# Cycle To Work Scheme.



## Drakon

I think it’s time to get rid of the “cycle to work” scheme. Or, at the least, replace it with some other cycling incentive. 
The fewer people that commute to work, whether by foot, bike, car or public transport, the better. To continue this incentive is mixed messaging. 
#StayAtHome


----------



## PolkaDot

Why is better if fewer people commute to work by foot or bike? I don't agree with this at all. In the longer term, it will be important for people to get back out working in offices at lease some of the week. Staying at home full time is not necessarily in everyone's best interests.

In the long term, the cycle to work scheme will remain a good incentive for people to ditch their cars for the commute. Particularly as cycling infrastructure continues to improve.


----------



## ArthurMcB

PolkaDot said:


> it will be important for people to get back out working in offices at lease some of the week


Why so?


----------



## PolkaDot

For many reasons.....mental health....their career prospects....social factors. Everyone's situation is different of course. But in my view, if you work for an office based company and you're at home full time while others are working in the office, it will have a negative affect on both your relationships with your colleagues and your career prospects within that company.


----------



## lledlledlled

Drakon said:


> I think it’s time to get rid of the “cycle to work” scheme. Or, at the least, replace it with some other cycling incentive.
> The fewer people that commute to work, whether by foot, bike, car or public transport, the better. To continue this incentive is mixed messaging.
> #StayAtHome



What a crazy suggestion. You want to disincentivise people cycling to work? 
Nuts.


----------



## Leper

1. (a) In my 3rd last year before retiring I availed of the cycle-to-work scheme and bought a basic bike. I drove all ours mad suggesting they should do the same. We had three good bikes in the shed that the kids used to use back in the day. I restored the bikes to all their glory working on them myself with skills I had learnt over the years. I bought a "universal" 2nd hand bike rack for the car.  There's rarely a month passes that we don't head off to some greenway for the day or weekend con familia y los chicos.
(b) My cycling is confined to greenways and cycle lanes as much as possible. I wouldn't risk the country roads anywhere. Paddy-the-Motorist is not yet ready for the cyclists and is a danger not only to himself but everyone else.
2. The scheme is good and should be kept although recently I bought another bike which had been largely unused on DoneDeal (which had originally been bought in the cycle-to-work scheme). I recommend the scheme (although called Cycle-to-Work)  should now be extended to retirees. Now there's a good suggestion for some pro-active manager or even some trade union branch.


----------



## ArthurMcB

[QUOTE="PolkaDot, post:
[/QUOTE]

I wfh and i love it. No commute, more time with family, more productive, more time to exercise, saving money on lunch amd coffee. People should have the choice. I dont think its at all corrext to say that "its important that people get back to the office". Its important that people have the choice to decide what best for themselves, their mental health, their career, their social needs. Long live wfh!
But if going bk to office....cycling is best....


----------



## huskerdu

The cycle to work scheme is not an incentive to go into the office when you shouldn’t .
Not everyone can WFH, and It’s inevitable that most of us who are working from home at the moment will end up back the office part time or full time at some stage. 
Cycling is a great way to commute to work and should be encouraged .


----------



## Drakon

The Cycle To Work scheme was a fantastic incentive when it was introduced. I worked in Dublin at the time. My bike had been stolen a month before CTW was introduced, and I was the second person in my workplace to sign up. 
It wasn’t perfect, of course. It was widely abused and cycle stores were compliant to that abuse.
There were MAMILs from Kildare who signed up. A friend bought two kids bikes for Christmas under the scheme. 

However, despite being a great incentive it’s a throwback to a bygone era. Back then, telecommuting was a rarity. Most that did it only did it one day a week. 

Things have changed. Take Pinterest. When this pandemic is over their employees will work in the office one day a week.

The CTW scheme should be replaced with something not commuter orientated. And anecdotally new bicycles are difficult to get at the moment. The pandemic has led to reduced production. And the lockdown has led to increased demand. 

Where to divert the money instead?
Maybe more secure bike racks in towns and cities. 
Better planning of cycle lanes? Or better planning of road junctions, keeping a focus on cyclist safety. Or funding schools to have cycle classes for the children. 

I realise Ireland is a largely conservative country. Just like there was a majority opposed to the CTW scheme when it was introduced, there would be a minority  opposed to removing it. That’s the way we are!

I’m not suggesting we abolish CTW and send that ring-fenced money back into the government coffers. 
Just accept the new reality and replace CTW with something more fitting for the pandemic and post-pandemic future.

