Company Car Question
- Thread starter GuruJockStrap
- Start date
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
VFM Addict. Please answer me this one question.
Two people turn up at an interview. One is driving a C350 CDI Sport. The other is driving a C220 CDI BlueEfficiency with smaller wheels, no bodykit, etc etc.
From a 'Career Smarts' perspective would you judge these two people differently? If so, why?
One of these people bought a car themselves using a car allowance. The other took a company car. Which one is which?
Remember, both cars look the same. Infact no, the C350 CDI looks better as its the top of the range model.
I am not advocating spending a car allowance on an old Skoda. I am suggesting using it to buy a far better version of something on the company car list.
So please - explain to me how in the situation I've described the company car is an 'advantage'?
Two people turn up at an interview. One is driving a C350 CDI Sport. The other is driving a C220 CDI BlueEfficiency with smaller wheels, no bodykit, etc etc.
From a 'Career Smarts' perspective would you judge these two people differently? If so, why?
One of these people bought a car themselves using a car allowance. The other took a company car. Which one is which?
Remember, both cars look the same. Infact no, the C350 CDI looks better as its the top of the range model.
I am not advocating spending a car allowance on an old Skoda. I am suggesting using it to buy a far better version of something on the company car list.
So please - explain to me how in the situation I've described the company car is an 'advantage'?
[TW]Fox;18398090 said:
I think what he's getting at is in one case you may appear to be someone who is stretching their own finances as far as possible in order to keep up appearances in a car that their salary can just about support, in the other you appear as someone the company values so much that they've provided you with a nice shiny Mercedes Benz.
I don't agree with him mind and I don't think the world really works like this, seeing as every man and his dog gets 'given' base spec BMWs and Mercs these days, they're not really anything special. That's ignoring the fact that for any of this to matter at all, your interviewer would have to ask you about how you financed your car.
Last edited:
I dont think he's getting at that all, he's still stuck on the idea that Car Allowance Person turns up in an old car, and company car man turns up in some flash wheels.
The interviewer wont know whether your C350 CDI is a company car or not unless he specifically asks anyway.
I think he is, this is the crux of his argument:
"The simplest way I could describe their impact here truly is that the impression given by someone who is provided with a Merc is that of a valued employee. While the impression given by someone who runs a new Merc in the absence of a very high income is that of extravagance."
As you say (and as I edited into my last post) for that to even be an issue an interviewer would need to ask about how you financed your car and what your existing wage is, without that they can't even begin to make these judgements.
I suppose they may ask such a question if you turn up for a £30k pa job in a Ferrari but in anything half way normal, I can't see it coming up
"The simplest way I could describe their impact here truly is that the impression given by someone who is provided with a Merc is that of a valued employee. While the impression given by someone who runs a new Merc in the absence of a very high income is that of extravagance."
As you say (and as I edited into my last post) for that to even be an issue an interviewer would need to ask about how you financed your car and what your existing wage is, without that they can't even begin to make these judgements.
I suppose they may ask such a question if you turn up for a £30k pa job in a Ferrari but in anything half way normal, I can't see it coming up
I think, given that he is retired, his views are based on the company car system of long ago. It simply isn't like that anymore. Sure, back in the 1990's you only got given a Mercedes if you were very valued.
These days loads of peopel get them because they are reasonably cheap to lease and very tax efficient - in many cases you can lease a base Mercedes for less than an equivilent Mondeo due to the residuals.
Sure, back in 1997 turning up in an E Class meant you were obviously Mr Big.
In 2011, turning up in a C220 CDI makes you just like everyone else.
And you are hardly stretching your finances to run a reasonably new Merc on £550 a month! It's easily affordable, and indirectly the employer is paying for it anyway. His assumptions are outdated and unrealistic.
These days loads of peopel get them because they are reasonably cheap to lease and very tax efficient - in many cases you can lease a base Mercedes for less than an equivilent Mondeo due to the residuals.
Sure, back in 1997 turning up in an E Class meant you were obviously Mr Big.
In 2011, turning up in a C220 CDI makes you just like everyone else.
And you are hardly stretching your finances to run a reasonably new Merc on £550 a month! It's easily affordable, and indirectly the employer is paying for it anyway. His assumptions are outdated and unrealistic.
