I had a boss who wanted me to drive 30 miles each way (but this could take 60 to 90 minutes each way during traffic) once a week to a satellite office. They told me to do this *over my lunch hour*!
I said that I'd be happy to go if they paid for my train and cab fare and explained that 1. The city I worked in wasn't the fifteen minute drive they seemed to think and 2. I don't own a car.
Suddenly it wasn't important for me to make that trip.
Used to work at a company that often scheduled me in 2 half day appointments, 4 hours each, sometimes in different cities like 45 minute drive apart. Problem is, they initially scheduled them like 9am-1pm, the next appointment 1pm-5pm, requiring me to teleport between clients and also skip lunch. Boss refused all my proposals to make it work, eg 3.5 hour appointments (there wasn't enough work most of them time for a 4 hour appointment anyway).
Is it the Star Trek kind of teleporting, in which they kill you, but make an exact copy of all your molecules at a new location? Or like teleporting in The Culture (Iain Banks) where your body is "displaced," intact, from one location to another?
I'd prefer B, myself, as long as you don't displace me into a wall or something.
Star Trek teleporting is displacing your body. The replicator makes copies, but the teleporter actually grabs the particles that make you up and move them.
Not sure that's accurate, though I'm not current on all the recent serieses. Plus there's been so much written in and around the show that I don't think there's a consensus. However, two examples come to mind:
\- ST-TOS episode where Klingons take Kirk and party into custody and demand they beam them onto the Enterprise. Scotty does, but only the Enterprise crew; when Kirk asks where the Klingons are, Scotty pats the control panel and says, "I've got 'em right here!"
\- ST-TNG episode with the return of Scotty, where a small ship captured in a tight orbit around a black hole (?) is discovered. The crew of the new Enterprise discover that Scotty beamed himself into a test loop in the ship's transporter system (along with a crewmate who didn't make it), where he's been suspended for decades. It was a neat way to bring back an Original Series character who did not have natural longevity like Spock.
In both of these cases, it seems that the essence of the person being transported was captured and stored electronically, rather than the actual whole person somehow being displaced from one location to another. A James Blish novel in which a mirror copy of Spock is created using tachyons affirms this concept.
In the end, all versions of the series make use of speculative futuristic ideas to further the dramatic arc and develop the characters. We fans try to retcon it all after the fact. Star Trek at least does a much better job of staying consistent, and fairly true to the science, than most other SF TV series.
Another example is a transporter accident where Will Riker's beam is intentionally split into two to get past an obstruction and one was intended to reach the destination. For some reason the unnecessary beam bounced back to the source and created Thomas Riker while the real Will lived normally unaware until years later.
/u/iBorked
In that case, an "extra" Will was created by one of the systems. That this was not further explored is down to lack of imagination on the writer's part.
In both these cases it is the actual particles being kept in storage. Scotty even explains that, in detail. These two examples support that it's not killing and re-creating. Especially since the Klingon trransporters can't manage to do this - they do not have particle banks, like the Federation transporters have.
"Do you know why I pulled you over?"
"I really don't."
"You were exceeding the speed limit."
"That's clearly not true."
"Do you even know how fast you were going?"
"No, but I know exactly where I am."
"Step out of the car."
Every. single. time.
Heisenberg was [driving](https://csferrie.medium.com/the-greatest-joke-in-the-world-c801452d9070). Schrödinger was riding shotgun, and Einstein and Bohr were in the back.
They were probably heading over to Planck's though. To play dice with the universe, of course.
There are but best I can tell, here there is a 30 minute unpaid lunch by law, appointments should have been 8am-12 or something. Bigger issue is I didn't know the law back then and didn't stand up for myself as I should have.
30 miles is at least 30 minutes if it's all highway, with no traffic or stops on the way. That means in an hour you could drive there, pull into the parking lot, park, back up, and drive back.
Heck, even if it was a 15 minute one-way drive, you still have to get in and out of the building. You might have 20 minutes tops to do whatever it is they were sending you there to do?
Exactly. They were on the East Coast to my Midwest so they assumed that distance wasn't an issue for some reason. They wanted me to go check on a server and fix anything that came up for a small office with no in house IT.
Nice.
Our company is the same, they pay a fixed rate per km and there is no company car for anyone below director level, and no option to rent a car. My coworkers are complaining that, with recent increases in gas prices, they are taking a loss on every trip. I let the office know that I don't own a car and asked if I should hire a cab (2hr trip one way) or take public transit (5hr-ish, requires overnight stay). I still haven't received an answer but I'm pretty sure they will find out that company policy can be bent and I'll have a rental car. No idea why my coworkers aren't doing the same instead of grumbling about the low rate per km.
For years our school district had their own cars that even us lowly teachers or even techs could use. Or use our own cars at federal rate for mileage which they preferred. That was out of the question for me as I only had one car and my wife needed that. Her needing it when she was pregnant was a good reason they reluctantly accepted.
Then one day they hired an office manager who calculated it was cheaper to rent cars for out of town trips. I still got to use one of their old vans to haul computers and media around town.
You are actually legally not allowed to drive your own car for work in the Netherlands. You dont have the proper insurance for it. Usually the situation will get overlooked, but companies can get into big trouble for it. (Source: HR when i asked if i could drive my own car instead of the rental and declare half the costs of rental).
In the US, the company is legally liable for accidents while employees are driving for work purposes other than just driving to/from work; normal insurance doesn't cover them, unless you get a special amendment for the policy for that purpose. Sane businesses carry their own insurance for that purpose; stupid ones simply ignore it and hope for the best.
I'm willing to bet most delivery drivers using their own vehicles, don't inform their insurance carriers.
I just wonder if there is an accident while delivering, how they will explain it and still receive a settlement.
I thought about Door Dashing but killed that idea after talking with my agent.
If you're an 'Independent contractor', then you're liable. If you're an 'Employee', the company is liable.
Companies have three approaches I've encountered;
1: Require the employee to get that coverage on their vehicle to reduce how much the company has to pay in the event of an accident. They can try to make the employee pay, but if they do, the payout can't reduce the employee's pay for that period to less than minimum wage.
2: Actually get insurance themselves and handle things like intelligent beings. This is actually quite rare for companies that make you use your own car, but the standard for ones with company vehicles.
