Bile sale subject to bike to work means of payment.

Buzwaldo

C3PO wrote: »

"? After all, it is the employee who benefits from the scheme rather than the employer!

Does the employer not also benefit by the fact that they do not have to pay employer PRSI contribution - generally 10.75% - on the value of wages spent on bike (€1000))?

barneystinson

ted1 wrote: »

So they are selling a voucher which isn't listed as an item you can buy.

Who's doing what now?!

barneystinson

Avatar MIA wrote: »

What's the benefit of the middle man?

The only thing I can think of is that a company would only have to deal with one supplier rather than maybe a half dozen.

If that's the only reason it's a shocking waste of employee money.

It eats into the value of the employee's tax relief, but if it the employer chooses to administer the scheme in a way that is too egregious a waste of "their" money, the employee can always cut their nose off to spite their face and buy their own bike without availing of the scheme... :cool:

Avatar MIA

barneystinson wrote: »

It eats into the value of the employee's tax relief, but if it the employer chooses to administer the scheme in a way that is too egregious a waste of "their" money, the employee can always cut their nose off to spite their face and buy their own bike without availing of the scheme... :cool:

That's some progressive thinking there. Shur, don't they get the weekends off the lazy bastards.

barneystinson

Avatar MIA wrote: »

That's some progressive thinking there. Shur, don't they get the weekends off the lazy bastards.

But sure you've already pointed out yourself what the point of the middle man is, it's the same as the point of all middle men, to suit someone on either side of them. It may mean that there's an additional cost that someone bears, but since the cost is borne ultimately by the exchequer, I don't see why panties would be particularly bunched over this issue... although maybe it's a cyclist thing, they do seem to be quite the touchy crowd...!

Cee-Jay-Cee

shootermacg wrote: »

Just got off the phone with HR and they said they, as a big company outsource to cyclescheme, who take 100 euro for admin charges.

So its basically the shop's that decide to sign up to this or not.

Still not happy here, I'm paying back my share for payment admin that I want no part of.

For what purpose? It's a simple process/transaction so why complicate it by adding a useless middle man that does absolutely nothing but take a cut? Makes no sense.

cdaly_

barneystinson wrote: »

The middle man isn't taking any money from the employee though?

The employer gives 1k to the middleman, in return for a voucher, which they give their employee.

The employee has a voucher for 1k and the shop charges them whatever price the shop deems appropriate to redeem the voucher against a bike. The employee gets 1k of bike for their 1k voucher, it's just that their bargaining power is less by using the voucher.

The employee effectively has a voucher for EUR900, not 1k as that's all that the bike shop will get from it.

barneystinson wrote: »

It eats into the value of the employee's tax relief, but if it the employer chooses to administer the scheme in a way that is too egregious a waste of "their" money, the employee can always cut their nose off to spite their face and buy their own bike without availing of the scheme... :cool:

Does anybody know if a similar commission is taken from annual commuter tickets purchased under the 'Tax Saver' scheme? If not, there's probably a case to answer...

Avatar MIA

barneystinson wrote: »

But sure you've already pointed out yourself what the point of the middle man is, it's the same as the point of all middle men, to suit someone on either side of them. It may mean that there's an additional cost that someone bears, but since the cost is borne ultimately by the exchequer, I don't see why panties would be particularly bunched over this issue... although maybe it's a cyclist thing, they do seem to be quite the touchy crowd...!

I'm not a cyclist. I don't see where you are coming from.

barneystinson

cdaly_ wrote: »

The employee effectively has a voucher for EUR900, not 1k as that's all that the bike shop will get from it.

There's no "effectively" - the voucher has a face value of €1k, and the shop are just choosing not to give the same level of discount on a particular item according to the OP.

If OP goes in to buy a bike at full price they won't be charged an extra hundred quid, will they? So on a different purchase it is "effectively" a €1k voucher, by your logic.

CramCycle

magicbastarder wrote: »

it obviously depends what systems HR have in place. some obviously outsource the work to cyclescheme, but i'm not sure what the ultimate benefit is.

The only benefit is that someone in finance has to only sign one form at the end of the month, rather than several

C3PO wrote: »

Why don't you say "busy" rather than "lazy"? I don't work in either a HR or Finance Department but, as you say, I know that setting up a new supplier for the company I work with is a fairly onerous task! I suspect that, if there wasn't a 3rd party supplying this service, mine and many other companies like ours would simply not offer the "Cycle to Work Scheme" to it's employees!

