business trip.
My dialogue with Rick Catino has progressed further. I will post
more info in the next couple of days. First, please excuse me
while I unpack.
In the meantime, I would be curious for as many people as
possible to express their opinion on the new Fleet Transition
Assistance Program. Specifically, to those of you who will be
losing your Plan A car soon, will this program make any
significant difference in your ability to go to Plan B?
Please be as specific as you can - use numbers if you have them
worked out.
Also - those of you working on letters or considering letters -
look at the bottom of the September 22 memo. It says, "we
appreciate and encourage your continuing feedback and input to
Fleet Administration so that future programs, changes and
enhancements are best designed to meet your needs. "
Take them up on their offer. Please write.
A question - someone please call Fleet : a recent reply
described one or more parts of this program as attractive to
someone currently on Plan B. However, the announcement begins,
"We are pleased to announce a number of programs designed to
assist employees in the transition from a company-provided
vehicle to ... Plan B." Does this mean _only_ those in
transition from A to B are eligible? What about Plan B drivers?
What about non-qualifying job codes? What about part-timers?
etc.
harrY
|
| 565.432 | Insurance... | ODIXIE::SILVERS | INERTIAL USE ONLY? | Tue Oct 04 1988 10:22 | 3 |
| From what I remember reading in the 9/22 letter, those of us already
on plan B (SOA SWS, etc...) can take advantage of the discounted
insurance. I'm not sure about the other programs. - Ds.
|
| 565.433 | My reactions | DNTVAX::FARLEE | Insufficient Virtual...um...er... | Tue Oct 04 1988 14:24 | 21 |
| I just received the memo last night and read it through.
My responses so far are:
I may get some benefit from the insurance plan - I will be getting
competetive quotes to see if it is really going to be any better
than my current plan. One concern is that if I should ever need
to file a claim, being 2000 miles plus from the nearest office could
be a real problem.
As to the leasing plans, the mileage caps have been "generously
extended to a number more appropriate to our usage" - the cap is
22,000 miles/year. I currently drive around 30 - 35,000 miles/year.
Not much help there.
As to the used car purchase plan (buy a DecMobile), I have a very
hard time seeing how a car that is no longer appropriate for use
in representing Digital under plan A would suddenly be appropriate
if I owned it...
Kevin Farlee
Santa Clara SWS
|
| 565.434 | You're not far from a Metropolitan office.. | DR::BLINN | Doctor Who? | Tue Oct 04 1988 16:33 | 8 |
| RE: .433 & being 2000 miles from a Metropolitan office -- I
was in L.A. last week, and saw billboards on the way to the
airport advertising MetPay, Metropolitan's payroll deduction
insurance plan. I'm sure you're not that far from one of their
offices. One way they hold their costs down is by providing
a fair amount of their customer services through 800- numbers.
Tom
|
| 565.435 | Plan "A" available for 10,000 + business miles/year | CSOA1::TEATER | Greg | Wed Oct 05 1988 01:21 | 27 |
| > As to the leasing plans, the mileage caps have been "generously
> extended to a number more appropriate to our usage" - the cap is
> 22,000 miles/year. I currently drive around 30 - 35,000 miles/year.
> Not much help there.
Me too.
> As to the used car purchase plan (buy a DecMobile), I have a very
> hard time seeing how a car that is no longer appropriate for use
> in representing Digital under plan A would suddenly be appropriate
> if I owned it...
I don't think DEC feels the "A" car is appropriate at 36
months/60,000 miles, it just makes $$$ sense. You could buy your
DECmobile and drive it for two more years. But this still not a
very attractive feature for DECies since a car with more than
60,000 miles could be headed towards major repair (which is
probably why DEC gets rid of them at that time).
Something I'd like to bring up (maybe again) is to reinstate plan
"A" for drivers who regulary drive more than 10,000 business
miles a year. This could be tied closely to a Job Description
and could reviewed on an annual basis.
greg_t
|
| 565.436 | some plan B figures | USRCV1::ABDELLA | | Wed Oct 05 1988 16:42 | 29 |
| I have been on plab B for about two years now. I went to plan B
because at the time the only thing that was available where four
cylinder automatics and there is a lot of hills in Upstate New York
I put 22,000 miles a year on a car 10k business 12k personal. As
close as I can figure, it cost me about 1.3k more a year than if
I was on plan A. I took a four year loan and after three years the
car should be worth about the same as I owe on it.
car payments 304 per month 3648 per year
maintanance/tires/oil 500
gas 1000
insurance 650
tax 7% devided by three years 280
total 6078
minus the 2400 plus .08 -3200
out of pocket 2878
30 a week on plan A 1560
bottom line 1318
One thing these figures don't include is if you might have to rent
a car. My wife is at home most of the time so I can always use her
car if my is down.
|
| 565.437 | why does everyone forget taxes? | GLASS::HULL | Is there life after Plan A? | Wed Oct 05 1988 19:11 | 15 |
| Re:
< Note 565.436 by USRCV1::ABDELLA >
-< some plan B figures >-
>> minus the 2400 plus .08 -3200
You didn't take out the ~30% tax cut in the Plan B payments. So its not
2400/12 months, it about (140*12)/12 months. A $720 rough difference.
So you're out about $2K, not 1.3K.
Al
|
| 565.438 | why does everyone forget about form 2106? | DIXIE1::JENNINGS | omoshiroi desu ne | Wed Oct 05 1988 21:15 | 7 |
| RE:< Note 565.437 by GLASS::HULL "Is there life after Plan A?" >
-< why does everyone forget taxes? >-
He probably didn't forget the taxes. He probably itemizes his
deductions and knows how to fill out form 2106. Last year, I owed
taxes on only $800 of the $2160 that I got from DEC for Plan B.
Don't assume that everyone doesn't itemize just because you don't.
|
| 565.439 | Buy, not lease | CSOA1::BERNARD | | Wed Oct 05 1988 21:18 | 16 |
|
As some recent notes mentioned, the latest communique from USFT
containing transition assistance said nothing about helping in new
car purchases.
No consumer literature I've ever read, and I've read plenty, recommends
leasing over purchasing. Leasing is an alternative for people who
have no money down, but in the long run it costs quite a bit more.
It's attractive if all you look at is a monthly payment figure,
not if you look at comparitive costs over a number of years. I'd
like to see some assistance in the purchase of a new vehicle, in
the spirit of increased flexibility. If I already must assume some
of the business expenses, I should at least keep have the opportunity
of keeping them minimal.
|
| 565.440 | tax deductions for business use | USRCV1::ABDELLA | flying close to the ground | Thu Oct 06 1988 10:23 | 8 |
| In regards to taxes and car used for business.
Because Digital includes the money that they pay us on our w2 form
you can deduct either 14.5 cents a business mile or depriatiate
the car plus expenses times a % for business use. This amount is
deducted on the first page of your taxes and then it nolonger looks
like income. Just like save plan (401k) doesn't matter if you itemize or
not.
|
| 565.441 | Cash flow analysis is more appropriate. | HOCUS::KOZAKIEWICZ | Shoes for industry | Thu Oct 06 1988 14:07 | 11 |
| re: .439
Yes, leasing is more expensive compared to buying a car outright
provided you intend to keep it. However, under the new plan "B" rules,
the car must be 5 years old or less. Chances are, you will take
out a 4 or 5 year loan to pay for such a car if you were going to
buy it. If the monthly payments of a lease over an identical term
are less, than that _is_ the cheaper alternative.
/Al
|
| 565.442 | Advice vs Value | USRCV1::FRASCH | | Thu Oct 06 1988 14:11 | 15 |
| Re.439
Who says leasing is not a better alternative than purchase? Depends
on what you wan to do. With the "A" plan now you pay your $30 per
week and either pay an additional sum to buy the car when it is
up for renewal or walk away from it. Sounds like a typical lease
to me!
I understand leasing programs are getting better. They work on purchase
price minus residual value and you have the same option to buy,
negotiate or walk away at the end.
If the car I get is a good one, I might put up the bucks and buy
it. If I'm getting tired of the darn thing, I'll walk away. Whats
the big deal??
I guess its the same old deal; advise is free, consulting costs
money (and usually has some value).
|
| 565.443 | Taste not the same as Value | CLO::BERNARD | | Thu Oct 06 1988 14:54 | 21 |
|
re: .437, 438
If leasing were as simple as purchase less residual pro-rated over
the term of the lease who would ever want to buy a new car?
If you purchase the car you get to drive as many miles as you want,
and keep it as long as you want. If you're willing to walk away
from a car after a few years, fine, but it's a lot more expensive
buying a new car every 5 years than keeping a car well-maintained
for ten years. The big deal is that the monthly payment becomes,
not a car payment but a permanent bite in your income.
I like it when a car is paid up and I can look forward to not making
payments for a few years. On the other hand, you can get a new
car every few years, and this of course is anyone's perogative.
What it isn't is a way to maximize your savings. I'd rather have
a car a little bit older and be able to afford little bit better
vacations, little bit better houses, and a little bit better
lifestyle when I retire. Of course, different tastes for different
folks.
|
| 565.444 | meaningless title | MISFIT::DEEP | This NOTE's for you! | Thu Oct 06 1988 16:38 | 19 |
|
I just puchased a new vehicle, and decided against leasing. However,
one point that came up about leasing, that I was unaware of...
If you are trading in a vehicle on a new one, and you opt to lease,
you can take home the trade in allowance of your old vehicle, IN CASH!
In my case, that would have been about $5K... much more than I could
have ever sold the car for, because trade in value is established
based on sticker price, and subject to negotiation. Thus, you make
lower monthly payments than a loan, and have a good chunk of money to
invest in CD's or whathaveyou....Do that for the life of the lease, and
if you decide to PURCHSE the next car, then you have a SIZABLE amount
to put down. Do it for a few leases, and pretty soon you can pay cash!
FWIW, I opted against it because I'd probably spend the money! 8^)
Bob
|
| 565.445 | The effects reach very far | EDFVZ0::B_WOOD | Brian [>*<] Wood | Thu Oct 06 1988 17:52 | 11 |
| A disadvantage I see to any lease or purchase program is the bite
it takes out of your monthly income. Anyone who's ever purchased
a house will understand how sensitive a car payment cat be. Lenders
evaluate your debt's as a percentage of gross income. They don't
view income offsets in evaluating your record. If you get $200
per month for a plan B reimbursement, that is additional income.
The $2xx you pay on the car is then a % of your gross. They don't
like to say your debt is $2xx - $200. Since lenders don't
like your debt load to be more than 35% for gross and 28% for
housing, the 7.5% bite of the car payment can severly limit
your ability to qualify for a loan and buy a house.
|
| 565.448 | More fuel for the fire | ALBANY::MULLER | | Mon Oct 10 1988 08:32 | 4 |
| Rumors are ..., but I have had a second hand report (the originating
source was an internal lawyer) recently that the cut of Plan A was a
direct cost cutting measure related to the excessive hiring of recent
years. I actually felt better when I heard that.
|
| 565.449 | read'em and weep | ODIXIE::SILVERS | INERTIAL USE ONLY? | Mon Oct 10 1988 10:38 | 2 |
| Why not request that Rick Catino, et al take a look at this (and
other) notes and judge for himself?
|
| 565.450 | and it continues... | WINERY::BOUCHARKE | Ken Bouchard WRO3-2 521-3018 | Tue Oct 11 1988 21:16 | 8 |
| harrY,are you surprised by the tone of that letter? I'm not.
.446> everything I write. I encourage you to write and to share
.446> your writings with us. I thank those of you who have done
.446> so. My reply follows.
Write huh? To who? I know of one person that wrote an excellent
letter (plenty of facts and figures) and got only grief in return.
|
| 565.451 | more info on 'discounted insurance' | DIXIE1::SILVERS | INERTIAL USE ONLY? | Wed Oct 12 1988 11:26 | 8 |
| Have just talked to metpay (I currently use them) and found out
that those of use already on metpay don't get the 'discount negotiated
by digital' until our current policy comes up for renewal. Also,
the person I talked to said the '10% discount in some states' is
not connected with DIGITAL at all, its someting Met is doing
countrywide.
So much for taking 'employee communications' at face value.
|
| 565.452 | A lease quote from INC.RATE | NCPROG::SCOTT | Greg Scott, Minneapolis SWS | Wed Oct 12 1988 14:41 | 45 |
| I called INC.RATE, the car leasing outfit with which Digital made
their deal. I liked (believe it or not) what they had to say:
I had them send me a quote on a 1989 Plymouth Voyager minivan.
I can't afford one, but they're really nice vehicles and I'm interested
in one.
The quote they sent spelled out all the rules and it seemed
straightforward enough. Their price was about $297 per month for a two
year closed-end lease, based on a depreciation rate of $174 per month.
After 2 years, I can buy the van for about $8936, or I can turn it in.
They have penalties if I turn in the van before two years.
They have 2 year leases thru 5 year leases. Over the phone, the
guy quoted me about $249 per month for a 5 year lease. I don't
know what the ultimate purchase price would be at the end - but
who cares, plan B is only good for 5 years or less anyway.
The only up front money they want is the first and last month's
lease, along with licensing fees for plates etc. In this case,
the price was about $164. In Minnesota, the sales tax is
added to the monthly payment and called a lease tax or something
like that - so no sales tax up front. The price quote included
the sales tax in the $297 per month - so it really means $297 per
month.
Looking at the Official Used Car Guide from January 1988, these vans
just don't depreciate. The wholesale value of a 1986 Voyager - 2 model
years old at that time - was about $8900. That was close to its
original purchase price, but I don't remember that number. The
wholesale value of this same vehicle new, from United Buying Service's
price book with their $500 profit added in, comes to $14,310.37. So my
price after 2 years looks pretty good.
On the surface, this looks like a good deal. (With insurance,
maintenance, etc, I can't afford it for plan B's $200 per month before
taxes, but it's still looks like a good deal.) I'm always suspicious of
anything that looks fair to me, the consumer, but I didn't see any
hidden gotcha's and fine print here.
What do you all think - maybe the INC.RATE part of this is a step
in the right direction.
- Greg Scott
|
| 565.453 | look twice at INC.RATE | USRCV1::ABDELLA | flying close to the ground | Wed Oct 12 1988 16:58 | 15 |
| I also called INC.RATE to get a quote on a Mustang Sport and it
sounded pretty good. I put 22,000 a year on a car so my lease on
three years was 297.00 a month and that included taxes. The balance
after three years was over 6,000 $ and the car would have over 65000
miles. If our company cars after three years is only worth 3,000
would we be expected to make up the difference from what they could
actually get for the car. Another thing that got my goat was I never
asked for an automatic and they had it included on the option list.
Plus I asked for a dark red car with red or grey interior or dark
blue car with blue interior and they listed a blue car with grey
or red interior. When I did all the math between leasing and buying
comparing a three year lease and buying the same car with four year
payments. The money came out better to buy in the long run.
|
| 565.454 | ??Including Mileage Costs?? | KYOA::LAFRANCE | Bird Jersey!! | Thu Oct 13 1988 07:48 | 11 |
|
Does the lease $/month reflect the expected high mileage? I put
36,000 miles/year on my company car. I haven't called INC., but
am curious...
1) Is the lease residual value calculated for a given mileage?
2) Are these last two quotes based on a yearly mileage? If so,
how many miles/year?
Cindy---
|
| 565.455 | My quote probably had mileage figured in | CARP::SCOTT | Greg Scott, MPLS SWS (DEC has 2 Greg Scott's) | Thu Oct 13 1988 10:31 | 13 |
| re .454
When I talked to the INC.RATE guy on the phone, he asked me how
many miles per year I do on average, and how many business miles.
I said about 20,000 and about 15 percent of those are business miles.
The quote has 20,000 miles written on it, but it does not say how
this figures into the price.
INC.RATE also has a lease deal for folks who do at least 50 percent
business miles. I didn't check it out because it doesn't apply
to me.
- Greg Scott
|
| 565.456 | More info from INC.RATE | CARP::SCOTT | Greg Scott, MPLS SWS (DEC has 2 Greg Scott's) | Fri Oct 14 1988 15:43 | 14 |
| I talked to the INC.RATE guy again today. Mileage IS figured in.
If you do more than what you tell them is your average miles per
year, they charge you 8 cents per mile. In my case, I told them
I do about 20,000 miles per year. With a 2 year lease, if the vehicle
has more than 40,000 miles on it, I pay the 8 cents per mile for
the difference.
If I buy the vehicle after the lease ends - the price is predetermined
and on the quote - then I don't have to pay any mileage penalty.
The interest rate they base their lease payments on is 1 point above
prime. So that means INC.RATE's rate is about 11 - 11 1/2 percent today.
- Greg Scott
|
| 565.457 | WATCH OUT FOR PLAN C | MSDSWS::DSMITH | | Fri Oct 14 1988 18:30 | 7 |
| When I turned in my Plan A car in May, I assumed that I would
automatically go on Plan B. WRONG. Because my job required that
I travel continuously during the past year to sites too far to drive,
I no longer qualified for anything other than PLAN C. So, I guess
the moral of the story is don't cry too much over losing PLAN A,
if you've still got PLAN B.
|
| 565.458 | re: Metpay | LAGUNA::SEIDMAN | where miracles never cease | Thu Oct 20 1988 18:02 | 14 |
| Found in, "Your Benefits Book".
"Metropolitan Property and Liability Insurance Company handles
personalized insurance for Digital employess nationwide through
a program known as "Metpay". Metpay has been offered at Digital
since 1978."
It goes on to list the types of policies available including auto
insurance.
Although the book does not reference any discounts available, it
doesn't seem like Fleet Admin. really did much to help us out
in terms of an auto insurance program.
To me it appears that they re-published an existing program.
|
| 565.459 | 1st annual poll.... :-) | TRAFIC::EVANS | | Thu Oct 20 1988 21:04 | 20 |
| re: .-??? (harrY's letter)
harrY.... did you ever get any reply to your response??? I just
noticed your posting was 9-OCT-1988.
PS - this topic seems to have cooled off quite a bit. I guess people
are adjusting to the "facts of life". I'd be interested to hear
how each of the previous noters are adjusting:
[] buying the company car for me
[] buying my own car
[] quitting the company
[] relocating to less expensive area of the country
[] taking the bus (mass-transit)
[] giving up - let 'em do what they want. I'll survive somehow.
I suspect that we all are fitting into the 1st 2 categories. Perhaps
that's for the best... I don't know.
Bruce Evans, Santa Clara
|
| 565.460 | BTW - DOCUMENT turns out good resumes! | AUSTIN::UNLAND | Sic Biscuitus Disintegratum | Thu Oct 20 1988 23:24 | 21 |
| re: < Note 565.459 by TRAFIC::EVANS >
The topic *has* cooled off somewhat, but probably for two reasons:
information about the "transition assistance" is dribbling in at
a very slow rate, but it is dribbling in; and
because the crunch hasn't really hit yet. My car will not be due
for another ten months, and I don't know of anyone in the office
who will have to change over for at least six months.
In my district (South Texas SWS) we have experienced a remarkable
amount of turnover recently, but not directly because of the demise
of "Plan A", which was just another straw. As a result of the low
morale and turnover, the DM and Personnel have spent a fair amount
of time doing private "sensing" sessions with everyone to try and
get a grip on things. Somehow, I don't get the impression that
they're going to reverse the "Plan A" cost-cutting syndrome, but
at least it's a start ...
Geoff
|
| 565.461 | The Next Step | BACKSD::MEIER | harrY / Baltimore, MD | Fri Oct 21 1988 14:40 | 52 |
| I feel a new optimism today.
I deleted the notes I posted earlier this month regarding Fleet
Administrator Rick Catino's reply to my original letter to Bill
Ferry. I decided they were too negative. I no longer think
it is necessary to be negative at this time.
I have reason to believe this issue is finally getting the
serious attention it deserves. I understand that managers are
going around here (and a recent note said the same is happening
elsewhere) asking employees for feedback on this issue. I
understand that feedback being collected will be elevated to the
Area level, and hopefully in turn to the U.S. level. I
personally met with a member of the Middle-Atlantic Area (MAA)
Team who expressed sincere concern about this matter.
It is reasonable that two things have to happen before we see any
corrective action:
o We have to convince management there is a bona fide problem
o We have to convince management there is a viable solution
I am optimistic that these things can happen. Managers are
actually out asking for feedback on the car plan, and plans are
underway for a significant improvement in the Open Door Policy
(see note 613.27+). What has to happen now is that enough people
have to participate in the feedback procedure to make it
successful. It would still be a bad move to become militant and
go beat up your manager over the car plan. But a professional
response should now be accepted and even requested. Don't
challenge her or him over this issue. Instead, provide
DOCUMENTATION, preferably in writing, preferably with numbers,
that explains the dilemma you are in. For example, you might say
something like "my car expires on X, I checked into the options
Fleet has provided and found a new car with insurance will cost
in excess of $300 and that Plan B right now only gives me $129
after taxes. I regret that I am probably going to have to leave
if nothing is done." Please - express your own thoughts, use
your own words, and use your own numbers. Avoid emotion and
confrontation if you can. Just send the letter to your manager,
or have it available for when he or she calls on you, and thank
him or her for receiving it. Don't pressure your manager for a
reply; instead ask her or him to put it with the others and pass
it up the chain.
