Terms of Employment - Conflict

fluffyanimal

Having posted I was looking for people experiences, views, opinions, but wow, I didn't expect the below diatribe

sangie595 wrote: »

If you want an employment lawyer "or similar" - whatever that is - then pick up the phone, book an appointment and pay the bill. Don't come on a free site full of anonymous posters.

Ummm, this is a really good site with some very insightful and knowledgeable posters (excluding some) so, why wouldn’t I before weighing my options and considering taking professional advice?

sangie595 wrote: »

For what it is worth, since our views are not of any interest to you

Really don’t know where this understanding came from. Perhaps you were just having a bad day.

sangie595 wrote: »

, but maybe someone else will get some benefit.... They've imposed a change of terms which costs you not a penny. You may resign for breach of contract and try out your luck at a tribunal. You won't win, but feel free to do so. Seriously - this is an insignificant change which costs not a single thing to you, but one day you might have to travel to an office and pay the cost. Boo hoo.

Doesn’t cost me a penny currently, in my current role. I have been through a number of roles within this company (part of the reason I have stayed so long with them), utilising the payment option or company car / fuel card as appropriate.

Yes, boo hoo to me, my nearest office now being 78 miles away.

Considering the implications of things in the future and not just today is what reasonable people tend to do.

[FONT=&quot]

sangie595 wrote: »

Everyone pays their travel to work. And that's what HMRC say too - you aren't entitled to travel expenses or payment from your employer for a commute. Reasonable and equitable is that emp0loyees pay their costs to get to work. And back again.

What a complete waste of your own time. Employers will often provide to facilitate employees getting to work. In my case the company provided the option of a company car / fuel card or financial payment but, when I utilised the company car / fuel card I am taxed on both. Similarly my own company (for head office staff) provide a free bus service from the head office to local pick up points (due to its location). I doubt my company is far from unique.

sangie595 wrote: »

BTW... I am "something similar" and really, there are people whose jobs are being lost every day, who are getting wage cuts, and working longer hours for less money, and you think that having to hand back a card you aren't using is a hardship? I thought I had heard it all...

You seem to have a habit of putting emotional words in my mouth where none existed. Before writing this did you at all consider that all of the above (bar being made redundant) has already happened to me and perhaps whilst this aspect may appear menial to you it is one more thing. This is a factual question regarding terms of employment.[/FONT]

fluffyanimal

FBaby wrote: »

So you decided to take the financial payment that came with being able to get your petrol cost reimbursed through claiming mileage. They have now realised that they were double paying staff that way, and looking at making savings for the company, have decided to impose you could only have one or the other.

You're not happy not not be double paid for your petrol and using the argument that you should have a say in their change in policy. If that's the case, you are wrong. They can change their policies at all time without consultation. There are only some areas of employment they need to legally adhere to, but having to continue to double pay staff isn't one of them.

Hi

Afraid you've got the wrong end of the stick, there is no double paying for fuel.

If I use the fuel card I use it for all travel, personal / business but cannot claim any mileage from the comapny (for obvious reasons). When utilising the fuel card (with or without a company car) you are taxed (based on the cars emissions).

If I take the finacial payment (which I am currently) I can claim from the company for business miles but not for personal miles.

So, no double claiming.... if only

k3lvc

fluffyanimal wrote: »

Having posted I was looking for people experiences, views, opinions, but wow, I didn't expect the below diatribe

Bad form/etiquette on attacking Sangie - one of the most helpful/honest posters on here.

Your post is full of entitlement/emotion for a relatively small issue that doesn't affect you currently but may in the future.

The world's changed in 20 years that you've been with the company and, unless you've missed it somewhere UK plc is in the !!!!.