Anybody that was interested in the CRW scheme has probably taken it up by now.


----------



## Leper

Let's not make a Sacred Cow of CTW scheme. It worked and even got people exercising. I recommend the scheme should be extended. I don't care if anybody gets a good deal for their grandchildren or whatever; don't get in the way of something that is working.


----------



## Drakon

Leper said:


> ...don't get in the way of something that is working.



I’ve heard that sort of argument used for reordering a case of Tipp-Ex for the stationery cupboard.


----------



## Drakon

PolkaDot said:


> Why is better if fewer people commute to work ...



80% of Coronavirus transmission is person-to-person. The less people interact while we “live with the virus”, fewer people will contract the virus. The fewer people commute to the workplace the less the virus will spread. 
The CMO re-iterated this yesterday. 
People need to listen, to telecommute, to stay away from their workplaces if at all possible.


----------



## WolfeTone

Drakon said:


> I think it’s time to get rid of the “cycle to work” scheme. Or, at the least, replace it with some other cycling incentive.
> The fewer people that commute to work, whether by foot, bike, car or public transport, the better. To continue this incentive is mixed messaging.
> #StayAtHome



I agree it should be replaced, but for different reasons. I know of a few people who use this scheme, bought a new bike, get tax back, and the bike sits in the shed mostly, or they certainly do not use it for work.
I would rather see a system where the cost of bicycle repairs, servicing, upgrading etc was deductable against income tax.


----------



## PolkaDot

Drakon said:


> 80% of Coronavirus transmission is person-to-person. The less people interact while we “live with the virus”, fewer people will contract the virus. The fewer people commute to the workplace the less the virus will spread.
> The CMO re-iterated this yesterday.
> People need to listen, to telecommute, to stay away from their workplaces if at all possible.



I was asking the question in the context of the longer term. It would be silly to argue to scrap the scheme on the basis that we have this (hopefully) temporary period where we're working for home due to a pandemic.


----------



## DublinHead54

ArthurMcB said:


> I wfh and i love it. No commute, more time with family, more productive, more time to exercise, saving money on lunch amd coffee. People should have the choice. I dont think its at all corrext to say that "its important that people get back to the office". Its important that people have the choice to decide what best for themselves, their mental health, their career, their social needs. Long live wfh!
> But if going bk to office....cycling is best....



Every Euro saved wfh is a euro lost from the economy. In the long term the Government will need to make changes to restrike the balance whether that results in increases in taxes or other measures. So, in the short term make hay while the sun shines.

My opinion is that it is too soon to remove a cycle to work scheme when there is uncertainty around future working arrangements. However, given that increased funding for cycling infrastructure perhaps they need to consider a family-based cycling scheme? Or as Leper mentioned for retirees. Perhaps also a tax deduction for cycle scheme memberships such as Dublin Bikes.


----------



## AlbacoreA

Best thing you can do to promote cycling (health) and safer cycling, reduce pollution and congestion, is get more (new)  people cycling. 

I suspect there has big fall off in the numbers using C2W so it will be self leveling in the that regard.  

In terms of avoiding public transport, and sharing bicycles, isn't getting your own bicycle a good way to avoid that?


----------



## ArthurMcB

Dublinbay12 said:


> Every Euro saved wfh is a euro lost from the economy


How? Surely money is being spent elsewhere on other things.im not poorer or richer from wfh...instead of buying overpriced coffee and sambos, my local grocery store is getting the benefit, for example.


----------



## Purple

Drakon said:


> I think it’s time to get rid of the “cycle to work” scheme. Or, at the least, replace it with some other cycling incentive.
> The fewer people that commute to work, whether by foot, bike, car or public transport, the better. To continue this incentive is mixed messaging.
> #StayAtHome


With respect that's a very middle class suburban perspective. Most people don't work in offices and have to be in work to work. 
I agree with Leper and AlbacoreA, anything we can do to encourage cycling we should do. It's a win-win with older people; either it will keep them healthier and so reduce the burden on the health service or it will kill them and reduce the burden on the health service.


----------



## Purple

ArthurMcB said:


> How? Surely money is being spent elsewhere on other things.im not poorer or richer from wfh...instead of buying overpriced coffee and sambos, my local grocery store is getting the benefit, for example.


In fairness the overall spend in the economy had been reduced significantly. 
In the longer term city centres may become places to live again, which would be great.


