FUD: Cycle To Work scheme 'rejected' by my employer

[zvesda]

I recently approached the personnel department of my employer (a
university in Southern England) about their implementing the
governments Cycle To Work scheme. My suggestion was rejected because it
had been previously considered and rejected due to:

1. The restriction on 'sources' of cycles (bike shops to everyone else)
means that the "deals" on offer would be inferior to those on the
open-market.

2. The scheme, being of the tax incentive variety, would be unduly
burdensome for the employee which would thus outweigh the benefits.

Their summary was that what is available normally is as or more
competetive than the Cycle To Work scheme. Now, from what I can tell,
this is an attempt to palm me off /but/ I don't have any proof except,

1. Two of the obvious LBSs (by which I exclude Halfords, and other
chains, and mean those that will carry a range that could suit almost
anybory) are listed via www.cyclescheme.co.uk.

2. Many other universities (considerably more progressive!) than mine
run the scheme.

Has anyone else suffered from attempts to play down the supposed
benefits? Would there be anyone willing to pass on an actual assessment
of benefits they got---primarily, I'm hoping that someone went to a LBS
and finally (or is in the process of) acquired a bike at considerable
discount c.f. the full price at the LBS even taking account other
discounts and finance offers.

I'm left wondering if a concerted attempt to provide useful information
would/could result in fewer employers being able to engage in FUD.

Ali

 

[Bryan]

I recently approached the personnel department of my employer (a
university in Southern England) about their implementing the
governments Cycle To Work scheme. My suggestion was rejected because it
had been previously considered and rejected due to:

1. The restriction on 'sources' of cycles (bike shops to everyone else)
means that the "deals" on offer would be inferior to those on the
open-market.

2. The scheme, being of the tax incentive variety, would be unduly
burdensome for the employee which would thus outweigh the benefits.

Their summary was that what is available normally is as or more
competetive than the Cycle To Work scheme. Now, from what I can tell,
this is an attempt to palm me off /but/ I don't have any proof except,

1. Two of the obvious LBSs (by which I exclude Halfords, and other
chains, and mean those that will carry a range that could suit almost
anybory) are listed via www.cyclescheme.co.uk.

2. Many other universities (considerably more progressive!) than mine
run the scheme.

Has anyone else suffered from attempts to play down the supposed
benefits? Would there be anyone willing to pass on an actual assessment
of benefits they got---primarily, I'm hoping that someone went to a LBS
and finally (or is in the process of) acquired a bike at considerable
discount c.f. the full price at the LBS even taking account other
discounts and finance offers.

I'm left wondering if a concerted attempt to provide useful information
would/could result in fewer employers being able to engage in FUD.

Ali

I just got told that it would be too expensive to set up and not enough people would take advantage of it, so please go away with your sustainable transport ideas, we just want our company cars (or words to that effect)

Bryan

 

[MJ Ray]

"zvesda" <[email protected]> [...]
> university in Southern England) about their implementing the
> governments Cycle To Work scheme. My suggestion was rejected because [...]
> 1. The restriction on 'sources' of cycles (bike shops to everyone else)
> means that the "deals" on offer would be inferior to those on the
> open-market.

Buh? Is your university a member of the Southern(?) Universities
Purchasing Consortium? (if it still exists, or whatever has replaced
it) If so, they have no leg to stand on with such an argument, as
they engage in collective deals for other products. Most universities
also value competence and service levels when purchasing, not just
price, which is why they usually have lists of preferred suppliers.

> 2. The scheme, being of the tax incentive variety, would be unduly
> burdensome for the employee which would thus outweigh the benefits.

Anyone know the numbers?

> Their summary was that what is available normally is as or more
> competetive than the Cycle To Work scheme. [...]

What do they provide normally?

[...]
> I'm left wondering if a concerted attempt to provide useful information
> would/could result in fewer employers being able to engage in FUD.

The only reason they're able to is that you're not naming and shaming
them. I can appreciate that you don't want to do it directly and
encourage your managers to find ways to fire you, but try to get campus
unions, media or campaigns asking irritating questions and then going
public if they get the same silly answer.

--
MJR/slef

 

[Ian Smith]

On 7 Aug 2006 12:42:22 -0700, zvesda <[email protected]> wrote:

> 1. The restriction on 'sources' of cycles (bike shops to everyone else)
> means that the "deals" on offer would be inferior to those on the
> open-market.

Not sure I understand - they say that because bikes can only be bought
from bike shops, the scheme won't work? The tax scheme makes no
requirements on source of bike. Some employers operate schemes with a
limited supplier list, but there's no fundamental requirement.