My question: do you still see this as risky? Do you feel that
you would be fired or passed over for promotion if you did this?
harrY
|
| 565.462 | No METPAY deal for MASSholes. | ARGUS::CALANDRA | Mike, In-DEC Sys Supt, 262-8269 | Fri Oct 21 1988 15:00 | 13 |
|
Regarding the METPAY discounts stated up to 10%...I was dealing with my
METPAY agent the other day on a unrelated issue and asked her about the
PLAN B fleet discount. She replied that for any DEC employee in
Massachusetts there is a 3% discount (has been for years under the
group rate) and the state allows no others. So for myself (a current
METPAY policy holder) and any other Mass employee the fleet discount is
null. Does this surprise anyone?
BTW, for those who don't know this, Massachusetts sets the rates
for auto insurance so all companies must charge the same. I have
had good luck with METPAY.
|
| 565.463 | | DLOACT::RESENDEP | following the yellow brick road... | Fri Oct 21 1988 18:49 | 15 |
| RE: .461
> My question: do you still see this as risky? Do you feel that you
> would be fired or passed over for promotion if you did this?
No, I for one do not see this as at all career-limiting. But, harrY,
I'm not sure it's being done at all Areas. And even if it is, the
chances of getting Plan A reinstated are probably somewhere between
slim and none. What *might* happen (and I consider this very positive)
is that some really helpful, reasonable assistance might be offered
instead of the things that were recently published as an unsuccessful
attempt to placate the masses without causing Digital to have to expend
any appreciable amount of money or effort.
Pat
|
| 565.464 | | RIPPLE::KOTTERRI | Rich Kotter | Fri Oct 21 1988 20:02 | 6 |
| Re: Note 565.461 by BACKSD::MEIER
> My question: do you still see this as risky? Do you feel that
> you would be fired or passed over for promotion if you did this?
Yes.
|
| 565.465 | Look out or the paranoids will get you! | GUIDUK::BURKE | Help me Mr. Wizard!!!... | Fri Oct 21 1988 22:27 | 16 |
| Re: Note 565.461 by BACKSD::MEIER
> My question: do you still see this as risky? Do you feel that
> you would be fired or passed over for promotion if you did this?
Yes.
My District Manager and Unit Manager know well how I feel about
this issue.
My concern is over the elevation of my feelings to a higher level
who don't "understand" like my local management does. I keep recalling
what Pat Resende said in response #251 to this note. That hazey
"middle" layer of management concerns me...
Doug
|
| 565.466 | You bet, it would hurt ... | AUSTIN::UNLAND | Sic Biscuitus Disintegratum | Sun Oct 23 1988 00:51 | 12 |
| Re: Career-limiting manuvers
> My question: do you still see this as risky? Do you feel that
> you would be fired or passed over for promotion if you did this?
Absolutely it is risky. I don't believe I could get fired for
pushing this up the ladder, but I definately believe it would
crimp my chances for promotion. One does not make points by
being "controversial" in this neck of the woods, especially
when it comes to things that cost money, like car plans.
Geoff
|
| 565.467 | Think ALOT before leasing... | DPDMAI::AINSLEY | Less than 150 kts. is TOO slow! | Mon Oct 24 1988 00:29 | 28 |
| Here are some things to watch out for in a lease.
1) Mileage penalty. Has been beaten to death already.
2) Taxes. In Texas, a lease car is charged a property tax because
it is generating income for someone. Unfortunately,
it is the leassor, not you. All leases hold the leasee
responsible for taxes. On a 20K car, the tax amounts
to about $400 the first year. It decreases as the value
of the car decreases. You WILL NOT be told about this
by the leasing company BEFORE you sign the lease.
3) Crash. If the car is totaled shortly after you take delivery,
your insurance will give you the depreciated amount for
car. In most cases, a car depreciates 20% when you drive
it off the lot. HOWEVER, the leasing company will treat
this as an early termination of the lease. Whatever
you collected from the insurance company WILL NOT conver
the cost of getting out of the lease. You will probably
be forced to come up with several thousand dollars to
satisify the terms of the lease. Please check the CARBUFFS
conference for more details. It happened to one of the
noters in the conference.
In general, a car lease is like any other lease. Break it and you
can get sued. Getting out early is extremely expensive.
Bob
|
| 565.468 | I'm an Optimist.. | 37090::HERB | AL | Mon Oct 24 1988 19:57 | 16 |
| When I came to DEC, I had to give up my beloved '79 RX-7 with 94K
miles on it (and re-welded pasenger seat). My 1st Plan A was (ugh!)
Topaz for which I opted to sel my RX-7. My second (and final as
it appears) is a Celebrity. Nice riding & handling car but not a
fun car at all.
I'm now considering the best financial approach to the '71 AMC Gremlin
that I bought for my son. I do not want him as principle driver
on anything if I can avoid it. In consideration of this, I'm
considering Plan C (?) and using the Gremlin for conducting business.
What the hell, it's got character and is a fun car to drive when
I consider the insurance rates for another RX-7!!
Though my '67 Pontiac GTO always remains an option, maybe my next
"business" vehicle is a Corvair Monza. I'll have to wait and see
what the IRS guidelines are.
|
| 565.469 | A small tidbit | 37714::ROTH | | Tue Oct 25 1988 11:38 | 4 |
| Radio station in cincinnati said IRS has raised its personal car
used-for-business deduction figure from 22.5� per mile to 24.0� per mile.
Lee
|
| 565.470 | But will it effect "plan C"? | 31976::BLINN | Opus for VEEP in '88 | Tue Oct 25 1988 13:06 | 5 |
| The same information was reported in the Boston Globe. One
can wonder whether "plan C" will be adjusted to reflect the
new rate..
Tom
|
| 565.471 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Tue Oct 25 1988 14:31 | 6 |
| Plan C (and everything else in the U.S. expense policy available in the
ORANGEBOOK VTX infobase) always closely follows the IRS rules. I would
expect the policy to be updated very close to the actual effective date
of the IRS change.
/john
|
| 565.472 | | BOSTON::SOHN | Grand Parade of Lifeless Packaging | Wed Oct 26 1988 14:14 | 20 |
| re: < Note 565.471 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >
>Plan C (and everything else in the U.S. expense policy available in the
>ORANGEBOOK VTX infobase) always closely follows the IRS rules. I would
>expect the policy to be updated very close to the actual effective date
>of the IRS change.
And if it doesn't, you can deduct the difference (subject to our beloved 2%
AGI minimum)
Also:
Got some quotes from INC.RATE -- *very* reasonable. Compare
a ~$265/mo quote for a loaded Chevy Beretta GT (48 months, including tax)
from INC.RATE to a ~$320/mo quote from a dealer.
P.S. Not recommending the Beretta - for 10 or 20 dollars more per
month, you can get a Acura Integra LS *loaded* (air, sunroof, alarm, stereo).
eric
|
| 565.473 | This doesn't surprise me | NEWVAX::TURRO | Bumper snicker here! | Fri Oct 28 1988 03:47 | 22 |
| What I would like to know exactly is what are considered business
miles. Some engineers consider business miles from home to office
or site. Some consider it from office to customer site.Some con-
sider it as they pass a DEC office. Managers say nothing to any
of this. With the fringe benefit value going to be added in 1989
I don't want to be sc*!#, and others get away with murder.
Any comments.
I drive about 20,000 just to work. Not including business miles.
Although my business miles per day is minimal.(I work in D.C.)
Lets face it most sites are not that far away.
If any one knows how the IRS feels about how to report
"Business miles" Please let me know.
Mike Turro
Dec 11yrs
F-S 8yrs
|
| 565.474 | personal verses bussiness | USRCV1::ABDELLA | flying close to the ground | Fri Oct 28 1988 13:33 | 8 |
| the miles you drive from home to the first location (office or site)
is personal miles plus the miles you drive from the (office or last
site) to home are personal miles. typically if the customer site
is much farther than the office then only the distance from home
to office is personal the rest would be bussiness.
|
| 565.475 | Almost | CURIE::BOELKE | Brendan E. Boelke | Fri Oct 28 1988 15:30 | 20 |
| re: -1, -2
-1 is not quite right. I've fought this battle, and the policy
is;
If you have to go anywhere other than to the office, the
reimbursable mileage is [miles driven] - [normal commute]. That
is to say, if you drive 15 miles North every day to go to work,
and you drive 10 miles South to a site on a given day, you have
no reimbursable miles. If it was 20 miles South, and you went directly
home from the site, you would have 10 reimbursable miles ((20-15)*2).
If you drive to a site, and then to the office, and then home, round
trip mileage to the site is reimbursable (the case is the same when
you drive 'past the office' on your way to a site).
I am not sure about 1-2-3, but for WC 4's, any weekend business
miles are reimbursable without deducting the normal commute (I had
a **long** battle over this one).
|
| 565.476 | Ooops | CURIE::BOELKE | Brendan E. Boelke | Fri Oct 28 1988 15:32 | 4 |
| I just reread my reply, and realize I wasn't clear in the second
scenario. If you go home->site->office->home, the reimbursable
part is a round trip from office to site...
|
| 565.477 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Fri Oct 28 1988 17:37 | 19 |
| DEC will reimburse you (on Plan C) as stated in the preceding two replies.
The IRS rule on this has been discussed elsewhere, maybe even in this topic.
Travel between home and any work location in your general geographic area is
*not* business mileage as far as the IRS is concerned, even if it is further
than the commute to your normal workplace.
Not even the difference between the two distances is business mileage in the
eyes of the IRS. Digital is somewhat more generous than the IRS in this
respect, and *theoretically* any DEC employee expense reimbursement in excess
of IRS guidelines is taxable income.
Example: I live in Acton, and work 13 miles from home, in Hudson. If I have
a business meeting in Marlboro, 18 miles from home, DEC will reimburse me for
the extra five miles, but the IRS does not consider that business mileage and
I theoretically should report it as taxable income.
/john
|
| 565.478 | | NEWVAX::TURRO | Bumper snicker here! | Mon Oct 31 1988 03:42 | 9 |
| Re.473-477 Scenario: I drive to work usually 35 miles to site.
I pass a DEC office (not mine). Can I claim the difference ie (15)miles
to my site. Or does it have to be my office. We have people doing
this now but managers don't say anything. What is proper ? Or should
I just do the same ?
Mike
|
| 565.479 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon Oct 31 1988 08:50 | 17 |
| > I pass a DEC office (not mine). Can I claim the difference ie (15)miles
> to my site. Or does it have to be my office. We have people doing
> this now but managers don't say anything.
Read the IRS' lips: Commuting to and from work is not a business expense.
If your employer reimburses you, the reimbursement is
taxable income.
DEC policy: Follows IRS policy. DEC relocation policy will often
*temporarily* reimburse for additional commuting. This
reimbursement is taxable income.
What you described: Not allowed by any existing DEC policy, unless "they" are
doing it under a relocation contract.
/john
|
| 565.480 | Car Plan ? | WLW::ROARK | | Mon Oct 31 1988 11:19 | 23 |
| Hi,
Taking a vacation day to day to check out acquistion of another vehicle,
plan B style, Currently on plan A. Sitting across from the dealer, ready to
sign on the dotted line I have a feeling to contact fleet administration. I
call fleet administration. There is an announcement occurring today at 11:30
EST about car plan.
set flame/simmer
I'm talking to someone from fleet at about 10:40 EST who has just
gotten out of a meeting about the car plan.
Fleet could not tell me if I could continue under plan A, it seems
there is a possibility. all I got was 'I understand' .... 'I believe' you
can. I wanted to know 'yea' or 'nay' right then. This was a good car deal I
was being offered, though I'd rather continue A until cash position is better.
I was told to work through my line manager. I have contacted my manager. If
fleet doesn't understand for sure what's going on, will my line manager?
I hope so.
set flame/off
Tim
|
| 565.481 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon Oct 31 1988 11:36 | 16 |
| > Taking a vacation day to day to check out acquistion of another vehicle,
> plan B style, Currently on plan A.
Wow!
Taking vacation to buy a tool DEC requires you to have for your job!
Nonsense. Don't turn in the vacation card.
A ways back in this topic, someone complained about the nonsense in the field.
We offered him a job as a Software Engineer; he's now in our group. Still got
one more opening in our CAD System Software Group here on Silicon Hill.
/john
|
| 565.482 | huh?? | BAHTAT::PATTERSON | | Mon Oct 31 1988 13:10 | 4 |
| Where is Silicon Hill? Do they have reserved parking spaces
by badge number??
KMP!!
|
| 565.483 | HLO - Silicon Hill | CVG::THOMPSON | Personal name set hidden | Mon Oct 31 1988 13:18 | 5 |
| Silicon Hill is Hudson, MA (HLO) where DEC does semi conductor
manufacturing and development. I did not see reserved parking spaces
by badge the last time I visited there.
Alfred
|
| 565.484 | A is BACK! | LAGUNA::SEIDMAN | where miracles never cease | Mon Oct 31 1988 16:08 | 11 |
| Plan A is back, at least for sales. Heard on con-call today. Plan
A is re-instated, Plan B is continuing on at the $200/month, .08/mile.
They also mentioned that anyone who had gone from A to B and purchased
a car, Digital would buy the car from them and treat it like Plan
if desired (about 20 people in the U.S. effected).
Everything added to make Plan B more "flexible" still applies, i.e.
leases through (ST)INC. :), insurance through METPAY etc.
Seems like they are listening!
|
| 565.485 | Just got the word here, too | RIPPLE::KOTTERRI | Rich Kotter | Mon Oct 31 1988 16:16 | 5 |
| Just to confirm .484...
My sales unit manager's secretary just called to inform me that
according to our district manager, Plan A is officially back! (Still at
$30, and Plan B is still available at $200.)
|
| 565.486 | Any word about SWS???????????????? | DLOACT::RESENDEP | following the yellow brick road... | Mon Oct 31 1988 16:58 | 1 |
|
|
| 565.487 | Toto Too! | RLAV::WEGER | Bruce Weger | Mon Oct 31 1988 17:11 | 5 |
|
Everyone that *was* on plan "A" is included.
It's like it was a bad dream and I just woke up.
|
| 565.488 | Software and Sales | BACKSD::MEIER | harrY / Baltimore, MD | Mon Oct 31 1988 17:13 | 12 |
| I just heard the news, too. Plan A has been restored for SWS and
Sales!
Details are sketchy at this hour. Already, I have heard at least
two different versions of what was decided: one said that the
cancellation of Plan A has been temporarily deferred, one said
that the cancellation has been unconditionally abolished.
I need to hear the details. But so far, it sounds wonderful!
harrY
|
| 565.489 | Make up Your Minds ! | NEWVAX::TURRO | Bumper snicker here! | Tue Nov 01 1988 07:35 | 2 |
| Is this a terrible "Trick or Treat" joke ?
|
| 565.490 | ?? | ODIXIE::SILVERS | INERTIAL USE ONLY? | Tue Nov 01 1988 10:20 | 5 |
| If this is really true - plan A being 'back' for sales and software,
I wonder how it will affect those of us in SOA SWS who had our plan
A cars 'taken away' 2 years ago.
Ds.
|
| 565.491 | Stray documents roaming around? | GUIDUK::BURKE | Sliding down the razor blade of life. | Tue Nov 01 1988 10:28 | 88 |
| When I came in from a customer site yesterday, I found the following
lying in our copy room. Assume all disclaimers, like: "I have no
idea if this is correct or not." Treat it only as a rumor.
Please do not transmit this as gospil to anyone without these
disclaimers, as I will immediately point the disclaimers out to
them if confronted.
I have changed it from all uppercase to normal reading to prevent
hearing problems, so casing is all mine:
============================================================================
From: The U.S. Field Management Team
Subject: CAR PLAN
We have made a decision to continue Plan A for all eligible employees,
effective immediately.
On July 1, we communicated a strategy to phase out company cars.
This plan was based upon our desire to reduce the time we were spending
managing a large fleet of cars and the IRS rulings on the fringe
benefit value associated with the personal use of a company-provided
vehicle.
Since the communication of that decision, many of you have taken
the time to communicate your concerns. While the improved Plan
B was attractive to many of you, others indicated that the flat-rate
structure was inequitable because of differences in geographic costs.
Still others expressed concern that insufficient time was provided
to plan for a transition to owning your own business vehicle. This
constructive feedback prompted us to revisit our decision.
Accordingly, we will be continuing Plan A for all eligible employees,
effective immediately.
* There will be no change in the pre-July eligiblity guidelines for
participation in the car plan.
* New Plan D enrollments have been eliminated for Field Service
employees. Security considerations required the elimination
of the DIGITAL logo on these vehicles. Plan D has been replaced
by Plan A.
* We have a list of employees who have transitioned to Plan B since
July 1st, who would have previously have had the choice to remain
on Plan A. You will be contacted by your manager soon and will
have an opportunity to discuss the option of converting back
to Plan A if you so choose. If you bought a car since July 1,
1988, we are prepared to purchase your automobile from you and
provide you with a Plan A vehicle.
* Plan B will continue in effect at $200 per month and 8 cents
a mile, and we will review this on an ongoing basis. Our goal
is that both Plan A and Plan B meet the business needs of our
car plan participants.
* The programs which were developed to assist in the car plan
transition and which were described in our communication of
September 22 will remain in effect. These include employee lease
programs, a group insurance program and special car loan rates
through the DIGITAL Credit Union. The relaxed guidelines for
employee-owned cars (two door vehicles which carry four passengers,
up to five model years old) will also remain in effect.
* The personal use charge for Plan A will remain at $30 per week.
Consistent with IRS guidelines, this charge will be used to offset
the fringe benefit value which we must compute for each car plan
participant for W-2 inclusion beginning with the 1989 tax year.
We recognize that we caused some concern through the timing and content
our our July announcement. Our intentions has been and continues
to be to provide effective car plans to eligible employees who require
a vehicle as a tool to do their job. We believe that the reinstatement
of Plan A, along with the assistance programs and other plan
modifications outlined in this memo, provide car plan participants
with effective alternatives to meet their business needs. We
appreciate your comments and feedback.
Regards
============================================================================
The last paragraph is as I wrote it. I would appreciate any
acknowlegements of the validity or invalidity of this document.
Doug
|
| 565.492 | RE: .490 - How long can you hold your breath? :>) | YUPPIE::COLE | Do it right, NOW, or do it over LATER! | Tue Nov 01 1988 11:18 | 0 |
| 565.493 | Plan A for SWS back in ECA | WLW::ROARK | | Tue Nov 01 1988 11:34 | 10 |
| Hi,
A manager just relayed the word recieved from the district manager
(OVD in the ECA). I'm in SWS on plan A. I can remain on plan A.
The details will be available in a day or two. It was also mentioned
that the Area had already implemented certain measures and that
all might not be the same as pre-July. Now I'm wondering what.
Wait for the film at 11:00, I guess.
Tim
|
| 565.494 | Ok, Southern Area...it's time to speak out! | DIXIE1::RIDGWAY | For one brief shining moment | Tue Nov 01 1988 11:39 | 9 |
| RE: 490
> I wonder how it will affect those of us in SOA SWS who had our plan
> A cars 'taken away' 2 years ago.
Or how about us that were denied the opportunity to participate
in Plan A due to the Southern Area's policy of NO Plan A for SWS?
Keith R>
|
| 565.495 | Not Just Southern Area | DPDMAI::AINSLEY | Less than 150 kts. is TOO slow! | Tue Nov 01 1988 12:27 | 11 |
| It's not just the Southern Area that had no Plan A for SWS.
Here in South Central Area, the only SWS folks that have plan A
cars are the ones that have been here for several years.
I'm not so sure it really matters to me, though. I don't know if
I could handle being in a DECmobile to/from my residencies.
I do know that our Plan B is inferior to every other Plan B I have
ever seen.
Bob
|
| 565.496 | | VTSALE::SLATTERY | Erin Slattery DTN: 266-4434 | Tue Nov 01 1988 14:06 | 15 |
| < Northeast Area also has inequitable policy >
Sounds like the Southern Area is very much the same as the Northeast.
SWS people who already had a company car could keep them and get
new ones when they reached their mileage limit. New people coming
into the group were not given the option to go on Plan A - the only
way to get on Plan A is if someone with a company car were to turn
theirs in for some reason. I can understand trying to cut expenses
by not buying any new cars but it should be done equitably across the
board. Those employees that have cars should not get replacements
when their cars reach the mileage limit - they should have to go
on Plan B. At least for a brief period of time it felt as though
everyone was being treated equitably - so I must say that in some
ways I'm sorry to see Plan A being reinstated.
|
| 565.497 | Welcome Back Plan A | GUCCI::HERB | AL | Tue Nov 01 1988 14:12 | 3 |
| Seems to me that the title of this NOTES entry should be changed
(delete "So Long"). I just saw a copy of the internal memo making
it an official "Welcome Back Plan A".
|
| 565.498 | Keep the Christmas turkeys, I wanna Car!! | ODIXIE::RIDGWAY | For one brief shining moment | Tue Nov 01 1988 15:19 | 4 |
| I guess the question is, can anything be done about the inequities
of a car plan that is supposed to be *company wide??**
Keith R>
|
| 565.499 | Handle a DECmobile | MAMTS1::TAMICO | | Tue Nov 01 1988 16:07 | 10 |
| REPLY TO .495
<I don't know if I could handle being in a DECmobile to/from my
residencies.>
For people like you who think that a DECmobile is below you
then you can always stay on plan "B". Driving the DECmobil to/from
my residence causes me to have the "VETTE" just sitting there for
me to play with when I get home.
|
| 565.500 | Witty title goes here... | DPDMAI::AINSLEY | Less than 150 kts. is TOO slow! | Tue Nov 01 1988 17:09 | 18 |
| re: .499
> For people like you who think that a DECmobile is below you
> then you can always stay on plan "B".
