EV but no driveway: Is this a foolish idea?

TooManyPoints

Discrimination can occur without the involvement of a “protected characteristic.” That is only relevant where a breach of the Equality Law is concerned.

If I worked for a company which suddenly said “From next month we’re going pay to refuel the cars of employees who run electric cars, but not IC cars”, that is discriminatory.

It’s different if new employees are recruited on those terms (though a trade union may not agree). But it's certainly an issue if you treat existing staff differently. They might as well say we’re giving EV staff an extra (say) £500 a year, but not IC staff.

To say that those staff who might complain are "just that way inclined" fails to grasp the issue.

SimonSeys

If the other employees feel that strongly about it they can get another job. And if the company is wrong then they will fail and go bust.

But I doubt it.

EV charging is a pull factor for some employees but I don’t think it’s a push factor for non-EV owning employees. And encouraging the switch to greener travel may well be in line with company CSR objectives.

GDB2222

This has come up at Stormont!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8d8nyp82yro?app-referrer=deep-link

Aretnap

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82036374#Comment_82036374

It's not remotely discriminatory. All employees can have an electric car charged for free. No employees can have a petrol car charged for free. Who do you think is being discriminated against?

Or do you think that "owning a petrol car" is an immutable characteristic which some people have and others don't? Obviously it isn't. Any employee who wants to take advantage of the offer can easily do so by getting an electric car (which is sort of the point of the tax incentive).

I do if course understand why certain people who are set in their ways and live in constant fear of the thought that someone else might be getting a free lunch would be grumpy about the policy. Presumably if the company offered free gym membership they would also complain that they were being discriminated against because they don't like going to the gym. Either way, it's best to ignore people like that.

Frozen_up_north

Leeds Bradford Airport used to offer free drop off/pickup for up to one hour for EV car drivers… any company/organisation is free to offer whatever incentives/initiatives they like, even if it seems ridiculous for an airport to worry about internal combustion engines in cars, when they have aircraft guzzling huge amounts of kerosene and turning it into CO2!

TooManyPoints

I think there is some misunderstanding here.

My remarks arose from the suggestion that some IC car owners may be “that way inclined” to complain when they are told that their employers are paying to refuel electric cars belonging to staff but not doing the same for owners of IC cars.

I’m not talking about unlawful discrimination based on “protected” or “immutable” characteristics. So perhaps “discrimination” is too strong a term. But I don’t think there’s any need to get bogged down in semantics. Owners of IC cars are being treated less favourably because of an arbitrary reason. If it doesn’t reach your definition of discrimination, it’s certainly unfair treatment. There is little or no justification for employers to do this (other than to burnish their “green” credentials - and if they wanted to do that properly they would not provide car parking facilities at all).

I raised the point because to say that staff are “that way inclined” to complain gives the impression that their complaints would be unjustified. I think they would be perfectly justified. Yes, an employer can do this if he wants. I suppose it comes down to how fairly he wants to treat his staff.

Herzlos

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82036341#Comment_82036341

Not really, it's just a perk that not everyone can use. Am I being discriminated against because I've never used the free gym at my work? Or because I don't eat any of the free pastries? Or someone gets a company car and I don't?

There's nothing stopping a member of staff from changing to an EV to take advantage of the perk.

Jemma01

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82036807#Comment_82036807

Not a valid comparison imo, because those things you mentioned are available to you and to everyone else equally, your choice not to use them. Unless you expect ppl to go and buy a new car so they fit in that category? Buying a car is a necessity for most ppl, it's not a out of love for spending, nor is it a question of get yourself to the gym or stuff your face with free pastries.

Give me a free car and free fuel and I'll take it.

GDB2222

I don’t see what is wrong with discrimination in some cases. When choosing a surgeon, for example, I discriminate in favour of the competent ones.

Cornucopia

I think the question of workplace perks is a bit of a red herring. If the employer wants to give a particular benefit they can (with the proviso that they cannot discriminate e.g. by providing a gym for men but not women).

For EV charging, there could be various reasons for doing it - it's cheap and easy to do, it fits with their ethos, it has a straightforward tax treatment, it fits (maybe) with other employee schemes for EV purchase/leasing/company cars.

At the moment, the second hand price of EVs has little or no premium over similar ICE vehicles. Someone might have other reasons for not getting one, but if their permanent employer offers charging then that won't be one of them.