Cyclescheme - Rejection by employer

duncanss

Hi

I was in the process of finding out about the CycleScheme with the intention of using it to buy a bike for the first time, only to find out that a colleague has already tried this and been told an outright no! I work for a large organisation (about 1600 people), with an employee forum and this issue was raised through the forum. To the best of my knowledge the reasons given were (in decreasing order of hilarity / increasing order of seriousness):
1 - Cycling is dangerous therefore we don't want to condone it.
2 - The benefit is marginal, and only worthwhile over £1000.
3 - There are only a few people who cycle to work, therefore it is not worth persuing
4 - The bicycle will be owned by the company and it does not want the responsibility / liability of owning this asset.
5 - The company is concerned about an employee sueing the company if it gets injured on the bicycle (related to 4).

Seriously, can anyone comment on 4 or 5 please?

Thanks

Duncan

willbevan

reason 5 was one of the things that put off my company for a while,

does seem a bit shocking if they really did say its dangerous... okay so it is, i've almost got knocked off a couple a times a week for the last 3 weeks :S

fluff.

on 4, that's bobbins, the liability is with the employee for insuring/upkeep etc as soon as he signs on the dotted line, although the employer still owns it.

1-3 are just silly, especially 1, do they have company cars? they are quite dangerous too apparently :P

tuxpoo

To name and shame my company SYMANTEC (the Anti-virus) has given a simlar reply.

They replied with 2 and 3 basically.

2) is rubbish
3) ... we have 4 bike sheds ... I cannot get a space if I come in after 9. quick head count round my desk is 6 out of 20 cycle to work at least 3 times a week in good weather. at least 3 others are on the verge of trying with fuel costs and expanding bellys being the motivation.

Ive given up and got a Specalized sirus with cash... would have liked a better bike for commute.... but ho hum

Personally I think this should be compulsory for med - large companies.

tux

supersonic

4) You don't own the bike: you lease it off your company via your salary forfeit. Many companies will let you purchase the bike at the end for a nominal sum. But they don't have to.

deal

tuxpoo wrote:

To name and shame my company

are you sure you want to name and shame them ? personally i would edit there name out just incase some pretty person searches through your other posts elsewhere on the forum to try and Identify you.

BobbyTrigger

at the end of my 12 month payment period i pay my employer 5% of the initial loan amount to transfer ownership (the scheme states an employer can charge between 3% - 5%)


and point 3 (tuxpoo) madness! my organisation has 3,000 employees, runs the scheme every year, loves to wax lyrical about how green they are yet only have 1 bike shed that holds 13 bikes! hence why i ride to work with 2 huge expensive dlocks as i have to lock it up outside

big up the cycle scheme though, its the dogs knackers!

keef66

My company said no because they couldn't be arsed to administer the scheme (didn't put it quite like that but that was the reason)

Mind you, HM Customs & Revenue have just given me a £1100 tax rebate!

alfablue

3) The fact that there are currently few people riding to work is the very best argument for pursuing the scheme, then hopefully the number will increase!

All of those arguments are just dumb excuses - they are either anti-bike (or anti-cyclist); feel it is somehow wrong to give employees some sort of benefit; or they just can't be ar*ed!

FSR_XC

keef66 wrote:

My company said no because they couldn't be arsed to administer the scheme (didn't put it quite like that but that was the reason)

Mind you, HM Customs & Revenue have just given me a £1100 tax rebate!

That's why I did it for my company.


1 - Cycling is dangerous therefore we don't want to condone it.
So is crossing the road & do they know what dangerous sports their employees are up to at weekends?
Does this mean that they don't allow anyone to cycle to work?

2 - The benefit is marginal, and only worthwhile over £1000.
A 43% saving on £500 is £215. Probably nothing to a large organisation, but this is a large benefit to an individual. It also certainly increases morale as you feel more valued by your company.

3 - There are only a few people who cycle to work, therefore it is not worth persuing
With current fuel costs and attitudes towards the environment, shouldn't they be doing all they can to encourage more people to cycle?

4 - The bicycle will be owned by the company and it does not want the responsibility / liability of owning this asset.
This is from the Cycleshceme faq's
Whose responsibility is it to insure the bike?
Yours, even though you are still paying for your bike through salary sacrifice. When you sign the hire agreement you are agreeing to insure the bike.
You should advise your insurance company that your employer has an interest in the goods to be insured.
So what liability of owning the asset are they concerned about?

5 - The company is concerned about an employee sueing the company if it gets injured on the bicycle (related to 4).
Although it is a company bike, you are required to have your own insurance.
What is their policy on commuting whilst using a company car?
If you were to use your own vehicle (insured to use for work) and you had an accident, how would they approach that?

