Re: Time to Pay Again, Dinks!

["Roland Moore" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I am still not sold on the "employee benefit". It may be a benefit, but it
is definitely a limited one. If I am in my own vehicle I can do what I want
when I want. If I am in a company vehicle and I am directed to a new
location, I feel like it is understood that is exactly where I am headed,
and not necessarily where I choose to go next. Maybe I want to run errands
before or after work Maybe when I want a raise in pay, I get the use of the
company sled instead? I still think the policy benefits the compnay more
than the employee.

"Bob La Londe" <nospam@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:4720b94f$0$26369$88260bb3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> "Roland Moore" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:4720a042$0$20640$4c368faf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > What kind of Mickey Mouse stuff is this? If you're in a company vehicle,
> > driving to a job site why wouldn't you be getting paid?
>
> Because otherwise a technician would have to drive to the office first to
> pick up their service vehicle.  We went around about this when I worked
for
> the phone company.  It is generally accepted that the time an employee
> spends getting to work is the employee's time, not the employer's time.
> (Its also federal regulation.)
>
> The benefit of a company vehicle to the employee is reduced wear and tear
on
> their own vehicle and often zero fuel costs.  The benefit to the company
is
> quicker response (potentially) to customers.  The benefit to the customer
is
> more time available to perform service and therefor faster service in boh
> the short term as well as in the big picture.
>
> The IRS has tried to say that the use of a company vehicle for personal
use
> is a taxable benefit the last time I checked.  Driving to work from home
is
> personal use.  I'll leave it to the tax accounts to say how that works out
> in the real world.
>
> A big benefit is reduced fuel (ZERO) costs for the employee related to
> getting to work.
>
> The benefit to humanity is reduced greenhouse gas emmissions.  (Sorry had
to
> throw that one in there.  LOL) because less total fuel is burnt.
>
> One thing to consider is that their is a finite amount of time available
for
> all things in life to be performed.  If an employee is allowed the
> priveledge of taking a work vehicle home for personal use (even limited
> personal use like driving to work) it increases the amount of time they
have
> available for themselves as well as the amount of the amount of the
> employer's time spent actually working.
>
> You could counter that if it might average out the same for the employer
> cost wise if they came to work first and then picked up a company vehicle
> and drove to their first job site of the day,  True, but the employee has
> not spent more time for the same amount of pay.  It somehow seems counter
> that they should be given a reduced living expense by use of a company
> vehicle to go to work and get paid for traveling to work also.
>
> The rule of thumb we had to live by when I worked for the phone company
was
> if we had a co vehicle at home we were on our own time until we reached
our
> first job site.  From that second on we were on company time until we left
> the last job site of the day.  The exception was if our first or last
> service call was outside of our home coverage area.  For us our coverage
> area was 50 miles across approximately, and yes sometimes it was the case
> that we had to drive a couple hundred miles to get to or from a trouble
> spot.  We were paid for that time.  We were also paid for all travel time
> throughout the day.
>
> Most companies do not charge customers for travel time inside their
coverage
> area.  (I don't) but they charge a flat rate mileage fee outside their
> coverage area (I do).  Realistically that means that travel outside the
> coverage area is paid travel time regardless of time of day, and there is
a
> charge for mileage to the customer.  Travel inside the coverage area is
paid
> travel time during the work day but not to and from work and I eat the
> mileage costs, but it offset slightly because the time spent between
periods
> of productive time is much less.
>
> What about on-call or overtime?  Well that is covered by overtime pay, and
> many companies pay a minimum to be on-call (I do) whether the empoyee
> actually works or not.  Being on-call requires remaining available and it
> requires limitations of some activities that could be freely indulged if
the
> time were truly their own.
>
> If I did business in Washington I would refuse to allow techs to take
> company vehicles home ever because of a ruling like this.  Any benefit to
me
> would be out weighed by the additional expense.  Already my insurance
> company charges me more for this practice.
>
> Still, as I have always said, each person tends to think in terms of what
> benefits them the most, and only think about mutually enhanced benefit to
> all concerned when they take a more enlightened approach.
>
> I suspect that Brinks may have been trying to abuse the circumstances or
> that one or two greedy employees tried to get a little more than they
> deserved which resulted in a negative working situation and ultimately in
> the legal battle.  As is often the case I am sure the summary posted did
not
> reveal all the details necessary to understand everything going on.
>
> P.S.  I don't like Brinks.  If the statutues of the state of Wa says that
> all time spent in a company vehicle regardless of purpose must be paid
then
> they must abide by it.  Then so must all other companies.  It is a then a
> level playing field on that issue.
>
> P.P.S.  I am not a sock puppet.
>
>
> --
> Bob La Londe
> The guy who decides who we do business with.
>
> The Security Consultant
> PO Box 5720
> Yuma, Az 85366
>
> (928) 782-9765 ofc
> (928) 782-7873 fax
>
> Contractors License Numbers
> ROC103040 & ROC103047
>
>
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
>