Advocacy & Safety - Corporate Policy -- Is it legal?

Thanks.

I believe they do have the legal right, since it's for company business on company time.

Is there a past history of motorcycle and bicycle crashes for those traveling between sites? I suspect if you went to HR and asked them for their research demonstrating that motorcycling and bicycling are a high enough risk to prohibit them, they won't have anything other than the typical handwaving arguments, such as "you're not protected like you are in a car".

I would tell them to let me borrow a company car if they want me to go to a meeting at another site.

If you are on company time, they can dictate how you use that time.

I don't think it's illegal. Employers are allowed to require a bunch of stuff that limits your personal choices. Many mandate what clothes you wear, what time you come and go, what internet sites you visit, if you can smoke on their time, if your in the right job...what stocks you can own, etc. They are also generally expected (and sometimes requiried) to make accomdations to help you meet their requirements. They mention one in the policy, you are allowed to call into your off site meetings. What are their accomdations if that one dosn't work? Can you call a cab and they pay? Can you take a bus? Can you miss work at your primary site and bike directly to the other site from home and then home and that's your day. Can you walk to the other site? Do they have a company car you can use to travel? Do they plan on instituting a company shuttle that travels between facilities, that keeps people from making dangerous choices in their personal automobiles as well.

Ask them what other accomodations are available to you to help you comply with corportate policy.

what happens if you can't use your car (one car fam,ily, it's in the shop, it breaks down, etc)

what if you don't own a car for some reason

what if you use public transport that day

Just possibly the HR cubicle people need to clarify their missive

I concur. If someone requests your presence at a site that's beyond walking distance, ask human resources how to handle the situation -- "I do not have access to a car; I can easily get to the other site via bicycle, but you have told me not to. What do you suggest?"

The policy is legal. So just spend 2 hours of company time walking to the meeting and 2 hours back to your office. Sounds like a nice WORK day to me.

That's a very reasonable policy your company has. You apparently don't understand your employer has responsibility and liability for what happens to you on company time

what happens if you can't use your car (one car fam,ily, it's in the shop, it breaks down, etc)

what if you don't own a car for some reason

what if you use public transport that day

Just possibly the HR cubicle people need to clarify their missive

Most jobs require you to have a car otherwise they deem you to be unreliable and always be late. If your car break down or in the shop, do what everyone else does, figure out a solution that doesn't break company's policy. Its not the company's problem. Ask the company to have a company car always available for people in those cases if is going between plants is a regular thing for many people. Its really not the company's problem if your car blows up.

It's legal, but that doesn't mean you can't sic your area bicycle and motorcycle advocacy organizations on them.

The issue is liabilty to an injured party. If you are driving, your auto insurance covers it. If you are cycling and the injured person sues for $5 millon, they won't go for you but your employer.

In Australia, workers compensation also covers you traveling to and from work along your 'normal route'.

That said, I think if they require you to use a car when you would otherwise choose not to it's only fair that they provide a company vehicle for those trips. They did that very thing when I was working on a refinery site. A simple whiteboard wher you could book the car worked well enough.

Other than that, I think they need to prove that there's significantly more risk in riding a bike or motorbike before implementing such a ban. I suspect it was just done off the cuff though, on the assumption that it is more risky. If you think it's an unfair policy, as a first step in getting it reversed might be to ask for their justifications for it.

Legal- if you trace this back, it probably comes from your company's workers comp insurance legal department. Somebody over there decided bikes/motorcycles were dangerous and sent out a directive. All you can do is ask them to change policy, which they won't, and then if it is important enough to you, threaten to quit. If you do threaten to quit, if they don't back down, then quit.

As an aside, is a lunch break considered your time or the company's time? The reason I ask is what if you spent the morning at one plant, rode to lunch, and then rode to the other plant?

Most jobs require you to have a car otherwise they deem you to be unreliable and always be late. If your car break down or in the shop, do what everyone else does, figure out a solution that doesn't break company's policy. Its not the company's problem. Ask the company to have a company car always available for people in those cases if is going between plants is a regular thing for many people. Its really not the company's problem if your car blows up.

umm no - the only jobs I know of that require a car are either cab drivers or it's clearly stated under the terms and conditions of your contract. Either way they provide expenses for mileage and maintenance in your own vehicle on company time and state, before you start the job, that you must have a car.