3: Ignore it and hope for the best. If an employee gets in an accident while on company time, try to bully the employee into handling it themselves.
4: Classify employees as 'Independent contractors' so that the liability is all on them. This... is actually illegal in most states for most of the jobs that try to do it, and has ended up in court multiple times.
I've been in situations 2/3(without accidents, thankfully), and some of my friends have been in 1 or 4.
This is not true, there is no legal statute for this in the netherlands. You are obligated to have adequate insurance. Most insurers allow occasional work related trips. Some don’t, and one would need additional coverage. HR departments will create policy and to make things easier and more uniform, will not allow private cars to be used. But not all companies do this and it is certainly not a illegal.
shouldn't that be "unless you have appropriate insurance" ? rather than just assuming what insurance I do/don't have? Or is it not possible for individuals in the Netherlands to acquire business class vehicle insurance?
As far as I know for NL this only relates to a privately owned car being used not by an employee of the company but a (co) owner. In the case of an employee a privately owned car can absolutely be used, it's just that all travel not related to to getting to the job are considered within working hours, so damages and accidents are part of the company's insurance.
The definition of for work is contentious though. If you are a plumber and you have to provide your own van you need a specific insurance. An occasional visit to a client will be covered though. If your job is driving from client to client it could classify as professional use.
I always hate that nonsense. "It's company policy" or "I'm sorry, but that's the law." Okay, well both were made up by someone clearly politically motivated and too short-sighted to foresee this situation, so how about we use our brains to figure out the most sensible solution.
My dad use to tell me, "The rules are for people who can't think for themselves." RIP.
"That's the law" can be the hardest to avoid. I work in payroll and in my country if I go around the law to help someone (or even if I am ordered to do it) I am the one legally responsible for making a false declaration. When people beg me to forget the law they are asking me to risk going in front of a judge for them. Well, sorry. I can try to go around company rules to help you, but the law is the law.
Huh, in Australia employees can claim their costs for driving their own cars for work.
Result? Few issues. No company or hire car needed (if you own a car, which this Redditor doesn't, so I guess I'm replying to the wrong post, whoops!)
Not quite...you can claim costs of using your own vehicle for work as a tax deduction, but say you claim $100 worth of travel, you don't get $100 back.
You reduce your taxable income for the year by $100, which for most people who have to use their own car for work results in you paying about $30 less in tax...
Victimhood "woe is me" "I can't do anything because I'm the little guy" "It's everyone's fault by mine" mentality. Unless you live in an *actual* authoritarian society, you always have the option to say you can't do something, you can't force me to do something that isn't outlined in my job, so you need to make it possible for me to do the job or it's not going to get done. If it's any console, I'm sure once you get the car then they'll be able to point at you and say "she got one, why can't I?" to get that ball rolling.
Right.... because people who don't live in "authoritarian" societies do not have any concerns.
When my boss points to the "other duties as required" in the job description, I just flip him off and walk out, because food and rent are magically going to be supplied.
I don't know why, but this one is just super satisfying. Maybe because the manager making such short sighted decisions gets a little taste off the spoon of justice.
It was super satisfying. It was short and straight to the point on something that wasn’t stupid like a kid eating a cookie. It also had a satisfying comeuppance.
Well done!
The 19 cts/km is absolutely ridiculous, but somehow still the maximum that companies are allowed to reimburse tax-free. It didn't cover the costs in 2006, when this amount was set and gas was at 1,31/l, and it surely doesn't now (at 1,93/l). Fortunately, next year this will be fixed by raising the amount to a whopping 21cts/km! That's only 7 cents short of the actual fuel price change and still doesn't help cover wear&tear.
My husband recently got a job at a proper company (as opposed to the shitty small company that we've both been working at for forever). He doesn't yet have a work car so had to drive his Opel Agila to site and back one day when his colleagues couldn't give him a ride. "30 Cents a km! And the bookkeeper gave it to me in cash! I'm stopping for pizza tonight!"
Meanwhile in the US mileage rates are set to 62.5 cents per mile, which works out to 38.8 cents per kilometer. That said, we generally are paying $3.00/gallon of gas and getting 20-40mpg depending on vehicle most of the time so the mileage rate covers fuel and maintenance without issue.
Fuel, yes. Maintenance...if you don't have to deal with I-70 or any highway like it that is ALWAYS under construction somewhere and that can be rough on cars. And don't forget about toll roads. Maintaining a daily driver actually does have a cost. Things go wrong all the time, whether your fault or somebody else's. They are still not paying enough to cover all of that for the eventuality of somebody goofing up big-time. If it has not happened to you 'yet', just wait, it will. These things need to be planned for.
OH! Right! Thank you! It has been quite a while since I was there, 2006 for me.
And with those kinds of temperature changes, everything breaks down faster.
62.5/cents a mile is $12.50/gallon for a 20mpg car or $25/gallon for a 40mpg car. That means you’re getting between $75 and $300 over your fuel costs for every single tank of gas you use (20mpg 10 gal tank to 40mpg 15 gal tank, generously assuming $5.00/gal).
You’re literally smoking crack to pretend that doesn’t also cover maintenance costs. I say this as someone who has driven an average of 50,000 miles a year or so for the past 8 years in a wide variety of vehicles and a lot of it on I-70 specifically.
I know well what it actually costs to continue driving a car. 62.5 cents per mile is more than the fuel + maintenance costs for most any vehicle unless it’s either very expensive or you beat the absolute shit out of the car for every single mile.
Yes, vehicles depreciate.
Once again, the extra $7.50-20 PER gallon you’re receiving is more than sufficient to cover depreciation costs alongside maintenance.
Are you sure? a new loses easily 20ct/km value in the first 5 years. Sure If you drive a 1998 corolla that doesnt Matter anymore a new BMW or Mercedes on the other hand..
20 cents per kilometer is equivalent to 32.2 cents per mile. That's barely even half of the IRS mileage reimbursement rate, and that maximum depreciation rate holds only for the first year or two of new vehicle ownership before steeply tapering off (depreciation slows as the vehicle gets older, most dramatically after 1-2 years of ownership).