----------



## AlbacoreA

I used to cycle to work a few times a week. Had stopped a about a 2 years ago. Before the lockdown I had stopped using the train and had planned to get an eBike to replace the car and train. My old bike being worn out and no longer suitable.  But I will get a bike to cycle to work for the odd day I have to be in. We did have parking at work, but I can see that being heavily reduced if fewer people are in the office everyday.


----------



## DublinHead54

ArthurMcB said:


> How? Surely money is being spent elsewhere on other things.im not poorer or richer from wfh...instead of buying overpriced coffee and sambos, my local grocery store is getting the benefit, for example.



more money in your pocket is less money in the economy. Even in the example you have given your daily spend is down because you are buying cheaper from the grocery store. Those 'overpriced' coffee / sandwich shops will close and the people employed may have to go on unemployment and now the government need to fund all the extra people on unemployment benefit. If that is a long term issue of course the rest of the tax payers are going to pay for it somehow. 

There is no such thing as a free lunch or in this case a much cheaper sandwich made at home.


----------



## Drakon

Purple said:


> Most people don't work in offices and have to be in work to work.



The proportion of people that “work in offices” is much larger in cities and urban areas where the take up of the CTW scheme has been greatest. However, the number of people that fall into this category has greatly reduced. And after the “living with the virus” era has passed, many of those office companies, eg Pinterest, have committed to one day a week onsite. (This will affect support services like Spendtras and cafes. Their employees won’t have jobs near the offices to cycle to. )


----------



## Purple

While it is a shame that so many people are losing their jobs I always think that it is better to have a larger part of the economy in internationally traded goods and services as they create wealth whereas the coffee shop just really moves it around.


----------



## Purple

Drakon said:


> The proportion of people that “work in offices” is much larger in cities and urban areas where the take up of the CTW scheme has been greatest. However, the number of people that fall into this category has greatly reduced. And after the “living with the virus” era has passed, many of those office companies, eg Pinterest, have committed to one day a week onsite. (This will affect support services like Spendtras and cafes. Their employees won’t have jobs near the offices to cycle to. )


All true but if you work from home you don't qualify for the cycle to work scheme.


----------



## Drakon

WolfeTone said:


> I would rather see a system where the cost of bicycle repairs, servicing, upgrading etc was deductable against income tax.



I really like this idea. This is so progressive. It really acknowledges the past benefit of the CTW scheme, and brings it forward to the future. And it’s green-focussed in line with the spirit of the CTW scheme.


----------



## Drakon

Purple said:


> All true but if you work from home you don't qualify for the cycle to work scheme.


Which is another thing I’m getting at. It’s a scheme from a bygone era. 
Unless the government drop their “living with the virus” plan and go with the Swedish or NZ model, the new normal will be more like 2020 than 2009.


----------



## Purple

Drakon said:


> Which is another thing I’m getting at. It’s a scheme from a bygone era.
> Unless the government drop their “living with the virus” plan and go with the Swedish or NZ model, the new normal will be more like 2020 than 2009.


Less people will use it but that doesn't mean it should be dropped.


----------



## shweeney

Drakon said:


> Which is another thing I’m getting at. It’s a scheme from a bygone era.
> Unless the government drop their “living with the virus” plan and go with the Swedish or NZ model, the new normal will be more like 2020 than 2009.



office workers may be more inclined to work from home in the future, what about shop workers, factory operatives, teachers, nurses etc - are they not allowed to cycle to work?

if anything it needs to be expanded so it's not restricted to PAYE workers whose employers are willing to participate. The govt subsidises electric cars to the tune of 5K - bikes and ebikes are far more environmentally friendly and cheaper. The more people on bikes the better.


----------



## ArthurMcB

I dont think its correct to say that wfh results in less money being spent in the economy. It does result in less money being spent in certain businesses but more being spent in others.

More money in you pocket, as you put it dublinbay ...means more money to spend...in the economy...on stuff/anything...other than cafes etc beside the office. Your point isnt valid.


----------



## Purple

There's billions in extra savings (unspent money) since March. It is without question that working from home results in lower consumer spending.


----------



## DublinHead54

ArthurMcB said:


> I dont think its correct to say that wfh results in less money being spent in the economy. It does result in less money being spent in certain businesses but more being spent in others.
> 
> More money in you pocket, as you put it dublinbay ...means more money to spend...in the economy...on stuff/anything...other than cafes etc beside the office. Your point isnt valid.



Have you now got more money in your savings account than you would otherwise have had? Have you spent money on 'luxury' items that you wouldn't have spent before? 

