Growing Retail Theft: "Dick's Shrinkage"

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

I think this depends on who owns the parking / gets the revenue though.

I know what you mean, but the way I view it, your employer should be paying for your parking. If they aren't, they're stealing from you. They're not directly making a "profit" from what you pay in parking, but they are passing costs they should be incurring onto you.

So, since they should be paying for your parking, when you don't pay parking to park in a lot owned by someone else when you're parking there for work, it's your employer stealing from the owners of that lot... in theory.

Then again, even without that roundabout way of justifying it... 95% of parking companies in Calgary charge fees that amount to some sort of robbery, so I feel like it all works out anyway.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I know what you mean, but the way I view it, your employer should be paying for your parking. If they aren't, they're stealing from you.

So everyone downtown worker has the right to drive their personal car to work?

Cool, I'll get right on bulldozing some heritage buildings and low income housing so we can build some more parking lots.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

So everyone downtown worker has the right to drive their personal car to work?

Cool, I'll get right on bulldozing some heritage buildings and low income housing so we can build some more parking lots.

I think that song had it all wrong, paving over stuff to put up a parking lot is paradise!

Look at Lahaina...I guarantee there shall be more ample parking!

[GGG]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I know what you mean, but the way I view it, your employer should be paying for your parking. If they aren't, they're stealing from you. They're not directly making a "profit" from what you pay in parking, but they are passing costs they should be incurring onto you.

So, since they should be paying for your parking, when you don't pay parking to park in a lot owned by someone else when you're parking there for work, it's your employer stealing from the owners of that lot... in theory.

Then again, even without that roundabout way of justifying it... 95% of parking companies in Calgary charge fees that amount to some sort of robbery, so I feel like it all works out anyway.

Isn’t that a shell game though? You chose between jobs based on total compensation and total expenses. Your employer pays you based on total comp in order to be competitive in the market place.

None of those values change no matter where you put the parking cost. The total comp isn’t changing unless the market drives it.

The real theft is the parking lot owner from the city. The cost of driving to work is in building infrastructure for rush hour. The city limits parking downtown as we can’t build enough infrastructure for everyone to reasonably drive alone. So the city should be having significant taxes on parking to capture the demand from the scarcity created by limited parking and use it to subsidize alternatives.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

So everyone downtown worker has the right to drive their personal car to work?

Cool, I'll get right on bulldozing some heritage buildings and low income housing so we can build some more parking lots.

Totally, that's exactly what I said and the exact outcome I was hoping for. I hate heritage buildings and poor people.

[blankall]

It really depends on whether you are using your car for work or just commuting to work. It's obviously a nice perk, but no an employer is not responsible for your commuting costs. If you are expected to travel for work from the office, I'd say that's different.

[PepsiFree]

Employers should also pay for transit passes.

And commute time should be compensated the same as in-office time.

If being in an office is that important to your employer, they should pay for it. Pretty simple.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Employers should also pay for transit passes.

And commute time should be compensated the same as in-office time.

If being in an office is that important to your employer, they should pay for it. Pretty simple.

You can chop it up however you want, but what you're talking about is all just part of total compensation. If I'm choosing between two jobs, that are in all other aspects equal, I'll take the free transit pass. If you force employers to pay for transit passes and parking, they'll just cut compensation elsewhere. I think most employees would prefer to just have the extra salary and make their own decisions about where to allocated commuting expenses.

The way employers work, they often pool a benefit like transit/parking. So you could end up in a situation where those that don't need that service are supplementing that service for others via a reduced total salary.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Employers should also pay for transit passes.

And commute time should be compensated the same as in-office time.

If being in an office is that important to your employer, they should pay for it. Pretty simple.

Why stop there? Employers should pay for lunches too - you have to eat if you come into work. And they should pay for the clothes you wear to work.

[MoneyGuy]

Employers provide you with an office (and maybe coffee); the rest is on you. Drive a car, pay for parking. Take a bus, that’s on you.

[PaperBagger'14]

I grow my hair on company time, that's why I get it cut on company time.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Why stop there? Employers should pay for lunches too - you have to eat if you come into work. And they should pay for the clothes you wear to work.

Nah, neither of those are even close to the same. Nice effort but F.