If the time comes where you have to travel to the office regularly then you negotiate with your employer - if they think you're worth keeping then they'll probably be flexible in some way - if they don't then unfortunately the choice/cost becomes your issue

sangie595

fluffyanimal wrote: »

You seem to have a habit of putting emotional words in my mouth where none existed. Before writing this did you at all consider that all of the above (bar being made redundant) has already happened to me and perhaps whilst this aspect may appear menial to you it is one more thing. This is a factual question regarding terms of employment.[/FONT]

I most certainly did consider that before posting. Did you consider that giving up something which involves absolutely no loss whatsoever to you might just be one of the elements necessary to make sure that you don't get made redundant??? Whinging about the loss of something that makes not a jot of difference to you, considered against all the things that could happen, and which happen routinely to employees every day, makes you sound totally entitled and completely self-centred.

I put no emotional words into your mouth. You are the one who is whinging about nothing in particular. You are the one whose response to getting advice that you didn't like because it didn't agree with you was to "hope to get a lawyer or someone similar on here". And yes, it is entirely annoying to get people whose attitude is "tell me what I want to hear or I will rubbish your advice" as you did to posters here. You have no idea what any of us are - and would you believe it if we told you. For all we know you are a troll trying to wind people up - we get a lot of that. You were taken at face value, and your response was ungracious, to say the least.

You may not like what I told you. I'm terribly sorry if a brief introduction to the real world was not to your liking. There is nothing "emotional" about pointing out to you how the world works now. You are lucky to have been happy and able to stay with one employer for 20 years. Few people can say that these days. But things have changed in 20 years. And a fuel card that you don't even use is very little to give up not to discover some of the less welcome facts of life in that world.

fluffyanimal

sangie595 wrote: »

I most certainly did consider that before posting. Did you consider that giving up something which involves absolutely no loss whatsoever to you might just be one of the elements necessary to make sure that you don't get made redundant??? Whinging about the loss of something that makes not a jot of difference to you, considered against all the things that could happen, and which happen routinely to employees every day, makes you sound totally entitled and completely self-centred.

I put no emotional words into your mouth. You are the one who is whinging about nothing in particular. You are the one whose response to getting advice that you didn't like because it didn't agree with you was to "hope to get a lawyer or someone similar on here". And yes, it is entirely annoying to get people whose attitude is "tell me what I want to hear or I will rubbish your advice" as you did to posters here. You have no idea what any of us are - and would you believe it if we told you. For all we know you are a troll trying to wind people up - we get a lot of that. You were taken at face value, and your response was ungracious, to say the least.

You may not like what I told you. I'm terribly sorry if a brief introduction to the real world was not to your liking. There is nothing "emotional" about pointing out to you how the world works now. You are lucky to have been happy and able to stay with one employer for 20 years. Few people can say that these days. But things have changed in 20 years. And a fuel card that you don't even use is very little to give up not to discover some of the less welcome facts of life in that world.

[FONT=&quot]Hi Sangie

I'm afraid again, you have just got it completely wrong. I think you have read my post and original reply to yourself and have focused on the perceived trivial nature of my post and you have allowed your perception to then cloud how you have responded.

No one is denying that in the scheme of things this is quite low on the totem pole but I posted looking for either peoples own experiences in similar situations or possibly from people who work within a HR or legal environment who may have opinions on the matter.

Others have taken the time to post, and I thank them for taking the time and their views irrespective if their posts have a negative or positive slant towards my situation.

The triviality, or not, of the situation is not what is in question, merely any similar experiences of people around changes to their terms of employment, or opinions.

I'm more than willing to accept k3lvc comment that you are a respected poster but I would simply ask you to come back in a few days, re-read what and how you responded and consider if in fact you may have chosen to write things differently given another chance.[/FONT]

Wayne_O_Mac

fluffyanimal wrote: »

I'm more than willing to accept k3lvc comment that you are a respected poster but I would simply ask you to come back in a few days, re-read what and how you responded and consider if in fact you may have chosen to write things differently given another chance.

