Roymondo:
So if it wasn’t a question, why did you answer it?Sent from my Hudl 2 using Tapatalk
Why would you assume that I was answering my question?
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
For clarity, it was a question. That’s why it was followed with a question mark. I was intrigued to know how much you paid from the vehicle earnings, seeing as you expect the drivers to contribute the costs
OVLOV JAY:
For clarity, it was a question. That’s why it was followed with a question mark. I was intrigued to know how much you paid from the vehicle earnings, seeing as you expect the drivers to contribute the costs
I answered your question with "not your business " statement. It means, I am not going to talk about my earnings or pay outs to anyone - especially on a forum.
I think, you are missing the whole point of all of this,
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
I don’t think anyone who has replied in a negative way has missed the point.
There are two ways of dealing with self inflicted damage to vehicles and property in an attempt to mitigate the amount uninsured losses. Carrot, blameworthy damage free bonus scheme from which losses can be recovered; and big stick, contract of employment which makes employee financially responsible for damage to employer’s or third party property.
One method works by incentive the other by fear. One is seen to be fair, one is not. It is that simple.
As you well know it is illegal to make deductions from an employee’s wages for this sort of reason without the employee’s specific written consent, which is why you are trying to get around this by insisting that they agree to your right to do so. On the other hand it is perfectly legal to deduct money from a performance bonus scheme for non compliance.
You have made a conscious business decision about the level of insurance cover you wish to pay for and the rate which you are going to charge for your services, don’t expect your employees to subsidise your business if you got the plan wrong.
Look at the wider business picture, do you wish to emulate Sports Direct or John Lewis?
But he’s already said he avoids all those pesky employment law requirements and restrictions by all his drivers being self-employed/Ltd companies…
Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk
Chap i know puts £1000 on the table, this is not part of wages this in addition to very decent wages.
No accidents no load damage and his drivers collect an extra £1000 with their Christmas wages and Christmas bonus, this has two effects, they take care, and they have a nice pay day to look forward to so less inclined to leave, if they do have a mishap or damage the load, then some (depending on the cost) is lost.
Most of his lads collect the whole Grand every year.
Very low staff turnover.
Juddian:
Chap i know puts £1000 on the table, this is not part of wages this in addition to very decent wages.
No accidents no load damage and his drivers collect an extra £1000 with their Christmas wages and Christmas bonus, this has two effects, they take care, and they have a nice pay day to look forward to so less inclined to leave, if they do have a mishap or damage the load, then some (depending on the cost) is lost.
Most of his lads collect the whole Grand every year.Very low staff turnover.
That’s the way to do it. I’ve no problem with damage waiver insurance for casual staff, but if they’re tried and tested employees, they should be treated with a bit of respect and some incentive. More carrot and less stick
But it’s not damage waiver insurance that he’s talking about is it? That would mean him paying a modest annual extra insurance premium to cover his own-damage excess.
His scheme has the drivers covering the cost of the damage out of their own pockets - no insurance involved.
Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk
Roymondo:
But it’s not damage waiver insurance that he’s talking about is it? That would mean him paying a modest annual extra insurance premium to cover his own-damage excess.His scheme has the drivers covering the cost of the damage out of their own pockets - no insurance involved.
Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk
I agree. I don’t agree with anything in the op’s business model
To the op if you worked for a company and had a accident would you be happy to fork out for cost of repairs.
Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk
syva:
Honestly, I do not understand why so many people took it so negative.I did ended up finding the form which I needed and get all my drivers to sign it. At least they know now that if they make any accident they will have two choices either quite the job or pay for the accident. I also made a brochure with pictures of previous accidents and the amount of money I or my insurance had to pay for it - the reason why I done it was because a lot of drivers do not realize how much little mistakes can cost that is why I wanted to raise the awareness. As a result operating 7 trucks for last 2.5 years, my drivers had only 3 small accidents - the pay out was under £3000 each. As a result my insurance cost is cheaper then competione -it means that on average I will be making more money per truck per year,. Which I think is pretty good result.
P.S. By the way my truck insurance is £2950 on average per year. How much is yours?
I’ve 18 vehicles of varying sizes, the artics come in at less than that. I’ve never asked the drivers to pay for the excess or the damage. Touch wood, we’ve had good claims history over the years and if an accident happens I accept it was an accident.
If a driver were to have multiple/regular accidents be they large or small, they’d not get beyond their probation, or if it was a change in a previously blemish free record, I’d be wanting to know if there was a medical reason and if not, then there would be a disciplinary process.
How viable is it for the OP to expect drivers to take cost responsibility when they’re not his employees?
He is surely asking they’re Co’s to take responsibility thereby presumably altering the contract he has with said Co’s?
