How new does a car need to be for it to be considered reliable and dependable? There are as many answers to that as there are cars and drivers. Modern cars are largely reliable for decades if well-kept, but deferred maintenance and sloppy upkeep can make a car look like it’s gone through hell in less than ten years. Clearly, not-new-car reliability depends on the car in question, but nonetheless, a British woman got a hard-and-fast ruling based on the age of her car alone from a company she had applied to: her 12-year-old car ruled her out for a trainee job at an estate agency.
The BBC reports that Alanah Thompson French, from Nottinghamshire in England, drives a 2014 Citroën C1 she bought last May. The small silver hatchback had less than 40,000 miles on the clock and one previous owner, making it a prime example of a good used buy for not a lot of money; she paid £2800, or less than four thousand dollars for it. It’s been getting her to work and back without any mechanical grief, and a car would continue to be a necessity were she to take the next step in her career toward working as an estate agent.
As well as sending a ton of applications elsewhere, she applied for a trainee lettings negotiator position in Nottingham in December. The estate agent company, which BBC names as haart, had replied that she didn’t make the interview shortlist as she had marked her car as being over 10 years old in the online application; they even had a separate box for the age of the car. She later received an email reply that the company had considered her application but ultimately decided not to invite her for an interview as they required access to a car newer than 10 years old.
In a statement provided to the BBC, the company replied: “It’s extremely important that people who work for us use reliable vehicles for their own personal safety, particularly where they travel many miles each day and often work alone.”
“Evidence from motoring organisations shows that the likelihood of mechanical problems increases as vehicles get older. For that reason, and in line with many organisations that require staff to use their own cars for work purposes, our policy is that vehicles should normally be under 10 years old.”
How Many People Even Have A New Enough Car?
This is certainly an interesting statement. For one, the average British car is around ten years old, according to the motoring organisation RAC; by the end of 2024, the precise average age was nine years and ten months. That means the average British driver would be on the edge of being acceptable for a position in which they would be required to drive their own car.
As Alanah herself says in the BBC article: “It’s just a bit of a kick in the teeth because obviously when you’re applying for jobs, you’re applying for loads and loads of jobs and to get an email back saying that … I just don’t understand it.”
“It doesn’t seem fair because how am I meant to afford a bigger and better car? And how am I meant to get insured on a bigger and better car?”
While the British used car market is usually priced cheaper than the rest of Europe, partially because of left-hand traffic and right-hand-drive, insurance is famously very expensive for young British drivers.
The situation is even worse for European drivers: based on this 2024 article using data from 2022, the average car in Europe was roughly 12 years old, and the economic situation has hardly improved after that. In the States, the average car is now nearing 13 years old according to S&P Global.
The Finnish Information Centre for the Automotive Sector states the average car in Finland is pushing 14 years. And to bring the point home to myself, when I last applied for a job, I was in fact asked whether I had access to a car for work. The fact my daily driver Corolla is over 25 years old didn’t matter, but perhaps it was deemed as reliable enough.
Does Being Nearly New Make A Car Reliable?
The woman named in the BBC article also has a reliable car, according to the RAC. The Citroën C1 is a badge-engineered version of the Toyota Aygo, also sold as the Peugeot 107, and with its Daihatsu powertrain in the gasoline versions, it’s one of the more reliable cars available for a budget sum.
And nearly-new cars haven’t proved to be as reliable as the Aygo: for instance, the now-infamous 1.2-liter PureTech engine has put a big dent in the image of Stellantis’ smaller cars, as the engine’s wet timing belt tends to crumble, blocking the oil passages with debris and requiring a big bill to put right. Stellantis has taken the step of rebranding its 1.2-liter engine line as the Turbo 100, backing the new motor with the statement that its timing chain and improved robustness would “increase driving pleasure.”
Ford isn’t off the hook, either, as the 1.0-liter EcoBoost engine, widely used in Fiestas and Focuses in Europe, also has the same wet-belt issue. Ford’s most troublesome units were produced up to 2019, and Stellantis only initially improved the PureTech with a timing chain in 2023, before introducing its successor that the company claims is more robust. These cars are out there on the used market, far newer than the stated 10-year cut-off for “likelihood of mechanical problems.” And a bad 12-volt battery can render any newish car inoperable, with the likelihood of the battery giving up the ghost increasing the newer the car is. Even the Toyota Yaris, a car considered reliable, is named in WhatCar’s reliability survey as having problems with the battery. The Nissan Juke, another popular car in the UK, got a ridiculous 50% score in another WhatCar survey, with the battery the main culprit.