From what I understand, the DECmobiles are on the level of some
peoples 'winter' cars in the North East. I have never been given
a choice between plan "A" and "B". If I had a choice and could
get a decent DECmobile, I would probably drive it to keep the mileage
down on my personal car.
> Driving the DECmobil to/from my residence causes me to have the
> "VETTE" just sitting there for me to play with when I get home.
I enjoy a nice car too, but my other hobbies are more expensive
and require me to buy a car that is good, but not great.
Bob
|
| 565.501 | fly | EAGLE1::EGGERS | Tom, VAX & MIPS Architecture | Tue Nov 01 1988 18:31 | 1 |
| Bob, do you suppose DEC would pay for an airplane on any of the plans?
|
| 565.502 | hard to do | KYOA::BAUMAN | | Tue Nov 01 1988 18:52 | 7 |
| If you would like to fly for Digital I would suggest you see anyway::flying
there are many entrys as to why this cannot be done. Not unless
you have thousands of hours and half a dozen other criteria meet.
The insurance is the killing reason for this.
|
| 565.503 | Maybe an ultralight... | DPDMAI::AINSLEY | Less than 150 kts. is TOO slow! | Tue Nov 01 1988 22:01 | 9 |
| re: .502
You must not have seen the invisible smiley face on .501. Both
Tom (.501) and I (.500) are regular noters in ANYWAY:FLYING.
Let's see... $200/month & $.08/mile...that would make a good dent
in the payment on a decent plane. I wonder if my next residency
would allow me to share the runway with the F-16's they have there
:-0)
|
| 565.504 | buy back?? | DPDMAI::BEAN | free at last...FREE AT LAST!! | Wed Nov 02 1988 01:22 | 7 |
| plan A came back to the SCA today too. the announcement also stated
that dec will buy back any automobiles eligible participants purchased
for plan B...
anybody know more about THAT? What about LEASE contracts? (that
were entered because plan A went away?)
tony
|
| 565.505 | Say, where'd you here that? | DLOACT::RESENDE | Happily Maui'ed! | Wed Nov 02 1988 12:40 | 9 |
| re: .504
Back in the SCA huh? If there was an announcement, I certainly missed it,
other than knowing what this conference has been saying. Seems like the
word isn't being formally announced to everyone.
I'd also like some clarification as to whether the plan might now be re-made
available to folks who've been pushed off the plan during the past several
years in SWS.
|
| 565.506 | Do you want an "official" answer? | DR::BLINN | An ill-cooked chicken has died in vain | Wed Nov 02 1988 12:54 | 11 |
| I trust that, if you want the "official" answers, you'll work
your way up your management chain. After all, this conference
is not the "official" information dissemination mechanism.
Opinion: I suspect that "Plan A" will not be reinstated for
any areas or groups of employees for which it was already not
available prior to the recent planned demise. But, that's
an issue that needs to be raised with the area or local group
managers who made that decision.
Tom
|
| 565.507 | Fly the ECA way | INFACT::GARRETT | Curtis W. - Indianapolis | Wed Nov 02 1988 13:32 | 1 |
| Fly??? We tried but they wouldn't let us expense radar detectors.
|
| 565.508 | | DPDMAI::AINSLEY | Less than 150 kts. is TOO slow! | Wed Nov 02 1988 14:53 | 8 |
| Re: .505
I doubt they will make it available to anyone who wasn't currently
on the plan. I suspect they will try to make it go away again,
for everyone except Field Service and Sales. Only this time, they
might do it right.
Bob
|
| 565.509 | SOA, SCA, and SWA all have common "roots.... | YUPPIE::COLE | Do it right, NOW, or do it over LATER! | Wed Nov 02 1988 16:08 | 18 |
| Yea, like the aforementioned Areas have: no new Plan A's or renewals
will be signed by the CC managers, period. Looks like Country would have
realized the way to do would be to hold up to the rest of the Areas these
"pathfinders" as "excellent examples of discretionary expense control", and
sneak in some special award, maybe, just for reinforcement. Then the others
would be on board in no time. Possibly excluding the Area Management from
automatic attendance on their incentive awards trips might get them religion!
This last attempt was, I'm sure, partially prompted by a perceived
need to "level the playing field". We have had some people from software take
Sales or FS jobs where Plan A was a cinch. In SOA, even AREA FS marketeers get
Plan A! What with the IRS breathing down our necks, and the $30 a week ($130
a month, annualized!), some folks might look at Plan B or C more favorably,
enough to take the expense heat off.
So, .-1 is probably right, in about a year all the Area Managers that
want to be perceived as supporting the Country goals will have instituted
their own expense control program. Bye-bye Plan A!
|
| 565.510 | plan P is for Phoenix... | PH4VAX::MCBRIDE | scalp burns before skin surface | Wed Nov 02 1988 21:24 | 9 |
| I got a call today from Fleet Admin.. They called and asked me
why I haven't ordered a new plan A car. I told the guy that plan
A went away and I got stuck on the edge (I had 49.98k miles and
now I have 55.55k) I wasn't eligible. He told me that plan A is
back and that I should get an order in. I said my manager won't
let me until he gets it in writing. He said it will be made available
by the end of the week in writing to all managers. I can't wait
to see what it is all about.
|
| 565.511 | A story... | DLOACT::RESENDEP | following the yellow brick road... | Thu Nov 03 1988 18:07 | 21 |
| I've been trying hard to rationalize the car plan change with the
tone of the memo that harrY received from Rick Catino. And for
the life of me I wasn't able to reconcile the two.
I heard something from Sales today that I found very interesting.
Whether or not it's true I don't know, but it certainly would make
some things seem more reasonable.
The story is that when Ken went on the DECathalon cruise a couple of
weeks ago, the salespeople he talked to brought up two issues to him:
the recent warranty/price increase announcement and the demise of Plan
A. Ken supposedly hadn't heard about the car plan, and went straight
back to Maynard and "fixed it." We're hoping and praying that he'll do
the same with the other issue.
As I said, what I've just related is hearsay. But I find it quite
believable that Ken would give us our cars back; I find it somewhat
less believable that other involved management would do so.
FWIW,
Pat
|
| 565.512 | Ken knew | WR2FOR::BOUCHARD_KE | Ken Bouchard WRO3-2 DTN 521-3018 | Thu Nov 03 1988 18:44 | 5 |
| .511> A. Ken supposedly hadn't heard about the car plan, and went straight
Don't believe it.I have it on good authority that the situation
was known to Ken long before that cruise.
|
| 565.513 | Something had to happen soon, or ... | AUSTIN::UNLAND | Sic Biscuitus Disintegratum | Thu Nov 03 1988 18:54 | 10 |
| re: .511 maybe Ken "fixed" it ...
Whether or not Ken took a direct hand in "fixing" the car plan problem,
I think that management would have had to do *something* soon anyway.
The amount of strife created by this issue was too big to ignore, and
was occuring at just the wrong time. Maybe now we can all get back
to fighting the competition, instead of fighting ourselves.
Geoff
|
| 565.515 | If Pat's info is correct ... | BACKSD::MEIER | My tool is flexible again, thanks | Fri Nov 04 1988 12:31 | 8 |
| So should I have sent my letter to Ken instead?
I don't know; I bet some other feedback letters were sent to
Ken. Did anyone out there within the sound of these pixels send
a letter to Ken about Plan A?
harrY
|
| 565.516 | the right thing | SRFSUP::MORRIS | SuRF'S UP :: MORe RISk | Fri Nov 04 1988 12:57 | 11 |
|
This just confirms (IMO) that the 'Right Thing' will happen ......
eventually. If you work for a totally incompetent manager, eventually
the right thing will happen to said manager.
I'm sure to all of the people in charge of cost cutting, this appeared
at the time to be the 'right thing'. However, it definitely wasn't
and eventually, the right thing came about. It takes time. Usually
more time than most of us want to spend, but it will happen.
Ashley
|
| 565.517 | Just got the following...from my D.M. | TELGAR::WAKEMANLA | Another Eye Crossing Question! | Fri Nov 04 1988 13:07 | 58 |
| From: SANFAN::MANAGER "SANFAN System Manager - DTN 521-3500 (WA DIS) 04-Nov-1988 0934" 4-NOV-1988 09:37:37.15
To: WAKEMANLA
CC:
Subj: U.S. Car Plan
I N T E R O F F I C E M E M O R A N D U M
Date: 4-Nov-1988 08:33 PST
From: STEVEN GARRETT
GARRETT.STEVEN AT A1WR1FOR AT WR1FOR @WRO
Dept: DISTRICT SOFTWARE
Tel No: DTN 521-4196
Distribution:
(use Mail SDL function to view the Distribution List)
Subject: U.S. Car Plan
In response to concerns from the U.S. Field employees, the U.S. management
team has reversed it's decision, and will continue Plan A. All eligible
employees will receive a communication from fleet management in the near
future. If you have any questions about the announcement, please let me know.
As most of you have heard me say, "Digital has two long term goals." These
long term goals are relationships with customers, and with employees. Digital
works hard at both of these goals; we try to listen to both customers and
employees. I personally believe that good management has to admit to and
change a bad decision. Most manager's egos don't permit such a course of
action. A decision like this distinguishes Digital from others.
As the District Manager of the Commercial District it makes my life easier if
everyone is on plan B. However, I work with you folks, and believe in
providing you with whatever tools you need to get your job done.
Best Regards,
Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------
I also have a copy of a FAXed message from the U.S. Field Management Team that confirms
the reinstatement of Plan A. I won't type the whole thing in, but I found a couple of points
rather interesting... (emphasis is mine)
"We have a list of employees who have transitioned to plan B since July 1st, who previously
have had the choice to remain on Plan A. You will be contacted by your manager soon and
will have an opportunity to discuss the option of converting back to Plan A if you so choose.
IF YOU BOUGHT A CAR SINCE JULY 1, 1988, WE ARE PREPARED TO PURCHASE YOUR
AUTOMOBILE FROM YOU and provide you with a Plan A vehicle."
and...
"The programs which were developed to assist in the car plan transition and which were
described in our communications of September 22, WILL REMAIN IN EFFECT. These include
Employee Lease Programs, a Group Insurance Program and Special Car Loan Rates through
the Digital Credit Union. The relaxed guidelines for employee-owned cars (two door vehicles
which carry four passengers, up to five model years old) will also remain in effect."
Larry
|
| 565.518 | Sounds like it all right! | GUIDUK::BURKE | Sliding down the razor blade of life. | Sat Nov 05 1988 00:19 | 12 |
| Re: -.1
Just out of curiosity, could you compare your document with .491?
Now that you mention it, the document I found in our copy room looked
like it had been transmitted by FAX. (It had a sending address
on it *;'] )
Perhaps the U. S. Field Management Team doesn't think E-Mail is
a very secure way to transmit messages?
Doug
|
| 565.519 | .491 verified | ARGUS::CALANDRA | Mike, In-DEC Sys Supt, 262-8269 | Sat Nov 05 1988 20:56 | 3 |
|
In case there is still any doubt, today I received via a home mailing
the exact text of .491.
|
| 565.520 | SWS Official Policy | MSDSWS::HENDERSON | Mark Henderson @NOO | Mon Nov 07 1988 10:41 | 35 |
| I received two memos over the weekend from my unit manager. The text of
first memo duplicated the one from the U.S. Field Management Team. The
second sheds some light on the true intentions of SWS:
I N T E R O F F I C E M E M O R A N D U M
Date: 31-Oct-1988 03:41pm EST
From: Joseph Patrnchak @PKO
PATRNCHAK.JOSEPH
Dept: SWS PERSONNEL
Tel No: DTN 223-9128
TO: See Below
Subject: SWS Car Plan Position
The purpose of this memo is to clarify the U.S. SWS car plan policy and plan
prior to July 1, 1988. With the recent car plan changes communicated by the
Country Team, it is important to note that the intent is that this policy and
plan will remain in effect.
1. The company car provides transportation for employees whose primary
assignments require day-to-day travel to customer sites.
2. Car plan B is the preferred option for Software Services with the goal
for the entire organization to transition to this plan over time.
3. To that end, all new hires into SWS who are eligible for a company car
will be offered Plan B.
4. Software Services District, Small Business Direct and Corporate Account
Managers qualify for the Car Plan. No other Direct Report to the Area
SWS Manager qualifies for the Car Plan.
|
| 565.521 | Not for Software Services | MSDSWS::HENDERSON | Mark Henderson @NOO | Mon Nov 14 1988 17:03 | 13 |
| After discussions with my manager, I read the preceeding memo as
follows:
Plan A is restored for Field Service and Sales, only. Software
Specialists will be migrated to Plan B, period, no exceptions.
In my opinion, this is the old "divide and conquer" strategy. Eliminate
the weakest group first. FS & Sales say, "Well, at least I got mine
back". Next Field Service (within the next year) will loose their
cars (with SW specialists saying "It's only fair" and Sales saying
"At least I have mine." Sales will loose theirs the year after that.
|
| 565.522 | The rules are different here... | BOSTON::SOHN | Mardi Gras '89 bound! (and gagged?) | Mon Nov 14 1988 17:10 | 12 |
| re: < Note 565.521 by MSDSWS::HENDERSON "Mark Henderson @NOO" >
Now, that's not what *I* heard...
I heard that whoever *was* on Plan A, could stay on it. However,
since I was hired (11/87) there has been a policy of "no new hires
on Plan A" - therefore, I have to stay on Plan B.
*sigh*
--axe--
|
| 565.523 | Treat PSS/SWS like slaves | GUIDUK::B_WOOD | Where Oh where has my DEC-20 gone? | Mon Nov 14 1988 20:01 | 12 |
| This stinks... If Digital Values it's employees, lets try to treat
them the same. If you are required to have a car in your job, the
company should make one availible. By making SWS second class
citizen's, it effects us more than one would think.
I'm upset because I'm trying to clean up a mess from a bad marriage
and need to have the financial freedom of not buying a car. The
$236 a month I pay to GMAC shows up as a black mark on my credit
report. I can't get a loan to buy another home or pay off my
ex because my ratio's are too high. One of the items that affects
my ratio is the car loan. It feels like sh*t to be caught between
a rock and a hard place.
|
| 565.524 | I hope this isn't still an issue... | GUIDUK::BURKE | Sliding down the razor blade of life. | Mon Nov 14 1988 20:42 | 14 |
| Re: .521
It seems to me that "over time" and "preferred" are rather vague
in the context of this memo. Also, I, as a flunky field specialist
have not received this memo, and I have received the on re-instating
the car plan.
My job requires me to travel an average of around 100 miles a day to
an from a customer site, and I only live 5 miles from my home office.
I have a difficult time understanding how someone like myself who is
consistantly generating revenue for the company via software, is
different from a field service person who does it via hardware.
Doug
|
| 565.525 | They'll have to pry the steering wheel from my cold dead hands | GLASS::HULL | Hallalujah!! The Resurrection (Plan A) has come! | Mon Nov 14 1988 23:58 | 22 |
| Re: .521 -
I believe you are mistaken in your interpretation of the last notice we
got. The day Plan A was re-instated for everyone who had been on it as of
last June 17th my manager made a point of calling everyone in the unit on
the phone (we're all residents spread out all over Detroit area) giving us
the OFFICIAL word on the re-instatement.
Sure, any new hires recently have just been given Plan B only, but anyone
on A (I'm 6+ yrs now) that still qualifies still gets a car. As long as
I'm in SWS in East Central Area and not in a job code that dosn't qualify,
I"ll get the car. This is what the letter stated. As we are SLOWLY move
upwards in our job paths to non-qualifying positions, eventually all plan A
will be gone, but that's gonna take years! By then I probably won't care
as much about it.
I'm still amazed they had the guts to admit they made a mistake and
corrected it. Bravo!!
REgards,
Al
|
| 565.526 | Plan A for SWS is alive in Western Area. | SKITZD::FARLEE | Insufficient Virtual...um...er... | Tue Nov 15 1988 15:08 | 12 |
| I am in SWS in the Western Area, and it was spelled out to us
very clearly that any of us who were on plan A as of July 17 will
be allowed to remain on or rejoin plan A. That definately includes,
but is not limited to SWS.
It was also made clear that plan A is more expensive to the district,
and that they would prefer that we be on plan B, however there are
no black marks for staying on plan A. I suspect that if you push
a bit you will be allowed to stay on plan A, however you may not
be well thought of by your management. Could be a CLM, unless you
feel like moving west...
Kevin Farlee, Santa Clara SWS
|
| 565.527 | SWS? Plan A? Don't transfer to the NE Area, then! 8-( | MISFIT::DEEP | This NOTE's for you! | Wed Nov 16 1988 14:56 | 10 |
|
Plan A for SWS in the Northeast Area was dead a long time ago. I never
got the option. Now I find out (after buying a new car) that others in
my unit HAVE plan A cars. Of course, I feel second class. I'm glad
the company was big enough to admit their mistakes... now if we can only
get the Area Manager to do the same... From what I hear, I don't hold
much hope.
Bob
|
| 565.528 | It's all up to management... | GUIDUK::BURKE | ALL-IN-1: OA on the road to success | Wed Nov 16 1988 21:59 | 20 |
| Re: -.1
Don't feel too bad about it. A year or two ago management instituted
the same policy in my district. However, they were willing to make
"exceptions" under the right circumstances.
Please don't feel like a second class citizen. We also have plenty
of specialists, consultants, managers, sales people, etc. here that
long ago selected Plan B because it was "right" for them.
If you have a pretty good relationship with your management, you
may wish to come up with all the ways that you having a company car
will help them (and you). Then, in a positive manner, approach
them on it. You may be surprized at the result (but then you might
not be, but better to have tried and failed, then never to have
tried at all).
Good Luck,
Doug
|
| 565.529 | What's an 'exception'? | DPDMAI::AINSLEY | Less than 150 kts. is TOO slow! | Thu Nov 17 1988 09:52 | 14 |
| Re: .528
In the South Central Area, there are NO exceptions. Yours is the
first that I have heard of that makes exceptions. When I was hired,
I knew that some people had plan A, and that my only choice was
plan B. It didn't keep me from accepting the offer, but there is
a definite 'second class' feeling. I have no objection to those
people on plan A keeping their cars. It was one of their forms
of compensation when they were hired and they should be able to
keep it or be 'properly' compensated if the policy is changed.
And no, I don't think $200/mo is 'proper compensation' for people
on plan B or transitioning to plan B.
Bob
|
| 565.530 | Company paid business expense, not compensation | DR::BLINN | Doctor Who? | Fri Nov 18 1988 16:22 | 12 |
| This has been said before, but let me state it again for the
record: a "Plan A" car is *not* compensation. If it were,
the employee would be responsible for income taxes on the full
value of the "compensation". It is an employer-paid business
expense.
Please refrain from asserting, in this conference, that company
paid business expenses, of any kind, are untaxed compensation.
Thank you.
Tom
|
| 565.531 | | DPDMAI::AINSLEY | Less than 150 kts. is TOO slow! | Fri Nov 18 1988 17:19 | 18 |
| re: .530
When most people who qualified for plan A where hired, the person was
told the salary was $xxx and that a car was included. Most of the
time $xxx was less than the person could get at any other company.
Any intelligent person could tell that the car was intended to offset
the lower salary.
When I was hired about 16 months ago, I was told orally about the
fact that the position qualified for Plan B. My official offer
letter did not say anything about Plan B.
As the IRS has tightened up on the use of company-provided cars,
Digital has had to walk a smaller and smaller tight-rope to keep
out of trouble. The way offers are made today is different than
the way they were in the past.
Bob
|
| 565.532 | Thank you for your cooperation | DR::BLINN | Doctor Who? | Fri Nov 18 1988 17:39 | 30 |
| If the car were included in the salary, then you'd be being taxed
on the value of the car. The car isn't part of the salary, it has
never been a part of the salary (in spite of what you may believe,
or the informal way it may have been described to you), and it is
inappropriate to refer to it as part of the salary.
There would be no reason for your offer letter to say anything
explicit about any standard Digital-paid business expenses. They
are not part of your personal compensation and benefits package.
Rather, they are part of the way the corporation manages business
expenses. Some companies choose to take the attitude that a car
used for business is something they will not reimburse, and any
employee of such a company who fails to claim the cost of
operating a car for business purposes as an unreimbursed business
expense is a fool. Since all that claiming the unreimbursed
expense does is exempt you from having to pay taxes on it as
income (you don't get the expenses back), anyone who took a job,
at the same pay, where they had to pay 100% of the expenses for
the car they need to do the job would be a fool. But that doesn't
make the money Digital pays to provide the car you may need to do
your job a part of your Digital salary, nor is it a benefit.