Image is part of the package no question, to see it as anything more than a very small part however is silly. If someone turns up for an interview looking scruffy they are already on the back foot, they've made the wrong first impression already but they still get time to demonstrate they have other competencies. Reality is without exception in my experience THIS first impression shows true as they try to bring them self back up to the level playing field and fail. Scruffy people in interviews annoy me, really annoy me but I can't think of the last time the car a person drives has influenced me, interested me yes, influenced me no. I suggest most if not all of the people commenting on this thread have never employed anyone, so there is my angle as someone who has many times, but we are of course all different. Having a company car over your own car means diddly squat to me and mobility is not a factor of who funds your car or how.
As someone who has been employed full time in various 'large' office environments since 1993 I would say you've hit the nail on the head perfectly Fox. Things are very different now, I remember a guy turning up at my workplace in a 1 year old e36 318i in 1994 and everyone was amazed how he could afford it. This was in a large company in the Thames Valley(Mercury Communications), working in a similar company and office environment now a brand new 318i wouldn't even raise an eyebrow.
Needless to say I decided to go contracting within a few months of meeting the chap at Mercury - I owe that K reg 318i of his a lot to how my life panned out!
Needless to say I decided to go contracting within a few months of meeting the chap at Mercury - I owe that K reg 318i of his a lot to how my life panned out!
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 30 Sep 2010
- Posts
- 1,130
- Location
- London
OK, a few things to reply to there although it will be difficult to explain in detail without having covered Career Smarts in full I’ll will nonetheless try.
First to cover is probably the question of whether the issue of the car would even arise in an interview. Of course it may arise by chance because one is seen arriving but I agree that that is by no means certain. However, within the interview it is pretty much unavoidable and I find it almost unbelievable that any experienced interviewer would even suggest that it would not.
For example, if an applicant is currently earning £35k an offer of £40k may appear sufficient to entice. (Remember there is no guarantee that the new employer is providing a CC or a CA or what indeed the CA, if any, is.) In the example with the current OP £40k would not be sufficient to entice because his salary plus CA already exceeds this. Quite clearly an interviewer must always be aware of the applicant’s current total package which pretty much invariably forces its discussion and the issue of CC/CA to the surface.
I do agree that on the face of it whether any quality car is self-owned and funded by a CA or is a CC appears irrelevant. But I do not believe that to be so – (A) Because a CC provides an opportunity for improved self-marketing – and - (B) Because it removes the possibility, no matter how remote, of a serious negative.
Leaving the management of one’s vehicle to a company’s fleet controller(s) can be tendered by the applicant as a strong positive, “My current employer offers a CC or a CA. I chose the CC because it avoids me being distracted by having to manage my vehicle and frees me to concentrate 100% on my job”. No interviewer could ever consider such a statement as being anything other than on the continuum from at worst neutral to at best laudable/positive. However, conversely some interviewers could and would consider the reverse in a negative light; especially if that employer has adopted a CC only policy to specifically avoid such distractions. More than a few employers have.
One general point and very much a central philosophy of Career Smarts is that a positive momentum should be maintained faultlessly. Use all available ladders, avoid totally any potential snakes. It should always be remembered, but is sadly too often forgotten, that career progression is all about self-marketing. Just as with the VHS versus Betamax it is naïve to ever believe that the technically better product usually wins. It does not. Be it the marketing of a product or of oneself, it is without exception the better marketed entity that wins.
I think what may be being missed here is that folks are wrongly believing that I am saying that how your car is funded could be the key deciding factor as to whether one gets a position. Not so. But what I am saying is that it has at least some potential for being the reason one does not get the job.
I would remind of the age old warning – For the sake of a horseshoe nail the shoe was lost. For the sake of a shoe the horse was lost. For the sake of a horse the Knight was lost. For the sake of the Knight the battle was lost. For the sake of the battle the war was lost. And all for the sake of a horse shoe nail. In my book you make double or treble certain there are no potentially lose nails.
Finally, I do agree that Merc’s and BMW’s have become relatively cheaper to lease and things have changed very much in the last fifteen to twenty years. However, it still remains the predominant perception even among employers/interviewers that a BMW or Merc is better quality than a Focus or Astra; irrespective of whether the BMW or Merc are base spec and the Focus or Astra top spec. This higher value, accurate or inaccurate, perceived consciously or subliminally, will still impact and reflect upon the driver/applicant to some degree. Such remains human nature. Indeed the proof that such is a predominant perception can be found in how many A Series vehicles Merc have managed to shift to private purchasers; a car which devoid of the Merc badge would most likely have rivaled the Ford Edsel in being a total marketing disaster albeit for slightly different reasons.