But the likeliest explanation for the entire deal is that an estate agency simply doesn’t have the bandwidth to consider the multitude of vehicle choices when hiring new workforce. The blanket 10-year rule for cars means the least amount of effort needed to sift applications, as it relies on a simplified rule of thumb. It’s just that the current economic situation means more young people are applying for work while having a reduced budget to shop for cars to make that job happen, especially as new cars are increasingly more expensive.
In a Catch-22 situation, you need a job to be able to source a car, to buy one or finance it, but you also need that car to get the job in the first place. And while not every job lists a car as a requirement, a car-based economy with its long commutes means a lot of people need to rely on a car to get anywhere to begin with.
UPDATE, Good News
After the BBC’s article went online, the estate agency reversed its policy and welcomed Alanah for an interview. The company’s spokesperson stated: “We are extremely grateful to Alanah Thompson French for raising her concerns about our 10-year car age limit policy, which has now been dropped. Although it was introduced with good intentions, to ensure that colleagues use vehicles that are roadworthy and safe, it was never meant to prevent people from joining our organisation.”
“We are so impressed by Alanah’s tenacity in raising the issue. She is exactly the sort of person we would like to work for haart estate agents and we are contacting her to invite her for an interview.”
Top graphic image: Citroën
Sort of like employers pulling credit reports to sort out applicants. Catch 22: out of work, using credit cards to pay bills, fall behind on payment or two. No job for you.
I blame online job boards. Makes it easy to send dozens of applications, which means companies receive crazy numbers of applicants per position. How do you pick? By setting up arbitrary barriers to pair down the list. There ought to be regulations limiting what filters employers can use. Bad credit shouldn’t be one of them.
And one other thing: lawyers. Thanks to lawsuits the value of any personal or employment reference went to zilch as no previous employer would dare to provide an honest assessment, good or bad. So a reference, if even proffered, became boiler plate confirmation that the person did work there in the described time period, nothing more.
Many years ago, I had a friend who was from Germany and was a VP for a big company. He drove a humble Mazda 3 hatchback and his direct reports below him all had MBs and BMWs. He joked that he both did not understand the American obsession with car status and he said his car choice made them nervous.
He moved to another state, I liked going drinking with him, he always bought and it was always the toppest shelf whiskey.
Saved his money from driving a low price car to buy everyone drinks. What a champ. Bet he rowed his own gears being from the continent.
For sure it was a manual.
I can appreciate that people care what they drive because they enjoy driving, but I have a hard time with it being for appearances. And if you’re the VP for a big company, you probably don’t need to go out of your way to show off.
When I worked for an automotive OEM, the managers got a monthly car stipend toward a company lease. A couple used it on a nice truck or comfy sedan, but 80% were split between
1) tiny hatchback that was 100% covered by the stipend so they didn’t have to spend a dime
2) a minivan that their wife drove that was 1/2 covered by the stipend, so they drove an 8 year old tiny hatchback that was paid off and they didn’t have to spend a dime on
reminds me of airport transfer services (ie from the terminal to plane) for premium passengers. Some airlines give an E Class to business and an S Class to first. As if it friggin matters which one you sit in for the 4 minute ride.
I refuse to be transprted to the plane in anything less than a Maybach. That explains why I always have to wait in line at the gate with the plebes in economy.
Will you settle for a 7 series?
https://onemileatatime.com/air-france-lounge-paris-review/
I blame social media: it’s much more fun to take a selfie with that in the background than a metris. Airlines know this, plus they know your post is free publicity that enhances the premium-ness of their brand. I’d say these things pay for themselves, but most of them are brand partnerships bc the car companies benefit plenty from premium passengers taking “captive test drives.”
Is it less than a Maybach? It is to me, so never!
Never settle. I once flew first class (on points, don’t worry) on an airline I won’t mention. We were parked at a remote stand. There was the regular bus for the commoners and then the Special Bus for us. Except the Special Bus was running late so we all stood there waiting. Thank GOD we were able to get in the Special Line at immigration to cut ahead of all the commoners who got to the terminal before us.
It sucks when the perks are impaired. I have global entry for coming home, but last time, the flight was the only one getting in and the line at globa entry was 2 or 3 people deep while the normal line had three agents just standing there. If I ever make that trip to Australia, I’m going business class. Other than that, I will probably stay with my people in steerage.
American attitudes of showing off and playing that ridiculous “keeping up with the Joneses“ game. Avoid shallow people in your life, things will go better for you.
I’d happily keep a shiny new image-burnishing car to make the company happy if the company subsidized. If they don’t then the salary had better be high enough they don’t need to directly subsidize it. If it isn’t, the company can go straight to hell.
But then, the economy ain’t what it once was. You have fewer cards now.
Even if the salary is high, it doesn’t justify telling employees how they need to spend it.