They made this change while the OP was in contract so either they renegotiate or come up with a solution to a problem they created.

Dude, it says that if you ride a bicycle you can call in to the meeting! Which means you can play PacMan at your desk while you "listen" to the meeting...

Seriously, though, NY is employer friendly when determining legal vs illegal.

Your best options is probably to hitch a ride with a coworker.


The new PSP does not prevent employees’ use of motorcycles and bicycles as transportation to and from work nor during the lunch hour, since employees are not covered by workers compensation at those times.
You gotta love this paragraph though. "The reason we're not telling you that you can't ride a bike to work, is that it's irrelevant to the worker's comp issue - not because we have no business doing so." Typical New York employer attitude... finish some schooling, network, etc., and get a job where you can say "f you" to any of these types.

A while back my company put out an email directive (posted below) banning bicycles and motorcycles as transportation between our plants. We have three locations across the city that are all approximately 5 miles apart. I don't think a company has a legal right to dictate one's transportation.

Please note that I am not an Attorney.

A. I would tend to agree that, unless a company provides inter-plant transportation, they do not have the ability to require an individual to take a specific mode of transportation, unless:

1. the alternate mode of transportation specifically impacts their (or others') ability to work and the timeliness of arrival (schedule)

2. the individual, when taking this alternate means of transportation, somehow presents a danger to other company individuals moving between plants

3. the individual, when taking this alternate means of transportation, somehow breaks laws set forth by the local authority having jurisdiction.

There is a precedent where a ban on Motorcycles in the State of Mass. was overturned by the Supreme Court. If the company does not offer (A.) and there are no items (1.) through (3.), that this policy will not be consistent with such a precedent and should be removed from policy.

That's a very reasonable policy your company has. You apparently don't understand your employer has responsibility and liability for what happens to you on company time
WHat makes you say that the policy is reasonable?

There are two questions here. The first is the legal validity of the policy. Of course, it's the employer's time and money, so it's the employer's legal right to impliment this policy.

But the second question is the wisdom of the policy. StanSeven, do you have any evidence that cycling three miles to a meeting is more dangerous than driving?

My guess is that the insurance company said that it would cancel the insurance policy (or increase the rates) if such a policy weren't issued. If that's the case, there's probably little you can do.

I sometimes use a bike to go to a moring meeting that's about 12-15 miles away from my worklplace. My house is roughly half-way between the workplace and my home. I don't count the time going to the meeting, but I figure how much time it would take me to drive to and from the meeting in a company car, and I make that the limit of the amount of time I write down for the return trip. Afterall, I could ride to work, get a company car, and drive to the meeting.

I get a nice ride. My employer saves money on gas and wear and tear. Win-win. So far, no one has complained.

You could always contact the AMA. They've beaten down stupid rules like this in the past... It is most likely the insurance company's doing, and not the employer.

http://www.amadirectlink.com/

The company has the right to set the rules. Nothing says the rules must be logical. Nothing says they must justify the rules to you. If you don't like the rules you have the right to find a job at a company where the rules are more to your liking .. maybe at a company that silkscreens tee shirts. You can try to justify your position, but in the end, the rules are the rules. Some people may feel they are 'more alert' when they fill their body with drugs but if the company has drug testing .. they lose. Corporate America is basically made up of adults interested in making money, not kids wanting to ride their bikes during working hours while getting paid for it. You need to consider the 'big picture'. Is employment at this company otherwise very enjoyable? Is this policy worth terminating your job? Pick your fights carefully, some are worth it and some are not.

Here is what happend: The company's insurance carrier got dinged from a bicycle or motorcycle accident not necessarly having to do with the OP's firm. They get a letter from the insurance carrier stating they will not cover any bike or motorcycle related accidents(ask your boss or company owner, the insurance carrier essentially change the rules of the policy at any time) or the carrier will triple your rates. Happens all the time. After 9/11 everyone got a notice that terrorism would not be covered.