If they were saying I had to go to the office and buy lunch there, then yeah, pay for it.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by blankall

You can chop it up however you want, but what you're talking about is all just part of total compensation. If I'm choosing between two jobs, that are in all other aspects equal, I'll take the free transit pass. If you force employers to pay for transit passes and parking, they'll just cut compensation elsewhere. I think most employees would prefer to just have the extra salary and make their own decisions about where to allocated commuting expenses.

The way employers work, they often pool a benefit like transit/parking. So you could end up in a situation where those that don't need that service are supplementing that service for others via a reduced total salary.

I understand the reality and the way employers work. The ones who make you come to the office and don’t make it effectively free to come to the office are a bit ####e, though.

But calling it “extra salary” is hilarious.

“Please sir, let me pay a portion of my salary to come work for you! No? But you’ll leave my salary as is? Why thank you for the extra salary, sir!”

Lame.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

Employers provide you with an office (and maybe coffee); the rest is on you. Drive a car, pay for parking. Take a bus, that’s on you.

Nah.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by blankall

You can chop it up however you want, but what you're talking about is all just part of total compensation. If I'm choosing between two jobs, that are in all other aspects equal, I'll take the free transit pass. If you force employers to pay for transit passes and parking, they'll just cut compensation elsewhere. I think most employees would prefer to just have the extra salary and make their own decisions about where to allocated commuting expenses.

The way employers work, they often pool a benefit like transit/parking. So you could end up in a situation where those that don't need that service are supplementing that service for others via a reduced total salary.

Most of those would be taxable benefits in a lot of places too, so it makes no difference to pay for parking or just pay them more. I can see if they were non-taxable, then it might make more sense to offer the benefit.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Employers should also pay for transit passes.

And commute time should be compensated the same as in-office time.

If being in an office is that important to your employer, they should pay for it. Pretty simple.

They should also pay for my pants if wearing pants is that important to my employer.

[TorqueDog]

If I do work for someone, any expenses I incur related to the work I do for them is billed to them.

When I was consulting, if I had to fly to Toronto and stay in a hotel for three days to fulfill my duties, that was billed to the customer (or at the very least reimbursed by way of billing my employer and them billing the contract). The fact that it's $1,500 versus $25 doesn't really matter; if you require me to come into your offices to perform my duties, then you should be covering the basic expenses I incur to do so, whether that's a bus pass or parking.

Hell, my housekeeper parks on the street since my building doesn't have visitor parking, and I tell her to just add whatever she paid to Calgary Parking to the total she bills me. I don't think that's unreasonable; in fact, it was my idea.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Totally, that's exactly what I said and the exact outcome I was hoping for. I hate heritage buildings and poor people.

Maybe stop and think about the implications of what you did say, then. Because those are basically the downstream consequences of parking being a right. May I suggest a field trip to the wonder place that downtown Oklahoma City turned into after they went on their "everyone gets a parking spot" rampage?

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

Hell, my housekeeper parks on the street since my building doesn't have visitor parking, and I tell her to just add whatever she paid to Calgary Parking to the total she bills me. I don't think that's unreasonable; in fact, it was my idea.

Sure, but you wouldn't pay for your housekeeper to fly in from Vancouver. There's some responsibility on people to find jobs that they can feasibly get to. Just because someone lives an hour bus ride from downtown shouldn't mean they get free parking to make up for it.

It's far easier for the employer to pay whatever it takes to entice people to work for them. If they need to draw people from far away, they'll have to pay more. The employee can manage whether they want to move or not, or their method of commuting as they wish to allocate their budget.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I understand the reality and the way employers work. The ones who make you come to the office and don’t make it effectively free to come to the office are a bit ####e, though.

But calling it “extra salary” is hilarious.

“Please sir, let me pay a portion of my salary to come work for you! No? But you’ll leave my salary as is? Why thank you for the extra salary, sir!”

Lame.

Once again, the solution is to just pay employees more. Covering costs quickly results in some employees receiving more of that benefit than others, essentially forcing some employees to supplement the benefits of others.

For example, if one person is cycling to work and another parking, does the cyclist get no benefit? A parking pass they sparingly use? Maybe a credit towards a bike?

I guess it could make some sense to create a standardized benefit amount? Even then, why not just let the employee spend the money how they want?