First to cover is probably the question of whether the issue of the car would even arise in an interview. Of course it may arise by chance because one is seen arriving but I agree that that is by no means certain. However, within the interview it is pretty much unavoidable and I find it almost unbelievable that any experienced interviewer would even suggest that it would not.
For example, if an applicant is currently earning £35k an offer of £40k may appear sufficient to entice. (Remember there is no guarantee that the new employer is providing a CC or a CA or what indeed the CA, if any, is.) In the example with the current OP £40k would not be sufficient to entice because his salary plus CA already exceeds this. Quite clearly an interviewer must always be aware of the applicant’s current total package which pretty much invariably forces its discussion and the issue of CC/CA to the surface.
I do agree that on the face of it whether any quality car is self-owned and funded by a CA or is a CC appears irrelevant. But I do not believe that to be so – (A) Because a CC provides an opportunity for improved self-marketing – and - (B) Because it removes the possibility, no matter how remote, of a serious negative.
Leaving the management of one’s vehicle to a company’s fleet controller(s) can be tendered by the applicant as a strong positive, “My current employer offers a CC or a CA. I chose the CC because it avoids me being distracted by having to manage my vehicle and frees me to concentrate 100% on my job”. No interviewer could ever consider such a statement as being anything other than on the continuum from at worst neutral to at best laudable/positive. However, conversely some interviewers could and would consider the reverse in a negative light; especially if that employer has adopted a CC only policy to specifically avoid such distractions. More than a few employers have.
One general point and very much a central philosophy of Career Smarts is that a positive momentum should be maintained faultlessly. Use all available ladders, avoid totally any potential snakes. It should always be remembered, but is sadly too often forgotten, that career progression is all about self-marketing. Just as with the VHS versus Betamax it is naïve to ever believe that the technically better product usually wins. It does not. Be it the marketing of a product or of oneself, it is without exception the better marketed entity that wins.
I think what may be being missed here is that folks are wrongly believing that I am saying that how your car is funded could be the key deciding factor as to whether one gets a position. Not so. But what I am saying is that it has at least some potential for being the reason one does not get the job.
I would remind of the age old warning – For the sake of a horseshoe nail the shoe was lost. For the sake of a shoe the horse was lost. For the sake of a horse the Knight was lost. For the sake of the Knight the battle was lost. For the sake of the battle the war was lost. And all for the sake of a horse shoe nail. In my book you make double or treble certain there are no potentially lose nails.
Finally, I do agree that Merc’s and BMW’s have become relatively cheaper to lease and things have changed very much in the last fifteen to twenty years. However, it still remains the predominant perception even among employers/interviewers that a BMW or Merc is better quality than a Focus or Astra; irrespective of whether the BMW or Merc are base spec and the Focus or Astra top spec. This higher value, accurate or inaccurate, perceived consciously or subliminally, will still impact and reflect upon the driver/applicant to some degree. Such remains human nature. Indeed the proof that such is a predominant perception can be found in how many A Series vehicles Merc have managed to shift to private purchasers; a car which devoid of the Merc badge would most likely have rivaled the Ford Edsel in being a total marketing disaster albeit for slightly different reasons.
Tell me, at what point did you retire and what were you doing when you retired. You seem to have the ability to make something extremely simple extremely complex...
The question is simply...
"Tell me about your current package"
From that you have everything you need to make an offer, the rest is just noise.
Last edited:
Are you honestly for real? Did you really just suggest that?
How many people here are distracted at work by the fact they own a car?
Associate
- Joined
- 30 Sep 2010
- Posts
- 1,130
- Location
- London
@ Fox
No, Fox, I did not suggest that in isolation as your incomplete quote suggests. The nature of paragraphs is that to have meaning they must be considered as a whole. My paragraph read;
Leaving the management of one’s vehicle to a company’s fleet controller(s) can be tendered by the applicant as a strong positive, “My current employer offers a CC or a CA. I chose the CC because it avoids me being distracted by having to manage my vehicle and frees me to concentrate 100% on my job”. No interviewer could ever consider such a statement as being anything other than on the continuum from at worst neutral to at best laudable/positive. However, conversely some interviewers could and would consider the reverse in a negative light; especially if that employer has adopted a CC only policy to specifically avoid such distractions. More than a few employers have.