I'd say lazy, HR in my new job waste more time dealing with people inquiring about issues with the scheme or workarounds, thten if they had just used our normal PO system. It is not a difficult or complicated service to offer and in reality would add very little in terms of workload, and in large companies I find it difficult to believe that a tiny bit of tinkering to their online system may have made it all automatic. Looking at our own system, I think the employer and the the employee actually do more work than if it went straight through the company, only one person in finance seems to have an easier life whereas several other workers seem to have far more work.

ted1 wrote: »

While that's true,this is a tax saving scheme with certain rules. If using a voucher should the limit be day 1100, as only 1000 is going on the bike.

It also states that the employer must purchase the bike, or the employee. Do bike to work give bikes or vouchers ?

I am pretty sure the voucher scheme is not technically legal but it like many things is just over looked for apparent convenience.

Avatar MIA wrote: »

Do companies benefit from their employees?

On a €500 bike for a tax payer on standard rate of tax paying €100 to the middle man will practically wipe out the tax benefit of going with the bike to work scheme.

But, tell me how does the scheme work to cut down the workload for HR/Finance. Do you know?

No employers PRSI on the 1000, so about 108euro. It adds very little to the workload. The purchases are not for the company, no messing with VAT or going through the books. The company simply purchases them, attaches a date and employee number and sticks it in a drawer. On their wage system (an most will be electronic), they stick on a deduction for 12 months of 1/12 the price of the bike. Then a note saying, don't let this person access to this scheme again until the january after 4 years have passed.

In fact, the company still has to do 99% of that work anyway, regardless.

barneystinson wrote: »

There's no "effectively" - the voucher has a face value of €1k, and the shop are just choosing not to give the same level of discount on a particular item according to the OP.

If OP goes in to buy a bike at full price they won't be charged an extra hundred quid, will they? So on a different purchase it is "effectively" a €1k voucher, by your logic.

But thats not entirely true now is it. Even before I got into bikes, as a child, with my dad, it was expected when you bought a bike that you would get a minimum of 10% discount. Conveniently what most bike 2 work schemes take. This is now gone, shops still have to make their profit. I have seen where bike shops have had to stop a sale through the voucher scheme as it wasn't mentioned initialy on a sale bike, and they would have just been giving the bike away at a loss.

Don't get me wrong, there is a part of me that is jealous. The middle man bit is brilliant in its simplicity, from what I have seen it does little or nothing to reduce the workload to a HR department as most larger ones still want traceability, they still have to apply the deduction on to the wages etc. but I can see how a sales person would sell it to a large HR department.

Kaisr Sose

carltonleon wrote: »

An Post uses a One 4 All voucher when doing the Bike to Work scheme

Correct on the commission. An employee does not have to accept payment by voucher. They can insist in cheque payment /banks transfer like any other payment by An Post for goods and services. This voucher payment via third party is just a method of making money from the scheme. Other than that, it adds no value to the process and may give employees less choice of bike (shops won't accept them) and certainly less bargaining power in shops. Even though the company pays for the bike, its employees money that is being spent. Therefore, they have a right to ask for the best price for the bike.
Apologies if that's poster elsewhere on this thread. I have not read every post.

CramCycle

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

Correct on the commission. An employee does not have to accept payment by voucher. They can insist in cheque payment /banks transfer like any other payment by An Post for goods and services.

While the voucher system in my opinioin is against the wording of the scheme, so is this unfortunately (if I am reading you right). All an employer has to offer is the same option to one as to all. So if my employer offered me the option not to go through the voucher company, all employees must be afforded the same option. This said if all they offer is the voucher scheme, then there is no onus on the employer to offer any other route.

Or are you saying that the employee can ask an post to refund the voucher for a cheque/bank transfer?

68 lost souls

barneystinson wrote: »

There's no "effectively" - the voucher has a face value of €1k, and the shop are just choosing not to give the same level of discount on a particular item according to the OP.

If OP goes in to buy a bike at full price they won't be charged an extra hundred quid, will they? So on a different purchase it is "effectively" a €1k voucher, by your logic.

9/10 times they will be given €100 off if not on a voucher

Eurocycles regularly advertise they will give accessories to the value of 10% with the bike free unless its bought with a voucher.

Every bike shop I went into when buying my bike on bike to work the first question was cheque or voucher.