More money in your pocket does mean more money to spend, but the evidence (~40% decrease in consumer spending at the height of the pandemic) suggests that money is being saved (Irish households saved ~10bln in the first 7 months of 2020 vs ~5bln in the same period of 2019). 

We have all seen the rise in unemployment and it is unsustainable for the Government to continue to pay for this without passing some cost on through taxes or reduction in spending in other areas. At the end of the day they have to balance the books.


----------



## dereko1969

This is one of the dumbest ideas put forward here in quite a while. What is the actual purpose of it? To punish those working from home? To ensure fewer people take up cycling?

There is massive investment in cycling infrastructure proposed, it's not an either/or, the Cycle to Work scheme is a benefit that is not confined to those using the bike to actually cycle to work, it may have been the original intention, but it's essentially an encouragement to buy a bike and to use it. There have never been checks on whether it was actually used to cycle to work, nor should there be.

All those working from home can use the bike to do their shopping or just get exercise. Is that a bad thing?

The scheme was just recently (July) changed to reduce the period from 5 years to 4 between purchases and also increased the amount that can be spent on bikes and claimed back. A fairer system would be a voucher as people on the higher tax rate benefit more than those on the lower tax rate.

There should also be a much higher limit for e-bikes and particularly e-cargo bikes as that could be a game changer for families to ditch the car.


----------



## Branz

Purple said:


> All true but if you work from home you don't qualify for the cycle to work scheme.



Not entirely true: I work from home but cycle to my clients: it's not just about the home to office commute.
Clarification
I don't go to the office, I go to client sites where the work gets done


----------



## Purple

Branz said:


> Not entirely true: I work from home but cycle to my clients: it's not just about the home to office commute.


If your home is your place of work then you are not cycling to work when visiting your clients. The Bike to Work scheme is for a journey which could not be considered a business expense. Travelling from your place of work to a client is a business trip.


----------



## Branz

Purple said:


> If your home is your place of work then you are not cycling to work when visiting your clients. The Bike to Work scheme is for a journey which could not be considered a business expense. Travelling from your place of work to a client is a business trip.



I work on sites, so the sites are my place of work. Maybe my first post was inaccurate


----------



## Purple

Branz said:


> I work on sites, so the sites are my place of work. Maybe my first post was inaccurate


Okay, so you cycle to work


----------



## ArthurMcB

Purple said:


> In fairness the overall spend in the economy had been reduced significantly.
> In the longer term city centres may become places to live again, which would be great.


But can that be directly attributed to wfh? Or is it due to reduced activity associated with pandemic/lockdown? 

Wfh isnt the culprit, its covid and the resultant lockdown.

Some business may suffer as a result of widespread wfh but other will flourish. 

Businesses should try to adapt.


----------



## roker

huskerdu said:


> The cycle to work scheme is not an incentive to go into the office when you shouldn’t .
> Not everyone can WFH, and It’s inevitable that most of us who are working from home at the moment will end up back the office part time or full time at some stage.
> Cycling is a great way to commute to work and should be encouraged .


picture yourself cycling to work at 67yrs age with arthritic joints in lashing rain  and when you get there you've no energy left to do your job


----------



## Purple

roker said:


> picture yourself cycling to work at 67yrs age with arthritic joints in lashing rain  and when you get there you've no energy left to do your job


Or not having arthritis and having good energy levels because you spend the last 40 years cycling to work.


----------



## dereko1969

roker said:


> picture yourself cycling to work at 67yrs age with arthritic joints in lashing rain  and when you get there you've no energy left to do your job


You do know there's no obligation to avail of it?


----------



## Drakon

dereko1969 said:


> This is one of the dumbest ideas put forward here in quite a while. What is the actual purpose of it? To punish those working from home? To ensure fewer people take up cycling?




An experimenter puts 5 monkeys in a large cage. High up at the top of the cage, well beyond the reach of the monkeys, is a bunch of bananas. Underneath the bananas is a ladder.
The monkeys immediately spot the bananas and one begins to climb the ladder. As he does, however, the experimenter sprays him with a stream of cold water. Then, he proceeds to spray each of the other monkeys.
The monkey on the ladder scrambles off. And all 5 sit for a time on the floor, wet, cold, and bewildered. Soon, though, the temptation of the bananas is too great, and another monkey begins to climb the ladder. Again, the experimenter sprays the ambitious monkey with cold water and all the other monkeys as well. When a third monkey tries to climb the ladder, the other monkeys, wanting to avoid the cold spray, pull him off the ladder and beat him.
Now one monkey is removed and a new monkey is introduced to the cage. Spotting the bananas, he naively begins to climb the ladder. The other monkeys pull him off and beat him.
The experimenter removes a second one of the original monkeys from the cage and replaces him with a new monkey. Again, the new monkey begins to climb the ladder and, again, the other monkeys pull him off and beat him, including the monkey who had never been sprayed.