It's against the forum rules for me to call you an utter cretin, so I won't be doing that.

sangie595

fluffyanimal wrote: »

[FONT=&quot]Hi Sangie

I'm afraid again, you have just got it completely wrong. I think you have read my post and original reply to yourself and have focused on the perceived trivial nature of my post and you have allowed your perception to then cloud how you have responded.

No one is denying that in the scheme of things this is quite low on the totem pole but I posted looking for either peoples own experiences in similar situations or possibly from people who work within a HR or legal environment who may have opinions on the matter.

Others have taken the time to post, and I thank them for taking the time and their views irrespective if their posts have a negative or positive slant towards my situation.

The triviality, or not, of the situation is not what is in question, merely any similar experiences of people around changes to their terms of employment, or opinions.

I'm more than willing to accept k3lvc comment that you are a respected poster but I would simply ask you to come back in a few days, re-read what and how you responded and consider if in fact you may have chosen to write things differently given another chance.[/FONT]

Sorry but in a few days you and this post will be relegated to the out tray. So I won't be reading it. You'll just have to go with the fact that right now got sound like a totally entitled princess, who wants nothing to ever change even though it means nothing to you. Truth be told, it'd still sound like that in a few days too...

And I already said this - I posting from exactly the perspective you said you wanted. Obviously what you meant to add was that they had to agree with you. If something is trivial, it's trivial. I told you before, IF, and is a big if, this really is a contractual term, you can resign and claim unfair dismissal. But you certainly will not win. There is no loss (except for your employment). But if you really think this is worth that, then you must decide that. You've been warned not to go there, and if you decide otherwise, because you'd rather hang on to something that you don't actually use or need, then that is your choice... This is the real world, and risking what you have for something you don't need is ridiculous.

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

Wayne_O_Mac wrote: »

It's against the forum rules for me to call you an utter cretin, so I won't be doing that.

You're right; and it may be helpful to the OP, who is new to the forum, to point out that if anyone were to call them an entitled w****r, an idiotic little f***womble or an arrogant a***wipe, that too would be against forum rules. OP, if anyone calls you those things, be sure to report them.

fluffyanimal

sangie595 wrote: »

Sorry but in a few days you and this post will be relegated to the out tray. So I won't be reading it. You'll just have to go with the fact that right now got sound like a totally entitled princess, who wants nothing to ever change even though it means nothing to you. Truth be told, it'd still sound like that in a few days too...

Ah well, I feel for you, but that is your prerogative and that is fine. If I could use a simple analogy, you just seem to have gone down the path of arguing that drink driving is so far down the list of crimes compared to murder that in the real world scheme of things we shouldn't really focus on it as there are far more important crimes to worry about.


Again, I thank the posters who responsded with their views on the specific subject (postive or negative) and will leave this little enclave of the forum to the roaming gang.

nicechap

fluffyanimal wrote: »

Hi

I've been employed with a company for over 20 years and as part of my terms of employment I am entitled to a company car and a fully expensed fuel card (within the UK), or a financial payment.

For a large number of years, due to my work circumstances (home / office location) I utilised the company car / fuel card option. A number of years ago I opted to take the financial payment in leui of the company car / fuel card. It is probably pertinent to point out that the company car / fuel card are not neccessarily linked, i.e. I could have not taken the company car (used my own) but continued with the fully expensed fuel card if I had chosen to. I chose not to simply because when I chose to take the financial payment my role within the company had changed and I could be classified as a home worked and therefore any miles on business would be reimbursed.

So, fast forward to today, and the same company wishes to change their policy and remove the fully expensed fuel card. They have gone about this in a very bad way (from my perspective), in a very draconian way and have basically stated that because I do not the fuel card it has been "deemed that I have voluntarilly given up the fuel card" and am therefore no longer entitled to it.

There is no documentation to this effect, nothing documented within the comapnies own policy documents and I have not been advised (verbally or in written form) that this would be the case.

So, from a employment law position, anyone with any experience of these types of situations and if it is worth arguing the point with the company?

You've answered your own question. You gave up the fuel card.