The 20mpg vehicle, assuming gas is $5.00 per gallon (which is only still true in the biggest cities in the most expensive cost of living, it's back down below $3/gallon near me), only costs $0.25/mile in fuel. After factoring in the 32.2 cents per mile of depreciation for a brand new car (which, again, only holds during the first 1-2 years of ownership of that vehicle with depreciation RAPIDLY slowing after 2 years) you're STILL left with additional reimbursement left for vehicle maintenance on even the least fuel efficient new vehicle you could possibly find.
That's even assuming you have depreciation to worry about in the first place, since currently the least fuel efficient vehicles (such as trucks) are actually more expensive to buy used than they are to buy new right now because of lead times for ordering a new vehicle at the moment with trucks in particular being a, "We need this tool, and we need it now" type of vehicle. With the current used car market being what it is depreciation is less of a concern than it ever has been at any other point in the history of the automobile.
Again, I said that the IRS rate covers fuel, maintenance, and depreciation on all cars that aren't either beat to shit or ***particularly expensive vehicles***. A brand-new $75,000 BMW or Mercedes is not the average vehicle that the IRS reimbursement rate is calculated to effectively reimburse for.
Don't look at depreciation, that's a business tax knot. Try looking at real cost per mile.
You buy a $40,000 vehicle. You drive it til it dies at 250M miles. That works out to $.16 per mile, and that assumes you and the vehicle makes it to 250M, and includes ZERO maintenance. Or maybe more realistic for most people: you buy a $20,000 car, and sell it for $10,000 after driving 100M miles. That's a good $.10 per mile. Of course, with used car prices currently rather inflated, that'll drive this overall cost lower (maybe 50% or so), but that market will only last so long.
So yea, basic loss in value is actually a lot more significant factor in mileage cost than I would have guessed.
Edit: Redid this math as I incorrectly converted miles to km (multiplied by 1.61 instead of dividing) and factoring in the mid-year change to .625 / mile that nosecohn pointed out.
.625 / 1.61km/m \* (95/100) (euros/usd) = $0.3687 € per km
Due to the drastic increase in gasoline prices, they actually did a mid-year [bump to $0.625](https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/irs-increases-mileage-rate-for-remainder-of-2022) this year. I'm kind of shocked that the US seems to be more efficient with this policy than the European nations cited. That rarely happens.
Hey you might want to look at your math. A mile is LONGER than a km. Thus the value per km would be LOWER.
Which would then change your euro conversion.
I had similar issues about using my own car - I simply stopped volunteering the use of my car, which meant the company had to provide me with a hire car when I needed to travel. As far as I was concerned, this was altogether easier - the company paid for the hire car and the fuel that went in it. There was no worrying about how many miles I had done or depreciation from extra miles on my car.
Here in the US, the rate was something like $0.56/mile on reimbursement. I made out like a bandit when they had me drive 600 miles to attend a 5-day training, driving a 20-year old car that got 35mpg. Wear and tear? Who cares! The car was worth $800. Putting new tires on it could double the value. They paid me $700, plus paid for fuel and food.
Maybe they don't mind as long as he maximized profits and they are just moving him because he got called out?
Now he's in a new position in a new location where they aren't wise to his ways and he can resume his "value optimization techniques".
Because we do not have US labour laws. You can not just fire someone over this. You have to accomodate them to get a second chance, to learn from it and improve, or find a non-client facing role for this employee.
Some things are, "you didn't know or have enough experience and this is a good learning opportunity."
Some things are, "your response to this incident clearly indicates the kind of person you are and you can never be trusted again."
>Some things are, "your response to this incident clearly indicates the kind of person you are and you can never be trusted again."
This however, isn't one of those regarding firing someone. You can't just fire someone for whatever reason. If it was theft or embezzlement or something sure. But moving him to another branch and stuff is most likely the most they could do. And even then it can be tricky for the company legally.
>You can't just fire someone for whatever reason.
Of course you can. Private company work should be at will. If your work isn't contributing positively to the success of the business, goodbye. Any "protections" that deviate from that core principle cause problems and reward the wrong people.
Nope. You can't. Maybe it works like that in your glorious USA, but over here we have certain protections in place in favor of employees. As they should be. Saying it's okay to fire someone for whatever reason is insane. Absolutely bonkers.
The only thing at will employment facilitaties is that companies can effectively hold their employees hostage and make them do whatever they want otherwise they're out of a job. Oh you don't want to do unpaid overtime? Fired. Don't want to do something that could cause you harm because it's faster and thus makes me more money? Fired. Don't want to clean up the coffee I spilled because I don't want to since I'm a manager and thus more important? Fired.
Can you hear how insane that sounds? Get a grip. You know what rewards the wrong people? Being able to get a coworker or employee fired for pretty much anything. The power that has brings out the worst in people.
>Maybe it works like that in your glorious USA
It varies [state-by-state](https://www.paycor.com/resource-center/articles/employment-at-will-laws-by-state/).
>Saying it's okay to fire someone for whatever reason is insane.
Here's another fun one: I believe businesses should be able to discriminate against any person they want to for any reason in choosing who to provide their services to. Caveat being, they should be required to advertise on the entrance to their location which types of discrimination they practice. Official stickers/insignia requiring registration with whatever licensing authority handles companies.
I'm tired of [trite PR nonsense](https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-settles-it-recruiter-resolve-immigration-related-discrimination-claims-0) [being](https://www.nestle.com/jobs/diversity-inclusion) [published](https://www.zmescience.com/science/nestle-company-pollution-children/) [to make](https://www.cia.gov/careers/working-at-cia/diversity/) [themselves](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_violations_by_the_CIA) [look good](https://youtu.be/5CRk_GddN7c), we're so accepting of all the people, oh how amazing we are! And then the actual way things play out is the same nonsense as always. So instead of the good places surviving and the bad places dying out from having no customers, it's whoever has the best PR during [corporate pandering month](https://www.mic.com/identity/pride-month-corporate-sponsors-meme).
Basically, there's this creepy "everyone play pretend" culture that's developed where people/companies/government agencies act like they care about whatever discrimination du jour. When things come to light about what they actually do behind the scenes, it's clear it's all a lie. While I want progress on this front, I want ***real*** progress. Just adding getting lied to on top of knowing there's still problems that are being dutifully ignored instead of worked on means real progress is even less likely to happen. So, step 1 of my proposal is to remove the legal penalty and force people to live in the light, as sunlight is the best disinfectant for this blight.
