Cycle to work scheme - employers dragging feet

davidtimoney

What can be done about employers refusing to offer it or dragging their feet? How difficult is it for companies to set up? A friend who works in a major Iish building society was told by their HR that they dont do it. He cycles 20 miles to work!

Beasty

It is entirely optional for employers to participate. There are admin costs associated with this, and most employers are not familiar with salary sacrifice arrangements. For many employers, where the take-up is likely to be small, the costs of running the scheme will be prohibitive.

Have you asked your employer? Do you know how many employees are likely to take it up?

There are companies out there to help with the administration of the scheme, but they do limit the availability of the products somewhat.

http://www.bikescheme.ie/resources

Lumen

davidtimoney wrote: »

How difficult is it for companies to set up?

Easy peasy. Company credit card out, buy bike on internet, e-mail invoice to accounts, e-mail HR to adjust payroll, quick note in employees file so you don't forget they've had it.

Nothing involved is different from any other aspect of doing business. Those who don't participate are lazy and/or stupid....

edit: ....or rather cunning by hoping that their underutilised employees will quietly melt away and help them trim costs.

Ryaner

I have to take issue with their being administration charges. I know in our place, there was just a form signed and given to HR. I took over the ordering of bikes on the company credit card and just gave invoices to finance. They then divided the amount by 12 and added it as a pretax deduction on the wage software.
With large companies, then yeh there would need to be some better layout and organisation but small ones really should be fine.

Beasty

Ryaner wrote: »

I have to take issue with their being administration charges. I know in our place, there was just a form signed and given to HR. I took over the ordering of bikes on the company credit card and just gave invoices to finance. They then divided the amount by 12 and added it as a pretax deduction on the wage software.

It's not that simple. Assuming your company does this under a salary sacrifice arrangement, the form you signed was hopefully a legally binding amendment to your employment contract formalising this. This reduces gross salary on your payslip (and should ensure the employer and employee social security contributions are correctly reduced). If the company claws this back over 12 months there is in effect a loan in place, which you repay out of net pay (which again should be shown on the payslip).

My employer has taken 2 years to introduce the equivalent scheme in the UK, because of the changes required to the payroll system (they waited until a new system was in place, rather than amend the existing one). They also need to put in place controls to ensure only expenditure which is eligible is claimed (ie cycles and qualifying safety equipment), as well as ensuring only one claim is made every 5 years. The employee should also confirm they will use the bike mainly for commuting (ie more than 50% of its use should be getting in and out of work)

Admittedly my employer is a large listed company with several thousand UK employees (both the UK and Irish rules require the scheme to be made available to all employees), and the implementation costs are not insignificant (although the social security savings should more than pay for it)

The problem for small companies is understanding exactly what is required. Where there are employees who understand the rules and can help implement a scheme, I agree they should be able to limit the costs. However when you are talking about changing employee contracts some companies are nervous about doing this without taking (often costly) specialist advice.

Of course, if you have a particularly generous employer, they could simply buy the equipment for you, and then it would not be a taxable benefit in kind. This is much simpler to administer, but clearly costs the employer a lot more as they are paying for the bike.

blorg

I don't buy this at all. If it's a small company and they have a good relationship they will do it for you, it is not that complicated.

If it is a large company... well, that just shows you what sort of inefficiency goes on in large companies.

It is no different than the bus pass scheme. The employer can claw back the entire sum immediately if they want for that matter so a loan is not involved.

Ryaner

Beasty wrote: »

It's not that simple. Assuming your company does this under a salary sacrifice arrangement, the form you signed was hopefully a legally binding amendment to your employment contract formalising this. This reduces gross salary on your payslip (and should ensure the employer and employee social security contributions are correctly reduced). If the company claws this back over 12 months there is in effect a loan in place, which you repay out of net pay (which again should be shown on the payslip).

My employer has taken 2 years to introduce the equivalent scheme in the UK, because of the changes required to the payroll system (they waited until a new system was in place, rather than amend the existing one). They also need to put in place controls to ensure only expenditure which is eligible is claimed (ie cycles and qualifying safety equipment), as well as ensuring only one claim is made every 5 years. The employee should also confirm they will use the bike mainly for commuting (ie more than 50% of its use should be getting in and out of work)

Admittedly my employer is a large listed company with several thousand UK employees (both the UK and Irish rules require the scheme to be made available to all employees), and the implementation costs are not insignificant (although the social security savings should more than pay for it)

The problem for small companies is understanding exactly what is required. Where there are employees who understand the rules and can help implement a scheme, I agree they should be able to limit the costs. However when you are talking about changing employee contracts some companies are nervous about doing this without taking (often costly) specialist advice.

Of course, if you have a particularly generous employer, they could simply buy the equipment for you, and then it would not be a taxable benefit in kind. This is much simpler to administer, but clearly costs the employer a lot more as they are paying for the bike.