By the end of the experiment, none of the original monkeys were left and yet, despite none of them ever experiencing the cold, wet, spray, they had all learned never to try and go for the bananas.


----------



## BoscoTalking

while not strictly its intended purpose it does help people to get fit and enjoy some exercise, and keep cycle shops going  even if these were not its primary intention. 
It should be maintained if only for these reasons


----------



## ClubMan

Drakon said:


> The other monkeys pull him off and beat him.


Ah, the old "good cop, bad cop" trick?


----------



## huskerdu

roker said:


> picture yourself cycling to work at 67yrs age with arthritic joints in lashing rain  and when you get there you've no energy left to do your job


Irrelevant to the issue as no one is forcing anyone to cycle to work . My neighbour is still cycling to work at 65, not a bother on him. I’m on my 50s and I have arthritis . Cycling is the recommenced exercise . I always have more energy for work when I cycle . Sleep better too .


----------



## huskerdu

The cycle to work scheme has been a success . It was deliberately designed to be easy to use and cheap to administer. This means it’s open to abuse. But lets face it , the people abusing it are not moving millions out of the Irish economy or failing to pay PRSI for employees , theyre just buying bikes.
It’s also not going to encourage everyone to cycle . national government , local government and employers have to put in more infrastructure to make cycling a safe and viable commuting option for more people.
IMHO , it’s still a good idea .


----------



## Cavanbhoy

Would it not be an idea to make bikes Zero rated vat. Thus reducing the cost for the whole population and taking out any hassle of administration.


----------



## AlbacoreA

Drakon said:


> 80% of Coronavirus transmission is person-to-person. The less people interact while we “live with the virus”, fewer people will contract the virus. The fewer people commute to the workplace the less the virus will spread.
> The CMO re-iterated this yesterday.
> People need to listen, to telecommute, to stay away from their workplaces if at all possible.



Who decides if you are allowed to WFH or not? Your Job.  They don't decide based on if you own a bicycle.

One thing has no connection with the other. 




WolfeTone said:


> ....
> I would rather see a system where the cost of bicycle repairs, servicing, upgrading etc was deductible against income tax.



For the the vast majority of people servicing and repairs will be pittance. The only people who will spend any significant money on such things are those doing massive mileages, the vast major of those will be leisure, not commuting. It does nothing to get people out of their cars, or new people to cycling.


----------



## AlbacoreA

If you want to discourage people from going to work, you need to target cars not bicycles.


----------



## Purple

AlbacoreA said:


> If you want to discourage people from going to work, you need to target cars not bicycles.


Or you could tax the bejasus out of them if they do work, oh, hang on...


----------



## Drakon

AlbacoreA said:


> Who decides if you are allowed to WFH or not? Your Job.  They don't decide based on if you own a bicycle.
> 
> One thing has no connection with the other.



Many people who had been telecommuting during the initial lockdown (ie March/April/May) are now commuting (walk/bike/car/bus/whatever) to their workplaces again. Given the pandemic, they should not be doing so. They are spending eight hours or so indoors with other people. Potentially spreading the Coronavirus and prolonging the crisis. If they WFH six months ago, they should be doing so now, and a tax incentive to do so should be stopped. 





AlbacoreA said:


> If you want to discourage people from going to work, you need to target cars not bicycles.



I think you need to read all the posts.
We’re in a pandemic, we need to discourage people from going to the workplace, again.


----------



## Drakon

50 posts. By far the most popular thread in the first two pages of the Budget 2021 forum. 
Whether people agree or disagree with me, it’s been a popular argument.


----------



## Purple

Drakon said:


> We’re in a pandemic, we need to discourage people from going to the workplace, again.


How many people who can work from home are now going into work? I don't know of any, though I'm sure there are some. I think the people on the road are the ones who were on the PUP but are now back in work.


