Rene, thanks for the detailed reply
Seems I was more than a bit off with the “extra pound”…. On one hand there is the argument that well paid staff in a nice environment have better moral which should lead to increased productivity and reduce staff turnover along with all the training + other costs involved in replacing people. The other side of the coin is to “over pay” by such a large amount does leave them open to criticism / scrutiny and they really should give a detailed explanation of the reasons why and certainly give some justification regarding the location and expenses associated with head office. There is the also the complete can of worms as to whether or not many customer facing roles in general are underpaid and undervalued whilst those higher up are the opposite but that’s a different discussion altogether.
Seems I was more than a bit off with the “extra pound”…. On one hand there is the argument that well paid staff in a nice environment have better moral which should lead to increased productivity and reduce staff turnover along with all the training + other costs involved in replacing people. The other side of the coin is to “over pay” by such a large amount does leave them open to criticism / scrutiny and they really should give a detailed explanation of the reasons why and certainly give some justification regarding the location and expenses associated with head office. There is the also the complete can of worms as to whether or not many customer facing roles in general are underpaid and undervalued whilst those higher up are the opposite but that’s a different discussion altogether.Absolutely, as i said, i’m happy for everyone who makes a good living wage (i wish the same could be said for carers, but here we are). I’m not asking for their pays to be reduced or anything.
What i do argue is whether or not it’s necessary to have multiple offices, one of which in one of the most prestigious parts of the capitol, for a charity that takes disabled peoples benefits, while not doing enough (and on this one i won’t let an argument sit, they’re not doing enough) to help “the most in need” or “the most disabled” to get their needs met.
Imagine how hosed you are if you’re under 25 and in a wheelchair. They make good money on every lease, so if there’s “room above”, why not raise the price cap as was mentioned, or the minimum age? Why not pay fairer rates to dealerships, leading to them not needing to make a decision on priorities, etc? Why not keep adaptations free?
It won’t get around all of the issues (some manufacturers currently simply ignore fleet operations etc), i understand that of course – but there’s enough wrong with the way the scheme runs on the most basic levels that i wouldn’t let the argument count either. Things that very much could be fixed, if Motability woke up and decided that it’s a really bad look to splurge on offices/wages etc while the people who pay for it with their benefits have to worry on renewal whether or not they can stay mobile. Something that can be incredibly bad for their mental health. It’s hard for me to understand the justification (if there even is one) for running so much profit, with that profit just benefitting the charity/employees.
Prior: SEAT Ateca Xcellence Lux 1.5 TSI DSG MY19, VW Golf GTE PHEV DSG MY23
Current: Hyundai Ioniq 6 Ultimate
Next: we'll see what's available in 2028.