Honestly it really isn't that complex. I didn't get to order my bike until the second week of January. Took our finance team less than 15 minutes to figure out how to get salary parts done. HR used a boiler plate form for us to sign.

Only different between us and most other companies is probably that we aren't short of cash or in risk of downsizing.

Jawgap

I've beat this drum before, but I don't see the problem. If you're a small business (as in less than 5 people) maybe it takes a bit more effort as a proportion of the total effort put into running the business, but we did it in minutes........


........and we're a large public sector organisation.

It was straightforward - HR emailed forms - employee signs forms and returns to HR with details of the bike they'd like - HR get Finance to pay for bike - employee picks up bike. At the last count we've done about 12.

The longest most difficult part for me was the hours spent searching and researching on the net drooling over various bits of kit and thinking up a decent excuse for when I walked in the door with a new bike.

seamus

Beasty, with all due respect the scheme in the UK operates under different criteria and so requires more systemic changes.

The scheme here in Ireland only requires that

1. The employer has the ability to pay a vendor
2. The employer's payroll system has the ability to make one-off or incremented deducations from salary.

If an employer is unable to do either of these things, they won't last very long in business.

In terms of the contract, all the employer requires is a standard boilerplate agreement that
1. They can make the salary deduction
2. The the employee will primarily use the bike/equipment for commuting.

That's it. MS Word and 20 minutes work.

gman2k

It's an employer's market out there at the moment, not only in that they can pick and choose potential employees easier, but also many think that they can now act as they want with existing employees.
What goes around comes around.....

Lumen

gman2k wrote: »

It's an employer's market out there at the moment, not only in that they can pick and choose potential employees easier, but also many think that they can now act as they want with existing employees

Still doesn't make any business sense. Even in a recession, businesses still compete for employees. It's free money from the Government. Give it to your employees and they are likely to be more satified with lower pay and conditions.

seamus

Lumen wrote: »

Still doesn't make any business sense. Even in a recession, businesses still compete for employees. It's free money from the Government. Give it to your employees and they are likely to be more satified with lower pay and conditions.

Not mention that exercised employees are happier, more alert and suffer far less sickness than those who aren't.

There is absolutely no good reason for any employer to *not* participate in this except for sheer laziness.

Jawgap

I think we ewere quite lucky to have Finance and HR managers who saw the benefits of the scheme immediately - for Finance they were saving some PRSI and HR saw it as a way to give some kind of modest benefit to staff - even if the majority will never take it up, the fact it's there and can be accessed quickly goes some way to telling your employees you value them.

SerialComplaint

davidtimoney wrote: »

What can be done about employers refusing to offer it or dragging their feet? How difficult is it for companies to set up? A friend who works in a major Iish building society was told by their HR that they dont do it. He cycles 20 miles to work!

There are only 2 Irish building societies. Irish Nationwide were notorious for treating their employees like dirt (and their directors like very-well-paid gods). Perhaps their new chairman and CEO might take a different approach.

EBS on the other hand always had a fairly good reputation for employee relations. Your friend should talk to his union to try to build up a head of steam around this issue. He could try Asking the CEO directly, or if he is an EBS member, he could submit a motion for next year's AGM (with the support of a few other members).

UsedtobePC

I set up the scheme in my company and really it's not that complicated. It is true that it is perceived to be an admin nightmare but once you explain the process step by step (and there are only about 10 including all the ins and outs of payroll, cost centre allocations, etc.) everybody is happy. In our case all we had to do was to replicate the commuter/travel incentive scheme for salary deductions et voila!

TimHanley

I thought a company was in business to make a profit, not provide the children, sorry employees with bicycles.

You want a bike, you buy one.

TinyExplosions

seamus wrote: »

Not mention that exercised employees are happier, more alert and suffer far less sickness than those who aren't.

Unless it's days off from crashing in races, sportives or down to careless road users Cyclists get sick less, but possibly injured more!

seamus

TimHanley wrote: »

I thought a company was in business to make a profit, not provide the children, sorry employees with bicycles.

You want a bike, you buy one.

I suggest you read up on it Tim. The employee pays for the bike, not the employer.

The employer saves PRSI payments by participating with this, so it does contribute to their bottom line.

blorg

TinyExplosions wrote: »

Unless it's days off from crashing in races, sportives or down to careless road users Cyclists get sick less, but possibly injured more!

More than one study has found that cyclists on average take less sick days (for whatever reason) than non-cyclists.

ednwireland

UsedtobePC wrote: »

I set up the scheme in my company and really it's not that complicated. It is true that it is perceived to be an admin nightmare but once you explain the process step by step (and there are only about 10 including all the ins and outs of payroll, cost centre allocations, etc.) everybody is happy. In our case all we had to do was to replicate the commuter/travel incentive scheme for salary deductions et voila!

where can you get info on how the salary deductions / prsi reclaims work, i would be able to avail of this but trawled revenus for more detailed info ( we dont have hr or finance just an occasional book keeper who ensures stuff is on track and accountant for end of year) so if i want it i have to figure it out and let them know how to do it.