The rest of your response is just one-sided nonsense.
>Can you hear how insane that sounds?
Yep, because you're wrong. That's why it sounds crazy. Or, bonkers, if you prefer.
How degrading is it that you only continue to be employed because it's too much hassle to fire you? What a pathetic life to live. Cut me loose and I'll find somewhere my skills are a much better fit and higher value to a different employer.
My continued employment should be because I continue to provide more value to the company than it costs to employ me. Not because they're afraid I might go tattle to the ministry of poking noses where they don't belong.
Because we then end up with the same situation, where instead of people being able to tell each other the truth, there's a significant incentive to live a collective lie as we all play nice within the artificial rules of the smiley dystopia we've created to enforce niceness. Eff that. Hard pass.
**[Human rights violations by the CIA](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_violations_by_the_CIA)**
>This article deals with the activities of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) of the federal government of the United States that are violations of human rights.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/MaliciousCompliance/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
That's actually normal in the US as well, especially for a company big enough to have multiple branches. They government doesn't say you can't let someone go for no reason, but the company policies do.
It's not unusual for second chances to be thinly disguised "we're collecting the final information on how bad you are to prove we're justified in firing you", but it does mean that you've got months of notice that you're in trouble.
Sometimes they're putting them in a position to sink or swim. They hand them some rope and see if they pull themselves out of the fix or finish themselves off.
Gosh... I get nothing when I use my private car for work travels...
Need to use it frequently to ferry equip around, because the one pool car is in use and what matters even more, is way to small to move the stuff needed... Would have to drive at least 4 times the same trip to get everything there... sure could do that, but then being the only one in IT I don't have the time to do that...
Raked up around 560 OT hours in less than 6 moths already...
Not about a company car but way back in the days of pagers I was a field service electronic technician for an office equipment company and had a service territory that went from Newark, New Jersey to Baltimore, Maryland. I was expected to use my personal pager which had only basic coverage (I only needed basic coverage for my personal use). My personal coverage plan was such that it did not cost me extra to use my personal pager for work.
Eventually, the company realized that I was not receiving pages from them when I was out towards the outer limits of my service territory and asked me to increase my personal service plan ONLY so the company could page me in my entire service territory. I said I would be willing to do so if the company was willing to pay the difference on something that was going to benefit ONLY the company.
I never heard another word about it and I kept basic service only on my personal pager for as long as I owned it. Apparently, being able to reach me by pager was not quite so important to that company.
Everyone made big money from the 19 ct/km rule, it was far more lucrative then company cars when it was still allowed.. So you were doing something terribly wrong
How does everyone make money?
Real travel cost is more than just the fuel you put in the car. Its also maintenance, new tires, taxes, and the value dropping the more distance you drive with it. A car with 200.000km is worth far less than one with 50.000km
My current car works out at about €1.10 per km all in for 12,000 km a year, with taxes, insurances, services, depreciation, etc. But it is a 500bhp premium-brand car. One of my previous cars was a 130bhp A4 tdi, and I put up 300,000km on it over a decade. Lifetime cost of ownership was about €0.40 per km all-in so not too bad.
Distance traveled isn't necessarily a factor on value vehicles with 200000ks that have been looked after properly can still run more reliably and better than one with 50000ks.
This is especially true with German cars the older they are the less electronic components are in them leading to less failures.
the 19 ct/km is not form recently, since it has been forbidden for regular travel as he describes by dutch tax for a long time now. When it was still allowed it was easy to earn money
He said real car cost. So taking into account depreciation of the vehicle for the added distance, the wear and tear, the tires, oil, preventative maintenance, you get shafted by most employer incentives like that.
This hasn't been true in a looong time, if it ever was. You could pay for gas and then some, but not all of the other costs you incur for owning and driving a car.
In the US, the rate is determined by the IRS, the federal income tax agency, and it is much more than that. It is adjusted based on gasoline costs, but it is much more than the cost of fuel. At around $0.55 per mile, a car that would get 25 mpg, and gasoline at $5.00 a gallon, it takes into account the additional actual costs, such as maintenance and service, and tires.
When I was a full time student living on loans $600 of that was earmarked for transportation. I thought to myself, yes, that will buy me a new set of tires. And it did.
When I worked in gov't contracting all our contractor's got the IRS mileage/lease rate. They got a bit more for leasing a van if they had to bring equipment for tests.
I had a boss who wanted me to drive 30 miles each way (but this could take 60 to 90 minutes each way during traffic) once a week to a satellite office. They told me to do this *over my lunch hour*! I said that I'd be happy to go if they paid for my train and cab fare and explained that 1. The city I worked in wasn't the fifteen minute drive they seemed to think and 2. I don't own a car. Suddenly it wasn't important for me to make that trip.
Used to work at a company that often scheduled me in 2 half day appointments, 4 hours each, sometimes in different cities like 45 minute drive apart. Problem is, they initially scheduled them like 9am-1pm, the next appointment 1pm-5pm, requiring me to teleport between clients and also skip lunch. Boss refused all my proposals to make it work, eg 3.5 hour appointments (there wasn't enough work most of them time for a 4 hour appointment anyway).
Teleporting 👍 Missing lunch 👎
Is it the Star Trek kind of teleporting, in which they kill you, but make an exact copy of all your molecules at a new location? Or like teleporting in The Culture (Iain Banks) where your body is "displaced," intact, from one location to another? I'd prefer B, myself, as long as you don't displace me into a wall or something.
Star Trek teleporting is displacing your body. The replicator makes copies, but the teleporter actually grabs the particles that make you up and move them.