Ok. Turn down a high paying job you want because they require a nicer car that you can easily afford. Weird decision in my view, but if that’s your principle then that’s your principle. Some would also refuse a position that requires a suit and tie because that costs as well.
In a world where ppl can choose between a 50K job and a 90K job, ok. I don’t think that’s a realistic scenario. Rather, ppl know their skills and roughly what they are worth in terms of salary. Employers that require a fancy car don’t build that into the compensation. While the suit is a similar concept, it’s a bit disingenuous given a car costs orders of magnitude more.
I’m just providing some grey area to your absolutist black-and-white statement.
Where’d you get 50K vs 90K from? Those are both absurdly low and disingenuously far apart in the context of my original comment.
Try “160k for the position you want that also requires a certain car” vs “150k for a position you’re less enthusiastic about but you can drive whatever” and you’re getting closer.
I got it from that would need to be the difference for it to be a wash between getting to keep your paid off (cheap) car vs having to buy something *premium* for your job that you otherwise don’t need. Back in the real world, you’re lucky to get one job offer and, in the situation of a realtor, it’s likely closer to the 50K offer, which requires tens of thousands of dollars spent on a car for the sake of your employer.
Average UK wage is ~£39,000 which is about $50k, I love to know where I could go to get a choice of a job earning twice as much. Last time I looked for work there was about a 20% spread between wages, not 180%.
The company didn’t require that their employee has a NICE car, they required a NEW car. They wouldn’t let their employees drive a well-kept W212 Mercedes E-Class to work, but they would let their them drive a crappy ex-rental Nissan with a CVT. Not only would the Nissan be far less reliable, being made to downgrade to a newer econobox amounts to a reduction in working conditions, especially for a job that requires a lot of travelling.
It used to be that UK estate agents would have a fleet of branded cars for their agents to drive, getting them free publicity and ensuring a consistent appearance when they turned up at a house.
I guess times are tough enough that a fleet of company cars isn’t affordable any more. (Want to bet that the head of this company has a company car though?)
Oh absolutely, this company seems like the type that would make its employees scrimp and struggle while the c-suite retains verything. But I’ve diverged a bit with this comment thread; I’m not talking about entry and mid level positions like the one the woman in this article is applying for
I have a GX 550 and a man with a 1972 rusted out Ford F150 goes out of his way to park next to me and it drives me nuts. He works next door, but parks at my work (same company). I wish I could ban him from the property… It’s like a busted out, spray painted, Frankenstein truck that will definitely ding me. Lol
I used to park my sub $5000 beaters next to a guy at work who drove a Porsche Cayenne.
The guy was a complete tool who would pop percs during work hours and would often be high as a kite at work.
And it was amusing how he’d freak out over someone parking next to his ‘baby’
Note that parked a normal distance away… with plenty of space to open the door with little to no risk of getting a ding. But in spite of that, he’d hilariously go mental.
I’m not mad at him.
This comment and the below are literally the duality of Autopian.
Seriously. But the duality lives within me as well. I wouldn’t want that truck parked next to my Lexus either. I wouldn’t go bonkers over it like Manwich’s perc-popper, but it would annoy me. HOWEVER….
I’m also the guy who wants to own a hideous beater just like that simply so I can park one half-inch away from the driver’s door of the assholes who angle-park their polished up F350s across two parking spaces so no one can get near them.
I’d get near them.
But don’t park next to my Lexus.
Who cares what your car is – it’s parked, you’re in your office. The guy with the manky truck is in his. Lighten up a bit.
It’s for a realtor company, so they care more about looks than anything. Not exactly the toughest job out there.
My first thought was, “what employer would GAF about what their employees drove?” Then I saw the R-word…oh, so a cult.
Yet their flowery language about “safety” and “reliability” is utter unadulterated horseshit. They should simply say in so many words that they insist you drive a somewhat fancy car. But don’t lecture me about safety and reliability, when make it to work just fine in luxury and style (and even often at a high rate of speed) every morning in a 2012 G37X that just clocked 150,000 miles yesterday; and got to work just fine today in my wife’s 2008 QX56, which has over 250,000 miles, some of which were logged towing a camper 6 hours each way, which I would do right now on a bet to prove a point.
If it was 1996 out there, maybe. In 2026? For the vast majority of makes and models made more than 10 years ago but less than 30 years ago, in proper condition? Horseshit.
I’ve never understood the logic on that one. “Oh, this realtor drives an 80k car, surely they’ll be reasonable with their fees and not screw me.”
I’ll be honest, I’ve been working with my current realtor for 10 years and I couldn’t even tell you the make, let alone the model, of any of the associates. And I remember people’s cars better than their names.
No one of morally dubious character partaking in unethical business practices ever drives a nice car.