Kaisr Sose

CramCycle wrote: »

While the voucher system in my opinioin is against the wording of the scheme, so is this unfortunately (if I am reading you right). All an employer has to offer is the same option to one as to all. So if my employer offered me the option not to go through the voucher company, all employees must be afforded the same option. This said if all they offer is the voucher scheme, then there is no onus on the employer to offer any other route.

Or are you saying that the employee can ask an post to refund the voucher for a cheque/bank transfer?

My post only refers to An Post employees. I don't disagree with what you say about offering one avenue for all employees, but that is not saying I agree with anything that limits the choice of outlet/brand of bike. That is not the spirit of the scheme. The employer is winning anyway on lower PRSI contributions and where applicable, reduced employer pension contribution. So what if it takes a few minutes to set a supplier up or raise a PO - dealing with 3rd party Co's is not without admin cost either. Purchases under a certain amount normally have a fast track process to reduce admin required for what may be a one off purchase from that supplier.
To the best of my knowledge, An Post does not 'en-cash' One For All vouchers and they cannot be used to pay for An Post services.

CramCycle

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

My post only refers to An Post employees. I don't disagree with what you say about offering one avenue for all employees, but that is not saying I agree with anything that limits the choice of outlet/brand of bike.

Completely agree, I don't think that anything limiting choice of shops is a positive for the scheme.

An post have clearly set up a double win for them selves though, taking the 108euro employers PRSI back, then taking the 100euro commission (not sure if one4all is 10% or less, just guessing). one4all is not third party for an post, as they own one4all. It also is a sneaky push to getting more shops to sign up. i know my LBS hates them not for the commission but for the fact that their card system is rubbish and constantly failing. Last year I think any cards with a snowman on them were not accepted at a large volume of retailers (bounce back).

To the best of my knowledge, An Post does not 'en-cash' One For All vouchers and they cannot be used to pay for An Post services.

They do for a fee (or they used to anyway), which again, if they are handing out one4all cards rather than buying from the shop, is again, inviting dishonesty and also against the spirit of the scheme.

Mattie500

My observations;
1. Employer not obliged to do BTW (many many don't).
2. They can implement specific rules, e.g. It is only open for 6 weeks beginning in April.. Employee Can't get end of season discounts etc
E.g. They can specify what shops they deal with and none outside of this list.
3. It is a pain to administer so voucher system alleviates this.. There can be a cash flow element too. E.g. Employee decides to pay over 12 months... Employer pays the initial outlay that then gets recouped over 12 months. Bigger employers are more exposed. I could see less employers offering the scheme if the voucher system was not an option.

Voucher admin fee is a spurious argument, all that is happening is the bike shop is managing it's margin (and rightly so) and the employer is managing it's overhead (internal administration and financing)... it isn't the best for the employee but if it is voucher or no scheme then I'd take voucher.

I think BTW is brilliant and is how I got into cycling... I think it should also be extended to self employed for example.

Inquitus

Mattie500 wrote: »

My observations;
1. Employer not obliged to do BTW (many many don't).

This is the key takeaway, even if you lose out on a bargaining position due to the 10% commission One4All take it's still better than not being given the opportunity.

ted1

Just noticeded the title , this thread is about biles not bikes..

CramCycle

Mattie500 wrote: »

3. It is a pain to administer so voucher system alleviates this..

And this is my issue. It really isn't. Most voucher companies convince you that it is, tell you they make it easier but the truth is, in most cases, it is not any more work, or at least very little more than the voucher system.

Its a con, a very simple and good one. But a con nontheless. The accountants in the business still have to apply the wage deductions, the company still has to cough up the grand, most still insist on a statement you followed the rules and the voucher company hand all of that over to the employer to deal with.

They literally remove options, do nothing noticeable to the workload and take 10% of the margin that an employee might negotiate into a discount.

Avatar MIA

ted1 wrote: »

Just noticeded the title , this thread is about biles not bikes..

