Dnarever wrote on Jan 14
th, 2011 at 9:42am:
Verge wrote on Jan 12
th, 2011 at 3:46pm:
However, on the one example, if the costs were so secruity staff were to be newly employed to patrol those car parks, then there would need to be some give and take, since they will benefit directly. Im not saying this is the case, Im just saying "if" it was the case.
The change is a bean counter responce to the return on theoretical land value.
They want to increase their return so they are going to screw hospital workers.
The only exemptions seem to be government cars and government fleet cars.
GVS and SOVS schemes are Both available to senior Hospital managment and for about the same price (a little less) as staff are being asked to pay for parking alone the manager has free parking with the car thrown in and in all probability the cost is covered by the Hospital.
Hospital vehicles are not government issued. They are either leased, or purchased by the Hospitals and then back charged via the employee benefits expense. Its a little complicated, but ultimately they are not government owned vehicles.
As for the bean counter, I think the reason is a little different. I reckon it was more a case of someone sat back, seen what the total charges were against car parks for maintenance, secruity etc, prolly has to pay for their own parking in Perth and as a result put the recomendation in as a result.
Car parks are a pretty expensive thing to build, and although maintenance isnt that much, they still cost money. Its not just staff getting charged either, its anyone who uses them.
I can see their point about carparking. There doesnt seem to be any such thing as free car parking anymore, so why should any place be exempt.
I wouldnt mind however if staff had theirs subsidised, and staff can salary sacrifice it because of the exemptions for health care workers they would pay no FBT.