Yeah that’s my thought as well. The tax bracket I’m in? I don’t want my realtor in a new X7 M60 or whatever. An X3, sure that seems reasonable.
I’m trusting the Realtor that rolls up in a Corolla or Camry. That’s someone that makes practical decisions.
I have a couple Realtor colleagues who roll in newer, high-spec Camrys; one of them gets the same trim level, color, etc., every three or four years, without fail.
I think a lot of less sophisticated potential clients would think “this person is new and inexperienced” or “this person is experienced, but bad at their job.” Neither of those need to be true, but if I was a realtor and sensed I was losing potential clients, yeah I’d probably be headed to the Lexus store too.
There in lies the problem. The clients you speak of are a larger chunk of the population than you’d hope, and they base massive decisions off of superficial, materialistic things.
For more evidence, see the modern car market in totality.
My realtor drove/drives a Mazdaspeed3 hatchback. I thought that was cool.
If they care about looks, they should be encouraging people to keep nicer, more stately cars in good condition. A new midget econo hatchback doesn’t scream We Are Success to me, but a well-kept Jaguar XJ projects an image.
It’s a bit of a fine line to walk. A shitbox doesn’t scream success, but too fancy a car says “we’re making a LOT of money off you rubes” to me. So something like an XJ is going to really depend on the year for me.
I’m thinking mid-aughts. Back when a Jaguar looked like a Jaguar. Old enough you know it isn’t funded by overcharging clients.
Same logic could be applied to something like a Mondeo Estate, though.
If it’s a final-gen Jag XJ, they’re hustling for biz just to try to get/keep it running. 😉 In the ‘States, the vast majority of those working as Realtors are self-employed/independent contractors working on behalf of a brokerage, so having a company dictate what you drive likely won’t happen.
I’ve done the “somewhat inexpensive stately older car” thing for many years in real estate, and it’s largely worked for me. I’ve bounced around over the years from Euro stuff (Saabs and Audis), to a couple Lexus LSes (possibly *the* most stereotypical Realtor car, ever), to Jaguar XJs (the current XJ8 is right at 250k miles/400k km). In nearly every instance, I’ve kept and run nearly every car well past 200k miles, and often take them closer to 300k (at 30-50k miles/year) before retiring a car due to wear or rust. Leasing has always been a non-starter for me, given the miles I drive. I’m grateful to have the space/tools/necessary (fake-it) skills to fix/maintain my own cars.
In the ‘States, the tax breaks for small businesses having/owning large/heavy vehicles (over 6k pounds) means that there’s a lot of big/heavy SUVs, trucks and EVs doing real estate duty. Cars/fuel/mileage are often the largest expense for someone in real estate or related fields like property appraisals.
“If it’s a final-gen Jag XJ, they’re hustling for biz just to try to get/keep it running.”
Lol. Indeed.
The mid-oughts XJs really are pretty solid, reliable cars, all things considered. I am quickly learning about the ‘joys’ of final Jag XJ ownership with the XJL that I bought a couple months back. Bright side is that they make lovely driveway ornaments that take longer to upset the neighbors…
A poorly kept XJ also projects an image. Especially if it’s a Jeep.
The last realtor I used had a Chrysler Town & Country, which, based on when the Pacifica came out, had to have been close to a decade old
If someone drove up with an old Yaris, I’d immediately believe that their taste in vehicles was primarily based on reliability.
I’d probably be far more trusting of said Yaris driver over a newer Landrover owner.
My boss liked my ’90 Miata. (Then he hit it while leaving for an errand, and tried to pretend he didn’t, but that’s another story.)
Seems like you should have hit your boss with the Miata and denied it to HR, only seems fair.
It’s a small company, like 6 people, and HR was basically his wife/VP. I told her right after it happened & she put her head on her desk. He’d been doing many stupid things lately, like almost dementia-level.
He gave me a wad of cash after I took him out to point out his paint scuff. I took it home, used rubbing compound and got it to 99% again. I told him if it had been one of my other cars, insurance would have been involved.
Heh, that sort of reminds me of when I was a branch manager at a bank, and my supervisor, our division VP., saw me getting into my Town Car after a meeting and ran over gushing about it and asking questions about how bad/expensive Lincoln dealers were for service and stuff. It was weird, because he wasn’t a car guy, it was a pretty cheap old beater that I bought to put miles on, and he drove a new Infiniti Qsomething. I honestly think he had no idea that Town Cars were no longer in production and thought one of his employees had bought a new one somehow. It’s also weird that he thought it was some sort of high status thing instead of a fancy taxi cab
This kinda happened to a friends husband. He had a paid off, low-mileage Subaru Crosstrek. As an exec at a bank, his management said his car wasnt fancy enough.