> 2. The scheme, being of the tax incentive variety, would be unduly
> burdensome for the employee which would thus outweigh the benefits.

Stranger and stranger. Presumably they don't pay anyone either,
because if they did the employees would get taxed, which is an unduly
burdensome imposition. Not to mention the burdensome requirement to
read a payslip each month.

The only burden I can think of is signing your name on whatever
paperwork the employer requires to go with the salary sacrifice.

> Their summary was that what is available normally is as or more
> competetive than the Cycle To Work scheme.

Might be true, but only if they let you buy any bike you want for half
price. Do they?

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[Arthur Clune]

zvesda wrote:
> I recently approached the personnel department of my employer (a
> university in Southern England) about their implementing the
> governments Cycle To Work scheme. My suggestion was rejected because it
> had been previously considered and rejected due to:
[snip]

There was a strong push here from several people to get the Uni
to talk up the government's computer scheme that worked on similar
lines (I forget the names). It was rejected as being

a) Not actually being all that much of saving and
b) Too much work

Since that scheme has since been scrapped in the last budget I
suspect any hope of getting the cycle scheme adopted has vanished.
'Why bother doing all the work of setting it up when it can
just be stopped overnight'.

Hard to argue with really.

Arthur

--
Arthur Clune

 

[Ian Smith]

On 9 Aug 2006 14:54:50 GMT, Arthur Clune <[email protected]> wrote:

> There was a strong push here from several people to get the Uni
> to talk up the government's computer scheme that worked on similar
> lines (I forget the names). It was rejected as being
> a) Not actually being all that much of saving and
> b) Too much work

Actually, the computer scheme was not that much of a saving, as
implemented by lots of organisations. That is, it _could_ have been a
valuable saving, but so many of the schemes added so much guff that it
often didn't save.

My wife's employer offered the computer scheme. However, you had to
choose one of three or four pre-made packages. The computers were OK,
but they all came bundled with lots of useless software. Yes, the
package was half price, but half of what you were supposedly buying
was useless rubbish. It came out barely any saving, and some aggro,
so we bought a computer elsewhere.

That is, we could have got 500 quid of computer with 450 quid of
software. We would have paid 475 quid. We would have thrown away the
software, so paid 475 quid for a computer we could buy for 500 quid,
but wasn't quite what we really wanted. Not worth it.

I suspect the suppliers bundled the software because that's where they
made their money - you can't get computers cheap, but you can get
software cheap.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[Stevie D]

Arthur Clune wrote:

> There was a strong push here from several people to get the Uni
> to talk up the government's computer scheme that worked on similar
> lines (I forget the names). It was rejected as being
>
> a) Not actually being all that much of saving and
> b) Too much work

The computer scheme was generally not good value for money. With most
employers, you were tied to particular suppliers, and often particular
models a/o packages. This means that you will usually have to either
upspec or downspec from what you want. Add again the fact that the
supplier was often quoting prices way above what you could find after
a minutes shopping around on the web or the high street. The terms of
the deal were not all that favourable, particularly with regards to
the lease period.

The bike scheme doesn't suffer from a lot of those problems, because
YOU choose the bike that you want, from the supplier you want to buy
from.

I'm not taking advantage of it because I've got a perfectly adequate
bike already, but I would be far more inclined to take up this offer
than the computer one.

--
Stevie D
\\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the
\\\\\\\__X__/////// common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________

 

[PhilD]

Stevie D wrote:
> The bike scheme doesn't suffer from a lot of those problems, because
> YOU choose the bike that you want, from the supplier you want to buy
> from.


My employer insists on Halfords, Halfords or, um, Halfords. Apparently
if the bike you want isn't in stock they'll order it. Any model,
apparently. However, we would have to buy exact multiples of £50,
with no change, and you cannot add up to £49.99 of own money, either
(if I understand correctly). The guff sent expects you to buy "safety
accessories" with any remaining credit.

I've already decided to save up and then go to my local bike shop
(where I can get a good discount anyway). The scheme only looks good
if you don't have a bike at all and want some rubbish to ease your
environmental conscience.