Lumen

blorg wrote: »

More than one study has found that cyclists on average take less sick days (for whatever reason) than non-cyclists.

Correlation != causation. It may just be that the sickies are too feeble to ride a bike.

mmclo

Are the foot dragging employers allowing the travel pass scheme? if they are this is unequal and could arguably go to the LRC etc. Certainly should be mentioned to HR etc.

davenewt

The request to HR in the company I work for fell on, shall we say, stony ground

Lumen

davenewt wrote: »

The request to HR in the company I work for fell on, shall we say, stony ground

You need to speak to the organ grinder.

UsedtobePC

ednwireland wrote: »

where can you get info on how the salary deductions / prsi reclaims work, i would be able to avail of this but trawled revenus for more detailed info ( we dont have hr or finance just an occasional book keeper who ensures stuff is on track and accountant for end of year) so if i want it i have to figure it out and let them know how to do it.

I actually contacted the DTO and they were very attentive and willing to help me especially around the fiscal side of things as I don't understand SFA about them. There are a few documents on the Revenue site as well on how the scheme works. If you PM me with your email i can forward them to you.

davenewt

Lumen wrote: »

You need to speak to the organ grinder.

If you mean the CEO it probably doesn't hit his radar and I'm sure if I mention it I'll get a "what are you bothering me for?" response, or a "bigger things to worry about" answer.

If you mean head of HR, that's who the request went to.

And yes, I know what that's telling me

Lumen

davenewt wrote: »

If you mean the CEO it probably doesn't hit his radar and I'm sure if I mention it I'll get a "what are you bothering me for?" response, or a "bigger things to worry about" answer.

Just send him a picture of Alan Sugar on his Pinarello, subject "The eighth habit of highly effective people".

Chips Lovell

mmclo wrote: »

Are the foot dragging employers allowing the travel pass scheme? if they are this is unequal and could arguably go to the LRC etc. Certainly should be mentioned to HR etc.

Ooooh. Bit of a nuclear option that. I'd tread very carefully with that one, depending on the size of the company and whether it's unionised or not.

davenewt

Lumen wrote: »

Just send him a picture of Alan Sugar on his Pinarello, subject "The eighth habit of highly effective people".

Not a bad notion, although it assumes a certain level of accomplishment in the other seven

mmclo

el tonto wrote: »

Ooooh. Bit of a nuclear option that. I'd tread very carefully with that one, depending on the size of the company and whether it's unionised or not.

Of course...might be more like "oh how come we run the travel scheme, they're effectively the same, that doesn't seem fair"

regardless of unionised or not the company must treat employees fairly and HR departments are well aware of this, but of course each person knows their own work place culture best

Chips Lovell

mmclo wrote: »

regardless of unionised or not the company must treat employees fairly and HR departments are well aware of this, but of course each person knows their own work place culture best

You're right. I guess all I was saying was that sometimes a lot of aggro isn't worth a cheap bike. But a subtle hint could help.

ROK ON

MMCLO - it is entirely voluntary that a company signs up to this. They cannot be forced as fair as I am aware.
I am not sure that the LRC would entertain a case involving discrimination over commuting choice.

davidtimoney

UsedtobePC wrote: »

I set up the scheme in my company and really it's not that complicated. It is true that it is perceived to be an admin nightmare but once you explain the process step by step (and there are only about 10 including all the ins and outs of payroll, cost centre allocations, etc.) everybody is happy. In our case all we had to do was to replicate the commuter/travel incentive scheme for salary deductions et voila!

To "Used to be PC" - Could you list out the 10 steps that need to be gone though in setting up the scheme. It would help me trying to get it done here in work.

Thanks

mmclo

ROK ON wrote: »

MMCLO - it is entirely voluntary that a company signs up to this. They cannot be forced as fair as I am aware.
I am not sure that the LRC would entertain a case involving discrimination over commuting choice.

Maybe maybe not, if an employer offers a benefit like the travel to work scheme which is vountary to employees but not another identical scheme it would want a pretty good reason as to why one type of employee was been treated more favourably

Let's say I allow some emplyees to work from home and others not, I think I would have ot have a strong logic to it (i.e. type of work, dealing with clients etc.) I can't just say it suited for some and not others

So what I'm saying is the employer would need a strong and compelling logic not to offer this benefit to soem if he was offering a very similar benefit to others, just saying it's arguable.

