Apnu

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.

sbhikes

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.

CliftonGK1

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.

bluebottle1

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.

millsed

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?

Daily Commute

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.

bhchdh 

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

Daily Commute

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 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.

kendall

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.

lukeC

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.

Wilbur Bud

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

https://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dl...=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.

dobber

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.

freemti

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.

dobber

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).

Tabor

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

In many states this would be illegal.

freemti

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!

dobber

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.

Paul Barnard

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.

Daily Commute

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.

LittleBigMan

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.)

burden

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!

LittleBigMan

Daily Commute

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.

lima_bean

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.

JamesM

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.