Now hes in a 340i and management happily gives him $400/mo towards it.
I’ve had my fair share of crappy cars and nobodys ever said a peep to me.
If my employer told me they were gonna pay for my ride, I’d be leased-up indefinitely.
I am forever jealous of my friends who have company trucks with unlimited usage agreements, but the hours and hybrid schedule of my work are a pretty decent trade-off.
A 340i is a $900/mo car to lease, so the employer isn’t even covering half of it.
Not that he needs the help as a bank exec.
This recently changed at my employer. Managers used to just get a fully paid for car (lease, maintenance, insurance) and could pick from a list based on their level. They swapped cars every year or 8,000 miles. Those low mileage cars then went to dealers as very low mile CPO cars. (Non managers could also use this program but had to pay out of pocket for the car)
Now with recent changes to our organization we no longer have company supplied vehicles and now managers get a car allowance based on their level. Some still lease a car but others just pocket that money and drive their own car.
I knew someone in the late 90s who had a paid for company car. They worked for Sharpie!
Was the company car permanent? Or did it disappear in the rain?
Typo:
“Evidence from motoring organisations shows that the likelihood of mechanical problems increases if built in the UK
as vehicles get older.”Not correct. Update your history sunshine!
“It’s extremely important that people who work for us use reliable vehicles for their own personal safety, particularly where they travel many miles each day and often work alone.”
Translation: Employees driving older cars are a bad look for us.
Sure, you lose out on some good classics, but you also weed out, easily, the British equivalent to an old Altima/G35 that could easily drive away some prospective clients.
I’d be curious to know about the age and condition of the “estates” they’re selling…
I drive a 25 year old BMW. I’m doomed.
Unless I’m driving clients around, the company has no business telling me what I can drive, and if they do, they can provide that car.
But something slightly similar, I work in the Washington DC metro area but I live 50 miles out in rural VA because I don’t like people. I have a DC metro phone number and I don’t put my home town on my resume, because prospective employers would assume I’ll frequently be late and complain about my commute, neither of which I do.
Just imagine applying for a job that says must have reliable transportation then being immediately disqualified because you bought a Stellantis product.
I’ll be honest, there’s a lot of judgment going around against what people drive.
I’m sure you’ve already got a mental image of someone who drives a Ram pickup.
Actually I do feel a bit bad piling onto Stellantis. Most of their products are fine, but just not for me. All the ire directed towards them, some by me is not entirely earned.
Don’t feel bad. They did it to themselves. And no, none of their products are fine. That’s the whole point 😛
COTD
The vehicle is one part developed by Toyota before Stellantis existed. Get it right, please let.
If the employer demands for the employee to own a newer car, perhaps the employer should either offer enough extra money to cover the payment and/or provide one themselves? Anything less is simply not fair, although the relationship between capital and labor has never been anything close to fair as it is.
I consider myself very fortunate that I can use my home-built EVs to visit job sites. Getting paid for mileage is especially nice, because they cost almost nothing to operate. Tires are my biggest expense, at $0.01/mile, followed by chain at $0.004/mile. Doing the speed limit anywhere from 20-50 mph depending upon the road wherever I happen to be riding and vehicle used and with some pedaling, I get about 70-100 miles per kWh for the velomobiles, and about 20 miles per kWh with the motorcycle disguised as a mountainbike, a kWh costing about $0.13 where I live. The per-mile reimbursement rate is flat across all vehicles, however. I ride mostly in the city and I can’t take any of them onto the interstate, but otherwise they get me around every bit as good as a car can, for much, much less than a car would cost.
Flying 45-50 mph down a state highway in the slow lane in one of my velomobiles is quite a liberating feeling. Everyone should have transportation be this cheap, and make all the commercial trucks pay for the roads since they are responsible for the overwhelming majority(> 90%) of the road wear.
I think? this is a (in US speak) real estate company whose employees are supposed to be showing dwellings to people interested in hiring/renting/leasing/letting (whatever the mot du jour is) them?
In which case, is the employee being comp’d for mileage? If yes, I don’t see any beef with having a policy like this. Particularly if the employer is going to be expecting the employee to drive customers around and/or the employer would be liable if the employee got stranded.
Such policies are not exactly unheard of here nor there; lots of US entities will require you to have a truck, or a 4×4 truck, or a newer car (as set by mileage or age). Part of it’s brand image, part of it’s liability.
And for those saying “Just get her a company car,” most people would rather not deal with having potentially two cars (and associated parking / insurance / etc. costs) at home or dealing with personal-use rules on a company car, which is why getting expensed mileage is far more popular these days.
I’m not passing judgement on whether the company should dictate what employees drive, but they should at least be honest about it and not try to pass it off as safety and reliability.