And that, Fox, is something very different. The correct logical test to apply is that if there are no advantages to an employer of offering a CC as well as a offering a CA then why would they ever offer a CA? Tell me, Fox, what are the advantages to an employer of offering CC's? Your reply would interest me greatly.
@ Housey
I note that you stated earlier, "....I can't think of the last time the car a person drives has influenced me, interested me yes, influenced me no."
Any marketeer worth his salt knows that such is a self-effacing statement. If you are interested the result will influence you. If not consciously then certainly subliminally. Do you truly have no awareness of such?
No, Fox, I did not suggest that in isolation as your incomplete quote suggests. The nature of paragraphs is that to have meaning they must be considered as a whole. My paragraph read;
Leaving the management of one’s vehicle to a company’s fleet controller(s) can be tendered by the applicant as a strong positive, “My current employer offers a CC or a CA. I chose the CC because it avoids me being distracted by having to manage my vehicle and frees me to concentrate 100% on my job”. No interviewer could ever consider such a statement as being anything other than on the continuum from at worst neutral to at best laudable/positive. However, conversely some interviewers could and would consider the reverse in a negative light; especially if that employer has adopted a CC only policy to specifically avoid such distractions. More than a few employers have.
And that, Fox, is something very different. The correct logical test to apply is that if there are no advantages to an employer of offering a CC as well as a offering a CA then why would they ever offer a CA? Tell me, Fox, what are the advantages to an employer of offering CC's? Your reply would interest me greatly.
@ Housey
I note that you stated earlier, "....I can't think of the last time the car a person drives has influenced me, interested me yes, influenced me no."
Any marketeer worth his salt knows that such is a self-effacing statement. If you are interested the result will influence you. If not consciously then certainly subliminally. Do you truly have no awareness of such?
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 30 Sep 2010
- Posts
- 1,130
- Location
- London
Oh dear. I note that I made a typo in my last post.
My question to you should have read - "The correct logical test to apply is that if there are no advantages to an employer of offering a CC as well as a offering a CA then why would they ever offer a CC? Tell me, Fox, what are the advantages to an employer of offering CC's? Your reply would interest me greatly."
My last post incorrectly read, ".......to an employer of offering CC's?!
Anyway, Fox, are you conceding that the reason for offering a CC option is to reduce distractions? If you are not then perhaps you could enlighten us all as to why employers even keep CC's as an option rather than just providing CA's.
My question to you should have read - "The correct logical test to apply is that if there are no advantages to an employer of offering a CC as well as a offering a CA then why would they ever offer a CC? Tell me, Fox, what are the advantages to an employer of offering CC's? Your reply would interest me greatly."
My last post incorrectly read, ".......to an employer of offering CC's?!
Anyway, Fox, are you conceding that the reason for offering a CC option is to reduce distractions? If you are not then perhaps you could enlighten us all as to why employers even keep CC's as an option rather than just providing CA's.
I ask again, outline your creidble competence in such areas? Have you ever put all these theories into practice, or are you a consumer of them not a real world practicioner, for forgive me, but this is what it sounds?
I also suggest you read what I wrote again and don't take statements out of context to uphold you weak point. I also said "Image is part of the package no question, to see it as anything more than a very small part however is silly." I have been a sales person, sales manager, GM and Director, both in title and as a board member in SME's and Corporate. I've also owned and driven many cars that most would agree put me in the image bracket one might assosiate with success (or a ****), 911's, M's, RS Audi's etc, yet I have also said that while it holds sway in many peoples eyes, such as when one walks into a car showroom, it is silly and shallow and a skilled practicioner will look past such superficial things, to suggest otherwise displays perhaps your own personal lack of vision.
If the chap I am interviewing shares a common interest it's interesting and good stuff,it's part of the equation but then if he likes the same TV shows, bars, clothes, cufflinks, watches, glasses, hair products, football club with another person that might also resonate, people buy people. The same could be true if the person hiring has a distaste for a certain image, you know, young flash git who has all the talk but has done nothing, I see them all the time telling me how great they are based on a house they can't afford and a car they don't own.
If he is crap at the job it is all an irrelevance and if I have 2 people who are both identical yet one has more in common with me I may consider it, but I am much more likely to consider how well he will fit with the rest of the team for that is more important and would hold sway. Most of the people I've interviewed in the last few years have not been asked what car they drive or how they buy their cars, they've been asked about their current package as I stated and like most employers ask.
How we got from which should I go with company car or money is beyond me.
No, I am not conceeding that the reason for offering a CC option is to reduce distractions. Because it isnt offered to reduce distractions, generally speaking somebodies car is not a distraction to what they do at work.