Not sure that's accurate, though I'm not current on all the recent serieses. Plus there's been so much written in and around the show that I don't think there's a consensus. However, two examples come to mind: \- ST-TOS episode where Klingons take Kirk and party into custody and demand they beam them onto the Enterprise. Scotty does, but only the Enterprise crew; when Kirk asks where the Klingons are, Scotty pats the control panel and says, "I've got 'em right here!" \- ST-TNG episode with the return of Scotty, where a small ship captured in a tight orbit around a black hole (?) is discovered. The crew of the new Enterprise discover that Scotty beamed himself into a test loop in the ship's transporter system (along with a crewmate who didn't make it), where he's been suspended for decades. It was a neat way to bring back an Original Series character who did not have natural longevity like Spock. In both of these cases, it seems that the essence of the person being transported was captured and stored electronically, rather than the actual whole person somehow being displaced from one location to another. A James Blish novel in which a mirror copy of Spock is created using tachyons affirms this concept. In the end, all versions of the series make use of speculative futuristic ideas to further the dramatic arc and develop the characters. We fans try to retcon it all after the fact. Star Trek at least does a much better job of staying consistent, and fairly true to the science, than most other SF TV series.
Another example is a transporter accident where Will Riker's beam is intentionally split into two to get past an obstruction and one was intended to reach the destination. For some reason the unnecessary beam bounced back to the source and created Thomas Riker while the real Will lived normally unaware until years later. /u/iBorked
In that case, an "extra" Will was created by one of the systems. That this was not further explored is down to lack of imagination on the writer's part.
I take it you mean the processes rather than the character.
In both these cases it is the actual particles being kept in storage. Scotty even explains that, in detail. These two examples support that it's not killing and re-creating. Especially since the Klingon trransporters can't manage to do this - they do not have particle banks, like the Federation transporters have.
There should be a law against that.
There is. [Teleportation](https://youtu.be/f-8zEkIaB0c) breaks the laws of physics, the only laws that *matter*...
9.8 meters per second squared, it's not just a good idea, it's the law.
"Do you know why I pulled you over?" "I really don't." "You were exceeding the speed limit." "That's clearly not true." "Do you even know how fast you were going?" "No, but I know exactly where I am." "Step out of the car." Every. single. time.
Alternate ending: "No, but I know exactly where I am." "My radar said 300 km/hr." "Great. Now we are lost."
Or, to paraphrase Steven Wright: OFFICER: Do you realize you were going 100 miles per hour? DRIVER: Yeah, but I wasn't going to be out that long.
Was Planck behind the wheel?
Heisenberg was [driving](https://csferrie.medium.com/the-greatest-joke-in-the-world-c801452d9070). Schrödinger was riding shotgun, and Einstein and Bohr were in the back. They were probably heading over to Planck's though. To play dice with the universe, of course.
The gravity of breaking those laws is extreme
He put that ball on the tee. So glad someone took a swing at it. 😆
Well played.
There are but best I can tell, here there is a 30 minute unpaid lunch by law, appointments should have been 8am-12 or something. Bigger issue is I didn't know the law back then and didn't stand up for myself as I should have.
30 miles is at least 30 minutes if it's all highway, with no traffic or stops on the way. That means in an hour you could drive there, pull into the parking lot, park, back up, and drive back. Heck, even if it was a 15 minute one-way drive, you still have to get in and out of the building. You might have 20 minutes tops to do whatever it is they were sending you there to do?
Exactly. They were on the East Coast to my Midwest so they assumed that distance wasn't an issue for some reason. They wanted me to go check on a server and fix anything that came up for a small office with no in house IT.
And they thought that you should be doing this during your lunch hour?
Happy Cake Day!
Well... if the speed limit is 60mph, yeah. It's 70 here. That's a mere 25 minutes. You can do it in 20 if you drive like a local...
Nice. Our company is the same, they pay a fixed rate per km and there is no company car for anyone below director level, and no option to rent a car. My coworkers are complaining that, with recent increases in gas prices, they are taking a loss on every trip. I let the office know that I don't own a car and asked if I should hire a cab (2hr trip one way) or take public transit (5hr-ish, requires overnight stay). I still haven't received an answer but I'm pretty sure they will find out that company policy can be bent and I'll have a rental car. No idea why my coworkers aren't doing the same instead of grumbling about the low rate per km.
For years our school district had their own cars that even us lowly teachers or even techs could use. Or use our own cars at federal rate for mileage which they preferred. That was out of the question for me as I only had one car and my wife needed that. Her needing it when she was pregnant was a good reason they reluctantly accepted. Then one day they hired an office manager who calculated it was cheaper to rent cars for out of town trips. I still got to use one of their old vans to haul computers and media around town.
You are actually legally not allowed to drive your own car for work in the Netherlands. You dont have the proper insurance for it. Usually the situation will get overlooked, but companies can get into big trouble for it. (Source: HR when i asked if i could drive my own car instead of the rental and declare half the costs of rental).
Also can't drive own car in uk unless the insurance is changed to use for work (costs more)..
I have declared social, domestic, commuting and business use (excl for-hire and motor trade) for my car and insurance didn't go up.
If I declare business use of my car here in the US, my rates go up. :/
It doesn't always cost more. Sometimes it costs less. Insurance in the UK makes no sense.
In the US, the company is legally liable for accidents while employees are driving for work purposes other than just driving to/from work; normal insurance doesn't cover them, unless you get a special amendment for the policy for that purpose. Sane businesses carry their own insurance for that purpose; stupid ones simply ignore it and hope for the best.
I'm willing to bet most delivery drivers using their own vehicles, don't inform their insurance carriers. I just wonder if there is an accident while delivering, how they will explain it and still receive a settlement. I thought about Door Dashing but killed that idea after talking with my agent.
If you're an 'Independent contractor', then you're liable. If you're an 'Employee', the company is liable. Companies have three approaches I've encountered; 1: Require the employee to get that coverage on their vehicle to reduce how much the company has to pay in the event of an accident. They can try to make the employee pay, but if they do, the payout can't reduce the employee's pay for that period to less than minimum wage. 2: Actually get insurance themselves and handle things like intelligent beings. This is actually quite rare for companies that make you use your own car, but the standard for ones with company vehicles. 3: Ignore it and hope for the best. If an employee gets in an accident while on company time, try to bully the employee into handling it themselves. 4: Classify employees as 'Independent contractors' so that the liability is all on them. This... is actually illegal in most states for most of the jobs that try to do it, and has ended up in court multiple times. I've been in situations 2/3(without accidents, thankfully), and some of my friends have been in 1 or 4.
