Anonymous please.
All,
Please see the message below from XXX stating that 3 of our vehicles have not met the monthly requirements, which are for each vehicle, 250 miles per month OR 6 trips per day. In a conversation with YYY about this subject, he states that if a vehicle's monthly mileage totals are under the 250 minimum, then the vehicle logs are looked at to determine how many daily trips have been made. The trips need to include all the stops made on a particular trip; so for example, if one checks out the vehicle and goes to 2 meetings at different locations and then stops to add fuel to the vehicle before returning it to the office, that is considered 3 trips; thus each stop is to be listed on the log sheet for that trip.
Your assistance in recording trips, with all stops, and mileage accurately will help in keeping the number of vehicles we currently have.
Thanks,
ZZZ
>> Please we need mileages on your VEHICLES..........................
>> three failed this month...........................
>>
>> will need at least the following miles for next month reporting......(will be due 10/15th)
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> Vehicle #0304D, Pickup w/lift gate, reported 163 miles will need 337 for this next month
>>
>> Vehice # 1535A, Van reported 199 miles will need 301 for this next month
>>
>> Vehicle# 2402B, Blue Tahoe reported 153 miles will need 347 for this next month
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> Thanks
[According to Google maps, the loop is 18.9 miles and about 42 minutes. Someone will need to spend 36.5 hours driving 52 times around the loop to put 985 miles on these vehicles before October 15th? Or make 18 trips per day until October 15th I suppose. Wouldn't it be cheaper to let this organization keep these vehicles and waive the silly rules?]
10 comments:
The silly rules can NEVER be waived unless you are an AD, PAD, or blessed Mikey himself. Of course, the rules for reporting T&E are waived in September when you are allowed to report your time in advance. Damn the rules then - we can't HR work hard.
I am retired from LANS now but about three years ago I complained to our Admin. about this vehicle policy. It is a waste of expensive employee time, gasoline, wear and tear and contributes to poluting the atmosphere. I believe it is not a LANS policy but a GSA policy. My Admin reported me to the group leader for complaining so I drove the loop for a few hours! What a waste!
Maybe this is a GSA record keeping policy, but there is no reason why LANS should now be explicitly pushing for it's abuse!
Here we see another example of LANS management asking employees to do something very stupid (and illegal?) that wastes not only gasoline, but also wastes LANL's extraordinarily expensive staff time in driving cars around for no real purpose. Perhaps this is one of the reasons that you can see government vehicles aimlessly driving around at LANL. They're trying to meet some stupid mileage quota!
It's clear that LANS management takes no real responsibility for fixing this place. Instead, they continue to let LANL deteriorate at an ever increasing rate.
The manager who wrote this memo should be fired. This is a clear and documented example of abuse of government facilities. Are you paying attention, LASO?
I don't know who the manager is. The names were already redacted when this was sent to me, which would lead me to believe the reader who sent this was not trying to get the manager fired. It's possible the person who forwarded this to me is the same person who wrote it.
Perhaps the manager is a good one, and perhaps other good managers are in this situation. I tried to make the point that stupid rules can and should be changed. Is there no process in place to be granted an exemption from the 250 miles per month or six trips per day rule? Shouldn't there be?
@ anon 9/24 06:54
@ anon 9/24 09:40
Are we clear on the concept? How about if people follow the both the letter and spirit of the rule and give up cars for which they have no legitimate need. . .
Or should I give you two yahoos the benefit of the doubt and assume you were being ironic? Oh, no need, given that you're among the Best and the Brightest . . .
In Disgust,
12:20PM--
I assume you were on your lunch hour when surfing the internet on your work computer----right? I was in a service organization and a vehicle was necessary to service my off site equipment. I normally made my trip or mileage quota. The time that I complained about was when I took a couple of extra days off along with the Christmas break. My complaint stemmed from the fact that they still wanted the mileage and trips even though the lab was closed for almost two weeks. It is hard to make mileage quotas or trip quotas for a month when the Lab was closed for half of it. Thank you very much and who is the Yahoo now!!!!---Also in disgust, mostly at you!!!
My experience as a (now retired) LANL manager is that the government vehicle milage/trip number thing is really not a big deal and is over-emphasized by some hyper-ventilating LANL managers. If your Division Office believes that there is sufficient justification for a Group to have a car, regardless of trips or mileage, it will be approved. Gutless managers, at the Group or Division level, are responsible for the "problem." Some rational managers make reasonable justifications based on location, lack of parking spaces for personal cars, need for immediate response to customers, etc. It ain't rocket science. Yhe local fleet managers listen to rational arguments from appropriate management.
As the staff work hard on research proposals to help bring in more funding to support our high overhead, it's comforting to know that this money is being quickly burned-up through insane policies like this one on car mileage.
8:14 PM, I am a current LANL manager. Although it is relatively easy to get an exception by memo, it is definitely not well known or advertised that this loophole exists. I learned about it from an employee who was transferred into my group after I'd been in line management for three years already.
Post a Comment