Cycle to work scheme...

Quoted message said:

Oh, and as an after thought, the director of HR (She being the minion
allocated to respond) stated that cycling was dangerous, so the
company was concerned for our safety!

<snippity>

Quoted message said:

How do you counter such unmitigated twaddle?

30 second brainstorming session:

www.statistics.gov.uk search for passenger death rates. Ask what they're
doing to discourage walking and stamp out motorcycling.

Also ask how much it would cost to introduce the scheme <naive>if they know
it costs too much, they've at least made back-of-envelope estimates</naive>

Ask how much per year is devoted to "promoting employee health" and
furthering their "green agenda".

Ask if 1% of their workforce uses the company gym/subsidised gym
membership. If it's around 1% ask whether this is under threat too.

Try and shape your questions in such a way as to lead Minion to realise the
sense of introducing the scheme. Express hope that money is found in next
years budget.

Likely as not the company is doing nothing because no one in management
sees anything to gain by acting.

What, specifically, do they need to do to enable you to cycle to work?
Could you do so, effectively, without the company doing anything? If
so, why not start cycling?

As a long term action, you could try being a subversive within the
system. Most large companies have all kinds of annoying committees

<aside>The only committees I like are committees of two: me and my
gun.</aside>

that need fodder (um, I mean bodies). Find relevant committees and
volunteer. For example, if you have an employee satisfaction
committee, join it. Do a survey (make sure all your cycling-friendly
coworkers respond) as to what would make working at your company more
satisfying. My goodness, look at how many employees want bicycle
lockups and shower facilities. If you are willing to take a long view,
there are most certainly avenues for you to push your view within the
company.

Jeff

Quoted message said:

I was thinking of approaching my employer too. But I guess that seeing
as I work for a large auto manufacturer there could be added
implications?!

--
Mark
_______________________________________
Nerves of Steel, Heart of Gold, Knob of Butter

"Mark Thompson"
<pleasegivegenerously@warmmail*_turn_up_the_heat_to_reply*.com> wrote in
message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Oh, and as an after thought, the director of HR (She being the minion
allocated to respond) stated that cycling was dangerous, so the
company was concerned for our safety!

<snippity>

Quoted message said:

How do you counter such unmitigated twaddle?

30 second brainstorming session:

www.statistics.gov.uk search for passenger death rates. Ask what they're
doing to discourage walking and stamp out motorcycling.

Also ask how much it would cost to introduce the scheme <naive>if they
know
it costs too much, they've at least made back-of-envelope
estimates</naive>

Ask how much per year is devoted to "promoting employee health" and
furthering their "green agenda".

Ask if 1% of their workforce uses the company gym/subsidised gym
membership. If it's around 1% ask whether this is under threat too.

Try and shape your questions in such a way as to lead Minion to realise
the
sense of introducing the scheme. Express hope that money is found in next
years budget.

And hope your P45 isn't....

Cheers, helen s ;-)

paul said:

Well I sent an email to are CEO asking why the company won't introduce the cycle to work
scheme ~actually I challanged him to deny that they refused because they couldn't make a
profit out of it, but I alsop cited that the company was keen to promote employee health
and claimed to have a 'green' agenda. He passed it of to one of his minions who has now
responded (Only 4 weeks !)

So the excus^H^H^H^H reasons they haven't introduced it? Well in other companies there
has only been a 1% uptake of the scheme apparently (I'll put a side the fact that the
company has over 100,000 employees) , and as it will cost LOTS of money to set up, it
makes sence to do it for other things first!

Oh, and as an after thought, the director of HR (She being the minion allocated to
respond) stated that cycling was dangerous, so the company was concerned for our safety!
to quote

'We also have some safety concerns about the involvement of our people in the
scheme given the location of many of our buildings and fears about the number of
serious road accidents which involve cyclists'

We do have a company car scheme though!

How do you counter such unmitigated twaddle?

Pah! I say

I approached my company and asked them to adopt the green transport plan
(IR 176). It was rejected because it was not clear who was responsible
for the bike as it would be paid for by me via a salary sacrifice but
would remain the property of the company. They were concerned that they
would be liable for maintenance, insurance, etc...

Rowman

Mark (MSA) said:

I was thinking of approaching my employer too. But I guess that seeing
as I work for a large auto manufacturer there could be added implications?!

Try it.

I work for a borough that's supposed to be committed to sustainable
transport, and have been ignored. It's more a matter of individuals
than the company as a whole, I think.

Colin McKenzie

"rowman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I approached my company and asked them to adopt the green transport plan
(IR 176). It was rejected because it was not clear who was responsible for
the bike as it would be paid for by me via a salary sacrifice but would
remain the property of the company. They were concerned that they would be
liable for maintenance, insurance, etc...