"Any intelligent person" can tell that the car is a company paid
business expense, not something that's intended to offset a lower
salary. Writing statements that assert it is anything else will
not be tolerated further in this conference. Thank you for your
cooperation.
Tom
co-moderator
|
| 565.533 | How about $325 for Plan B, that could be the ticket! | WKRP::CHATTERJEE | Dr. Chat--from WKRP in Cincinnati | Fri Nov 18 1988 17:54 | 7 |
| Since many of us seem to be on Plan B, with no regression to Plan
A, is there any truth to the words that the $200 figure is about
to go up.......some say even to $300 or $325. The fact is that
after taxes, the $200 does not buy even a two-door Chevette with
all the Business Insurance needed, METPAY or no METPAY. If the
compnay wants voluntary migration to Plan B it has to sweeten the
pot, have bigger carrot, you get the picture.........
|
| 565.534 | Plan A is taxable! | MORONI::THOMSON | Mark Thomson | Fri Nov 18 1988 18:47 | 17 |
| Re: .-2 about the plan A car not being considered as salary.
Please note that one of the things that changed about plan A is
that the $30.00 per week that we pay on plan A is to cover our personal
use of the company-owned vehicle. If our personal use exceeds the
amount covered by this $30.00, the difference in will be included
as "income" on our W2 forms! Thus, it seems to me that like-it-or-not,
personal use of the plan A car is considered by the company and the IRS
as "income", and subject to income taxes! The question then still
exists: is this a benefit or a tool?
As a side note, I would like to see the company put out some guidelines
that indicate, based on your salary range, number of personal miles
per week, etc., what the income tax consequences of Plan A will
be. This could potentially make Plan B look more attractive...
|
| 565.535 | "Exceptions"... | GUIDUK::BURKE | ALL-IN-1: OA on the road to success | Fri Nov 18 1988 21:08 | 22 |
| Re: .529
In this district, we cover an area roughly 1/3 the size of the
Continental U. S., in the U. S. It is a very diverse area, and
requires a considerable amount of driving at times. For example,
my present residency is roughly 70-80 miles away from my home
as the car drives. Many times have I driven over 300 miles to a
customer site (and 300 back home again) for a two or three day
consulting period. Others 400 and more. It's not at all unusual.
Some of our specialists and sales people have been able to convince
management (as I understand it) that it would be unfair to place
this much milage on a personal vehicle. Others have managed to
pick up "used" company cars that still were within the 60K milage
and 3 year window, and management did not want the cars just lying
around (for whatever reason). Still others were in such financial
dispair, that management helped them resolve by letting them have
the company car. As I said, our management is willing to do the
"right thing" for it's people.
Doug
|
| 565.536 | Business expense only. | ALBANY::MULLER | | Sun Nov 20 1988 17:05 | 33 |
| RE 565.530, DR::BLINN
Tom,
I agree quite fully with your position that anything to do with a
company car is completely a business expense. I have tried to put this
forward in earlier notes - always seemed to get a push back about how
the IRS treats it as "everyone has to get to work, so that part of it
is a benefit."
I have been trying to remember what the name of Don Quixote's horse? I
have in mind an allegory wherein the company car is the horse. Guess
what (who) the windmill is.
The company supplies me with transportation so I can go directly to the
customer's location, rather than going to the office first. I guess
that DEC would loose an average of an hour a day of revenue for each
PSS software person if they all saluted at the office before leaving
for the trenches. That must, I say must, be the original reason the
first car was given to any employee. That has not changed and never
will. The IRS then wrote a rule, and I'd guess no one challenged it.
The car came back because it someone decided again that it made
business sense. Period.
Where I live (next door to the office or x miles away) has nothing
to do with it. Where I choose to live has nothing to do with it.
The company knew where I lived when they hired me nine years ago
and I certainly am appreciative of the Plan A car. But, like many
other replys in this note, they have gotten their money's worth.
Part of that was because they gave me the car! How's that for turning
the argument around?
Fred
|
| 565.537 | Please separate opinion from duty! | MISFIT::DEEP | The moving hand NOTEs, then having nit... | Mon Nov 21 1988 12:03 | 24 |
|
>> "Any intelligent person" can tell that the car is a company paid
>> business expense, not something that's intended to offset a lower
>> salary. Writing statements that assert it is anything else will
>> not be tolerated further in this conference. Thank you for your
>> cooperation.
>>
>> Tom
>> co-moderator
Tom, we would all apreciate it if you would not abuse you position, as a
co-moderator of this conference, to enforce your own opinions as to the
intelligence, or lack thereof, of anyone who accepted employment with
DEC under the impression that a company paid car plan was included.
Since you were not present at the interviews of all 122,000+ employees,
you have no way of knowing what what said. Although we all know the
"official" view of the Company Car plans, it is still offered as a perk,
and subject to consideration for a prospective employee, and may be
considered to offset a lower salary, and mentioned as such during the
interviews.
Bob
|
| 565.538 | We're intelligent; let's try to be precise | DR::BLINN | There's a penguin on the telly.. | Mon Nov 21 1988 13:00 | 71 |
| Bob, the reference to "any intelligent person" was taken from the
preceding reply, in which it was asserted that "any intelligent
person" could tell that access to a company-provided car for use
in carrying out work that requires lots of driving is part of the
compensation and benefits.
Let me try to explain why I think it's important that we be more
precise about this in future discussion in this conference.
IRS regulations specify what may and what may not be reimbursed as
a business expense. They also specify rules about what's taxable
income. The rules are complex, and sometimes the IRS gets nasty
about people it thinks are trying to bend the rules.
No one should assert, in this conference, that Digital is
providing a company car as part of someone's salary or as a
benefit when it is being provided as a means of paying a business
expense. People have been informally referring to the various
"car plans" as compensation or benefits. They are not. I'm
asking people to be more precise in their future written discourse
in this conference.
When people accept employment with any company, they consider a
number of factors. Obviously, if extensive use of a car is a
requirement to carry out the job, then one factor an intelligent
person would weigh into their decision is whether the employer
provides the car, provides reimbursement to the employee for the
use of the employee's car, or does neither.
Digital currently offers several alternatives, none of which is
"neither". Some companies only offer the "neither" alternative,
and people who work for those companies are sometimes paid higher
salaries, part of which goes to cover the unreimbursed expense of
operating a car to support the employer's business. I don't
dispute this. (The IRS has special rules to cover this case.)
In the first case, if the employer allows the employee to use the
employer-provided car for non-business purposes, this additional
use of the car could, quite reasonably, be viewed as compensation,
and in fact is viewed that way by the IRS. I don't think that's
what we're discussing here. I certainly hope that no one was ever
told by a hiring manager that Digital would provide them with a
car for their personal use, outside their work responsibilities,
and that Digital would not expect to be reimbursed for the non-
business use, because it was part of the employee's compensation,
or was provided as a company-paid benefit.
Since Digital doesn't (deliberately) provide use of a "company"
car as part of the standard compensation or benefits for field
employees (who often need to make extensive use of a car in
the normal discharge of their duties), it's inappropriate to
say that that's what's been happening.
What Digital has provided in the past is a choice among several
methods of getting reimbursed for the business expense associated
with operating a car to carry out Digital's business. One method
("Plan A") has been for Digital to provide the car, and for the
employee to pay for non-business use. Another method ("Plan B")
has been for the employee to provide the car, and Digital to pay
for business use. Another variation, informally called "Plan C",
has applied for people whose jobs only require occasional use of a
car. None of these is part of the "compensation and benefits"
package that Digital provides; they are all a way of reimbursing
business expenses.
Please be precise in describing the car plans, and don't confuse
reimbursed business expenses with compensation and benefits.
Thanks.
Tom
|
| 565.539 | OFFICIAL .ne. perception & reality | DLOACT::RESENDE | Happily Maui'ed! | Mon Nov 21 1988 14:02 | 18 |
| Re: last several
I think we all understand what the "offical" party line is on Plan A.
But what you're hearing is that some number of folks were apparently
told (I was, by two levels of management), by Digital managers during
the hiring process that they should consider the Plan A car
compensation.
Right or wrong, and yes they shouldn't have said that, and we all know
the IRS view, but the Plan A program was apparently presented as an
offset to salary compensation. And I hope that this is no longer
taking place.
I believe that a parge portion of the uproar that was heard in July
with the demise of Plan A was that loss of perceived compensation.
And for lots of folks, perceptions are reality.
|
| 565.540 | Not a singular allegation | DENTON::AMARTIN | Alan H. Martin | Mon Nov 21 1988 17:26 | 7 |
| Re .538:
BTW, reply .539 is at least the *5th* note in this topic by distinct people
which contains the assertion that a car plan was portrayed as compensation by
their hiring management. So please take greater care to distinguish policy from
practice in future pronouncements.
/AHM/THX
|
| 565.541 | ken O. did know | WINERY::RAINS | | Mon Nov 21 1988 19:59 | 18 |
| RE:565.515 DID KEN KNOW??
I sent two letters to the usfmt and d. grainger, j shields, j sims,
j.osterhoff and k. olsen.
My first letter dealt with initial announcement and how it affected
me. After a reply from rick catino, I talked about every thing that
came to mind regarding the new plan.
I also told my listeners about this note and all the feeling that
are evident reading these notes. Smile, you're on Candid Camera.....
I KNOW they got at least one letter
hope it helped.
ken
|
| 565.542 | fools | WINERY::BOUCHARKE | Ken Bouchard WRO3-2 521-3018 | Mon Nov 21 1988 20:34 | 12 |
|
.532> "Any intelligent person" can tell that the car is a company paid
.532> business expense, not something that's intended to offset a lower
.532> salary. Writing statements that assert it is anything else will
.532> not be tolerated further in this conference. Thank you for your
.532> cooperation.
.532>
Boy,you sure told us! Call me a fool.
|
| 565.543 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon Nov 28 1988 18:04 | 32 |
| .532> "Any intelligent person" can tell that the car is a company paid
.532> business expense, not something that's intended to offset a lower
.532> salary. Writing statements that assert it is anything else will
.532> not be tolerated further in this conference. Thank you for your
.532> cooperation.
I'm not going to assert that the car is/was anything else. However, you are
as aware as anyone else that prior to recent crackdowns by the I.R.S., it was
not at all uncommon (in companies *other* than DEC) for such things that are
so obviously business expenses -- such as *expense*accounts* to be considered
_perks_. "He has a sales job with a commission and an expense account" is an
expression that can be found in many fifties and sixties movies and television
shows.
In U.K. society, a company car is clearly considered a perk, although Inland
Revenue is beginning to crack down there, too.
Thus, when a company car is discussed with a new hire, especially someone
fresh out of college and unfamiliar with tax law, mention of a company car,
even though it is certainly a business expense, just like an expense account,
is something that a candidate will use when weighing two offers against each
other.
It's even more of an inducement when you receive a letter offering, in writing,
as I did, a job of software specialist in such-and-such an office, with a salary
of $n and a company car.
Now that was over 13 years ago, and such letters are no longer written, but the
prospect of having a company car is certainly as important to some as having a
terminal on our own desk is to others.
/john
|
| 565.544 | It's sooner than you think. | DWOVAX::YOUNG | Great Cthulu Starry Wisdom Band | Tue Nov 29 1988 23:58 | 12 |
| Re .543:
>It's even more of an inducement when you receive a letter offering, in writing,
>as I did, a job of software specialist in such-and-such an office, with a salary
>of $n and a company car.
>
>Now that was over 13 years ago, and such letters are no longer written, but the
Gee, I joined the company about 4 1/2 years ago and I got one of
those. In fact I believe that almost everyone I know in the field
who was hired up until about 2 years ago received the same knid
of letter.
|
| 565.545 | | BHAJEE::JAERVINEN | ORA, the Old Rural Amateur. | Wed Nov 30 1988 03:44 | 37 |
| re .543:
>In U.K. society, a company car is clearly considered a perk,
>although Inland Revenue is beginning to crack down there, too.
There are other countries where policies are also a bit different.
Attached is an extract from the car policy in Finland (taken from VTX).
It's in Finnish, but the first sentence translates roughly to
"The car allowance is bound to the job and is a part of total
compensation".
It then goes on to define the allowances for 1988 (FIM 2250, 2700,
or 3400 depeding on job level). (This makes about $550, $650 and
$830 per month).
TOIMISTOK�SIKIRJA 12.
AUTOPOLITIIKKA VUODELLE 1988
26.01.1988
1. Car allowance
Car allowance (autoraha) on toimikohtainen ja osa
kokonaiskompensaatiota. Car allowancen suuruus ja
sis�lt� m��r�ytyy markkinak�yt�nn�n mukaan. Markki-
noilla ymm�rret��n t�ss� tietotekniikka-alan
kansainv�lisi� yrityksi�. Vuoden 1988 Car allowancet
ovat seuraavat (viime vuoden allowancet suluissa):
2.250 mk/kk (2.150 mk/kk), 2.700 mk/kk (2.550 mk/kk)
ja 3.400 mk/kk (3.250 mk/kk). Kahdessa ensimm�isess�
ryhm�ss� on kysymyksess� auton k�ytt�etu, kolmannessa
vapaa autoetu.
|
| 565.546 | Its the look and feel that counts to one's common sense | SRFSUP::GOETZE | I write the ALL-IN-1 viruses | Wed Nov 30 1988 23:05 | 100 |
| re: the interpretation of "compensation"
I think we've been over this ground quite a few times already, and I can't
believe the attitude of the co-moderator Tom. Are we going to be censored
because our points of view don't correspond to his brand of truth? When
I first read his replies 565.330, .332 and .338, I felt he was using his
moderator privileges to enforce the discussion to follow his viewpoint.
Then the thought occurred to me that he must just like to be mauled in public.
I may not enter any more replies here since it no longer feels like a safe
place to have discussions.
I still contend that the company car plan A, to borrow a phrase, "looks and
feels" like compensation, if only in the sense that we in the field are being
compensated ("adjusted", "balanced out", or "made up") for some of the
incredible demands that Digital sometimes places on us.
>> This has been said before, but let me state it again for the
>> record: a "Plan A" car is *not* compensation.
I agree that under a court of law, a plan A car would not appear to be
"compensation". Have these notes files become courts? I think not. We're
talking about a holistic view of what "compensation" means to many employees.
Is there room for feelings, perceptions, off-the-record contracts, or reports
on how things used to be?
>> Please refrain from asserting, in this conference, that company
>> paid business expenses, of any kind, are untaxed compensation.
This is unbelievable. I'll assert whatever I feel like. You can throw me out,
but then you'll be revealed for what you really are.
>> If the car were included in the salary, then you'd be being taxed
>> on the value of the car. The car isn't part of the salary, it has
>> never been a part of the salary ...
Well I've heard this line enough times to puke by now. Why don't the moderator-
committee post the above as the welcome notice to this conference, or just
cease and desist with this by-the-book interpretation of every word? Are
employees taxed on the frequent flyer miles they accumulate while on company
business? Are they taxed on the rental value of those terminals, modems, and
VAXstations being utilized at DEC employee homes across the U.S.? Of course
not. And don't tell me that the same free tickets and equipment is never ever
used for personal purposes. Are we going to be taxed for the computer and
network cost to read our favorite (non-work) notes file? The IRS can't
possibly tax every little detail, or we'd all suffocate in taxual trivia.
>> "Any intelligent person" can tell that the car is a company paid
>> business expense, not something that's intended to offset a lower
>> salary. Writing statements that assert it is anything else will
>> not be tolerated further in this conference. Thank you for your
>> cooperation.
I can accept not speculating in here about why the stock price varies day to
day. But this is too much. "not tolerated"? Lets see some real moderation here.
We ARE becoming more like IBM every day if this is the noting norm.
>> No one should assert, in this conference, that Digital is
>> providing a company car as part of someone's salary or as a
>> benefit when it is being provided as a means of paying a business
>> expense.
>>
>> I'm asking people to be more precise in their future written discourse
>> in this conference.
Why? Was anyone planning on extracting this notes file to support their IRS
return in case of audit? I think not. Precision is fine but the previous notes
sound like we're being told by a lawyer not to ever say something, even if it
contradicts some of our personal experiences.
>> Since Digital doesn't (deliberately) provide use of a "company"
>> car as part of the standard compensation or benefits for field
>> employees (who often need to make extensive use of a car in
>> the normal discharge of their duties), it's inappropriate to
>> say that that's what's been happening.
It strikes me that depending on your point of view, this notes file is riddled
with inappropriate statements. From another point of view, this notes file
contains many people's thoughts, feelings and perceptions about working for
Digital. For someone to judge my thoughts, feelings and perceptions as
"inappropriate" is inappropriate, I feel.
>> Please be precise in describing the car plans, and don't confuse
>> reimbursed business expenses with compensation and benefits.
So are we being monitored by lawyers of the IRS? I for one do not care
to participate in a notes file where we must sharpen our every sentence to
achieve legal-perfect precision (i.e., obfuscation in large words so that
nothing is clear). English is inherently an ambiguous language, and
furthermore our human senses add another filter to reality.
regards and happy noting,
erik g.
|
| 565.547 | I've seen too much of this lately | SMAUG::GARROD | An Englishman's mind works best when it is almost too late | Thu Dec 01 1988 16:47 | 24 |
| Re .-1
I sympathise with you. In far to many conferences the moderators
suddenly get this sense of power and think it is their God given
responsibility to make grandiose statements about what the affect
of Digital employees ramblings in a notesfile would do to Digital
in some mythical lawsuit.
Apparently if anybody even dare utters that they had understood
that their car was a sort of compensation this will have dire and
black consequences on the company.
A similar thing happens in the MARKETING notesfile but here the
zealots see who can be first to hide a note that even dares to intonate
that Digital might release another computer hardware or software
product in the future.
The old give people a little responsibility and they think they're
God. Like MIS departments who are started up to serve the business
needs of the company but run themselves under the tenet that the
business needs of the company have to fit into their model of how
an MIS department should be.
Dave
|
| 565.548 | Another 2 cents' worth on over-moderation | DLOACT::RESENDEP | following the yellow brick road... | Thu Dec 01 1988 17:33 | 11 |
| RE: the last few
Like it or not, Mr. Moderator, many (most??) of us were told either
verbally or in writing by Digital management that the company car was
part of our compensation. That is not an allegation, it is a fact, and
I fail to see how stating that fact here or in any other VAX Notes
conference is in any way inappropriate. The irresponsible actions
of the managers who told us that were certainly inappropriate, but
discussing what we were told is not!
Pat
|
| 565.549 | :-) | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Thu Dec 01 1988 22:52 | 2 |
| When Dr. Blinn gets back from his seminar tomorrow morning, boy is he going to
enjoy reading this topic!
|
| 565.550 | Whew! | DPDMAI::AINSLEY | Less than 150 kts. is TOO slow! | Thu Dec 01 1988 23:08 | 9 |
| Let me say some things in public that I have said to a few people
in private. When I first had my head-on collision with Mr. Blinn
several replies back, I thought I had done something horribly wrong.
I've only worked for Digital for about 1.5 years and I have managed
to stuff my foot and most of my leg down my throat twice in the
past. I thought, "Oh no, haven't I learned anything?". I'm relieved
to learn that I didn't behave as poorly as I thought.
Bob
|
| 565.551 | | BINKLY::WINSTON | Jeff Winston (Hudson, MA) | Thu Dec 01 1988 23:21 | 12 |
| I also have been struck by the "doctor" a few times. My perception
was that my crime was either opinions different than his or expressing
these opinions in a manner other than what he preferred. In most of
the conferences I participate in, I am barely aware of who the
moderators are, that was true for DIGITAL as well, until....
I'm sure Tom's a great guy in person, but were I to give advice, I
would explain to him how easily notes can be misinterpreted without
the ability to convey tone or body language. In this sort of
situation, I believe a moderator should be more light-handed.
regards /j
|
| 565.552 | So many barricades... | CHEFS::HASTONM | Truth and Extensionality | Fri Dec 02 1988 04:58 | 6 |
| This is getting overheated.
Perhaps a topic #565 holiday?
A moment of reflection and consolidation?
Mark
|
| 565.553 | Just a thought... :>) | YUPPIE::COLE | Do it right, NOW, or do it over LATER! | Fri Dec 02 1988 07:51 | 4 |
| RE: .-1
How about making a rule that when the number of replies equals the
number of the TOPIC, we give it a rest for a few weeks? :>) :>) :>) :>)
|
| 565.554 | We need invisible moderators | SERPNT::SONTAKKE | Vikas Sontakke | Fri Dec 02 1988 08:19 | 4 |
| Can the the actions of moderators be discussed in another conference?
For example the MODERATOR conference??
- Vikas
|
| 565.555 | | CVG::THOMPSON | Notes? What's Notes? | Fri Dec 02 1988 09:44 | 15 |
| RE: .554 The MODERATOR conference is not really the place for
discussion of specific moderator actions At least that is the
opinion of several of the moderators and participants in that
conference. I suppose that almost anything including DIGITAL
moderation could be discussed in SOAPBOX.