PhilD

--
<><

 

[Tony Raven]

PhilD wrote on 10/08/2006 08:28 +0100:
>
>
> My employer insists on Halfords, Halfords or, um, Halfords. Apparently
> if the bike you want isn't in stock they'll order it. Any model,
> apparently. However, we would have to buy exact multiples of £50,
> with no change, and you cannot add up to £49.99 of own money, either
> (if I understand correctly). The guff sent expects you to buy "safety
> accessories" with any remaining credit.
>
> I've already decided to save up and then go to my local bike shop
> (where I can get a good discount anyway). The scheme only looks good
> if you don't have a bike at all and want some rubbish to ease your
> environmental conscience.
>

Mine used Halfords (although I suspect they will be changing soon after
employee pressure to support the LBSes. I was able to buy a second
Brompton with it where essentially all the money went via Halfords to
the Brompton dealer. Worked well for me (and its not as if I don't have
a bike or....ermm rather many ;-)

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

 

[Al C-F]

Stevie D wrote:

> I'm not taking advantage of it because I've got a perfectly adequate
> bike already,
>

I'm afraid that is not a good excuse in this newsgroup.

 

[Alex]

Al C-F wrote:
> Stevie D wrote:
>
> > I'm not taking advantage of it because I've got a perfectly adequate
> > bike already,
> >
>
> I'm afraid that is not a good excuse in this newsgroup.

I've got 2 perfectly good bikes but I am going to need a 3rd come
January.

I'm not sure if the company I work for does have such a scheme (it
should given it's size).

But it's going to be hard to justify it since my commute is a 500 yard
walk. Cycling it takes longer if you include the
unlocking/locking/other faffage.

-Alex

 

[[email protected]]

My employer insists on Halfords, Halfords or, um, Halfords. Apparently
> if the bike you want isn't in stock they'll order it. Any model,
My employer also insists on Halfords. With some trepidaltlon I ordered
a Lemond Tourmalet: it arrived when they said it would, intact.
> apparently. However, we would have to buy exact multiples of £50,
> with no change,
Like book tokens, you have to use up the full amout you buy.

>and you cannot add up to £49.99 of own >money, either
Not what I was told.
> (if I understand correctly). The guff sent expects you to buy "safety
> accessories" with any remaining credit.
Actually it says 'bike or safety equipment to the value of X". Or in my
case X plus 10 percent extra free, which was nice. The interpretation
of 'safety equipment' was wide enough to include a polar HRM, I spent
the change on spare tubes, gloves and a jersey.

>
> I've already decided to save up and then go to my local bike shop
> (where I can get a good discount anyway).
Put away your (well founded) opinion of Halfords or you may miss out on
a very good deal, unless your LBS gives you 50percent discount and
interest free credit.

>The scheme only looks good
> if you don't have a bike at all and want some rubbish to ease your
> environmental conscience.
Not my experience at all. GBP1100 RRP will cost me less than GBP600
over 12 months and I've got a much,much better road bike than I'd
otherwise have.

The ordering and supply of the bike was trouble-free but I will still
never, ever, let Halfords service any of my bikes!

 

[[email protected]]

My employer insists on Halfords, Halfords or, um, Halfords. Apparently
> if the bike you want isn't in stock they'll order it. Any model,
My employer also insists on Halfords. With some trepidaltlon I ordered
a Lemond Tourmalet: it arrived when they said it would, intact.
> apparently. However, we would have to buy exact multiples of £50,
> with no change,
Like book tokens, you have to use up the full amout you buy.

>and you cannot add up to £49.99 of own >money, either
Not what I was told.
> (if I understand correctly). The guff sent expects you to buy "safety
> accessories" with any remaining credit.
Actually it says 'bike or safety equipment to the value of X". Or in my
case X plus 10 percent extra free, which was nice. The interpretation
of 'safety equipment' was wide enough to include a polar HRM, I spent
the change on spare tubes, gloves and a jersey.

>
> I've already decided to save up and then go to my local bike shop
> (where I can get a good discount anyway).
Put away your (well founded) opinion of Halfords or you may miss out on
a very good deal, unless your LBS gives you 50percent discount and
interest free credit.

>The scheme only looks good
> if you don't have a bike at all and want some rubbish to ease your
> environmental conscience.
Not my experience at all. GBP1100 RRP will cost me less than GBP600
over 12 months and I've got a much,much better road bike than I'd
otherwise have.

The ordering and supply of the bike was trouble-free but I will still
never, ever, let Halfords service any of my bikes!

 

[Stevie D]

PhilD wrote:

> My employer insists on Halfords, Halfords or, um, Halfords.

So they want to buy a bike, but they won't go to a bike shop...

> Apparently if the bike you want isn't in stock they'll order it. Any
> model, apparently. However, we would have to buy exact multiples of
> £50, with no change, and you cannot add up to £49.99 of own money,
> either (if I understand correctly). The guff sent expects you to buy
> "safety accessories" with any remaining credit.