If they say it’s for image, it sets up arguments or lawsuits. It’s hard to argue with “safety”.
Sadly, I see something like this. With big companies, it used to be that the high level execs would be given company cars and top sales men would be given an allowance to get a car.
However, for the low level employees, the job description would say “Must own a reliable car” with no provision to be able to afford one.
If they don’t like the car they’re driving, give them a fucking company car.
Don’t they have inspections over there? Any car that passes the MOT test is deemed roadworthy.
Or maybe they don’t understand that the C1 is really a Toyota. French cars don’t have the same reputation that Japanese cars enjoy.
I wish I’d bought one of the Aygo types instead of my diesel Polo now, very good reputation, I’d love approvingly on any rep pulling up in one of those.
If they’re gonna do this they have to have an arbitrary blanket policy. Otherwise you’re going to have an HR person making judgement calls on whether a 13 year old Toyota is ok vs an 11 year old Kia etc etc.
This headline is sort of misleading, right? The article covers a single instance of one employer, not plural “employers”. It doesn’t cover a massive trend of employers discriminating against applicants with older cars as the headline suggests. While I’m sure there are other examples of this happening, this article doesn’t mention them.
Speaking of “plural”, I’m still trying to figure out why the Pluriel has fewer doors than the C3 next to it..
The C3 Pluriel is a pretty crazy car. Here’s a video to explain.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUyj9QiWq-k
My last sales role, before the current one, did not provide company cars, and required that personal vehicles used for work be no more than 4 years old. They also required that they cost at least $40,000 and have at least 4 doors (unless you bought a pickup truck, those were allowed to be 2-door, if you could still find one).
They paid a monthly allowance thar was supposed to go toward your monthly car payment, insurance, and maintenance, which was fixed at $350, then also reimbursed 15 cents per mile. If you did the math, it worked out to much less per mile than the IRS tax exempt rate, assuming you drove a decent amount, which all sales people do. Office employees on hybrid work schedules who maybe just commuted point A to B two or three days a week probably did make out OK on that deal, everyone else did not.
At the time I started, I had a 7 year old Camaro with pretty low mileage that I had kept diligently maintained, it was still in virtually showroom condition and running fine, and was also completely paid off. Granted, the mileage that I was doing would have run it into the ground pretty fast, but I was OK with that, I figured I could get another 3 or 4 years out of it, but I was told shortly after starting that it did not comply with the reimbursement policy and had to be replaced ASAP, I had saved some cash for a new roof on the house, and ended up postponing that by a year so I could use it as a down-payment instead.
During the hiring process, my boss had made some mention of that program, but it seemed like he didn’t have that great of an understanding of it, and had emphasized that it was optional, and that I could opt out and just manually record mileage and get a hard check every two weeks based on the IRS rate. It wasn’t until a few months in that I found out that, no, it wasn’t optional, and I had to get into compliance
Also, when I bought a car, the transportation director told me the required minimum price was only $27,500. Less than a year later, the company sent around a declaration form to verify compliance with the policy, and the dollar amount had been increased to $40k. I told my boss I absolutely was not going to buy another new car after less than 12 months, and he advised me to just lie and check the box stating it had cost at least 40k
I really hope you reviewed them on glassdoor!
Sounds like old school “bleed em dry” management. Time to look for a new job.
I currently have the same setup you did, fixed monthly stipend plus ~ $0.20 per mile, but as you said, comes with a ton of stipulations. Must be 3 years or newer, > $40K, 4 doors, specific insurance requirements, and must log at least 5,000 business miles per year. If you don’t hit all the requirements, it converts to taxable income and uncle Sam takes it all out of your December paycheck.
I am thankful to have it, but it’s like golden handcuffs. It’s not enough to cover everything and there’s no way I can buy a new $40k car every three years. So you’re left with leasing, but then you always end up way over mileage.
I looked at leasing, but was averaging 30,000 miles a year and there was nothing that fit that. I traded in my Camaro and put down a lot of cash to keep the loan small, then bought a Crown Vic Police Interceptor to use as my personal car, since putting both personal and work mileage on the same vehicle would have killed the resale value too quickly and I needed to be able to trade it in in 4 years. Everyone at the company basically just accepted that 100% of their performance bonus every 4 years would go to a downpayment. I assume a lot of them rolled loan balances, too, because there were folks I knew weren’t making as much as me who were dropping 60 or 70k on pickup trucks
Is this even legal? I smell lawsuit in the land of freedom units.