There is some discussion about moderator responsibility to the
corporation in the MODERATORS conference that makes interesting
reading though. Like it or not this conference is a corporate
document and may be used in a court of law. While I have no reason
to believe that this topic will be used in a suit I have no reason
to believe that it will not. I know for a fact that things from
notes conferences *have* been used in at least threats of legal action.
Alfred
|
| 565.556 | suggestion | CLOSET::KEEFE | | Fri Dec 02 1988 10:56 | 25 |
| Re .555 - How about a note in this conference entitled:
Comments on Moderation of this Conference
Just a suggestion though. I'm brave enough to reply, but too scared
to open a whole new note. :-) Seems to me such a discussion is needed
in this conference though, not in SOAPBOX.
As to the suggestion that it's okay to discuss something in SOAPBOX
that is dangerous to discuss in DIGITAL, what's the difference?
Are you saying that the DIGITAL conference is a 'corporate document',
but that SOAPBOX is not? When did this happen? I thought DIGITAL
was a forum for discussing the company, not a legal document.
It is after all for internal use only. When did that cease to be
a sufficient disclaimer. Seems to me it happened when a new moderator
showed up, and is not related to any legal change in the status
of notes.
Maybe it's worth adding the disclaimer 'the opinions expressed in
this notes conference do not represent...etc', to placate the paranoid.
Neil
|
| 565.557 | | NOVA::M_DAVIS | Beyond the ridiculous to the sublime... | Fri Dec 02 1988 13:07 | 3 |
| Internal memos are subject to discovery motions in a suit.
Marge
|
| 565.558 | memoes are different | CLOSET::KEEFE | | Fri Dec 02 1988 14:15 | 8 |
| Re .557 -
What's an internal memo - something with DIGITAL INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
at the top, right? Those are different from notes from employees
expressing their own opinion, aren't they?
Sure, Digital's going to be sued because Joe Employee thought cars
were compensation and said so in a notes file.
|
| 565.559 | on moderation | EAGLE1::EGGERS | Tom, VAX & MIPS architecture | Fri Dec 02 1988 17:11 | 52 |
| Re: .557
Anything at all at Digital, written (hardcopy or electronic) or
otherwise, is subject to legal discovery if somebody sues Digital, can
describe the object or material sufficiently well to a judge, and can
persuade the judge it is relevant to the case. It doesn't matter
whether it says DIGITAL INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM or not. It doesn't
matter whether it is in a "work" or "employee interest" conference.
If opinions (or alleged facts) are expressed by a sufficient number of
employees, or attributed to Digital by an employee (either explicitly
or by loose wording), then a lawyer can TRY to persuade a judge or jury
that the opinion (or fact) is an official policy or action of the
corporation. The lawyer may or may not be successful in his persuasive
efforts. If he is successful, then Digital stands to lose something,
perhaps dollars or reputation or something else.
It is the moderators' job to help protect the corporation from being
sued (or at least successfully sued) by the use or misuse of
information in the notes conferences they moderate.
I don't think there will be much disagreement with the above. (There
will probably be some; there always is.)
However, there will be considerable disagreement about what statements
are potentially injurious to the corporation. Some moderators will be
very stringent; others will be very liberal. Since a moderator is
human, he may not even be completely consistent. He even make mistakes
sometimes. But all of the moderators (or at least the vast majority)
are trying to "do the right thing" as they understand it. The
understanding varies widely from moderator to moderator since very few
have a legal background, and the degree of paranoia also varies. So on
any particular issue, there is likely to be a wide range of opinions,
many of which conflict with the others.
The moderators must still operate in spite of being human and not being
legal experts. (Some might say that's redundant.) The principal
moderator, the one who hosts the conference on his own hardware, has a
particular responsibility.
The conclusion of all of this is that it is the moderators'
responsibility to make the final decisions. Noters who disagree should
express, in MODERATE tones, their disagreement and the reasons why they
disagree. If that isn't sufficient, then drop it. Flaming about
something, or harping on it from conference to conference, simply
doesn't do anybody any good. (No, please don't infer I'm saying
anything about any specific person in this topic. I'm not.)
Personally, I didn't see anything untoward in the last bunch of notes,
and I guess I don't agree with the moderator who objected. But his
level of paranoia can reasonably differ from mine, and I don't see it
as a big deal. It isn't my responsibility in any case.
|
| 565.560 | Help! Help! The rats are dragging me dowwwwwnnnn... | GUIDUK::BURKE | I break for no apparent reason | Fri Dec 02 1988 23:55 | 25 |
| The last 10 or so notes have been exceptionally entertaining (I
just about burst out laughing when I got to John's .549), and I'm
*SURE* that the moderators would not think of sensoring them.
However, (and of course as ususual this is my own opinion), I really
do think that this particular topic has gotten *EXCEPTIONALLY* big.
I'd really like to see it specifically addressing the base issue
myself, but I also really want to see all these other great opinions
(and I really do mean that).
I would myself would not be adverse to the moderators moving the
last 10 or so replies to a new topic (similar to the suggestion
of .556). They could leave .546 in place, and make .547 a pointer
to the other replies, so that everyone can see them, but
under a topic more fitting than the Car Plan topic.
The reason I say this here, instead of just sending a message to
the moderators is that if I were a moderator right now, I would
feel that anything I did to the last several notes would make me
look like the dictator that some of those notes describe. Therefore,
I am suggesting it as an independent observer.
Disagreements? Comments? Shotguns?
Doug
|
| 565.561 | ...As long as we're going down this rathole anyway... 8-) | MISFIT::DEEP | The moving hand NOTEs, then having nit... | Mon Dec 05 1988 09:50 | 19 |
|
Well, since the moderator will move all this anyway... if he hasn't
said "Nuts to this, I quit!"... 8^)
I have a real problem with Digitals legal eagles if they can't put forth
a successful defense of hearsay evidence... which is all this notesfile is.
It is a file of unofficial opinions from the various employees, based on
their own ideas, overheard conversation, rumors, etc... all of which is
simply hearsay and speculation, and thus inadmissable as evidence. The only
file that would have really been a liability was Sexcetera, only because
of the potential to prove sexual harassment by distributing its contents
to those who did not care to be exposed to it. (I also believe that that
was the reason it was closed down.)
Notes is a great forum for communication... and communication is what
separates Digital from the rest of the pack...
Bob
|
| 565.562 | end of note... | BAHTAT::PATTERSON | | Tue Dec 06 1988 09:54 | 7 |
| RE: 565.562!
1)drive & enjoy DECmobile,
2)don't worry, be happy!
3)end
Keith
|
| 565.563 | Moved by Moderator | CVG::THOMPSON | Notes? What's Notes? | Wed Dec 07 1988 11:01 | 28 |
| -< The DEC way of working >-
================================================================================
Note XXX.0 IRS views DEC Differently? 3 replies
BMT::GTRUTT 23 lines 7-DEC-1988 09:03
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are the IRS rules diff. for DEC than they are for KODAK ?
I know someone there (KODAK) who has a company car. After they figure their
expenses at the end of the week they multiple their personal mileage
by 22.5 cents and subtract it from business miles. The result is,
in doing so ,they satisfy the IRS requirements regarding employee
personal use of company car.
You and I (for those of us who have a comp. car) and given some
complex explaintion, from somewhere in DEC LA-LA land, about how this
plan must be implemented.
People, we are subsidizing those individuals that are driving 2000
mi's a week personal. And then on top of that if we exceed some
predetermined ceiling on personal mi's it will be added to our W-2.
I think this all fits into the same category of (bull___t) that
DEC management was trying to feed us when they were trying to take
away the company car plan.
The rules are different for DEC than they are for KODAK? -guess
again!
|
| 565.564 | yes it does | CVG::THOMPSON | Notes? What's Notes? | Wed Dec 07 1988 11:03 | 5 |
| ================================================================================
Note 675.1 Moving to topic 565 1 of 3
SMOOT::ROTH "I8NY" 0 lines 7-DEC-1988 09:43
-< doesn't this belong in note 565.* ?? >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| 565.565 | moved by moderator | CVG::THOMPSON | Notes? What's Notes? | Wed Dec 07 1988 11:04 | 26 |
| ================================================================================
Note XXX.2 Moving to topic 565 2 of 3
YUPPIE::COLE "Do it right, NOW, or do it over LATER!" 21 lines 7-DEC-1988 09:57
-< Couldn't resist a picking a nit....:>) >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
< Note 675.0 by BMT::GTRUTT >
> I know someone there (KODAK) who has a company car. After they figure their
> expenses at the end of the week they multiple their personal mileage
> by 22.5 cents and subtract it from business miles. The result is,
^
|
|
___________________________________|
|
|
Of course, you meant "expenses" here! Miles - Dollars doesn't
compute! :>)
Indeed, until about 10 years ago or so, DEC did it that way, only it
was $.05 or $.09, or so. Made you take your pocket calculator to the gas pump
every Saturday to only put in just enough to even-steven the balance!
Let's say the average personal usage is 400 miles per week, given
commutes, lunch trips, etc. That's a $90 per week hit on the user, break even
or not. That would cause me to look at alternatives!
|
| 565.566 | | CVG::THOMPSON | Notes? What's Notes? | Wed Dec 07 1988 11:05 | 24 |
| ================================================================================
Note XXX.3 Moving to topic 565 3 of 3
WKRP::CHATTERJEE "Give me 1,000,000,000 MIPs, Sulu" 19 lines 7-DEC-1988 10:37
-< Have Plan B, will travel, do not pass IRS, do not collect $ >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's say the average personal usage is 400 miles per week, given
commutes, lunch trips, etc. That's a $90 per week hit on the user, break even
or not. That would cause me to look at alternatives!
Ref: above
Yes, there is an alternative. It is called plan B. I think Plan
A is a convoluted way of going in the hole and getting used to cars
which are not really yours. I calculated long ago that I would rather
have a car of my choice, get the monthly fixed $ plus the .08 cents per
business mile all straight and clean, than pay $ back every week,
go through 'now you see it now you don't cars', and have bucks show
up in W-2 as a surprise for personal miles above some mystic number.
Think about it, drive all the personal miles you want without thinking
'am I going too far', literally. Go Plan B, mathematically and
for your personal peace with the IRS.
|
| 565.567 | I like my DEC-MOBILE | MAMTS1::TAMICO | | Thu Dec 08 1988 10:25 | 22 |
| Since the reinstatement of plan "A" this session has turned into
a "HEN CLUCKING" session. The situation boils down to this.
1. If you don't like "A" plan, you can go to "B" plan.
2. If you don't like the "Dec-mobile" go to plan "B"
3. If you want to put personal miles on the car and don't want to
pay for it or deal with IRS, go to plan "B".
Whats wrong with having a plan "A" Dec-mobile and using it to conduct
DIGITAL EQUIP business at the customers site, keeping all equipment
thats needed to conduct above business in the Dec-mobile. (Manuals,
tools, parts) Take said Dec-mobil home at nite and then use your
personal auto for personal business.
The $30.00 a week is to cover commuting expense. (to and from
the office)
Realize one thing. IRS has changed the rules in which we play,
and the intensity in which they enforce the rules.
Since plan "A" was reinstated some people here didn't like what
to coordinator said about the car being a buisness vehicle and not
a benifit and then attacked him. gripe, gripe,gripe,
As we said in the service, "Take your Tough Sh__ card to the chaplain
and have him punch it for you"
|
| 565.568 | Its what the world sees day to day | SRFSUP::GOETZE | Erik Goetze: writer, photographer, poet, S/W specialist | Thu Dec 08 1988 20:27 | 20 |
| Well The Plan A vehicle may not be part of one's "compensation",
but look what really happens...
I, who formerly drove a 1971 VW van, arrive home in LA with my new
Ford Taurus. My neighbor is impressed. He asks me "hey, did ya get
a raise or what?" I, being the master of understatement, merely
smile and amble up the front steps of my home. In traffic, I no
longer suffer from having the smallest h.p. to weight ratio in
the free world...
Now what really counts in your mind, some lawyers gobble-speak
(hen-cluckings indeed), or my sense of inproved standard of living?
Now admittedly, this scenario doesn't necessarily apply to sales
reps who previously drove fine cars, or people who are already rich
and like to work at DEC as a hobby...
erik
|
| 565.569 | There are Benefits and then there are benefits... | HOCUS::KOZAKIEWICZ | Shoes for industry | Tue Dec 20 1988 13:48 | 18 |
| Some may call it "hen-clucking", but consider this:
My interview with DEC 6 years ago was conducted by the (then) District
Manager. DM's have been around the block a few times and it is
rather natural to presume, especially for an outsider, that they are
well steeped in DEC's business practices. During the interview
process, when it came time to discuss salary, Mr. DM said to me,
and I quote, "how about $nnK and a car?"
I concur with the view that a car is a tool and not compensation.
But that position is derived from 6 years of understanding "how
the system works". Someone tell me why any reasonably intelligent
and non-paranoid person would *not* construe a verbal "offer" of
a car, like that given to me at the time of my interview, as one
of the advantages of working for DEC.
/Al
|
| 565.570 | what did the letter say? | EAGLE1::EGGERS | Tom, VAX & MIPS architecture | Tue Dec 20 1988 15:48 | 2 |
| Do you then get a follow up letter naming a salary?
Did it include a car?
|
| 565.571 | How about another kind of tool? | WD8EHB::WOODBURY | Atlanta Networks/VMS Support | Tue Dec 20 1988 16:53 | 4 |
| Re .570:
When they made you your offer, did it include a work station at your
desk? ;^) Was it put in writing?
|
| 565.572 | BC | EAGLE1::EGGERS | Tom, VAX & MIPS architecture | Tue Dec 20 1988 17:02 | 9 |
| In 1964? From Gordon Bell? Are you kidding?
I did finally get a letter from Win Hindle,
as director of personnel. Since there was
no agreement other than salary, there wasn't
much to go back on.
I also got $500 for the un-paid work I had already
done on DDT for the PDP-6. It finished paying my
MIT tuition for the term.
|
| 565.573 | | DWOVAX::YOUNG | Sharing is what Digital does best. | Wed Dec 21 1988 00:52 | 7 |
| Re .570:
Yes, I did receive such a letter. And I have it to this very day.
And lets not forget, these letters are composed by the SWS managers
(or whatever group) but are actually issued (and reviewed) by
personnel.
|
| 565.574 | Another Memo from Management | MSDSWS::HENDERSON | Mark Henderson @NOO | Wed Dec 21 1988 10:20 | 43 |
| The following memo was sent to all Software Specialists in the Southern
Area be the Area Vice President. Hopefully, we'll see more equitable
guidelines by the end of the year.
I N T E R O F F I C E M E M O R A N D U M
Date: 1-Dec-1988 01:06pm CST
From: Al Pink @RHQ
PINK.AL AT A1 at SAHQ at ATO
Dept: Southern Area SWS
Tel No: DTN 351-2470
TO: Use the SH option to see addressees
Subject: Company Car Plan Update
********************************************************************************
Please ensure this memo gets to all Software Service
employees who are currently on either of the Car Plans.
********************************************************************************
Recently I have received a lot of feedback from the District Managers regarding
the announced changes in the car plan over the last five (5) months. As a
result of their feedback and concerns I met with Bill Ferry to elevate the
key issues. Bill is concerned about these issues and has committed to a
review of the current SWS guidelines. I believe this review will be completed
in December and a consistent and equitable set of guidelines for the U.S. will
be forthcoming.
I appreciate the elevation of the issues which will allow us to come up
with an equitable approach for everyone.
Regards,
Al Pink
ADP:sa
|
| 565.575 | Merry X-Mas... | SRFSUP::GOLDSMITH | Only 64.6% of my former self... | Tue Dec 27 1988 23:11 | 62 |
|
I N T E R O F F I C E M E M O R A N D U M
Date: 22-Dec-1988 12:55pm PDT
From: Bill Ferry @MRO
FERRY.WILLIAM AT A1 AT FLOS AT MRO
Dept: U.S. SWS
Tel No: DTN: 297-3700
TO: See Below
Subject: CAR PLAN
=============================================================================
THIS MESSAGE IS FROM USSWSMT
(Please Communicate This Message To All Management and Car Plan
Eligible Employees In your Organization.)
==============================================================================
The U.S. Field Management Team made a strategic decision some time ago to move
away from the company managed fleet program, Car Plan A, and to make Car
Plan B a more desirable choice. Consistent with this strategic direction,
U.S. Software Services made a decision in early 1987 to offer new hires Car
Plan B and gradually migrate Plan A participants to Plan B.
In July 1988, USFMT announced the new Car Plan B strategy to all Fleet Plan
participants. While the improved Plan B was attractive to many employees,
many of you took the time to communicate honest concerns with this strategy.
Based on this constructive feedback, the USFMT made a decision in October
1988 to reinstate Car Plan A as a choice for eligible employees.
In line with this revised USFMT direction, U.S. Software Services has
re-evaluated its earlier decision. Based upon sincere employee input and a
careful study of our operational requirements we have decided to reinstate
Plan A for all eligible employees. Therefore, effective immediately:
1. Eligible employees in U.S. Software Services may now choose to participate
in either Car Plan A or B.
2. Future new hires eligible to participate in the company's car
plans will be able to choose Car Plan A or B.
Our intention has been, and continues to be, to provide effective car plans
for those eligible employees who require a vehicle as a business tool to
perform their job.
Thank you for your continued support and hard work and on behalf of the entire
organization, have a safe and enjoyable holiday season.
Regards.
Distribution:
<Deleted>
[Seems like we can all use the same tool box now... NG]
|
| 565.576 | Yea! | DPDMAI::AINSLEY | Less than 150 kts. is TOO slow! | Wed Dec 28 1988 11:46 | 8 |
| I'm surprised. (maybe I shouldn't have been). In fact, I think
I'm overwhelmed. Since I've only been an employee for about 18
months, I never really experienced the 'old' Digital that keeps
getting mentioned, but if this is an example of the 'New' Digital,
I think it will work out just fine. It's nice to see a mistake
corrected, even if it took a while.
Bob
|
| 565.577 | Well, almost, but not quite... | BOSTON::SOHN | almost thirtysomething | Wed Dec 28 1988 11:59 | 10 |
| Actually, this is not the final, definitive word. There are some new
restrictions coming down the pike, according to my DM, and should
arrive this week. I wouldn't be surprised to see a minimum mileage
requirement, or even a job code level requirement.
This is very recent - the DM gathered the UMs on Thursday to tell them
about this - my UM was very surprised that the Bill Ferry memo was
already in Notesland.
I'm keeping my fingers crossed, but not my breath held.
|
| 565.578 | Great news | SRFSUP::GOETZE | Erik Goetze: writer, photographer, poet, S/W specialist | Wed Dec 28 1988 12:48 | 11 |
| Well I'm glad that the longstanding unfairness in SWS with regard
to new specialists vs. old specialists (ones with plan A cars /
ones hired too recently to qualify) has been eliminated (apparantly).
Notice that the key word "eligible" was left as a sort of escape
clause or deliberate ambiguity much like those carefully worded
UN declarations. I'd love to see the firm definition of "eligible".
I guess we can stop quibbling over "benefit" vs. "tool", unless
someone really has a need to argue.
erik
|
| 565.579 | Implementation of these new Plan still an Area level decision ??? | WKRP::CHATTERJEE | Flexible-so not bent out of shape | Wed Dec 28 1988 21:32 | 3 |
| Just as a point of interest, I am told that whether new employees
get Plan A or not will still depend on the individual Area level
directives. This is what I heard TODAY. So, what gives?
|
| 565.580 | | GUIDUK::B_WOOD | Where Oh where has my DEC-20 gone? | Thu Dec 29 1988 00:02 | 23 |
| re: .551 - All those who blast the DR.
Remember, he is really a DR., and he is smarter than you!
ASK DR. BLINN
All those of use who've known Tom for years remember and enjoy
his writing and conversation. As a young Tops-20 Systems
Programmer attending the immortal St. Louis DECUS in May 1983.
I was stunned that he seemed to agree with Digital's Decision
to terminate the Jupiter (or 4050). His words, "I don't want
to support a computer that runs 1000 terminals when it crashes".
He was at Banker's Trust Co at the time.
His SPR's in the TOPS-20 dispatch also coined a new term:
"BLINNGRAMS"
re: .575
I'm impressed with the reaction of our management. I wonder
how many of them have read this conference.
|
| 565.581 | | DPDMAI::AINSLEY | Less than 150 kts. is TOO slow! | Thu Dec 29 1988 09:46 | 32 |
| > < Note 565.580 by GUIDUK::B_WOOD "Where Oh where has my DEC-20 gone?" >
-< ASK DR. BLINN, he's really a DR (PHD) >-
> re: .551 - All those who blast the DR.
> Remember, he is really a DR., and he is smarter than you!
> ASK DR. BLINN
This is NOT an attack on Tom Blinn.
I didn't see any smiley-faces on the above, so I can only interpret
that to mean you are serious. Just because a person has a title,
doesn't mean that person is all-knowing or necessarily smarter than
me. A title quite often means that the person is an expert in a
very highly specialized area. It says nothing about that person
as a whole. We have all heard the stories about Einstein being
forgetful, failing various math courses, etc.