ER can say our work does not suit cycle commuting or we don't have facilities etc. but has to be a solid and real reason to treat one employee less favourably than another in my reasoning and IR bodies have upheld this

TinyExplosions

mmclo wrote: »

Maybe maybe not, if an employer offers a benefit like the travel to work scheme which is vountary to employees but not another identical scheme it would want a pretty good reason as to why one type of employee was been treated more favourably

Let's say I allow some emplyees to work from home and others not, I think I would have ot have a strong logic to it (i.e. type of work, dealing with clients etc.) I can't just say it suited for some and not others

I'm not sure if this follows through. There's no onus on an employer to implement any scheme if they don't want too. Your analogy would only work if the employer implemented the travel to work scheme, but barred an employee from using it because they ride a bike. Like it or not, they are two disparate schemes, either of which can be offered.

It's our choice at the end of the day to cycle to work and not use the travel to work scheme...

Jawgap

TinyExplosions wrote: »

I'm not sure if this follows through. There's no onus on an employer to implement any scheme if they don't want too. Your analogy would only work if the employer implemented the travel to work scheme, but barred an employee from using it because they ride a bike. Like it or not, they are two disparate schemes, either of which can be offered.

It's our choice at the end of the day to cycle to work and not use the travel to work scheme...

It's possible to be on both schemes as the C2W scheme allows for bikes to be ridded to/from the train station or bus stop to count as a qualifying journey.

Mrs J is on both schemes as she now cycles to the train station then hops on the cattle wagon into town.

TinyExplosions

Jawgap wrote: »

It's possible to be on both schemes as the C2W scheme allows for bikes to be ridded to/from the train station or bus stop to count as a qualifying journey.

Mrs J is on both schemes as she now cycles to the train station then hops on the cattle wagon into town.

I realise that, I was trying to illustrate the point that offering one scheme and not the other isn't discriminatory in the manner he suggested

DC10

Does anyone know is there any other way around this if your company wont particapate?
Is it possible to claim back direct from the revenue?

Beasty

DC10 wrote: »

Does anyone know is there any other way around this if your company wont particapate?
Is it possible to claim back direct from the revenue?

No - tax relief is only available under an employer scheme

DC10

Beasty wrote: »

No - tax relief is only available under an employer scheme

:(Thanks

keep_it_real

hey all
finally got this scheme in my company in London, i know there are slight differences between UK & Ire schemes but basically it took us a lot of pestering on HR to get it started. Eventually after a round of redundancies they introduced it...make of that what u will...
Season ticket loans for tube/train and childcare voucher schemes are both well established and unquestioned benifits. It was tough getting the cycle 1 added but it has had good take up - 10 out of 60 employees in 1st month.
There's a condition that the bike is mostly used for commuting but this a totally unenforcable rule same as buying safety equiptment only, I think only downhill bikes and nutrition drinks are not allowed. Right too:D
How much better is this as a benifit rather than 'free car parking' or 'subsidised canteen':P
it's a 12 month deal so potentially the company gets your loyalty and u get a £1k spend every year

Beasty

keep_it_real wrote: »

hey all
it's a 12 month deal so potentially the company gets your loyalty and u get a £1k spend every year

Technically there is no limit on amounts under UK schemes, although most employers impose one at £1,000 because of consumer credit rules.

Under the Irish rules the limit is €1,000 and once used there is a 5 year wait before the €1,000 is available again.

Lumen

Beasty wrote: »

Technically there is no limit on amounts under UK schemes

That almost makes me want to move back to the UK. Briefly.

johnnyboy4711

can this be an out for bike dealers to sell bikes that are supposed to be worth say €750 or €1000 (under-speccing)when shopping around find the spec is not what it should be for the price?
ie sora parts on a €1000 racer.
surely they should be at least tiagra for that money!
just a thought!

My company of about 4K employees are actively participating in this an i am seriously considering it!

I think you should be bale to choose the bike you want anywhere eg (up north ,online etc) and not be limited to the specific B&M stores in my area,but i suppose beggars cant be choosers!

Very positive scheme on the whole though!
slan
john

Chips Lovell

johnnyboy4711 wrote: »

can this be an out for bike dealers to sell bikes that are supposed to be worth say €750 or €1000 (under-speccing)when shopping around find the spec is not what it should be for the price?
ie sora parts on a €1000 racer.
surely they should be at least tiagra for that money!
just a thought!

My company of about 4K employees are actively participating in this an i am seriously considering it!

I think you should be bale to choose the bike you want anywhere eg (up north ,online etc) and not be limited to the specific B&M stores in my area,but i suppose beggars cant be choosers!

Very positive scheme on the whole though!
slan
john

Under the rules of the scheme, you can buy a bike anywhere, even order it from abroad. So in theory that should force bike shops to be comeptitive in their pricing. Now if an employer opts to only deal with one supplier, then yes it could become an issue. But that's really the employer's fault.