----------



## huskerdu

Drakon, I disagree with you that it’s an incentive to go into the workplace. Anyone that I know that has gone back into the workplace has done so because their employer told them to, not because they missed cycling in traffic


----------



## Drakon

Anecdotally, I know plenty of, “hhhhh, I think I’ll go to the office today, get out of the house, y’know”.

AARoadwatch is a good barometer.
Dunkettle Roundabout, Headford Road, every intersection in Dublin...


----------



## huskerdu

Drakon said:


> 50 posts. By far the most popular thread in the first two pages of the Budget 2021 forum.
> Whether people agree or disagree with me, it’s been a popular argument.


Interesting isn’t it. I’m always amazed how controversial cycling discussions get


----------



## Drakon

huskerdu said:


> Anyone that I know that has gone back into the workplace has done so because their employer told them to...



That is very interesting. I wouldn’t like to have an employer like those. 

A friend of mine who is a public servant told me three months ago about the radical changes made to the office. Desks spaced out, Perspex screens, etc. 
No “veal fattening pens” as Douglas Coupland describes them in Generation X.

The main reason, apart from Covid, was to avoid being sued for an unsafe workplace should someone get Covid in the office. 

Those people you refer to could be in for a litigation lotto win...

‘It’s an ill wind blows no good!


----------



## AlbacoreA

Drakon said:


> Many people who had been telecommuting during the initial lockdown (ie March/April/May) are now commuting (walk/bike/car/bus/whatever) to their workplaces again. Given the pandemic, they should not be doing so. They are spending eight hours or so indoors with other people. Potentially spreading the Coronavirus and prolonging the crisis. If they WFH six months ago, they should be doing so now, and a tax incentive to do so should be stopped.






Drakon said:


> I think you need to read all the posts.
> We’re in a pandemic, we need to discourage people from going to the workplace, again.



I see you've not you've not answered the fundamental question of who decides if they have to go into the work place. 
Its not the employee. Unless they resign their job. Its the employer. 

There a range of tax things we could stop. Grants and low tax on EVs. BIK. Taxsaver tiockets and Taxsaver parking. 
However none would stop an employer requiring a employee to be onsite.


----------



## AlbacoreA

Drakon said:


> 50 posts. By far the most popular thread in the first two pages of the Budget 2021 forum.
> Whether people agree or disagree with me, it’s been a popular argument.



That's because its as daft as a brush. A bit humor, and silliness always attracts attention.


----------



## AlbacoreA

Drakon said:


> That is very interesting. I wouldn’t like to have an employer like those.
> 
> A friend of mine who is a public servant told me three months ago about the radical changes made to the office. Desks spaced out, Perspex screens, etc.
> No “veal fattening pens” as Douglas Coupland describes them in Generation X.
> 
> The main reason, apart from Covid, was to avoid being sued for an unsafe workplace should someone get Covid in the office.
> 
> Those people you refer to could be in for a litigation lotto win...
> 
> ‘It’s an ill wind blows no good!



The Public sector employer is the Govt and they have told them to work from home if possible. 
They also have to answer to the unions.


----------



## Purple

Drakon said:


> That is very interesting. I wouldn’t like to have an employer like those.
> 
> A friend of mine who is a public servant told me three months ago about the radical changes made to the office. Desks spaced out, Perspex screens, etc.
> No “veal fattening pens” as Douglas Coupland describes them in Generation X.
> 
> The main reason, apart from Covid, was to avoid being sued for an unsafe workplace should someone get Covid in the office.
> 
> Those people you refer to could be in for a litigation lotto win...
> 
> ‘It’s an ill wind blows no good!


I'm sure most employers who make such a request do so for sound commercial reasons. 
I'm also sure that the same sort of lowlifes who exaggerate their whiplash after car accidents will also sue their employer if they get Covid19.


----------



## Drakon

AlbacoreA said:


> I see you've not you've not answered the fundamental question of who decides if they have to go into the work place.



The worker.


----------



## Drakon

AlbacoreA said:


> That's because its as daft as a brush. A bit humor, and silliness always attracts attention.


Ah. You’re American!
“Americans just don’t get it”, as the saying goes.


----------



## Purple

Drakon said:


> The worker.


Really?!
They can quit but they don't get to decide if they go to work or not.


----------



## AlbacoreA

Drakon said:


> Ah. You’re American!
> “Americans just don’t get it”, as the saying goes.



I think its more about knowing the cost of something not the value of it.


----------



## Leo

Drakon said:


> Ah. You’re American!
> “Americans just don’t get it”, as the saying goes.



Shooting the Breeze is better suited to noise.


----------