My wife is an R.N. Yet, you would never know that unless you ask
her. I respect her opinions in that area, but at the same time,
she knows very little about financial matters, automobiles, and
some other things I can't recall at the moment.
We at Digital are very fortunate. I feel that 99% of the people
I have met through these conferences are very competent in the advise
they give and comments they make. They also are willing to admit
when they are wrong. In short, I think these people try to live
the "Do what is right" philosophy taught here at Digital and titles
are mostly irrelevant.
Bob
|
| 565.582 | :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) | GUIDUK::B_WOOD | Where Oh where has my DEC-20 gone? | Thu Dec 29 1988 14:27 | 11 |
| RE 565.581
:-)
Forgive me Tom if I have sinned... It was fun to go off
on the rathole...
:-)
|
| 565.583 | Moderator request to step over the rathole | CVG::THOMPSON | Notes? What's Notes? | Thu Dec 29 1988 14:36 | 10 |
| RE: .last couple.
This is not the topic for discussion about what a PhD (or D.Ed for
that matter) means. Nor for discussion of titles (academic or
otherwise) and how they relate to intelligence or knowledge. As
a moderator I'm requesting that that kind of discussion move some
where else if it continues at all. Also please refrain from comments
about specific people. Thank you for your support.
Alfred - co-moderator HUMAN::DIGITAL
|
| 565.584 | Too soon old, too late smart | DR::BLINN | Doctor Who? | Thu Dec 29 1988 16:18 | 9 |
| Brian, I took no offense, and I assume none was intended.
I have to agree with Bob, however, that education doesn't
necessarily imply smarts, and I personally wouldn't be so
bold as to claim to be smarter than every one of the other
participants in this conference, or any other. (I may be
more *educated* than many, but there are lots of other good
ways to get *smart*.)
Tom
|
| 565.585 | ..and now, back to our show! 8-) | MISFIT::DEEP | Sometimes squeaky wheels get replaced! | Fri Dec 30 1988 10:56 | 5 |
| re:.584
Now thats the smartest thing I've heard in a long time!
8^)
|
| 565.586 | SOA will get cars ! | AUNTB::WARNOCK | Todd Warnock @CBO | Fri Dec 30 1988 16:00 | 11 |
| re: .579
My manager (in the Southern Area) told me to order my car today.
While I don't have a car yet, at least it appears the the policy
will apply to the Southern Area, and under the old Car Plan A rules
(you have a choice of Plan A or B.) I'm in Sales Support, so I
can't speak for residents, but I am curious... Are Software Residents
eligible ?
Todd (who's looking forward to his car in 2349823948234 weeks !)
|
| 565.587 | Official end of crisis | MSDSWS::HENDERSON | Mark Henderson @NOO | Sat Dec 31 1988 13:51 | 42 |
| RE: .579
Received this from the SOA SWS Vice President yesterday by way of my
Unit Manager. Guess this relieves SOA from being the guinea pig for
the rest of the corporation.
I N T E R O F F I C E M E M O R A N D U M
Date: 27-Dec-1988 03:06pm CST
From: Al Pink @RHQ
PINK.AL AT A1 at SAHQ at ATO
Dept: Southern Area SWS
Tel No: DTN 351-2470
TO: Use the SH option to see addressees
Subject: CAR PLAN POLICY
The U. S. Software Services Management Team has recently reconsidered
the current car policy based on feedback that we submitted from our
Area and other Areas. The decision has been made to reinstate Car Plan
A as a choice for eligible employees who require a vehicle
as a business tool to perform their job. Therefore, effective
immediately, Southern Area Software will offer Car Plan A to all
eligible Software employees.
Thank you for your valuable input in raising this issue to Country
management. Your concerns have been heard and resulted in a very
positive change.
Regards,
Al Pink
ADP:sa
[ Memo from Bill Ferry entered in .575 was attached ]
|
| 565.588 | I hope so... | DPDMAI::AINSLEY | Less than 150 kts. is TOO slow! | Mon Jan 02 1989 21:11 | 7 |
| re: .587 -< Official end of crisis >-
Well, not yet, at least not in SCA. I received a memo from my District
Manager telling us not to do anything until the eligibility rules
were established.
Bob
|
| 565.589 | We're still waiting also... | SAACT0::LOWE_B | Brett Lowe @ROB (ODIXIE::LOWE) | Fri Jan 06 1989 01:05 | 8 |
| re: .586 & .587
Not in the whole SOA either. I haven't received any memos yet (except
from these replys and other SWS grunts). We are supposedly waiting on
the eligibiltiy rules also. Sounds like it will get twisted around so
that 'we' don't get cars once again.
Brett
|
| 565.590 | NEA is A-OK! | BOSTON::SOHN | In my prime in '89 | Fri Jan 06 1989 08:49 | 8 |
| re: the last few
NEA just got its approval - no strings attached. The Ferry memo
was just forwarded by Carol Bayley (NEA SWS) to all DMs.
Yay!
eric
|
| 565.591 | | DPDMAI::AINSLEY | Less than 150 kts. is TOO slow! | Fri Jan 06 1989 09:28 | 13 |
| I spoke with my unit manager the other day about eligibility and
was told that the only thing holding things up was figuring out
how to avoid a flood of car orders all at once. It obviously would
wreck the budget and cause a paperwork bottleneck.
Perhaps a better word is 'priority'. This could get sticky too.
Obviously it makes sense to process orders from people already on
Plan A whose car is at the end of its life, before the mass of
transfers from Plan B. Beyond that, I don't know how to handle
it fairly, i.e., do you give a new-hire a Plan A car before a Plan
B transfer gets theirs?
Bob
|
| 565.592 | Misdirected priorities? | MDVAX3::DONOVAN | | Mon Jan 09 1989 20:24 | 17 |
| It's a nice idea that Plan A has been reinstated for all employees, but
I would prefer that the money/budget would be spent on adequate
equipment so that we could complete our projects.
We are trying to complete 2 Rally projects in the Mid-America district
on an 11/780 cluster which is extremely slow and without the recommended
memory per user for Rally development. We also have no UPS and
numerous power failures. Many of the folks can't even get terminals
for home.
Projects are supposed to be the emphasis of the future, but if we don't
have sufficient equipment and training, the projects won't be
successful.
A car is nice, but I wish that as a district we could vote on whether
we got cars or the money could be used for equipment and training. In
our district, most of us would vote for the latter.
|
| 565.593 | Car Plan expenses NOT= Capital Expenses | MDVAX1::BRUYNEEL | I never saw it | Tue Jan 10 1989 09:51 | 16 |
| Call this "Point - Counterpoint"?
Why do you believe $x.xx less in cars = $x.xx more in internal h/w?
Several people try to apply this logic to so many things like the
gov't too, and it's simply irrelevant. It is not an equation of
A = B where reducing one would increase the other. Doing away with cars
would simply have meant doing away with cars. The benefit from
the reduction in costs for the program would have been realized
somewhere, but it wouldn't (directly) help us do our projects.
Of course, this is complete opinion, too, since I know nothing of
how US Area handles costs and expenses.
Jim
|
| 565.594 | Better Use of Money NOT More Money! | GLASS::RAO | R. V. Rao | Tue Jan 10 1989 15:01 | 16 |
|
re .592
If you are not given enough HW for projects, the answer is NOT
removal of car plans. The reason you do not have adequate HW may have
to do with your local management not realizing
that for the money they are spending on a 11/780 in terms of high
power, space and maintenance expenses, they can easily afford a
couple of microvaxes and increase the capacity by over 200-400%!
In our area we did a similar cost exercise a while ago and replaced
most of 11/7x0s while keeping to the budget restrictions like rest
of the country. Our Area Ops Mgr was smart enough to recognize this.
|
| 565.595 | For what it's worth... | DPDMAI::AINSLEY | Less than 150 kts. is TOO slow! | Wed Feb 08 1989 09:08 | 8 |
| I received a memo from our DM yesterday informing me that I was
eligible for Plan A. In it, was a 'personal' comment indicating
that our DM believes that Plan A will eventually go away, but that
it's termination would be handled better than last time.
Enjoy it will it lasts....sigh.
Bob
|
| 565.596 | Only on Car choice? | BRDWLK::VEALEK | DTN 445-6394 | Wed Feb 08 1989 11:14 | 9 |
| I heard that the orders for the Tauras (sp?) were so large that
as of February 25th, the only car that can be ordered on plan A
would be the Celibrity. The rumor mill has it that to make the one
car selection more agreeable, that the Celibrity would have a lot
of "extras" at no additional cost (ie: 6 cyl).
Anyone else out there hear of this??
Ken
|
| 565.597 | From the Fleet Bulletin | SRFSUP::LABBEE | I got the music in me | Wed Feb 08 1989 14:02 | 20 |
| re: -.1
The following is extracted from the Fleet Bulletin I received, dated
January 27, 1989:
"Effective February 25, 1989, Digital has changed our selected fleet
vehicle to the Chevrolet Celebrity. The Taurus will no longer be
available as a vehicle selection after this date. The Celebrity
is available in a four door sedan. Celebrity station wagons are
available for Field Service technical employees only. All employees
ordering the Celebrity will receive the 6-cylinder engine, AM/FM
sterio cassette and the "Eurosport" package at no additional cost
(unless the driver states otherwise on the order)."
The bulletin goes on to give more detail on the Celebrity, along
with an options price form. I would call Fleet if your Area has
not yet received it.
-Colleen
|
| 565.598 | Long lead times killed the Taurus. | BENTLY::FARLEE | Insufficient Virtual...um...er... | Wed Feb 15 1989 17:16 | 7 |
| The reason that I heard from someone in corporate fleet adm.
was that the lead times for Taurus orders was 16-20 weeks!!
And this is about what it took a member of my unit to get one.
Celebrity orders take about half that.
Kevin
|
| 565.599 | | BOSTON::SOHN | In my prime in '89 | Thu Feb 16 1989 09:08 | 13 |
| re: < Note 565.598 by BENTLY::FARLEE "Insufficient Virtual...um...er..." >
> -< Long lead times killed the Taurus. >-
That was one thing...I got a glimpse at the Fleet memo.
Other factors were that since the Celebrity is not in great demand,
we're getting it at a great discount compared to the Taurus, and there's
been some difficulty servicing the Tauruses.
It's too damn bad, because the Taurus is a great car, and I know noone
who likes the Celebrity.
eric
|
| 565.600 | Make plan A commit suicide... | DPDMAI::AINSLEY | Less than 150 kts. is TOO slow! | Thu Feb 16 1989 09:18 | 4 |
| I've got a great way to kill off plan A. Make the cars available
so undesirable that no one will want one :-)
Bob
|
| 565.601 | Have I got a deal for you on Yugos! | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Feb 16 1989 10:21 | 0 |
| 565.602 | | TILTS::WALDO | | Thu Feb 16 1989 16:52 | 4 |
| re: 600
Sounds like someone already figured that out!
|
| 565.603 | Please think before you write | DR::BLINN | General Eclectic | Thu Feb 16 1989 17:33 | 13 |
| RE: recent comments -- it would be prudent to avoid saying nasty
things about the products of other corporations, especially those
that are our suppliers and customers and with whom we share common
members of the Board of Directors. (Did you realize that K.O. is
on Ford's BOD?) I can understand slamming our competition (IBM,
etc.), but not our customers and suppliers. (And, sometimes our
competition is our customer or supplier.)
It might be unfortunate for Digital if some of these opinions,
written as if they were facts, were seen by the companies about
which they are expressed.
Tom
|
| 565.604 | Where is the problem? please be specific. | SKITZD::FARLEE | Insufficient Virtual...um...er... | Thu Feb 16 1989 17:43 | 16 |
| I'm afraid you lost me, Tom.. the only negative that I heard
was that the lead time involved in Digital purchasing a Ford Taurus
is excessive. That is a fact. I have seen it demonstrated many
times. It does not reflect on the product, and has nothing to do
with a private-party purchase. As to someone at Ford seeing the
comments, I wish I knew a way to get it to them. Then maybe we
could continue to have that nice car as a fleet car.
If you were referring to statements that people would rather drive
a Taurus than a Celebrity, I fail to see how the statement of a
personal preference is a corporate liability.
I agree that we need to be very sensitive to "slamming customers
and/or suppliers", but I must have missed it in this case.
Kevin
|
| 565.605 | You can pick your Celebrity up now in the junkyard | SRFSUP::GOETZE | just a cog. | Thu Feb 16 1989 20:40 | 16 |
| re .598:
You think 16-20 weeks is bad; try looking at 26 weeks. That's what
I'm at right now and still waiting for my Taurus. Last I heard it
had finally been built, but the "bad weather" was delaying its arrival.
The track record of Celebrities in my office is the following:
About six co-workers that started the same time as I ordered the
car,
Of those six, three were prematurely retired in the 40-50k mile
range because of major engine failures or repeated serious engine work.
Now I'd guess that's a pretty poor failure rate for any car.
erik g.
|
| 565.606 | | ARGUS::RICHARD | | Fri Feb 17 1989 09:34 | 9 |
| re. .605
Re. "track record of Celebrities in my office"
Were these with the 4 cyl. or 6 cyl. engines? As far as I knew,
the 4 cyl. engine was always a problem. I've had my share of
experiences too. But, the 6 cyl., which is what fleet is getting,
is supposed to have a good track record. True or false?
|
| 565.607 | 1/2 of a V8 | SRFSUP::GOETZE | just a cog. | Fri Feb 17 1989 13:05 | 3 |
| Yes, they were all 4 cylinders, from the era when you needed special
justification to order a six cylinder (such as living in the high
desert, where 4 cylinders choke and expire).
|
| 565.608 | Well, there's at least ONE happy Celebrity driver... | NEWVAX::PAVLICEK | Zot, the Ethical Hacker | Fri Feb 17 1989 14:13 | 7 |
| FWIW, I have a 1988 Celebrity with 31,000+ miles on it. Except for
a flakey windshield wiper, I've had no problems whatsoever to date.
I had to check under the hood to make _sure_ it was a 4-cylinder,
because it has a lot of pep (_very_ helpful on the Washington DC
Beltway!).
-- Russ
|
| 565.609 | Both cars have their strong and weak points! | NCPROG::PEREZ | Out Dancing with Bears! | Fri Feb 17 1989 22:05 | 24 |
| The last several replies have been interesting. Here in MPO we've got
a mixture of Tauri and Celebrities. From what I've heard there were
some problems with the transmissions on the Fords. I seem to remember
a number of people having transmission work early on. Even now,
my boss figures his will expire within the quarter... started out
slipping on takeoff and now progressing to during the shifts.
Also, as memory serves, the 4 cylinder on the Taurus was so ANEMIC that
digital only takes 6 cylinder cars.
On the other hand, the Celebrities have been so successful that many
employees buy their cars after they go off Plan A. Mine has about
27,000 miles and I haven't had any problems. It DEFINITELY is better
than the LTD I had previously. I'm curious what problems people
think the 2.5 liter engine in the Celebrity has since this is an
engine that has been in use in GM cars since at LEAST 1980.
Wanna talk body damage? I got the word from an insurance agent
that if you have to be in an accident, have it in a Celebrity.
The repair cost is SIGNIFICANTLY higher for the Taurus. I wonder
how the insurance rates will compare after a couple years of
statistics?
Mr. Moderator, I don't know which rules you're using today, so do
whatever sets your bits. I calls 'em as I sees em.
|
| 565.610 | | ODIHAM::PHILPOTT_I | Col. Philpott is back in action... | Mon Feb 20 1989 07:48 | 16 |
|
Sitting in England waiting for my new company car, I find all this
talk of long lead times slightly amusing.
Average lead time here is about 18-20 weeks.
For my next company car I'm thinking of ordering a Morgan Plus 8
(a sports car) - the manufacturers are currently quoting a lead
time of 312 weeks (that's right 6 years) and the potential customer
can make regular pilgrimages to the factory to see progress, select
the wood for the dash board, choose minor fitments etc...
With this in mind I've chosen my current choice with a view to keeping
it for 8 years or so...
/. Ian .\
|
| 565.611 | my Celeb has been ok | DYO780::DYSERT | Barry Dysert, DTN-433-2420 | Mon Feb 20 1989 09:55 | 6 |
| Since there have been several notes talking about Celebreties, I
just wanted everyone to know that I bought my 4-cylinder Celeb after
it hit 60K miles. I'm now over 71K miles and have never had engine
problems.
BD�
|
| 565.612 | Tell me more | INFACT::GARRETT | Curtis W. - Indianapolis | Mon Feb 20 1989 12:44 | 7 |
| reply .610
DO WHAT?????????????????
First, we find out they get much more vacation in Europe. Now we
find out they can get custom built sports cars for DECmobils.
Surely you're not telling us the whole story here.
Curtis
|
| 565.613 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon Feb 20 1989 12:52 | 6 |
| > Now we find out they can get custom built sports cars for DECmobiles.
>
> Surely you're not telling us the whole story here.
Yeah, he's not told you that you don't even have to have a customer contact
job to get a company car. Even ALL-IN-1 developers qualify.
|
| 565.614 | Ah, the good ol' days.... :>) | YUPPIE::COLE | The TOUGH survive the bleeding edge! | Mon Feb 20 1989 13:14 | 6 |
| >Yeah, he's not told you that you don't even have to have a customer contact
>job to get a company car. Even ALL-IN-1 developers qualify.
Well John, if you had stayed in Charlotte, you might be an ALL-IN-1
developer now, too, although you would have had to go to Reading to get THAT
car plan! :>) :>) :>) :>) :>) :>) :>)
|
| 565.615 | Plan Eligibility | MSDSWS::HENDERSON | Mark Henderson @NOO | Mon Feb 20 1989 14:47 | 96 |
| This topic has drifted from the original topic of Car plan eligibility
between the time I received the attached memo and when I got around to
entering it, but I'll enter the following memo from Management on
Eligibility requirements for the record.
Especially note item 3 -- just because you have the job code doesn't
entitle you to a car. Management will determine final eligibility
in all cases.
I N T E R O F F I C E M E M O R A N D U M
Date: 23-Jan-1989 10:32am CST
From: Joseph Patrnchak @MRO
PATRNCHAK.JOSEPH AT A1 AT GRECO AT MRO
Dept: SWS HUMAN RESOURCE PROG
Tel No: DTN 297-3714
TO: Use the SH option to see addressees
Subject: CURRENT CAR PLAN ELIGIBILITY
The recent announcement by US Software Services providing eligible employees
with the option to choose between Car Plan A, a company-owned fleet vehicle,
and Car Plan B, a personally-owned vehicle, has prompted questions regarding
fleet eligibility.
As you know, the company provided vehicle plans are considered a business
tool designed to enable employees to effectively perform their job
responsibilities.
Regarding Fleet Plan eligibility, the following is a restatement of the
current US Software Services policy.
1. Fleet plan participation provides transportation for
employees whose primary assignments require day-to-day
travel to customer sites.
2. A job code eligibility list for US Software Services is
maintained by US Fleet Administration and attached for
your reference.
3. The job codes in themselves do not "entitle" an individual
to be eligible to participate in the Fleet Plans. The
responsibility for determining eligibility rests with the
Area Manager and the US SWS VP.
4. Software Services District, Small Business Direct, and
Corporate Account Managers qualify for Fleet Plan participation.
No other Direct Report to the Area SWS Manager qualifies for
Fleet Plan participation.
5. Reference the US Fleet Manual Sections 1.00 and 2.00 for
further details.
The overall eligibility guidelines for US Software Services are being
reviewed in light of changing organizational requirements and new
approaches to doing business.
Please communicate this information through your respective organizations.
Regards,
Joe
Attachment
US SOFTWARE SERVICES
FLEET PLANS ELIGIBLE JOB CODES
R15 - SWS MGR IIIA
R04 - SWS MGR III
R06 - SWS MGR II
R14 - SWS MGR IA
R09 - SWS MGR I
R12 - SWS CONSULTANT III
R05 - SWS CONSULTANT II
R07 - SWS CONSULTANT I
R1A - SWS SPECIALIST IV
R10 - SWS SPECIALIST III
R11 - SWS SPECIALIST II
R13 - SWS SPECIALIST I
R41 - SWS CUST SUPP REP II
R40 - SWS CUST SUPP REP I
R9A - SWS BUS CONSULTANT I
R8A - BUS DEVEL/ACCT SPEC III
R7A - BUS DEVEL/ACCT SPEC II
R5A - BUS DEVEL/ACCT SPEC I
|
| 565.616 | Ford Taurus Options Update | LAIDBK::PFLUEGER | Speaker Wright, J.R. Ewing, Daffy Duck | Mon Feb 20 1989 17:44 | 91 |
| While trying to ascertain information in reference to options for the Plan A
Taurus, and not having much luck, I've put togther a document on what options
are available. This data reflects what I've been able to gather from local
sources, USFMT, and the local dealership. I hope it helps!