+1 Oilman... it only takes one person to ruin it for everyone.

As stated above... you are on their time, they own you. Same reason they can say you can't surf the internet while THEY are paying you ;)

The issue is liabilty to an injured party. If you are driving, your auto insurance covers it. If you are cycling and the injured person sues for $5 millon, they won't go for you but your employer.

While I don't agree with your examples, I agree it has to do with preventing injuries, but not to 3rd party non-employees, but to employees. Its almost impossible for a bicycle to injure another (except maybe a pedestrian) on the road, same thing with motorcycles.

Employers percieve bicycling and motorcycling as more dangerous to the cyclist, so in a (misguided) effort to reduce injuries to employess and resultant costs (workers comp), they prohibit bicycle and moto travel for work purposes.

Most jobs require you to have a car otherwise they deem you to be unreliable and always be late.

IANAL, but if the requirement to have a motor vehicle was not stated at the time of hiring, I think it should be the responsibility of the employer to provide for a vehicle for work purposes.

I don't think it has anything to do with injuries. The insurance company wants to jack the rates on the employer. And the employer wants to lower insurance premiums. They don't give a fart about the worker or how they get from site to site. If they did, the policy would provide for alternate forms of transportation to make the meeting, or at the very least compensation for drivers wear and tear on their personal cars when used for company purposes.

For any medium and large sized company its all about the bottom line. Always has been and always will be.

How to counter that? Educating the HR department about the health benifits of cycling. Educating them that healthy workers work harder, better and more efficently than others. Plus healthy workers are, generally, happy workers.

But they probably won't budge -- money does rule all. Don't get your hopes up.

The issue is liabilty to an injured party. If you are driving, your auto insurance covers it. If you are cycling and the injured person sues for $5 millon, they won't go for you but your employer.

So basically then the company is requiring the worker to carry and pay for insurance to protect the company. In other words, you are spending your own hard-earned money to pay for a company resource that they just don't want to pay for.

They made this change while the OP was in contract so either they renegotiate or come up with a solution to a problem they created.

You're assuming that the OP is a contract employee. Most jobs in the states are considered to be "at will" employment, meaning that you or your employer can terminate the employment agreement at any time, without specific reason.

I am an attorney, and I'll tell you that it's almost certainly legal. It is a matter of state law, and I'm not overly familiar with New York's laws, but I think it very unlikely that this would not be legal. Moreover, your employer gives a reasonable rationale for it, namely cutting down on workers' compensation expenses. Understand that any injury you incurred in the course and scope of your duties (even if it were some road rash or a pulled muscle from riding) could be compensable under the company's workers comp policy because you were on company business at the time.

I get the workman's comp thing. It's not so much that I am more likely to get hurt riding a bike, but if I were to get hurt, it would likely be pretty bad.

Anyway, what kind of world would we live in if smoking, overeating and sloth led to worker's comp claims?

Some people seem to think that the legality of the policy is the end of the story. I do not. An employer is legally entitled to do all sorts of stupid things, but they are still stupid things.

Of course, all employees have to pick their battles, but it might be worth trying to change this policy. If it is imposed from an insurance company, then you are probably stuck. But it may just be some HR pinhead pulling something out of his arse. And you may be able to get it changed if you are reasonable (no biking to towns 100 miles away on company time).

If you are in good standing in your workplace, questioning this policy shouldn't hurt you. But if you are on the bubble, let it drop.

The issue is liabilty to an injured party. If you are driving, your auto insurance covers it. If you are cycling and the injured person sues for $5 millon, they won't go for you but your employer.

Why Motorcycles then? Would not the motorcyclists insurance cover a liability claim?

The issue is liabilty to an injured party. If you are driving, your auto insurance covers it. . . .
This is just plain wrong. If you are driving or riding any vehicle on company business, your employer and your employer's insurance company are still on the hook for liability you inflict. You can also generally collect workers comp for your own injuries when you are on company time, even if you are in your own car or on your on bike.