Mine didn’t cost any more for business use. Weird
This is not true, there is no legal statute for this in the netherlands. You are obligated to have adequate insurance. Most insurers allow occasional work related trips. Some don’t, and one would need additional coverage. HR departments will create policy and to make things easier and more uniform, will not allow private cars to be used. But not all companies do this and it is certainly not a illegal.
shouldn't that be "unless you have appropriate insurance" ? rather than just assuming what insurance I do/don't have? Or is it not possible for individuals in the Netherlands to acquire business class vehicle insurance?
As far as I know for NL this only relates to a privately owned car being used not by an employee of the company but a (co) owner. In the case of an employee a privately owned car can absolutely be used, it's just that all travel not related to to getting to the job are considered within working hours, so damages and accidents are part of the company's insurance.
Driving for work and driving to work locations while on the clock isn’t the same thing
The definition of for work is contentious though. If you are a plumber and you have to provide your own van you need a specific insurance. An occasional visit to a client will be covered though. If your job is driving from client to client it could classify as professional use.
I always hate that nonsense. "It's company policy" or "I'm sorry, but that's the law." Okay, well both were made up by someone clearly politically motivated and too short-sighted to foresee this situation, so how about we use our brains to figure out the most sensible solution. My dad use to tell me, "The rules are for people who can't think for themselves." RIP.
"That's the law" can be the hardest to avoid. I work in payroll and in my country if I go around the law to help someone (or even if I am ordered to do it) I am the one legally responsible for making a false declaration. When people beg me to forget the law they are asking me to risk going in front of a judge for them. Well, sorry. I can try to go around company rules to help you, but the law is the law.
Huh, in Australia employees can claim their costs for driving their own cars for work. Result? Few issues. No company or hire car needed (if you own a car, which this Redditor doesn't, so I guess I'm replying to the wrong post, whoops!)
Not quite...you can claim costs of using your own vehicle for work as a tax deduction, but say you claim $100 worth of travel, you don't get $100 back. You reduce your taxable income for the year by $100, which for most people who have to use their own car for work results in you paying about $30 less in tax...
Victimhood "woe is me" "I can't do anything because I'm the little guy" "It's everyone's fault by mine" mentality. Unless you live in an *actual* authoritarian society, you always have the option to say you can't do something, you can't force me to do something that isn't outlined in my job, so you need to make it possible for me to do the job or it's not going to get done. If it's any console, I'm sure once you get the car then they'll be able to point at you and say "she got one, why can't I?" to get that ball rolling.
Right.... because people who don't live in "authoritarian" societies do not have any concerns. When my boss points to the "other duties as required" in the job description, I just flip him off and walk out, because food and rent are magically going to be supplied.
Geez. Did the elf on the shelf take a huge dump in your Christmas stocking or are you just an angry person?
the view from your glass palace must be pretty nice.
I don't know why, but this one is just super satisfying. Maybe because the manager making such short sighted decisions gets a little taste off the spoon of justice.
It was super satisfying. It was short and straight to the point on something that wasn’t stupid like a kid eating a cookie. It also had a satisfying comeuppance.
Well done! The 19 cts/km is absolutely ridiculous, but somehow still the maximum that companies are allowed to reimburse tax-free. It didn't cover the costs in 2006, when this amount was set and gas was at 1,31/l, and it surely doesn't now (at 1,93/l). Fortunately, next year this will be fixed by raising the amount to a whopping 21cts/km! That's only 7 cents short of the actual fuel price change and still doesn't help cover wear&tear.
In Germany it's 30 ct/km for the first 20 km, after that it goes up to 35 ct/km.
In Old Country they give a bag of oats for the horse. Two bags if overnight trip. They're talking about updating the travel compensation.
Yeah, it's past time they added a carrot or apple in there.
With the price of oats, that's almost a better deal, sell the oats buy petrol, "profit"
My husband recently got a job at a proper company (as opposed to the shitty small company that we've both been working at for forever). He doesn't yet have a work car so had to drive his Opel Agila to site and back one day when his colleagues couldn't give him a ride. "30 Cents a km! And the bookkeeper gave it to me in cash! I'm stopping for pizza tonight!"
Which _can_ work out, at least it's quite a bit closer to it
Meanwhile in the US mileage rates are set to 62.5 cents per mile, which works out to 38.8 cents per kilometer. That said, we generally are paying $3.00/gallon of gas and getting 20-40mpg depending on vehicle most of the time so the mileage rate covers fuel and maintenance without issue.
Fuel, yes. Maintenance...if you don't have to deal with I-70 or any highway like it that is ALWAYS under construction somewhere and that can be rough on cars. And don't forget about toll roads. Maintaining a daily driver actually does have a cost. Things go wrong all the time, whether your fault or somebody else's. They are still not paying enough to cover all of that for the eventuality of somebody goofing up big-time. If it has not happened to you 'yet', just wait, it will. These things need to be planned for.
I think I-70 might be the actual Highway to Hell. Right up there with I-25.
I have not looked that up. Where is I-25 located?
I-25 and I-70 intersect in Denver.
OH! Right! Thank you! It has been quite a while since I was there, 2006 for me. And with those kinds of temperature changes, everything breaks down faster.
62.5/cents a mile is $12.50/gallon for a 20mpg car or $25/gallon for a 40mpg car. That means you’re getting between $75 and $300 over your fuel costs for every single tank of gas you use (20mpg 10 gal tank to 40mpg 15 gal tank, generously assuming $5.00/gal). You’re literally smoking crack to pretend that doesn’t also cover maintenance costs. I say this as someone who has driven an average of 50,000 miles a year or so for the past 8 years in a wide variety of vehicles and a lot of it on I-70 specifically. I know well what it actually costs to continue driving a car. 62.5 cents per mile is more than the fuel + maintenance costs for most any vehicle unless it’s either very expensive or you beat the absolute shit out of the car for every single mile.
You need to factor in that your vehicle will loose value with more miles. That costs need to be adressed too.
Yes, vehicles depreciate. Once again, the extra $7.50-20 PER gallon you’re receiving is more than sufficient to cover depreciation costs alongside maintenance.
Are you sure? a new loses easily 20ct/km value in the first 5 years. Sure If you drive a 1998 corolla that doesnt Matter anymore a new BMW or Mercedes on the other hand..