Regards,
Jp
FLEET SELECTION UPDATES
-----------------------
VECHICLE SELECTION: Ford Taurus G/GL/GL (With 402A Package) 4 Door Sedan
-------------------
Ford Taurus L (Digital Paid Options)
------------------------------------
3.0L MPFI-V6/4-Speed Automatic Standard ($1605.00)
Power Assisted Brakes/Steering Standard
P195/70R14 BSW Tires Standard
572 Air Conditioning Standard
923 Tinted Glass Standard
172 Interval Wipers Standard ($ 49.00)
57Q Rear Window Defroster Standard
512 Electronic Digital Clock Standard ($ 72.00)
58F AM/FM Stereo Standard
628 Dual Electric Mirrors Standard
12H Front Floor Mats Standard
18K Remote Fuel Door Release Standard [1] ($ 82.00)
SEAT Cloth Split Bench Seat Standard ($ 246.00)
Front Seat Back Recliners Standard
Trip Odometer Standard
Driver Paid Options Update: Ford Taurus GL Package ($ 477.00)
---------------------------
* In Addition to/or in replacement of Ford Taurus L Package
Bodyside Moldings Standard
4-way Adj. Front Headrests Standard
Seat Back Map Pockets Standard
Dual Visor Mirror/Driver Visor Standard [2]
Elasticized Cargo Tie-down Net Standard
Rear Seating Folding Armrest Standard
Rear Seating Integral Headrests Standard
Rear Window Ledge Storage Bin Standard
Driver Paid Options Update: Ford Taurus GL 204A Package ($1453.00)
---------------------------
* In Addition to/or in replacement of Ford Taurus GL Package
Finned Wheel Covers (204A Standard/Optional)
Rocker Panel Moldings (204A Standard/GL Optn.)
64R Power Side Windows $ 264.00 (204A Standard/Optional)
53A 6-way Power Drive Seat Adj. $ 225.00 (204A Standard/GL Optn.)
963 Power Door Locks $ 174.00 (204A Standard/Optional)
525 Speed Control $ 162.00 [3] (204A Standard/Optional)
913 Premium Sound System $ 150.00 [4] (204A Standard/GL Optn.)
58H AM/FM Stereo Cassette $ 113.00 [5] (204A Standard/Optional)
52Q Tilt Steering Wheel $ 111.00 (204A Standard/Optional)
943 Light Group $ 53.00 [6] (204A Standard/Optional)
972 Paint Stripe $ 51.00 (204A Standard/GL Optn.)
Cast Aluminum Wheels $ 203.00 [7] (Optional)
Styled Road Wheels $ 159.00 [7] (Optional)
Illumninated Visor Mirror $ 93.00 (Optional)
Tachometer $ 80.00 (Optional)
T7H White Sidewall Tires $ 73.00 (Optional)
47J Illuminated Entry System $ 72.00 (Optional)
Power Attenna $ 67.00 (Optional)
Cornering Lamp $ 61.00 (Optional)
524 Leather Wrapped Steering Wheel $ 52.00 [8] (Optional)
67R Automatic Brake Release $ 11.00 (Optional)
Notes:
------
[1] Remote Fuel Door and Decklid/Liftgate Release.
[2] Dual Visor Mirrors With Driver-side Secondary Visor.
[3] When Purchased With Leather Steering Wheel; Total Package: $ 215.00
[4] Consists of: Six Premium Speakers and Power Amplifier/Booster.
[5] AM/FM Stereo Cassette is Standard for SALES Vehicles Only. {USFSF-1987}
[6] Duel Beam Map Light, Engine Compartment Light, Dual Courtesy Light Under
Instrument Panel, Plus Headlamps-on Reminder Chime.
[7] Purchase Of Package 204A Provides A $58.00 Credit Towards Wheel Purchase.
[8] Only Available With Speed Control; Total Package: $125.00
%%% Forms Must Be Received By USFMT By 24 Feburary 1989. %%%
|
| 565.617 | The British car plan - for comparison. | ODIHAM::PHILPOTT_I | Col. Philpott is back in action... | Tue Feb 21 1989 07:53 | 79 |
|
The British car plan - since it was mentioned a few back,
this is an outline for comparison with the US plan...
Taken from the explanatory booklet provided to UK employees.
Yes we get more vacation days too... In fairness I should
say that it has become traditional in Britain for a car
to be included in total compensation packages for
professional employees. This is largely to do with the
British tax structure, and isn't something to go into
in detail here. Suffice it to say that with basic pay
between competing employers being broadly similar the
fine details of things like the car scheme and medical
plans are often key to attracting the best people.
The British Car Plan (as of 1-Jan-1989)
1) The Digital Car Lease Plan enables all employees to
obtain a car from a designated lease company and have
their salary adjusted to reflect the benefit provided
by Digital.
Certain employees are provided with a minimum standard
car and a supplement which they may use to obtain a car
with a higher specification (see P&P Manual sec 7.01).
All employees may commute up to 20% of their basic salary
towards the provision of a car.
2) The plan will provide the employee with the chosen
vehicle, subject to suitability and availability.
The following items are covered by the agreement for an
employee to be provided with a car through the plan.
- the lease cost charged by the designated lease company,
insurance cover provided by Digital
- Road Fund Licence [a form of tax in the UK]
- service, maintenance and mechanical repairs
- replacement vehicle where necessary.
The company does not cover the cost of petrol and oil.
The charges are based on a 30 month/30,000 mile lease
contract and are fixed for the period of the lease,
irrespective of the actual period of the lease or mileage
completed during the period.
3) Employees provided with a car at the company's expense
will be required to choose a vehicle which is comparable
in value to the minimum standard car as determined by
the company. Should a lesser standard vehicle be required,
no refund will be given against the minimum vehicle cost.
Other employees may choose any vehicle, subject to the
20% ceiling relating to basic salary.
Subject to the above, employees may ask for two quotations
on models of their choice.
----
So our version of plan A is that for qualified individuals
(not all of whom are in customer contact jobs) the basic
car is a Ford Sierra or Vauxhall Cavalier type vehicle,
but you have free choice of any car on the market - if
the lease quote is more than the average of the "selected
free cars" then you pay the difference, if it is less
then you don't get any extra money, and Digital gets the
benefit of the lower lease cost.
The Morgan I mentioned earlier is retail price comparable
to the Renault that I will shortly take delivery of, and
so (since insurance isn't a factor in the lease price)
I would expect a reasonable lease quote.
/. Ian .\
|
| 565.618 | my celeb. | WR2FOR::BOUCHARD_KE | Ken Bouchard WRO3-2/T7 | Tue Feb 28 1989 16:01 | 7 |
| Why do I get the feeling that 9 out of 10 partcipants in this notesfile
are software types?
BTW: My 4-cyl. celebrity has had *two* major engine problems,costing
Gelco about $1400 total.How do I retire this car?(it has 30K on
it)
|
| 565.619 | Wait for the next repair? | 16611::GOETZE | just a cog. | Tue Feb 28 1989 18:22 | 7 |
| I believe you complain to Fleet and/or Gelco. I have the impression
that somebody at one of those two places has a fancy formula
whereby they plug in mileage, cost of repair, cost of new car, etc.
and out plops the decision to retire the car.
It helps if the car has more than 50,000 miles, and 40,000 seems
to be the next decision point.
|
| 565.620 | Its done with mirrors and computers | CADSYS::BAY | By the Seldon - I grok it! | Tue Feb 28 1989 19:55 | 18 |
| Gelco evaluates each repair, and they maintain a history of repairs on
the computer so they can see how the car has performed. If the car
exceeds any of their preset curves or thresholds, its history.
I took my car in at around 40,000 for a tune up, and miscellaneous
fixes. I told the service manager that I had a slow leak in one tire,
needed new windshield wipers, had one headlight out, and that the car
would not go in reverse. He called Gelco, and the car was "terminated"
immediately, and I was informed to get a loaner or a rental until an
emergency order arrived. Poof! No one even asked me what I wanted to
do.
I've also heard stories about cars that are barely drivable, that Gelco
refuses to retire. Seems like they are trying to stretch them furthur
and furthur.
Jim
|
| 565.621 | Plan 'A' not so bad after all... | SMOOT::ROTH | A fiend in need is a fiend indeed. | Wed Mar 01 1989 13:16 | 6 |
| Re: .618
Gee, I'll bet you wish you were on Plan 'B' so you could pay for the repairs
out-of-pocket! ;^)
Lee
|
| 565.622 | Makeup of conference participants... | GUIDUK::BURKE | Meet my pet wolverine: FANG. | Thu Mar 02 1989 20:55 | 10 |
| Re: .618
> Why do I get the feeling that 9 out of 10 partcipants in this notesfile
> are software types?
I would imagine that that is a fairly close figure. I can give
you many reasons why, but it would be a rat-hole...perhaps in another
topic specifically directed to "What kinds of people read notes files?"
Doug
|
| 565.623 | The buy-back plan | WIRDI::BARTH | Whatever is right, do it | Fri Mar 03 1989 12:58 | 19 |
| By the way...
I am teaching a class this week and one of the students is a SWS-type
who is having her car bought back by Fleet.
She told me the story of how the Plan A death FORCED her to buy a
Plan B car and then the subsequent re-instatement of Plan A came along.
She said, "The company is doing the right thing. They are paying for ALL
of my expenses related to purchasing the car and buying the car from me for
the price I paid. It's a good thing, too. I was really hot when I found
out Plan A was back. I probably would have left DEC if they hadn't handled
it so well."
I know there weren't very many people affected this directly (earlier
replies suggested about 20) so I thought you might be interested in
what one of them thinks of the buy-back plan.
K.
|
| 565.624 | Wump .. Wump .. is it dead yet? | ORCAS::PENROSECH | | Mon May 15 1989 16:47 | 89 |
|
Yeah, let's beat this dog, one more time. What I would like
is everyone's opinion on the current company car cost and the
benefit cost (taxed personal use) using the supplied formula
from from Fleet Administration.
Here is the formula as I perceive it to be.
[(FMRV x PERSONAL_%) + (PERSONAL_% x .055)] - (1560) = TAX_B
FMRV = FAIR MARKET RENTAL VALUE = $3100 !for this year 1989
PERSONAL_% = PERCENT OF PERSONAL USE during that year
.055 = MILEAGE CONSTANT MULTIPLIER for the % of personal use
1560 = Your 30 dollars a week x 52 weeks.
TAX_B = TAXABLE BENEFIT that the IRS adds to your W2 income.
Now for the fun!
If we assume 100% personal use of the company car We can run
the numbers thru the formula and see what pops out. Although
this is the extreme it makes something very obvious. We will
also assume 10,000 miles driven in that year.
3100 x 100% = $3100.00
+ = 3650.00 - 1560 = 2090.00
10,000 x .055 = 550.00
Therefore, we get taxed on an additional 2090.00. If we
assume a 28% tax bracket then we owe an additional 585.20 for
the personal use of this vehicle. The total paid for this
vehicle is (585.20 + 1560)= 2145.20 per year for use of this
company vehicle. This equates out to 41.25 a week. Not bad
for all maintenance, gas, license, insurance and a car. At
this point I want to reinforce that I feel it still is a
reasonable 'fee' for a car and I think the plan is still ok.
But, let us now look at this payment scheme from a different
perspective. Let's talk about the 30.00 a week first. As I
understand it this covers what is considered a base personal
use. From that base you compute any further personal use and
run the afore mentioned calculation. Now, what would happen
if Digital did not charge the thirty dollars? Well, given
the above scenario of 100% personal use, the IRS would want
you to pay taxes on the value. We have already computed the
value to be 3650.00. (FMRV + personal mileage adder). If we
stay in the 28% tax bracket then (3650 x 28%) = 1022.00.
So the IRS would want you to pay $1022 dollars. On the other
hand, you have paid to DEC & the IRS a total of $2145.00.
HMMM, 2145 - 1022 = 1123.00 dollars difference. It seems
like, based on the IRS formula, that DEC is charging us for
something other than the personal use of the car. One can
only guess what the money is being used for, but, it is
apparently a bunch more than what the IRS wants.
Now for some questions..
What if someone has no personal miles, should they pay the
thirty dollars a week?
Can a person that drives a company car effectively 'park it'
every night and provide his/her own transportation to and
from the office?
If the local management makes the decision that you can not
park your company car at the local facility due to parking,
security or other considerations, should the commute miles be
considered personal or business?
If you are a field engineer kind of person that could get
dispatched from your house after hours (standby) then should
the commute miles during that period of time on standby be
considered as business miles?
If the local office cannot provide a safe and secure place to
park company cars then should the employee's that drive them
charge digital for that added value?
Again, I'm not bitchin' but would like some more clarity on
the plan and it's options. I feel the plan, as it stands, is
too general. While I'm at it, how about using some of these
electronic tools we have to automate the vehicle expense
system. I am getting tired of the forms, they have finally
lost their appeal.
chp.. (12 years and countin')
|
| 565.625 | the answers: | WR2FOR::BOUCHARD_KE | Ken Bouchard WRO3-2/T7 | Mon May 15 1989 21:45 | 12 |
| .624� What if someone has no personal miles, should they pay the
.624� thirty dollars a week?
.624�
.624� Can a person that drives a company car effectively 'park it'
.624� every night and provide his/her own transportation to and
.624� from the office?
Two simple answers from some simple people...YES and NO.
FWIW: people have been asking those questions for a zillion years
and the answers are always the same.
|
| 565.626 | Your analysis is flawed | DR::BLINN | Chief N. A. | Tue May 16 1989 11:24 | 114 |
| RE: .624 -- Your formula is incorrect as you've written it.
The correct formula might be:
[(FMRV x PERSONAL_%) + (PERSONAL_MILES x .055)] - (1560) = TAX_B
where PERSONAL_MILES = TOTAL_MILES * PERSONAL_%
with PERSONAL_% defined the way you gave it. A simpler formula
might be
TAX_B = PERSONAL_% * (FMRV + TOTAL_MILES * .055) - 1560
Now, as for your analysis: You're "double counting" some of the
money, and you're confusing paying DEC with paying the IRS.
Using your 10,000 miles and 100% personal use (which wouldn't
justify Digital providing you a car), your out of pocket cost
would be the $1560 you pay to Digital ($30/week) plus the tax you
pay on the additional "benefit" of $2090, as computed by the IRS
formula. With your estimated 28% tax rate, the tax would be
$585.20, so your total "out of pocket" cost would be, as you
compute, $2145.20. This is not necessarily what it costs to
provide the car to you. If the IRS formula is correct, you've
paid $585.20 (to the IRS) to get $2090 worth of car rental from
Digital (who gets nothing in return). This would be a great deal
for you, and a lousy deal for Digital.
Next, you go through an analysis based on what would happen if
Digital GAVE you the car for free (an even WORSE deal for
Digital). You calculate that you'd get $3650 worth of free car
use by paying the IRS $1022 in taxes. This is fine, so far.
But THEN you get weird, because you suggest that because Digital
isn't giving you personal car use FOR FREE, that somehow you're
being charged more than you should be charged. NO WAY!
You see, Digital has NO OBLIGATION to let you use the company
car for personal use, AT ALL.
A reasonable analysis would be based on comparing what you pay
($30/week, or $1560 per year) for "personal use" to what Digital's
real cost is to provide you the personal use. It's possible that
if you had very little personal use, you'd lose out on the deal.
Without more information than you've provided (or than you can
probably get) it's impossible to do the analysis. Further, it
only makes sense to do the analysis for reasonable use patterns,
that is, for total miles in the actual range observed, and with
"personal" percentages in the ranges actually observed. Using
the "100%" personal mileage example proves nothing.
The IRS formula is, at best, an approximation. As long as you
wind up paying *some* taxes on the untaxed (FREE) benefit, you're
probably making out like a bandit.
> What if someone has no personal miles, should they pay the
> thirty dollars a week?
It's not attractive financially, but you don't have a choice:
if you want to be in the car plan that's computed that way,
then you pay the $30 a week. If you don't have ANY personal
use, then you're paying $30 a week for something you're not
using.
> Can a person that drives a company car effectively 'park it'
> every night and provide his/her own transportation to and
> from the office?
Of course you could, but from a financial perspective, it would
be a mistake.
> If the local management makes the decision that you can not
> park your company car at the local facility due to parking,
> security or other considerations, should the commute miles be
> considered personal or business?
According to IRS rules (which are all that matter in this
analysis), it's your responsibility to get to your place of
business. You can't claim the cost of commuting as a business
expense.
> If you are a field engineer kind of person that could get
> dispatched from your house after hours (standby) then should
> the commute miles during that period of time on standby be
> considered as business miles?
Only your tax accountant can provide "professional" advice. The
argument that it's "business" miles is essentially the same as the
argument that when you're on "standby" you're at work, even when
you're physically at your home. The only way to find out for sure
is to claim the miles as business miles and see whether the IRS
challenges you. (It's very hard to get the IRS to tell you in
advance how they will interpret their rules in any given case,
especially if you want them to make a binding determination, that
is, to put it in writing.)
> If the local office cannot provide a safe and secure place to
> park company cars then should the employee's that drive them
> charge digital for that added value?
Digital provides insurance coverage for company cars. It's part
of the package. You could try submitting a bill for providing
a "safe and secure" place to park your company car, but I doubt
you could get the payment approved. The question of "should"
is largely irrelevant.
If you really want definitive answers to these questions, then you
should ask your CC manager (who, after all, is responsible for
interpreting many rules and guidelines), or address them to Rick
Catino @PKO, the U.S. Fleet manager, who I'm sure will forward any
MAIL to the person in his organization who's responsible for the
rules.
Tom
|
| 565.627 | | BOSTON::SOHN | No guts, no glory! | Tue May 16 1989 17:39 | 13 |
| re: .624, .625
You also forgot another thing - you don't really pay out $1560 a year.
DEC, in its infinite wisdom, picks up your gasoline costs, car washes
and random maintenance out of your $30/week. So, if you pick up $10/week
in random expenseable costs, your outlay is $1040/year.
Or did you assume that DEC would still allow you to expense the gas you
put in the car?
Also, I wonder how much you save by having DEC pick up the insurance?
eric
|
| 565.628 | I like the tools Digital provides for me! | KYOA::KOCH | Yes, Ed Koch is my brother... | Thu May 18 1989 17:02 | 8 |
| You also don't include that DEC pays anything over $30/week. I,
because of where I live, put $30/week of gas into my car, so I get my
money's worth. I also get the oil changed regularly, the car washed, etc. I
just had to put 2 new tires on my car and this must have cost Digital at
least $150. All expenses that Digital pays for. Believe me, especially in
NJ, that I would rather pay tax on $2500 in April of the following year,
earning interest (of course in a tax free money market) for the money saved
for the tax liability than take $2500+ out of my pocket.
|
| 565.629 | New FBV calculations | WKRP::LENNIG | Dave (N8JCX), SWS, Cincinnati | Wed Sep 13 1989 12:40 | 12 |
| In today's Wall Street Journal, I quote
Presonal use of a company car is a taxable fringe benefit. Recent
IRS rules for valuing that use offer alternatives and ease some
of an employer's administrative burdens, says Grant Thornton, CPAs.
Workers must be told by Oct. 31 which valuation method the employer
will use for 1989.
end quote
Has anyone heard about how Digital is going to do the FBV calculations
for PLAN A members, based on the above??
|
| 565.631 | I called and found out (FBV) | POBOX::LEVIN | My kind of town, Chicago is | Fri Sep 15 1989 14:23 | 37 |
| re: .629 -< New FBV calculations >-
<<< Has anyone heard about how Digital is going to do the FBV calculations
<<< for PLAN A members, based on the above??
Strange, does everyone post a note instead of finding the source? I
called Fleet Administration on this very question a few months ago and
got the answer. Unless it's changed just recently, the formula is
Net FBV = Gross benefit - Payments
= [V*P + M] - [W + F], where
Gross benefit: (Benefit of being on Plan A)
V = Value of car. Instead of having to evaluate each car
separately, the IRS has allowed Digital to use a single average
figure for all cars of $3100.00.
P = Percentage of personal mileage to total mileage. This one
varies for each driver. Note that personal mileage explicitly includes
commute mileage.
M = mileage add-on = 5 1/2 cents per mile (personal mileage only)
Payments: (What's already been paid)
W = weekly payment ($30.00 * 52 weeks) = $1560
F = additional fuel charges (vacations, etc.)
We didn't discuss how to treat someone who's been on Plan A less than the
full year, but my guess is some pro-rata variation of the above formula.
Nor did we discuss what happens if you end up with a negative net FBV
[Tell me, boys and girls, can you say "Refund"?].
/Marvin
|
| 565.632 | calculation | SAUTER::SAUTER | John Sauter | Wed Sep 20 1989 09:17 | 16 |
| re: .631
I'm glad I'm not on the car plan, because this formula seems grossly
unfair! Suppose I use the car 10% of the time for "personal" use,
which is not unreasonably high considering that commuting to work
is considered "personal". If I live 10 miles from work, that's
5000 miles a year. For simplicity, assume no other personal use.
The formula becomes
[3100*10 + (0.055 * 5000)] - [1560 + 0]
[31000 + 275] - 1560 = 29715
On that basis, it's cheaper to buy and maintain your own car. Can
you say "rip-off"?
John Sauter
|
| 565.633 | I think your calculation is wrong. | POBOX::LEVIN | My kind of town, Chicago is | Wed Sep 20 1989 11:59 | 17 |
| re: .632
John,
10 % is .10, not 10
so the calculation is
[3100*.10 + (0.055 * 5000)] - [1560 + 0]
[310 + 275] - 1560 = -975
On that basis, your $30/week more than paid for your personal use
and there is no added tax burden.