. . . If you are cycling and the injured person sues for $5 millon, they won't go for you but your employer.
If you are driving and the injured person sues for $5 millon, they will go for both you and your employer.
If you are cycling and the injured person sues for $5 millon, they will go for both you and your employer.

If you are transfering between plants on company time, they have the legal right to call for the speediest form of transportation. If riding the bike doubles the time spent in transfer, they CAN NOT specify the mode of transport used to GET to work in the first place.

In short, if you're on company time, follow company rules or you can be terminated with cause.

Ken.

Most jobs require you to have a car otherwise they deem you to be unreliable and always be late.

You obviously don't live in a major city. I work in a building in the city (Sydney) with about 2000 other people. I would expect maybe 1% at most ~ 20 of those actually drive to work.

This is a pretty common occurence in major cities.

Well, here's an example you might be able to propose in the opposite direction:

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007708030432

if some of your managment is open to reconsidering the decisions or policy or even discussing it, they could probably contact the company referenced for how they dealt with insurance issues and whether or not this action of providing bicycles for employees to ride changed their injury rates or insurance rates. Not exactly aligned with the OP because this company is focussing on break time and lunch time, but still a good icebreaker if discussion is possible.

It's quite simple. If you are conducting company business, traveling for company business or traveling on company time, then the company is responsible for your actions. They're (via the insurance carrier) limiting their exposure. Simple as that.

It's their terms of employment. Don't like em? Find another job. Rocking the boat might just find you a castaway.

Seems like a pretty asinine policy to me. The fact that there may be some thin veneer of a legitimate reason for it doesn't impress me. You could well point to a number of employee functions that have a possibility of causing harm & workers comp issues. I'm not much impressed either with some folks attitude that the "rights" of the employer trump all "rights" of the employee - be careful about too freely giving up hard won labor rights, or just plain rights in general

Obviously one would need to know the particulars of the case in point, the OP is not clear on exactly why this traveling back and forth is needed/required.

Seems like a pretty asinine policy to me.

Sure, from your perspective as an employee. Now put on you employer suit and think of all the ways you can limit your liability (in others words, protect your cash).

Most jobs require you to have a car otherwise they deem you to be unreliable and always be late.

This is strictly not the case in OR. What state do you live in?

In many states this would be illegal.

Ah yes, we must all surrender our rights and bow down before the almighty employer - the one whom we must not question, nor must we impinge against the holy profit margin, for it rulest all, in its all knowing and mighty wisdom!

Ah yes, we must all surrender our rights and bow down before the almighty employer - the one whom we must not question, nor must we impinge against the holy profit margin, for it rulest all, in its all knowing and mighty wisdom!

Hate to break it to you sparky, but that's the mission of the employer. Profit. Sooer you understand it, the sooner you can move on to something worthy of your angst.

Here are some things that are running through my mind.


Was having a car a condition of employment?

When they require you to use your car on their time, do they pay mileage?

If you motorcycled into work and your presence was subsequently required at another plant, what would your supervisor expect you to do?

Do you bicycle or motorcycle to work regularly?

Mopeds and scooters of less than 50cc displacement are considered neither a bicycle nor a motorcycle in many jurisdictions.

Some things in life aren't fair.

Unemployment is uncomfortable.

Employers have the right to set the terms of employment. Employees have the right to ask for different terms. If an employer does too many stupid things, employees will leave. But smart employees pick their battles. Depending on your standing at work, it might be worth asking for a change, or it might be foolhardy.

That's a very reasonable policy your company has. You apparently don't understand your employer has responsibility and liability for what happens to you on company time
I think most of us do understand that. But what that company doesn't understand is that statistically, hour-per-hour of riding time, the average motorcyclist is almost 32 times as likely to be killed as a bicyclist. The average motorist, per hour of driving, is almost twice as likely to be killed as a bicyclist.

Since a bicyclist usually takes about twice as long as a motorist to get to his/her destination, a cyclist riding to the same destination as a motorist (on average,) has an almost identical risk of fatality as the motorist.