CC's are offered because they are seen as a perk - and often, a car is a tool required for a job. More and more companies are now offering CA's instead of CC's - CA's have only become popular in recent years since company car tax became a much bigger issue.
Company cars were a perk, they still are in some industries but the reality is not like they were and tax implications and nature of society today make more people take the money. Fleet buyers discounts are the reasons many companies still use CC schemes but the fact is most companies today would prefer to pay the cash. Some people still chose a company car because........well............they always have.
That is not the case at all.
A company advertises a job which specifies that a car is required and as such may offer a CA, however they have to be considerate of the fact that they cannot advertise a job that forces an employee to front up the cash or credit for a work vehicle if they do not want to, and therefore must offer a solution which avoids this, therefore they offer a CC.
There is a benefit to the company if they take a CA so they offer this too, for those in the company who do wish to and can, finance their own car.
I think you have been watching too many David Brent guides to management/ interview techniques
As somebody who interviews people regularly (4 in the last week for senior 60k+ positions) I simply could not give a toss what car the applicant drives.
I have budget - let's say for argument's sake it's 65k. I then have associated budget which is bonus, car (if needed for the role) etc. I do have flexibility in these.
We decide who to offer the job to. If a car for the role is required they're offered the choice of a company car or allowance - the allowances are more generous as we actively prefer self ownership than fleet.
At no point in that process does somebody's want for method of car funding come into the equation of whether I'm interested in offering them a position or not.
Also, on the car allowance piece, we have minimum requirements. Less than 4 years old (rarely enforced to be fair), no 2 seaters, no drop tops (again rarely enforced) and a couple of other rules.
Personally, the choice on car is a pure financial one. Smart one is on a private car.
Actually, if somebody could (not would, I mean could) *only* take a job if a company car was provided....well I'd worry about their financial position. Certainly at the 65k+ bracket.
I kind of understand the posts about career smarts, but these have evolved and changed overt the years quite considerably. In my environment wearing a sharp suit and looking business like would get you proper funny looks in the office - it wouldn't do anything for your success rate......
.....but, dress appropriately, use quality kit, and you give the impression of success.
Take two people who come to a meeting. Both dressed in jeans & say a shirt/polo shirt.
Person 1 - loose paper, half chewed biro, carrying a rucksack.
Person 2 - Professional folder, Mont Blanc pen, carrying an appropriate case.
Person 2 looks more capable - they look organised. There's an element of looking succesful to *be* succesful... I think that can be used as a distinguisher in a lot of businesses.
As a side note, when I first stared in banking, I was advised to always take note of people in jeans (they were rare)...chances are they were more important than the sharp suits.
Original point - how somebody finances their car is irrelevant to me as an employer.
I have budget - let's say for argument's sake it's 65k. I then have associated budget which is bonus, car (if needed for the role) etc. I do have flexibility in these.
We decide who to offer the job to. If a car for the role is required they're offered the choice of a company car or allowance - the allowances are more generous as we actively prefer self ownership than fleet.
At no point in that process does somebody's want for method of car funding come into the equation of whether I'm interested in offering them a position or not.
Also, on the car allowance piece, we have minimum requirements. Less than 4 years old (rarely enforced to be fair), no 2 seaters, no drop tops (again rarely enforced) and a couple of other rules.
Personally, the choice on car is a pure financial one. Smart one is on a private car.
Actually, if somebody could (not would, I mean could) *only* take a job if a company car was provided....well I'd worry about their financial position. Certainly at the 65k+ bracket.
I kind of understand the posts about career smarts, but these have evolved and changed overt the years quite considerably. In my environment wearing a sharp suit and looking business like would get you proper funny looks in the office - it wouldn't do anything for your success rate......
.....but, dress appropriately, use quality kit, and you give the impression of success.
Take two people who come to a meeting. Both dressed in jeans & say a shirt/polo shirt.
Person 1 - loose paper, half chewed biro, carrying a rucksack.
Person 2 - Professional folder, Mont Blanc pen, carrying an appropriate case.
Person 2 looks more capable - they look organised. There's an element of looking succesful to *be* succesful... I think that can be used as a distinguisher in a lot of businesses.
As a side note, when I first stared in banking, I was advised to always take note of people in jeans (they were rare)...chances are they were more important than the sharp suits.
Original point - how somebody finances their car is irrelevant to me as an employer.