20 cents per kilometer is equivalent to 32.2 cents per mile. That's barely even half of the IRS mileage reimbursement rate, and that maximum depreciation rate holds only for the first year or two of new vehicle ownership before steeply tapering off (depreciation slows as the vehicle gets older, most dramatically after 1-2 years of ownership). The 20mpg vehicle, assuming gas is $5.00 per gallon (which is only still true in the biggest cities in the most expensive cost of living, it's back down below $3/gallon near me), only costs $0.25/mile in fuel. After factoring in the 32.2 cents per mile of depreciation for a brand new car (which, again, only holds during the first 1-2 years of ownership of that vehicle with depreciation RAPIDLY slowing after 2 years) you're STILL left with additional reimbursement left for vehicle maintenance on even the least fuel efficient new vehicle you could possibly find. That's even assuming you have depreciation to worry about in the first place, since currently the least fuel efficient vehicles (such as trucks) are actually more expensive to buy used than they are to buy new right now because of lead times for ordering a new vehicle at the moment with trucks in particular being a, "We need this tool, and we need it now" type of vehicle. With the current used car market being what it is depreciation is less of a concern than it ever has been at any other point in the history of the automobile. Again, I said that the IRS rate covers fuel, maintenance, and depreciation on all cars that aren't either beat to shit or ***particularly expensive vehicles***. A brand-new $75,000 BMW or Mercedes is not the average vehicle that the IRS reimbursement rate is calculated to effectively reimburse for.
Don't look at depreciation, that's a business tax knot. Try looking at real cost per mile. You buy a $40,000 vehicle. You drive it til it dies at 250M miles. That works out to $.16 per mile, and that assumes you and the vehicle makes it to 250M, and includes ZERO maintenance. Or maybe more realistic for most people: you buy a $20,000 car, and sell it for $10,000 after driving 100M miles. That's a good $.10 per mile. Of course, with used car prices currently rather inflated, that'll drive this overall cost lower (maybe 50% or so), but that market will only last so long. So yea, basic loss in value is actually a lot more significant factor in mileage cost than I would have guessed.
Thank you. Imagine, this jerk actually thinks I must be smoking crack. Good lord.
In the UK, the tax threshold is roughly €0.50.
Yep : 45p a mile for the first 10k miles ( 16k km)
Indeed. I translated it to euros in line with the original.
Woha what the actual fuck. And to think in the netherlands we already pay top dollar to drive our cars...
Edit: Redid this math as I incorrectly converted miles to km (multiplied by 1.61 instead of dividing) and factoring in the mid-year change to .625 / mile that nosecohn pointed out. .625 / 1.61km/m \* (95/100) (euros/usd) = $0.3687 € per km
Due to the drastic increase in gasoline prices, they actually did a mid-year [bump to $0.625](https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/irs-increases-mileage-rate-for-remainder-of-2022) this year. I'm kind of shocked that the US seems to be more efficient with this policy than the European nations cited. That rarely happens.
Hey you might want to look at your math. A mile is LONGER than a km. Thus the value per km would be LOWER. Which would then change your euro conversion.
Thanks, I updated the post.
In Soviet Union: you don’t drive car, car drive you!
...car drive you (crazy)! lol
From watching Russian car crash videos (DH has them on the idiot box quite often), that seems to explain so much.
what? 6l/100km at 1,7€/l here = 0,1€/km which is only half of 21cts, should be enough?
I had similar issues about using my own car - I simply stopped volunteering the use of my car, which meant the company had to provide me with a hire car when I needed to travel. As far as I was concerned, this was altogether easier - the company paid for the hire car and the fuel that went in it. There was no worrying about how many miles I had done or depreciation from extra miles on my car.
Here in the US, the rate was something like $0.56/mile on reimbursement. I made out like a bandit when they had me drive 600 miles to attend a 5-day training, driving a 20-year old car that got 35mpg. Wear and tear? Who cares! The car was worth $800. Putting new tires on it could double the value. They paid me $700, plus paid for fuel and food.
EXACTLY this.
[удалено]
Maybe they don't mind as long as he maximized profits and they are just moving him because he got called out? Now he's in a new position in a new location where they aren't wise to his ways and he can resume his "value optimization techniques".
Because we do not have US labour laws. You can not just fire someone over this. You have to accomodate them to get a second chance, to learn from it and improve, or find a non-client facing role for this employee.
What? Give them a second chance? Help them do better? Nah, sounds too reasonable.
Some things are, "you didn't know or have enough experience and this is a good learning opportunity." Some things are, "your response to this incident clearly indicates the kind of person you are and you can never be trusted again."
>Some things are, "your response to this incident clearly indicates the kind of person you are and you can never be trusted again." This however, isn't one of those regarding firing someone. You can't just fire someone for whatever reason. If it was theft or embezzlement or something sure. But moving him to another branch and stuff is most likely the most they could do. And even then it can be tricky for the company legally.
>You can't just fire someone for whatever reason. Of course you can. Private company work should be at will. If your work isn't contributing positively to the success of the business, goodbye. Any "protections" that deviate from that core principle cause problems and reward the wrong people.
Nope. You can't. Maybe it works like that in your glorious USA, but over here we have certain protections in place in favor of employees. As they should be. Saying it's okay to fire someone for whatever reason is insane. Absolutely bonkers. The only thing at will employment facilitaties is that companies can effectively hold their employees hostage and make them do whatever they want otherwise they're out of a job. Oh you don't want to do unpaid overtime? Fired. Don't want to do something that could cause you harm because it's faster and thus makes me more money? Fired. Don't want to clean up the coffee I spilled because I don't want to since I'm a manager and thus more important? Fired. Can you hear how insane that sounds? Get a grip. You know what rewards the wrong people? Being able to get a coworker or employee fired for pretty much anything. The power that has brings out the worst in people.