I've thought about crashing. A cyclist has little protection, and often fears the worst. A motorist has excessive protection, and often fears nothing. But when a motorist crashes, no matter the protection, his internal organs can come to a sudden "stop" inside his body, going from high speed to a near stop in a fraction of a second. That's where we get injuries like "ruptured spleen" or "bruised or punctured lung," or "severe head trauma," in which the brain is shaken violently inside the skull.

On a bike, you're likely to be going no faster than 25 mph., so you get a different type of injury.

I remember two friends at work who were in car accidents at different times. One guy hurt his back, and he eventually had two vertebrae "fused." His life has been altered from a robust outdoorsman to a young man coping with daily back pain, relegated to a desk job. The other friend actually had two crashes, one in a car and one on a bike (as a teenager.) The car crash didn't hurt him much, except that the air bag bruised his face so badly he had to take time off from work. The bike crash happened head-on with a car. He was riding home from football practice, and for some reason he still had his football helmet on. He went head-first into the motorist's windshield (the motorist had veered out of his lane and couldn't stop in time to avoid the cyclist.) As he crashed head-first into the motorist's windshield, his football helmet protected him. He had no serious injuries (though I wonder how his neck escaped injury.)

Obviously, the solution is to drive into a ditch while taking your car from one plant to another.

While your worker's comp benefits roll in, suggest to HR that they revise the policy to keep employees off the roads altogether, by mandating that all trips between plants must be made via teleportation device.

Don't forget to mention the skyrocketing productivity, once the company is filled with powerful human-fly hybrids!

Obviously, the solution is to drive into a ditch while taking your car from one plant to another.

While your worker's comp benefits roll in, suggest to HR that they revise the policy to keep employees off the roads altogether, by mandating that all trips between plants must be made via teleportation device.

Don't forget to mention the skyrocketing productivity, once the company is filled with powerful human-fly hybrids!
:eek:

:roflmao:

Obviously, the solution is to drive into a ditch while taking your car from one plant to another.

While your worker's comp benefits roll in, suggest to HR that they revise the policy to keep employees off the roads altogether, by mandating that all trips between plants must be made via teleportation device.

Don't forget to mention the skyrocketing productivity, once the company is filled with powerful human-fly hybrids!
I'd suggest it to my HR department, but after they sent out the memo, I might have to go back to explain to them that there's really no such thing as teleportation or human-fly hybrids.

What is bizarre about this, is that they assume bicycling is more dangerous than driving a car. Thats where the saving money on workers comp doesnt make sense to me.

OK - You all missed the bigger picture. We know that by taking a bike you pollute less and end up healthier. Being healthy means less medical cost in the long run.

The problem is SUB OPTIMIZATION. Because one insurance policy is paying your health care and another one is paying your workers comp. each will fight to minimize it's costs with out seeing the bigger picture.

IF we had a single payer health plan, run by the government, like most of the other top industrial nations the policy would be different. While there would be more risk of a claim when some one is on a bike, that would be offset by the lowered pollution, lowered traffic density, and lowered costs because you would not need lawyers and insurance sales men involved in the process of fighting over who pays to fix the accident victim.

If we were all covered under on system it would not matter who's policy was covering you from minute to minute.

If we were all covered by a national health care system then logical choices could be made, like accepting that a cyclist may have more risk of accident, but less risk of heart attack. Even if the overall risk was higher, by taking a long term look at the cost and risk, a logical trade off could be made for other tangible and intangible benefits.

Health and safety at work is an issue better handled by an agency like OSHA. Most improvements in work safety have come from the government, like requiring protective guards on machinery, safe handling of dangerous chemicals, protective clothing and reduced hours for people operating dangerous equipment. Almost none of the protections from real risks were mandated by insurance companies.

Most things mandated by insurance comanies are where the cost or liability is shifted from the insurance company and/or the employer, to some other party, like you.

Universal health care with a single payer system would end this stupidity on the spot. And, if it were found that biking between locations was a real risk, and the benefits did not out way the risks, then a national policy would be put in place, and you would all ready know if the company was required to provide transportation.