To be quite honest, it is pathetic, that in this day & age companies are against any method of encouraging people to use environmentally friendly transport to get to work.
I think I would be tempted to send an anonimous letter to your local paper or better still contact the editor direct. If it's anything like our local rag, this would make the front page - and they would interview the MD & HR Manager of the said company.

spen666

FSR_XC wrote:

keef66 wrote:

My company said no because they couldn't be arsed to administer the scheme (didn't put it quite like that but that was the reason)

Mind you, HM Customs & Revenue have just given me a £1100 tax rebate!

That's why I did it for my company.


1 - Cycling is dangerous therefore we don't want to condone it.
So is crossing the road & do they know what dangerous sports their employees are up to at weekends?
Does this mean that they don't allow anyone to cycle to work?

[...

more people get hurt in accidents involving motor vehicles- so I presume your employer will not provide company cars either

gtvlusso

Doh! Sounds like this should be in the "Jobsworths" thread.

My company is somewhere near 10,000 employees in the UK and god knows how many in EMEA.

We run C2W and have a BUG (Bike User Group) that includes motorcylists and we specifically campaign for better service directly to the board via an eco friendly policy (carbon footprints and that).

As I have to move between building's for meetings (some distance apart), I cycle. I was asked to get cycle business insurance which my company paid a percentage of (as it also cover personal liability and theft). I think it was £124 total per annum. It may be a way forward for you. They cover us for all "company branded" sporting activities, like Rugby, Football and so on - so it makes no odds to them about running C2W and most people opt for a company caar or allowance anyway!

Ultimately, it sounds like they cannot be arsed - typical HR attitude (from experience of this place!)

Beeblebrox

If I were you I would make a fuss over this - thousands of companies do it and it is a government run scheme with plenty of case studies for their concerns. Not doing it just shows that they're a rather backwards looking company which will not be appreciated by its workers in the long term.

roger645

keef66 wrote:

My company said no because they couldn't be arsed to administer the scheme (didn't put it quite like that but that was the reason)

Mind you, HM Customs & Revenue have just given me a £1100 tax rebate!

Our HR manager took the same approach, however if it were a scheme for for nursery places or similar she would have moved heaven and earth to do something :?

AndyManc

duncanss wrote:

Hi

I was in the process of finding out about the CycleScheme with the intention of using it to buy a bike for the first time, only to find out that a colleague has already tried this and been told an outright no! I work for a large organisation (about 1600 people), with an employee forum and this issue was raised through the forum. To the best of my knowledge the reasons given were (in decreasing order of hilarity / increasing order of seriousness):
1 - Cycling is dangerous therefore we don't want to condone it.
2 - The benefit is marginal, and only worthwhile over £1000.
3 - There are only a few people who cycle to work, therefore it is not worth persuing
4 - The bicycle will be owned by the company and it does not want the responsibility / liability of owning this asset.
5 - The company is concerned about an employee sueing the company if it gets injured on the bicycle (related to 4).

Seriously, can anyone comment on 4 or 5 please?

Thanks

Duncan

You work for a bunch of tossers , don't you have a union health and safety rep at that place .. if not perhaps you should put yourself forward, do the courses ( which by law your company must let you attend , and they are free ) and sort the muppets out.

passout

I would get cycle scheme directly involved because this is all bollocks. The scheme is all carefully thought through as far as I can see. Your employer is coming up with excuses because they are fat lazy t**ts. Harsh perhaps...but fair.

andy_wrx

roger645 wrote:

keef66 wrote:

My company said no because they couldn't be arsed to administer the scheme (didn't put it quite like that but that was the reason)

Mind you, HM Customs & Revenue have just given me a £1100 tax rebate!

Our HR manager took the same approach, however if it were a scheme for for nursery places or similar she would have moved heaven and earth to do something :?

Oh gawd now doesn't that sound familiar !

Yes, we have the salary-sacrifice thing for nursery vouchers, and never hear the end of it from HR and payroll about how it's a complete pain.

I've never bothered about C2W as I have 4 bikes (and half a tandem ) already and don't need another, but I can just picture the reaction if I enquired about it - more work and more hassle for HR and payroll, who aren't into bikes so wouldn't directly benefit from it themselves.
Unless one of the senior managers championed it, it would just be fobbed off.

We got a bike rack last year - but that was because a couple of us were bringing our bikes in through the fire door and leaving them in the bottom of the stairwell : if it was raining, they dripped an oily puddle on the tiles...

duncanss

Thanks for all the replies - and supporting opinions. I agree. Most of the reasons given by my company are complete BS.

In my opinion, the Cycle to work scheme should make a statement to the efect that if the employee and employer enter into an cycle purchase arrangement, then the employee should indemnify the employer against any claims should the employee have an accident on what is effectively a company asset. Does anyone know whether there is such a standard clause in the agreement?

Further, the employee should be required to have insurance for accidents and theft.

Neither of these is unreasonable in my opinion. The decision is now whether I should stick my head above the parapet and start to cause a fuss with management!!!