Munchkin:
How viable is it for the OP to expect drivers to take cost responsibility when they’re not his employees?
He is surely asking they’re Co’s to take responsibility thereby presumably altering the contract he has with said Co’s?
This is of course the point in a nutshell. The drivers, being self employed (or working as Ltd companies) must assume responsibility for their own holidays, sickness, training, pensions etc (and now any damage to the vehicles that wasn’t provably caused by a 3rd party), while doubtless thinking they are doing rather better than employed drivers working for the competition because their hourly rate is slightly better and their personal tax bills are lower. Meanwhile the OP is happy because he is keeping his employment costs near-zero (and is apparently keeping his motor insurance premiums down). If he has no employees, he doesn’t even need to splash out on (legally required) Employer Liability insurance - again reducing his costs but again placing the liability squarely on the drivers’ shoulders.
Of course, as the drivers are bearing a significant part of the risk, they should also share a significant part of the profits. Hence Ovlov Jay’s question earlier…
Roymondo:
Munchkin:
How viable is it for the OP to expect drivers to take cost responsibility when they’re not his employees?
He is surely asking they’re Co’s to take responsibility thereby presumably altering the contract he has with said Co’s?This is of course the point in a nutshell. The drivers, being self employed (or working as Ltd companies) must assume responsibility for their own holidays, sickness, training, pensions etc (and now any damage to the vehicles that wasn’t provably caused by a 3rd party), while doubtless thinking they are doing rather better than employed drivers working for the competition because their hourly rate is slightly better and their personal tax bills are lower. Meanwhile the OP is happy because he is keeping his employment costs near-zero (and is apparently keeping his motor insurance premiums down). If he has no employees, he doesn’t even need to splash out on (legally required) Employer Liability insurance - again reducing his costs but again placing the liability squarely on the drivers’ shoulders.
Of course, as the drivers are bearing a significant part of the risk, they should also share a significant part of the profits. Hence Ovlov Jay’s question earlier…
And putting pressure on the employers who still believe that the way to have good staff is to just plain employ them, with all the holidays, sick pay, admin, pensions etc that implies. 
albion:
Roymondo:
Munchkin:
How viable is it for the OP to expect drivers to take cost responsibility when they’re not his employees?
He is surely asking they’re Co’s to take responsibility thereby presumably altering the contract he has with said Co’s?This is of course the point in a nutshell. The drivers, being self employed (or working as Ltd companies) must assume responsibility for their own holidays, sickness, training, pensions etc (and now any damage to the vehicles that wasn’t provably caused by a 3rd party), while doubtless thinking they are doing rather better than employed drivers working for the competition because their hourly rate is slightly better and their personal tax bills are lower. Meanwhile the OP is happy because he is keeping his employment costs near-zero (and is apparently keeping his motor insurance premiums down). If he has no employees, he doesn’t even need to splash out on (legally required) Employer Liability insurance - again reducing his costs but again placing the liability squarely on the drivers’ shoulders.
Of course, as the drivers are bearing a significant part of the risk, they should also share a significant part of the profits. Hence Ovlov Jay’s question earlier…
And putting pressure on the employers who still believe that the way to have good staff is to just plain employ them, with all the holidays, sick pay, admin, pensions etc that implies.
Do you think he might now begin to understand why his question got such a hostile reception…?
I won’t be taking odds on it…
albion:
(And putting pressure on) the employers who still believe that the way to have good staff is to just plain employ them, with all the holidays, sick pay, admin, pensions etc that implies.
It is good to see that there are still some who hold onto to the ideals of the great 19th century confectioners who were proud to be providing employment for their workers.
Another wee point-
Assume there’s an accident. Driver says not my fault. But other vehicle’s driver says not me too. The vehicle’s company owner may spend time and effort to maintain their insurance record if they are liable for excess etc. If they can lay this cost off against their driver will they be as energetic? Could a self employed driver find himself spending time contesting claims when that too should be the responsibility of the owner?
I hope I’ve been clear in explaining that scenario?
Sent from my GT-S7275R using Tapatalk
OVLOV JAY:
How much profit share do you pay your drivers?
Answer: ZERO!!!
I just get the idiots to share the entrepreneurial risk but all the entrepreneurial reward is for me 
Good plan eh■■?
Sly-va
The Management.
ps: Thank you government empowering my all lowest paid workers.
Making them company directors and contractors is genius. They have all fallen for it!
No more employer responsibilities for me and even less cost unlike my competition.
New Range Rover on order and I can’t wait for more great ideas once we dump the meddlers from Brussels.
Sorry wrong thread. Good post above tho.