Corporate overreach or corporate right?

[NorthDallas40]

Your air travel comes out of pocket?

He’s a pilot

 

[DC_Vol]

You mind editing your response to me? I should not have posted as it may be too personal.

Done

 

[NorthDallas40]

I could see someone sending an email like this to the new owner of one of those hideous Tesla trucks.

Or that ugly ass electric BMW

 

[Orangeburst]

He’s a pilot

Well, I have never been accused of being a braniac.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Well, I have never been accused of being a braniac.

Well I believe he is from other discussions. Could be wrong

 

[RavinDave]

Well, I have never been accused of being a braniac.

You are such a braniac!

 

[Orangeburst]

Well I believe he is from other discussions. Could be wrong

Yep...I feel pretty stupid, But hey I should be used to it by now.
The real one has to be here under another name.

 

[Orangeburst]

You are such a braniac!

Hey I resemble that remark!

 

[Wireless1]

Response should be:
"Thanks for your concern. I do indeed have a newer automobile but choose to leave it at home due to the inconsideration of my coworkers who choose to open their doors on it. I'll be happy to drive it to work if you'll agree to any damage which occurs on company property.

 

[NEO]

If the person is a front line sales rep where his vehicle somehow reflects the company I can see this happening, but 9 times out of 10 that type of company provides a stipend or a company car. If neither of these are happening then the pay should have a built in excess for said car payment.

If none of these are happpening it’s over reach and you may have just lost a good employee.

This stuff is common in law firms and high level excecutive positions though. You better also be wearing a nice suit and not a Joseph A Banks.

 

[DancingOutlaw]

are we supposed to debate this when no one knows if it's even real?

Pick a side fence sitter

 

[Thunder Good-Oil]

If an employee's car is dripping fluids all over the company (and client) parking lots, then it's appropriate for an employer to address it. If the employee is on the road while on the clock and it's dangerous (bald tires, worn out brakes) then it's a potential liability issue for the company.

Image seems valid as well for certain employees. Dress codes and grooming standards are common requirements.

But this seems fake.

 

[Purple Tiger]

If an employee's car is dripping fluids all over the company (and client) parking lots, then it's appropriate for an employer to address it. If the employee is on the road while on the clock and it's dangerous (bald tires, worn out brakes) then it's a potential liability issue for the company.

Image seems valid as well for certain employees. Dress codes and grooming standards are common requirements.

But this seems fake.

I agree. Unless they provide a car, give a car allowance or have specific written rules about car appearance, I don't think a company can force an employee to get another car because the one they currently use for work is embarrassing. Also, no company is going to say in writing "we think you are mismanaging your money or could be the victim of fraud."