What's a biles? :P

CramCycle

Avatar MIA wrote: »

What's a biles? :P

Its what a really enthusiastic farmer makes from Silage

Kaisr Sose

I would also add that One4All commission is up to 12.3% on value of voucher. To re-state the point, they add no value to the process whatsoever. They are operating purely on the basis of a third party middle man and when you involve middle men, cost go up. I have never availed of the scheme but if or when I do, I will be asking my employer to pay for the bike directly (luckily I have the option) and not with a voucher. (It's my money that is being spent) There is exactly the same amount of work in doing it by voucher or direct so, I prefer the direct way.

barneystinson

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

I would also add that One4All commission is up to 12.3% on value of voucher. To re-state the point, they add no value to the process whatsoever. They are operating purely on the basis of a third party middle man and when you involve middle men, cost go up. I have never availed of the scheme but if or when I do, I will be asking my employer to pay for the bike directly (luckily I have the option) and not with a voucher. (It's my money that is being spent) There is exactly the same amount of work in doing it by voucher or direct so, I prefer the direct way.

Good for you, if your employer will accommodate you.

But if they only offer the scheme by way of voucher will you choose not to avail of the scheme and to spend an extra few hundred of your money to spite the middleman...??

Kaisr Sose

barneystinson wrote: »

But if they only offer the scheme by way of voucher will you choose not to avail of the scheme and to spend an extra few hundred of your money to spite the middleman...??

That's exactly what I would do if I could get the bike I wanted cheaper outside the scheme. There are many bargains to be had online ex Germany or Holland for the same price or lower price than through BTW.

The BTW scheme has practically eliminated competition between Irish bike shops and sales normally mean €100 or €200 of last years model. The same bike in Europe can be 30/40/50% off.

CramCycle

barneystinson wrote: »

Good for you, if your employer will accommodate you.

But if they only offer the scheme by way of voucher will you choose not to avail of the scheme and to spend an extra few hundred of your money to spite the middleman...??

One of the people in my place forced the hand of the employer as she really wanted a bike from a German retailer. The voucher company did not want to do it as the company would not comply with their voucher system. The voucher company eventually relented as we have well over a thousand employees

I am interested if this sets a precedent, that since this was allowed inside of the company, all employees should be allowed avail of it.

Not there long enough to ask, but once I am, I may impress upon HR the error of their ways.

2RockMountain

Mattie500 wrote: »

My observations;
1. Employer not obliged to do BTW (many many don't).
2. They can implement specific rules, e.g. It is only open for 6 weeks beginning in April.. Employee Can't get end of season discounts etc
E.g. They can specify what shops they deal with and none outside of this list.
3. It is a pain to administer so voucher system alleviates this.. There can be a cash flow element too. E.g. Employee decides to pay over 12 months... Employer pays the initial outlay that then gets recouped over 12 months. Bigger employers are more exposed. I could see less employers offering the scheme if the voucher system was not an option.

Voucher admin fee is a spurious argument, all that is happening is the bike shop is managing it's margin (and rightly so) and the employer is managing it's overhead (internal administration and financing)... it isn't the best for the employee but if it is voucher or no scheme then I'd take voucher.

I think BTW is brilliant and is how I got into cycling... I think it should also be extended to self employed for example.

Not sure how the voucher scheme helps the employer cash flow?

But I guess it is really up to the employees to put pressure on the employer and explain how they are losing out with the vouchers.

barneystinson

CramCycle wrote: »

One of the people in my place forced the hand of the employer as she really wanted a bike from a German retailer. The voucher company did not want to do it as the company would not comply with their voucher system. The voucher company eventually relented as we have well over a thousand employees

I am interested if this sets a precedent, that since this was allowed inside of the company, all employees should be allowed avail of it.

Not there long enough to ask, but once I am, I may impress upon HR the error of their ways.

Or of course they could just withdraw the scheme..!

ted1

2RockMountain wrote: »

Not sure how the voucher scheme helps the employer cash flow?

But I guess it is really up to the employees to put pressure on the employer and explain how they are losing out with the vouchers.

It just saves them adding a new company to the PO system

2RockMountain

ted1 wrote: »

It just saves them adding a new company to the PO system

This is one of those areas which tend to have fictional cost allocations attached. Somebody adds up the cost of the AP team, divides it by the number of vendors, and comes up with a nominal cost for adding a new vendor.

But it's not a real cost for adding a new vendor. I can see why they wouldn't want to end up spending with any possible online shop, mind you.

Maybe the best option would be for the employer to hook up with 2 or 3 local shops to give a wide variety of brands, and maybe offer an exceptional 'all other' service for a reasonable fee of €30 or €50 to deter misuse.

CramCycle

ted1 wrote: »

It just saves them adding a new company to the PO system

Which in reality is very little work. You could even have the employee fill in a sheet with all necessary details of the vendor to lighten the work load.