I dont see people complaining when someone drives their pre-OBDII era cars to work, the majority of them are very good looking or taking care of, I live in Metro Detroit so judging someone by their car is not a thing, the Diplomat in the walmart parking lot is actually appreciated by us lol
Our group of manufacturing engineers has had quite a collection of older vehicles…currently the highest is a ’92 Cherokee with 300k miles, next is an ’06 Altima with 240k (my former daily). The lowest is probably a ’17 Malibu with ~150k miles. We’ve had several other 290-340k milers in the group.
A neat trick you can do to ensure your employees drive nicer cars is to pay them better.
Nah, just tell them to drive them and fire them if they don’t. You can always find replacements.
Which is true. But there is more to the story.
Firing someone low on the org chart because they drive a janky old car can be done. But how many others will leave because they see you as heartless? How much does it cost to find an employee that owns a nicer car to replace them? How much does it cost to replace the others that leave? Will they have nice cars?
It might be cheaper to just give everyone a car allowance or the like. But you have to run the numbers.
Managers talk about employees being lightbulbs, just change them out. Which is true, but some lightbulbs are special order and super expensive so it’s better to not change them unless you have to.
Or maybe just don’t care so much about completely inconsequential nonsense as what type of car an employee drives.
Pick your battles. That’s the key. I worked with the grumpiest machinist ever. But he did work hard and do good work. So, dealing with him bitching was an acceptable price to pay.
Some management disagreed and now we don’t have the old grumpy bastard. But without a good machinist, work has ground to a halt on so many projects. I think we spend about $500k a year on outside machinists. Is it worth that to not deal with the grump?
Maybe.. I can see the manager’s point.
If an employee’s job requires them to drive around from jobsite to jobsite all day the reliability of their car is not inconsequential.
IF this is critical, then reliable transportation should be part of the company’s responsibility. I’m a white collar worker. My car reliability is not critical to doing my job. If I have to, I can work from home. HOWEVER.. the reliability of my laptop IS critical to doing my job.
If you have a crew that has to travel from site to site a lot, than the vehicle driving them is just as important as the tools they use while they are there.
This lady is a real estate agent. Her job is to drive around and show people properties all day.
The company could provide a car – but that expense would come out of the agent’s pay. There is no free lunch. (Even at companies that don’t charge for lunch at their cafeteria)
In which case the employer should provide the vehicle, not the employee.
…. which would then come out of the employee’s pay. As I said to Hoser above – there is no free lunch.
This assumes managers are competent enough to realize company policies are counterproductive and motivated enough to try and change them. We think businesses are efficient and rational but there are all these hidden incentives: managers’ status is based on how many employees they supervise. Motivation to have more people under you, even if they’re not needed.
Actually, my experience is that they are NOT efficient. I watched a manager fire a group because he couldn’t pronounce what they did. Took the company from profitable to losing millions overnight. So he fired the janitor (it gets better, he fired him very publicly because the guy had a medical problem. Which means he fired a disabled person for being disabled and the company lost millions in the resulting lawsuit).
I talked about another manager that got his bottom lip pushed out because of a grumpy machinist. Cost to date is about $500k for his hurt feelings. As a sign of a better than average company, the manager was fired for being stupid.
A GOOD manager and a GOOD company realizes that workers need tools, and if a car is critical, then a car should be supplied, just like the IT department set up a computer for the manager to use.
Not many companies are good any more.
The common way to do this is to have significant penalties for being late to work. If someone has a crap car, they will have to decide if they need to replace/repair it or find another job.
Yeah I was trying to say basically the same. With the added layer that the manager might understand providing cars is the good and right thing to do, but realize their career depends in part on someone spending 5 seconds looking at whether their department costs have gone up or down. And they work that way b/c their boss does the same, all the way up to the CEO and the shareholders who care only about the current quarter.
“The common way to do this is to have significant penalties for being late to work.”
The company across the street from where I work will fire you if you are late two times in one year. Five minutes before starting time there are multiple cars weaving in and out of traffic at speeds over the speed limit and running reds to get in to work.
My first manager said “I don’t care if you are ten minutes late to work as long as you stay ten minutes later. I can tell if you are doing a full day’s work.” He could because he knew the job.
Guess which company has a higher employee turnover rate.
There is a HUGE difference between white and non-white collar workers now. 10 years ago, I got sick of my company. I had a choice. Change career paths to find a job outside of my industry, or move to a city that had more opportunity for work in my industry. I choose the later and it didn’t work out well with uprooting my family. Today, with my weird skills and knowledge, I can work for about 10 different companies around the world in my PJs in my spare bedroom if I wanted to.
This leads to a very interesting thing. A white collar worker doesn’t have to have a reliable car. I could have a 50 year old car that is road worthy less days than in pieces and work remotely for many companies. They wouldn’t care less if the engine was in pieces in the background of my Zoom meetings, as long as I turn in paperwork on time. Meanwhile, if either of my daughters were late to work just a couple of times because of car problems, they would be looking for another job. Yet, who do you think makes enough money to think about a newer vehicle?