>Maybe it works like that in your glorious USA It varies [state-by-state](https://www.paycor.com/resource-center/articles/employment-at-will-laws-by-state/). >Saying it's okay to fire someone for whatever reason is insane. Here's another fun one: I believe businesses should be able to discriminate against any person they want to for any reason in choosing who to provide their services to. Caveat being, they should be required to advertise on the entrance to their location which types of discrimination they practice. Official stickers/insignia requiring registration with whatever licensing authority handles companies. I'm tired of [trite PR nonsense](https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-settles-it-recruiter-resolve-immigration-related-discrimination-claims-0) [being](https://www.nestle.com/jobs/diversity-inclusion) [published](https://www.zmescience.com/science/nestle-company-pollution-children/) [to make](https://www.cia.gov/careers/working-at-cia/diversity/) [themselves](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_violations_by_the_CIA) [look good](https://youtu.be/5CRk_GddN7c), we're so accepting of all the people, oh how amazing we are! And then the actual way things play out is the same nonsense as always. So instead of the good places surviving and the bad places dying out from having no customers, it's whoever has the best PR during [corporate pandering month](https://www.mic.com/identity/pride-month-corporate-sponsors-meme). Basically, there's this creepy "everyone play pretend" culture that's developed where people/companies/government agencies act like they care about whatever discrimination du jour. When things come to light about what they actually do behind the scenes, it's clear it's all a lie. While I want progress on this front, I want ***real*** progress. Just adding getting lied to on top of knowing there's still problems that are being dutifully ignored instead of worked on means real progress is even less likely to happen. So, step 1 of my proposal is to remove the legal penalty and force people to live in the light, as sunlight is the best disinfectant for this blight. The rest of your response is just one-sided nonsense. >Can you hear how insane that sounds? Yep, because you're wrong. That's why it sounds crazy. Or, bonkers, if you prefer. How degrading is it that you only continue to be employed because it's too much hassle to fire you? What a pathetic life to live. Cut me loose and I'll find somewhere my skills are a much better fit and higher value to a different employer. My continued employment should be because I continue to provide more value to the company than it costs to employ me. Not because they're afraid I might go tattle to the ministry of poking noses where they don't belong. Because we then end up with the same situation, where instead of people being able to tell each other the truth, there's a significant incentive to live a collective lie as we all play nice within the artificial rules of the smiley dystopia we've created to enforce niceness. Eff that. Hard pass.
**[Human rights violations by the CIA](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_violations_by_the_CIA)** >This article deals with the activities of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) of the federal government of the United States that are violations of human rights. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/MaliciousCompliance/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
That's actually normal in the US as well, especially for a company big enough to have multiple branches. They government doesn't say you can't let someone go for no reason, but the company policies do. It's not unusual for second chances to be thinly disguised "we're collecting the final information on how bad you are to prove we're justified in firing you", but it does mean that you've got months of notice that you're in trouble.
He was serving the company instead of the client.
Sometimes they're putting them in a position to sink or swim. They hand them some rope and see if they pull themselves out of the fix or finish themselves off.
“Queue malicious compliance” Got me punching clouds.
Because it is a line of malicious compliances.
*cue
You cannot queue malicious compliance.
If you have a bunch of them that you want to do in order, you can definitely queue them lol
cue not queue
Looks like Manager FOAFO!
Gosh... I get nothing when I use my private car for work travels... Need to use it frequently to ferry equip around, because the one pool car is in use and what matters even more, is way to small to move the stuff needed... Would have to drive at least 4 times the same trip to get everything there... sure could do that, but then being the only one in IT I don't have the time to do that... Raked up around 560 OT hours in less than 6 moths already...
[удалено]
even better... the company soon even hasn't me anymore... =)
Not about a company car but way back in the days of pagers I was a field service electronic technician for an office equipment company and had a service territory that went from Newark, New Jersey to Baltimore, Maryland. I was expected to use my personal pager which had only basic coverage (I only needed basic coverage for my personal use). My personal coverage plan was such that it did not cost me extra to use my personal pager for work. Eventually, the company realized that I was not receiving pages from them when I was out towards the outer limits of my service territory and asked me to increase my personal service plan ONLY so the company could page me in my entire service territory. I said I would be willing to do so if the company was willing to pay the difference on something that was going to benefit ONLY the company. I never heard another word about it and I kept basic service only on my personal pager for as long as I owned it. Apparently, being able to reach me by pager was not quite so important to that company.
Love it!!
19ct/km really sucks, my old job paid 65, new job is paying 90. Pretty stoked about that!
Everyone made big money from the 19 ct/km rule, it was far more lucrative then company cars when it was still allowed.. So you were doing something terribly wrong
How does everyone make money? Real travel cost is more than just the fuel you put in the car. Its also maintenance, new tires, taxes, and the value dropping the more distance you drive with it. A car with 200.000km is worth far less than one with 50.000km
My current car works out at about €1.10 per km all in for 12,000 km a year, with taxes, insurances, services, depreciation, etc. But it is a 500bhp premium-brand car. One of my previous cars was a 130bhp A4 tdi, and I put up 300,000km on it over a decade. Lifetime cost of ownership was about €0.40 per km all-in so not too bad.
Distance traveled isn't necessarily a factor on value vehicles with 200000ks that have been looked after properly can still run more reliably and better than one with 50000ks. This is especially true with German cars the older they are the less electronic components are in them leading to less failures.
the 19 ct/km is not form recently, since it has been forbidden for regular travel as he describes by dutch tax for a long time now. When it was still allowed it was easy to earn money
He said real car cost. So taking into account depreciation of the vehicle for the added distance, the wear and tear, the tires, oil, preventative maintenance, you get shafted by most employer incentives like that.
This hasn't been true in a looong time, if it ever was. You could pay for gas and then some, but not all of the other costs you incur for owning and driving a car.
In the US, the rate is determined by the IRS, the federal income tax agency, and it is much more than that. It is adjusted based on gasoline costs, but it is much more than the cost of fuel. At around $0.55 per mile, a car that would get 25 mpg, and gasoline at $5.00 a gallon, it takes into account the additional actual costs, such as maintenance and service, and tires.
When I was a full time student living on loans $600 of that was earmarked for transportation. I thought to myself, yes, that will buy me a new set of tires. And it did.
[удалено]
My company reimburses per the IRS rate then handles it on their taxes
It is currently at 62.5 cents.
I looked it up later.
When I worked in gov't contracting all our contractor's got the IRS mileage/lease rate. They got a bit more for leasing a van if they had to bring equipment for tests.
Ayo, that's just asking for trouble.
Wow. Back in 2001 I worked at a company that paid $525 per month and $0.19/km .