Rowman

Excuses, excuses.
The company I work for made it quite clear in the hire agreement I had to
sign that I was solely responsible for the entire risk of loss, theft damage
etc. and to ensure it is used safely.
So don't accept these excuses and get back onto your company.

Also seconded everything said about Bromptons in another thread. Great fun
for using with train travel. Point out that if you do any travel on company
business you could save taxi fares.

Toby

rowman said:

I approached my company and asked them to adopt the green transport plan
(IR 176). It was rejected because it was not clear who was responsible
for the bike as it would be paid for by me via a salary sacrifice but
would remain the property of the company. They were concerned that they
would be liable for maintenance, insurance, etc...

If it is not clear, then it needs to be written into the agreement. All
they need to write is "The bike remains the property of the company,
but all maintenance, insurance, repairs, etc are the responsibility of
the employee to whom it is loaned".

I strongly suspect they have made this up to try and fob you off.
Companies don't like salary sacrifice schemes because the payroll
software does not handle it very easily. I spent months trying to
convince my last employer to run a scheme (up to 10% of the employees
were interested) and rebutting all their lame excuses. In the end this
and other things convinced me to leave and set up my own company -
guess what, we have implemented a Travel Plan with no difficulty and
all employees have bikes!

"paul" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Well I sent an email to are CEO asking why the company won't introduce the
cycle to work
scheme ~actually I challanged him to deny that they refused because they
couldn't make a
profit out of it, but I alsop cited that the company was keen to promote
employee health
and claimed to have a 'green' agenda. He passed it of to one of his
minions who has now
responded (Only 4 weeks !)

Good luck - I have spent 6 years trying to get cycle friendly facilities and
it took 5 years to get a 90 quid tumble dryer during a 2 million quid office
revamp! IMO the overweight gaffers who decided these things really do
everything in their power to drag you to their level, while maintaining a
false green facade. The best way is to smile sweetly every morning while
keep cycling all year round.

iakobski said:

In the end this
and other things convinced me to leave and set up my own company -
guess what, we have implemented a Travel Plan with no difficulty and
all employees have bikes!

Gizzajob!

<smug>Just kidding, my employers are great, and installed a shower as
part of my joining conditions! My bike lives in a meeting room, and my
kit in the hot, dry boiler room.</smug> :-)

ExG

paul said:

Well I sent an email to are CEO asking why the company won't introduce the cycle to work
scheme

Simple. What's the least they have to do to keep you? That's what they
will do.

How many staff would they lose by *not* having a cycle to work scheme?
None?

Mark (MSA) said:

I was thinking of approaching my employer too. But I guess that seeing
as I work for a large auto manufacturer there could be added
implications?!

I believe Volvo have a scheme to encourage people to cycle to work.

I recently approached my employer about a scheme and the reason I was
given that they had not joined one was the number of employees we had.
They reckoned that to take part in a scheme you need more than 1000
employees, and we only have 750.

Any truth in this, informed people?

Cheers

Steve

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I recently approached my employer about a scheme and the reason I was
given that they had not joined one was the number of employees we had.
They reckoned that to take part in a scheme you need more than 1000
employees, and we only have 750.

Any truth in this, informed people?

Cheers

Steve

http://www.lcc.org.uk/index.asp?PageID=580

Quoted message said:

I recently approached my employer about a scheme and the reason I was
given that they had not joined one was the number of employees we had.
They reckoned that to take part in a scheme you need more than 1000
employees, and we only have 750.

Any truth in this, informed people?

Load of rubbish. I know companies that do it for numbers of employees <10

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

Tony Raven said:

Quoted message said:

I recently approached my employer about a scheme and the reason I was
given that they had not joined one was the number of employees we had.
They reckoned that to take part in a scheme you need more than 1000
employees, and we only have 750.

Any truth in this, informed people?

Load of rubbish. I know companies that do it for numbers of employees <10

If you mean taking advantage of that nice Mr Brown's favourable tax
terms for business cyclists, I happen to be 95% owner and sole full-time
employee of one such company:-)

--
not me guv

Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as
[email hidden] gently breathed:

Quoted message said:

I recently approached my employer about a scheme and the reason I was
given that they had not joined one was the number of employees we had.
They reckoned that to take part in a scheme you need more than 1000
employees, and we only have 750.

Any truth in this, informed people?

Utter balderdash, they're having you on.

I work for a company with less than 100 employees, and I've got one.
http://www.cyclescheme.co.uk for the details.

--
- DJ Pyromancer, The Sunday Goth Social, Leeds. <http://www.sheepish.net>

Broadband, Dialup, Domains = <http://www.wytches.net> = The UK's Pagan ISP!
<http://www.inkubus-sukkubus.co.uk> <http://www.revival.stormshadow.com>