Ah, OK - maybe it is still down to individual employers to sort out
the details of the purchase/lease. My employer may be better than
others in this respect (that's a first!).

--
Stevie D
\\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the
\\\\\\\__X__/////// common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________

 

[Stevie D]

Al C-F wrote:

> I'm afraid that is not a good excuse in this newsgroup.

Sorry, but I'm (a) poor, (b) tight, and (c) only an occasional member
of this group!

--
Stevie D
\\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the
\\\\\\\__X__/////// common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________

 

[Don Whybrow]

Stevie D wrote:
> PhilD wrote:
>
>
>>My employer insists on Halfords, Halfords or, um, Halfords.
>
>
> So they want to buy a bike, but they won't go to a bike shop...
>
>
>>Apparently if the bike you want isn't in stock they'll order it. Any
>>model, apparently. However, we would have to buy exact multiples of
>>£50, with no change, and you cannot add up to £49.99 of own money,
>>either (if I understand correctly). The guff sent expects you to buy
>>"safety accessories" with any remaining credit.
>
>
> Ah, OK - maybe it is still down to individual employers to sort out
> the details of the purchase/lease. My employer may be better than
> others in this respect (that's a first!).

My lot also use Halfords, but you can only choose to get one once a
year, in October, for purchase the following year. Bit of a PITA if you
decide you need a new bike in February. So far I haven't been able to
make use of it.

--
Don Whybrow

Sequi Bonum Non Time

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the
legislature is in session." (Judge Gideon J. Tucker, 1866.)

 

[Tony Raven]

Don Whybrow wrote on 10/08/2006 20:25 +0100:
>
> My lot also use Halfords, but you can only choose to get one once a
> year, in October, for purchase the following year. Bit of a PITA if you
> decide you need a new bike in February. So far I haven't been able to
> make use of it.
>

Don't know where you got that idea from. I chose and bought my Brompton
through Halfords in March and it was delivered in May (Brompton backlog)


--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

 

[Don Whybrow]

Tony Raven wrote:
> Don Whybrow wrote on 10/08/2006 20:25 +0100:
>
>>
>> My lot also use Halfords, but you can only choose to get one once a
>> year, in October, for purchase the following year. Bit of a PITA if
>> you decide you need a new bike in February. So far I haven't been able
>> to make use of it.
>>
>
> Don't know where you got that idea from. I chose and bought my Brompton
> through Halfords in March and it was delivered in May (Brompton backlog)

It is a restriction my employer has placed on the scheme. We get to
choose all sorts of benefits, like £10 shopping vouchers for £9, once a
year. The bike scheme is part of the package.

--
Don Whybrow

Sequi Bonum Non Time

Hi! I'm a .signature virus! Copy me into yours and join the fun!
(Done ...)

 

[Tony Raven]

Don Whybrow wrote on 10/08/2006 21:21 +0100:
> Tony Raven wrote:
>> Don Whybrow wrote on 10/08/2006 20:25 +0100:
>>
>>>
>>> My lot also use Halfords, but you can only choose to get one once a
>>> year, in October, for purchase the following year. Bit of a PITA if
>>> you decide you need a new bike in February. So far I haven't been
>>> able to make use of it.
>>>
>>
>> Don't know where you got that idea from. I chose and bought my
>> Brompton through Halfords in March and it was delivered in May
>> (Brompton backlog)
>
> It is a restriction my employer has placed on the scheme. We get to
> choose all sorts of benefits, like £10 shopping vouchers for £9, once a
> year. The bike scheme is part of the package.
>

Sorry, I had read it as a constraint of Halfords, not your employer.

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

 

[[email protected]]

Don Whybrow wrote:
> Tony Raven wrote:
> > Don Whybrow wrote on 10/08/2006 20:25 +0100:
> >
> >>
> >> My lot also use Halfords, but you can only choose to get one once a
> >> year,
> > Don't know where you got that idea from. I chose and bought my Brompton
> > through Halfords in March and it was delivered in May (Brompton backlog)
>
> It is a restriction my employer has placed on the scheme. We get to
> choose all sorts of benefits, like £10 shopping vouchers for £9, oncea
> year. The bike scheme is part of the package.
>
> --
> Don Whybrow
Similar here, my only complaint really. On the upside you need to get
the application in on time but you have up to 6 months to order your
stuff so you can at least.take time to choose.
Anyone know if you have to buy a bike? Can you just buy 'accessories'
? Jerseys, helmet, lights and car rack all get used for commuting in
one way or another, for example.