This is probably a barely above minimum wage job.
And? That’s no excuse for treating an employee like crap over something completely unrelated to job performance.
Some private campgrounds won’t accept RV past a certain age. Don’t know if there’s an exception for vintage Airstreams and the like. They are trying to avoid looking like homeless encampments.
My folks had an older RV and at one point they had to submit photos to continue getting insurance.
I dislike that camping seems to have become a luxury activity.
My wife and I would probably be considered lower-middle class at this stage (both in our 20s, still getting going in life). We decided we’d tent camp at a KOA nearby just for fun and to get out of the house for the weekend on a budget.
Almost everyone else were in expensive RVs and 5th-wheels which is fine, don’t get me wrong. The only other tent campers were two vagrants hiding out in the woods, who had to be told multiple times by staff to leave. There was also a couple camping out of a Ford Ranger who began having a loud, drunken domestic dispute at 2am. We called the cops, packed up, and left.
Campgrounds suck. Universally. It’s just a matter of degree.
We have friends who have had a variety of campers over the years. A couple of years ago they bought a tent trailer. They wanted to have beds for adult children plus they wanted to store it in the garage. So many private campsites wouldn’t take it! They just bought B van. The tent trailer is good for state parks for family camping but in So Cal you have to book those sites six months in advance. There’s no spur of the moment camping.
The 10 year age “rule” is pretext to deny a spot for people in run down heaps. The worry is that RV will break down and no be able to leave – which leaves the campground with a squatter taking up a spot until they can be evicted through a sometimes lengthy legal process.
I don’t have this exact issue, but I transitioned to a new role about a year and a half ago. I now have to spend a fair amount of time on the road, whereas before, I really only had to drive to and from work. My 2012 Jeep was sufficient for that job, and I do love it, but the mileage has been creeping upwards, and the gas mileage leaves a little bit to be desired… I’ve started thinking that a 4wd hybrid might be the way to go in the near future, because I’m suddenly approaching 200k miles, and I noticed in the parking lot the other day, I probably have the oldest car here by a fair margin.
This feels like it’s less about reliability and more about image. Reminds me about the recent story about Mercedes’s partner and the iQ. I’m guessing it was less the age and more the image of the estate agent driving around in a 2010s supermini, when they’d probably prefer the image of a compact luxury sedan or hatch.
I was going to say the same thing. Asking if an applicant has reliable transportation is one thing, but requiring specific characteristics for that transportation is just…I don’t know…elitist? Discriminatory? Impractical! Let’s go with impractical.
I know that some industries want to project a certain image, but when I see someone driving a shiny new luxury vehicle I tend to think they are taking more of my money than they really need.
I tend to avoid those industries or people with those ideas.
When the company I work for built a new facility, they sent out a company wide email about old leaky cars defacing the new parking lot. Basically telling us that if our cars leaked oil or whatever, we needed to get them fixed so our glorious new concrete wouldn’t be sullied.
That was about 10 years ago. Haven’t heard a peep about it since.
Many years ago, my company employed someone for evening cleaning services whose car developed a massive transmission fluid leak…large enough that we had to call in an environmental remediation firm. This was right around the time that she started bringing her kids in with her; we know they were allowed to freely roam the facility because 1) they started drawing on things, and 2) anything small that looked nice (earbuds, pens, pencils, knickknacks, etc.) started disappearing. I’m not sure what the final straw was, but the company ended up canceling the contract.
The BBC is now reporting that the estate agent has reversed their decision
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0q3q4e8zvpo
“In its statement, a spokesperson for haart said: “We are extremely grateful to Alanah Thompson French for raising her concerns about our 10-year car age limit policy, which has now been dropped.
“Although it was introduced with good intentions, to ensure that colleagues use vehicles that are roadworthy and safe, it was never meant to prevent people from joining our organisation.”
The spokesperson added the firm would now be inviting Alanah for an interview.
“We are so impressed by Alanah’s tenacity in raising the issue,” they said.
“She is exactly the sort of person we would like to work for haart estate agents and we are contacting her to invite her for an interview.”
The cynical side of me thinks that they are most certainly NOT grateful she raised her concerns, nor are they impressed with her tenacity. The cynical side of me thinks the news cycle will soon move on and she receives an email thanking her for coming to the interview but we’ve decided other candidates are a better fit but please feel free to apply at a later time, good day to you madam.
I doubt they subscribed to: “there’s no such thing as bad publicity”
“We are extremely grateful to Alanah Thompson French for raising her concerns about our 10-year car age limit policy, which has now been dropped”
Aye bollocks you were grateful.