/Marvin - (who,-like-you,-knows-the-derivation-of-SOS)
|
| 565.634 | | WKRP::LENNIG | Dave (N8JCX), SWS, Cincinnati | Wed Sep 20 1989 13:23 | 28 |
| Interesting...
Everyone keeps using "1560" ($30 * 52 wks)...
I was under the impression, from inquiries made when the plan changes
were originally announced, that this element of the calculation was
also a real figure based on the sum of the moneys paid by the employee
during the year...
That is, on the vehicle expense form, you subtract $30 from the
actual expenses incurred that week. If you owe, (like you spent
$10 on gas that week, and thus owe $20), the amount you pay Digital
was what was accrued and used as that term in the calculation, not
a constant $1560. If you went on vacations, where you are supposed
to pay DEC for the gas etc used during the period, you could end
up paying more that the $30.
The original IRS requirements imposed a significant burden on Digital
for record keeping, to properly track all these values on a per employee
basis, rather than the using the 'fleet average' as done previously.
That was why the original announcement in the WSJ caught my eye,
as it sounded like they were relaxing the record keeping requirements,
and providing alternative methods of computing the FBV, which employers
had to choose and announce.
To the original respondant... when did you make your investigation
of the calculation method, and what the various terms actually
represented?
|
| 565.635 | | SAUTER::SAUTER | John Sauter | Wed Sep 20 1989 18:41 | 7 |
| Perhaps the calculation was described inaccurately, but it said to
multiply by P, where P is the percentage of personal use. If P had
been the proportion of personal use, then the formula in .633 would
be correct.
SOS = Son of Stopgap.
John Sauter
|
| 565.636 | End of subtopic? | POBOX::LEVIN | My kind of town, Chicago is | Fri Sep 22 1989 15:29 | 44 |
| to JS (.635) Sorry if I misled you, John. Yes, it's percent OF 3100,
not percentage TIMES 3100.
re .634
I haven't discussed this with anyone, but my reasoning has always
been (using gas as the only expense to simplify the example):
- If I don't buy any gas, I end up writing a check for $30.00 to
Digital.
- If I buy $20.00 in gas, I write a check for only $10.00, but also
have paid for the gas, so my net expense is still $30.00.
- If I buy $45.00 in gas, I put out the $45.00, but Digital reimburses
me (via the Vehicle Expense Summary) for $15.00. Again my net
outlay is $30.00.
So I end up paying $1560 ($30 * 52) for the use of the car. It **is**
a fixed expense. The second part of the Payment half of the formula
covers any additional payments based on vacation use. This does
indeed vary for each employee and I guess Digital has to track each
of us individually on that.
Maybe the latest IRS ruling has changed all that. I do not know.
<<< To the original respondant... when did you make your investigation
<<< of the calculation method, and what the various terms actually
<<< represented?
Sometime in '88, when the first announcement of changes in the plan
and warnings of additional tax burdens occurred, the statement was
made that whatever our liability was, it would be offset by the
regular weekly payments. At that time, I sent a mail message to
Fleet Admin and asked how the additional vacation payments affected
the calculation. They said they hadn't thought of that issue and that
they would have to come up with a new formula. Sometime later,
probably around May '89, I came across my original mail message
and called. That's when I was given the formula I posted here a
few replies back. It was described to me in words; I made up the
formula's lettered variables and terms when I wrote it down.
If someone wants to get the latest plans, I'd suggest they call
Fleet Admin. I don't intend to bother.
/Marvin
|
| 565.637 | FEAR of the IRS? | ALBANY::MULLER | Fred Muller | Sat Sep 23 1989 15:16 | 38 |
| Somewhere back in this topic I entered a note about distinguishing
business use from personal use of my company car. The few replys were
not in agreement with me.
My thesis was that if the boss (DEC) expects me to go directly to the
customer, the mileage from home to the customer was business and not
personal use. My reasoning is: "that is why we have a car plan at all
and the original reason for its implementation in the first place"! It
is to save the company the expense of the time lost in transit to and
from the customer. I guess an average of from one-half to a full hour
per day averaged over all PSS types is involved. I remember being a
customer 10 years ago. From that viewpoint it seemed the DEC guy
arrived from the office (at least for the short term stuff).
I am wondering if Digital would give me a letter stating that it
expects the above behavior. After all I have been doing it for 10
years now with the understanding it was expected. At least I can
easily imagine the results of unlilaterally deciding to go to the
office at 0800, then to the customer site, and then reversing the
process to arrive at the office at 1700 before going home and
consequently billing less than 40 hours. And I do not think this has
anything to do with being a W4 class employee thinking in terms of a
different class.
With such a letter I would have at least one leg to stand on for
deducting the extra income I expect to be tacked on to my income this
year! It is required by by employer! Otherwise it appears to me that
the IRS wants its cake and to eat it too. I do not see much benefit to
DEC either way, except to avoid a hassle with the IRS.
Where is the error in this approach?
"All we have to fear is fear itself," quoted from the guy who, I think,
started the personal income tax, at least for the little guys like the
most of us.
Fre
|
| 565.638 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Sat Sep 23 1989 23:57 | 6 |
| I don't think you want to get into this battle with the IRS, since IRS
regulations provide that the drive from your home to your first work location,
even if not your normal work location, as long as it is in "your general area"
is considered commuting mileage, not business mileage.
/john
|
| 565.639 | Ho hum, January is a long way away for me too. | ALBANY::MULLER | Fred Muller | Sun Sep 24 1989 12:01 | 47 |
| John,
Thanks for the reply and advice which is right on the mark.
I do not want to get into a battle with them (or anyone) anymore than
DEC does. I assume you are quoting the actual regs by "your general
area." If it is a quote, I still have a problem with it for obvious
reasons - it is much too vague. My general area is pretty big.
Notwithstanding that we have a rule which does allow distance from the
office to the customer site as business mileage, I continue (as did Don
Quixote); to wit, it also avoids my question: Why does the company (or
any company) provide company cars which employees can take home?
It is for no other reason than for the benefit of the sponsoring
organization! I think one could even go so far as to say it benefits
the U.S. Government by making the organization more efficient and
thereby paying more taxes (a lot more than I am going to have to pay
additional this year)!
Since I wrote the original reply I have thought of a hypothetical test
of my argument. Hypothetical because it could be construed as very
confrontational (it is at the least p***ing into the wind): I do not
think any company which supports a fleet would welcome all of them
being turned in to sit in the car pool parking lot awaiting the morning
arrival its driver - any company - except perhaps government
"companies", which we all know are models of efficiency. Or, the
converse in my last note, that we go to and from the office first.
I can feel the spray already because someone is going to say that the
employees (at least Wage Class 4's) will only have to get to the car
pool at such a time to enable them to bill 40 hours at the customer
site - or for salespeople to be at their prospect's site at X o'clock.
I think the logical end of such arguments are as ridiculous as what we
are doing now which may increase our income and taxes for the first
time this year.
Fred
PS. I do not think I have seen anything definitive about what happens
in the reverse case where an employee pays $30 per week, drives x0,000
miles, but lives next door to his home office. If that were the case
for me, I'd want a refund. Yes, I know it has always been a case of
averaging out, and we all accepted that. But now that the rules are
getting much more explicit, the averaging argument does not hold as
much water to my way of thinking. I guess no one is going to be
concerned with this issue until they get their W2 next January!
|
| 565.640 | DEC plays it by the (Orange) book | POBOX::LEVIN | My kind of town, Chicago is | Mon Sep 25 1989 11:56 | 29 |
| re: .637
I believe the IRS logic goes as follows:
Commute mileage is not deductable. If employee goes to customer
instead of to office, comparable value (expense of driving to office)
applies.
If home-office is 10 miles and home-customer is 15, then I can consider
the extra 5 miles as business.
I don't know anywhere where the phrase "in the same general area"
is used, but here's the official policy from Section 5.11 (Business
Expense Policy) of the Personnel Policies and Prcedures manual (the
Orange Book):
"It is Digital's intention that employees will pay for their own mileage
between their place of residence and their work place. Any required
business mileage incurred during the workday in excess of that normal
commute will be compensated in accordance with our Business Mileage
Policy."
Note that DEC considers your drive to the customer as "required
business mileage", but that it only pays for mileage "in excess
of that normal commute." It doesn't surprise (or offend) me that
Digital's policy is geared to the IRS interpretation of deductable
expenses.
/Marvin
|
| 565.641 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon Sep 25 1989 12:11 | 29 |
| Marvin,
You are mistaken. We have discussed this in the past in this conference.
DEC is more generous than the IRS.
The IRS rules specify that your first and last trip of the day, the trips from
home to first work location and from last work location to home, are commuting
mileage. The entire trip is commuting mileage, not just the excess distance
over and above your so-called "normal commute."
The reason the term "general area" is used, which is agreeably vague, is that
the standards for what constitutes an "out-of-town" trip, which is considered
business mileage, differ from area to area. People in the L.A. area have
generally longer commutes, and people who live in Acton, MA, commute "out-of-
town" almost every day.
The reason the "excess distance" rule doesn't exist is that it is prone to
misuse. I could declare to the IRS that the DEC facility a mile from my house
is my "normal work location" even though I'm (hypothetically) a field service
engineer commuting to customer sites all over New England. This, if it were
allowed, would give me a tax advantage (because DEC has lots of buildings) over
the field service engineer working for, say, Nixdorf, which has fewer offices
for people to use as "normal work locations."
Your employer is allowed to compensate you for the extra commute (or for the
whole commute, if your employer so desires) but this compensation is taxable.
/john
|
| 565.642 | Letters won't help fight the IRS | POBOX::LEVIN | My kind of town, Chicago is | Tue Sep 26 1989 19:40 | 9 |
| Thanks for the clarification, John. My point was that .637's remark
that he'd like to see a letter from Digital regarding what was and
what was not business mileage in fact would do no good as far as
the IRS were concerned -- and that Digital (even without the letter)
has already acknowledges through it Policys & Procedures that the
travel in questioni sbusiness mileage. I think your reply show that
even more.
/M
|
| 565.643 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Wed Sep 27 1989 12:25 | 11 |
| >Digital (even without the letter) has already acknowledges through it Policys
>& Procedures that the travel in questioni sbusiness mileage. I think your
>reply show that even more.
Business mileage for DEC.
Commute for the IRS.
Reimbursement (or use of car) from DEC is taxable.
/john
|
| 565.644 | You decide to read this or not. | ALBANY::MULLER | Fred Muller | Sat Sep 30 1989 14:07 | 59 |
| This past year I have lived RIGHT NEXT DOOR to my company office. I
park my plan a car in the company parking lot ALL THE TIME. I walk to
and from work each day. I do not take it from that parking lot except
to go to and from the customer or for other company business. I do not
take it out of the lot for my use one single time in the year -
weekends, vacations, lunch time, evenings - never. I hire a security
firm to come to the parking lot at 1700 to boot the car and again at
0800 to remove the boot. All bills to security firm are paid and total
$1.00. The security company belongs to my thirteenth cousin. He lives
downstairs and we are a close family. Moreover, all birth official
birth records are impossible to trace.
The car accumulates 10,000 miles during the year for company business.
I pay the 52 x $10 = $520 to the company. The company adds no
additional income to my W2. Therefore I am not taxed extra for the use
of the car.
I am out 521 bucks for nothing. Do I get it back by some kind of
magic? Like, "You are lucky, you get paid enough to cover it." Maybe I
am stupid for not opting for plan b which says something like I buy the
car and the company gives me some money each month and so much a mile
for business use.
But, I do not want a personal car at all (absolutely non of your
business why)! Across the street is the biggest shopping center in the
world. All friends and relatives are within walking distance. I am a
very narrow minded individual and have no other needs but to be a good
employee and as such consequently work as much of the 24 hour day as
possible. And boy am I good at making money for the company: they'd
never get rid of me (hmmm)!
Is all that is wrong here is that I work so hard that I have not read
the offical company policy book that says I am only "eligible" for the
company car? Gee, when I came to work for the company ten years ago in
the same job I have now I did not get a company car for a year.
Everybody else did, but I went directly to the customer on the first
day (his office was across the other street). I didn't find out I was
eligible for a year. Matter of fact, I was told that "Residents are
not eligible. We cannot give you a raise so fast but you can have a
company car instead." I was tickled to have a brand new car for $9 a
week. And I put down all of the mileage from home to the customer and
back as business mileage for seven or eight years with no push back at
all!
Go ahead, tell me how stupid and naive I am and if you do not look out
for yourself, no one else will.
Fred
PS. When averaging and loose rules were SOP everything was relatively
ok. That is the way the world often goes around. However, as the rules
get more and more explicit, we need more and more lawyers to interpret
them. Likewise, as a computer person (a lawyer about numbers and
logic), when averages move to explicit rules, I want all bases covered,
short of Acts of God. This subject is not clarified enough for me yet.
If you havn't figured it out yet, part of the above is parable and part
is truth. For obvious reasons?
|
| 565.645 | Now that our fringe bennie adders are in effect, ... | YUPPIE::COLE | So let it be NOTEd, so let it be done! | Fri Feb 09 1990 09:31 | 7 |
| ... has anyone else looked closely at their W-2, fleet fringe adder
report, and past pay stubs to see if the fringe is REALLY added in to the W-2?
I have severe doubts about mine! I don't have enough old stubs, though, to do
the figures I want to do. I thought it would show up on a separate line on the
W-2, to be rolled up to a total.
Anyone else having doubts?
|
| 565.646 | It's in mine, I believe... | NEWVAX::PAVLICEK | Zot, the Ethical Hacker | Fri Feb 09 1990 11:40 | 5 |
| I believe it is in mine. Otherwise, some _big_ amount was added for
something else I don't know about...
-- Russ (who got hit up for over $3K in car benes AFTER subtracting the
weekly fee)
|
| 565.647 | I bet you'll find it's there... | RIPPLE::KOTTERRI | Welcome back Kotter | Fri Feb 09 1990 14:59 | 6 |
| Believe me, it is in the W2 amount. However, it is NOT shown on a
paystub anywhere, except in the Year-to-date numbers. If check the
differences between these year-to-date numbers, you should find one
toward the end of the year that is incremented by the Plan A fringe
benefit adder, in addition to your weekly pay. I checked and I found it
in mine.
|
| 565.648 | RE: .-1 - That's the problem ... | YUPPIE::COLE | So let it be NOTEd, so let it be done! | Fri Feb 09 1990 23:32 | 4 |
| ... once the last one came, I tossed the old ones. I don't keep
every stub all year, and didn't have anything solid to check.
Oh well, all we do is trust the system, right? :;)
|
| 565.649 | Fleet sent out letters with figures shown | SICML::LEVIN | My kind of town, Chicago is | Fri Feb 16 1990 18:18 | 23 |
| Since I'm one of the folks who keep - and read!!! - my bluethings, I had already
calculated the Fleet $$s included in my year-to-date. But I also received in
the mail, at my home address, a mailing - much like the little forms you get
from the bank showing saving acct interest - a letter which explicitly listed
the Fleet dollars. This letter stated something like "The following amount has
been added to your compensation and is included in the total in box xxxx of your
W2 form.
It also indicated that the calculation is done on a November to October year.
I presume this is to give them time to make all the caluclations. I'm under
the implression that anyone who pays you taxable $$s is obligated by law to
send you a form with the dollar amount by the end of January. If you think you
had taxable Fleet $$s and DIDN'T receive you letter, you probably should call
Fleet Administration and ask. To save you the time, I looked up the number in
my DEC phonebook and it says
FLEET ADMINISTRATION
Fleet Operations
User Vehicle/Fleet Billing/Tax and Title PKO3-2/F15 223-3535
(That's area code 508/ number 493-3535 for non-DTN folks.)
Good luck,
/Marvin
|
| 565.650 | | SCCAT::BOUCHARD | Ken Bouchard WRO3-2 | Tue Feb 20 1990 17:49 | 7 |
| re:-1
Having that letter is fine for record keeping but that's all! Your FBV
is automatically tacked onto your W-2 and that's all uncle sugar cares
about.
Of course,you may think they tacked on too much...then,that vehicle
report that fleet sent you awhile back would come in handy.
|
| 565.651 | did I save money??? | PCOJCT::MILBERG | Barry Milberg | Tue Feb 20 1990 23:18 | 7 |
| Have not checked it yet, but it will be interesting to see if it really
was ADDED
since my FBV was NEGATIVE!
-Barry-
|
| 565.652 | re:-1 | SCCAT::BOUCHARD | Ken Bouchard WRO3-2 | Wed Feb 21 1990 15:01 | 1 |
| I'm *sure* the IRS has a rule to cover that.
|
| 565.653 | re: GELCO report vs. reported FBV vs. Fleet letter
| ALOSWS::SCHICKEDANZ | There ARE no guarantees... | Wed Mar 07 1990 19:32 | 16 |
| re:650
I sure do have a copy of that report they sent aways back.
I also have a copy of the corrections I sent in (to GELCO).
Since the total that was reported in the Fleet letter, and actually
added to my W-2, agree, but don't agree with either the GELCO report,
or my corrected version, I am waiting to see what the detail in the
"final" GELCO report turns out to be.
(I know, I know. It's time to call fleet.)
Anybody have any idea how to handle carry-forwards of FBV?
- Andy -
|
| 565.654 | try not to get TOO fancy | SCCAT::BOUCHARD | Ken Bouchard WRO3-2 | Fri Mar 09 1990 19:24 | 6 |
| .653>Anybody have any idea how to handle carry-forwards of FBV?
You try *that* (or anything the IRS thinks might be shady) and they'll
probably auction off your house!
Ken
|
| 565.655 | Subtract Negtive FBV | SALMON::SULLIVAN | In the middle of IBM Country | Tue Aug 28 1990 13:24 | 12 |
| > <<< Note 565.651 by PCOJCT::MILBERG "Barry Milberg" >>>
> -< did I save money??? >-
>
> Have not checked it yet, but it will be interesting to see if it really
> was ADDED
>
> since my FBV was NEGATIVE!
>
Sorry this is late but a NEGATIVE FBV is subtracted from your gross pay.
so you don't pay tax on the negative amount
|
| 565.656 | The IRS will take exception | GUIDUK::B_WOOD | Having a wonderfull Alaska Summer | Mon Sep 10 1990 23:42 | 33 |
| > <<< Note 565.655 by SALMON::SULLIVAN "In the middle of IBM Country " >>>
> -< Subtract Negtive FBV >-
>
>> <<< Note 565.651 by PCOJCT::MILBERG "Barry Milberg" >>>
>> -< did I save money??? >-
>>
>> Have not checked it yet, but it will be interesting to see if it really
>> was ADDED
>>
>> since my FBV was NEGATIVE!
>>
>
>Sorry this is late but a NEGATIVE FBV is subtracted from your gross pay.
>so you don't pay tax on the negative amount
>
>
I'm sorry, I doubt the IRS will agree with that statement.
If you had a negative FBV, you will probably be able to take it
as a deduction, limited to your out of pocket costs.
To the IRS, compensation is anything you receive as value.
They don't allow for credits to compensation. The first
section of the Tax form is designed in such a way that the only
deductions are offsets (losses) from trade or business. The term used
to distungusih the first section is GROSS INCOME. The bottom section
of the first page is adjustments to GROSS INCOME (this used to include
employye business expenses). What can't be take there can be taken
on Schedule A, 1040. Employee business expenses are limited to two
items, outo f pocket expenses or amounts from published IRS schedules.
If your preception was as stated, we would subject to aduit. I wonder
if DEC would cover the penalties.
|
| 565.657 | | BIGRED::GALE | Ditto | Sat Sep 15 1990 15:44 | 5 |
| Has anyone heard whether the Tauras Fleet Contracts for 1991 is
complete yet, and are they ordering 1991 cars yet?
(I know I could call fleet and get an answer, but I'm trying to save a
phone call)
|
| 565.658 | A penny saved is a penny earned?? | URSIC::LEVIN | My kind of town, Chicago is | Mon Sep 24 1990 19:35 | 9 |
| re: .657
<< (I know I could call fleet and get an answer, but I'm trying to save a
<< phone call)
So instead of placing a phone call, you've taken the time to enter a note which
several noters (myself included) will take the time to reposnd to. Sounds like
a productivity issue to me.......
/Marvin
|
| 565.659 | They're available if you really need them | GUIDUK::B_WOOD | Having a wonderfull Alaska Summer | Mon Sep 24 1990 23:11 | 9 |
| RE: .657
My plan B car just crowbared. I called Fleet and explained the
situation and they suggested I request an emergency requisition.
In this type of situation, District Mgt can request through region and
they will emergency order a car (if one isn't available). I've got to
handle this immediatedly because Wednesday I'm commuting 80 miles to a
customer site (each way) and my old backup beater won't cut it.
|
| 565.660 | simpler | CSC32::K_BOUCHARD | Ken Bouchard CXO3-2 | Thu Oct 11 1990 20:01 | 7 |
| re: negative FBV...
A simpler way to put it is if your FBV comes out negative,your gross
pay as shown on your last pay stub of the year will be the amount
shown on your W-2.
Ken
|