Bailout Watch 455: Taxpayers Funding GM's Company Car Fleet
The pitchforks are out for bailout-funded Wall Street bonuses, and today’s NPR Morning Report highlights GM’s longstanding perk: free company cars with free gasoline. The Product Evaluation Program entitles 8000 white-collar employees to a new GM vehicle every six months. Drivers are to report problems back to the mother ship ASAP, and currently pay a $250/month administration fee. Current morale at the Tubes likely isn’t all that great, so any benefit is nice. However, it’s now at taxpayer expense, so what’s this fuss all about?
Critics of the program note this further promotes GM’s insular culture, by preventing its high-ranking employees from understanding its customers. Obviously, subsidized new cars prevent program participants from having to deal with problems cropping up in their own cars years down the line, not to mention less exposure to the competition. When gasoline was $4/gallon last summer, one driver complained about having to swipe his company gas card twice to fill up the SUV’s tank, never mind that there was absolutely no pain in his wallet.
The gas bill for 2008 was estimated at almost $12 million last year, which at least will be less painful the next time around. A former GM employee called this “a really highly valued perk” and that “it feels kind of fun.” And product feedback? “No one that I knew took it seriously.”
GM’s defense was that other car companies also have similar plans, although the competition doesn’t pay the fuel bill. And when asked about discontinuing the perk, a GM spokesman said that this would be extremely disruptive. Unfortunately, this is the exact same response that the Wall Street executives have about their staff bonuses.
More by Richard Chen
Comments
Join the conversation
If the company is looking for "feedback", they should shift the program to off-lease vehicles with ~ 40K on the clock. ...and make them shedule their service and warranty claims through a dealership.
I have no problem with providing vehicles as a benefit. But expecting employees to provide a thorough, candid evaluation, particularly in a culture like this one where criticism is not welcomed, is unrealistic. We can all see that GM has a defensive culture. A critical employee is not going to be appreciated. Those who would tend to be highly critical are either committing career suicide and dooming themselves to be sidelined, or else are going to become frustrated and look for another employer. My bet is that most of the folks who are high enough up in the food chain to get a car got to that position after years of having proven their devotion. They aren't that critical in the first place, since those critical thinking skills aren't good for climbing the GM ladder. The few independent thinkers who see the problems but like their paychecks would know better than to say much, so most of them will mute their criticism in order to fit in. If my priority was putting food on the table and climbing the ladder, I would shut up and make complimentary remarks. I would no sooner make a harsh comment with my name attached to it than I would tell my significant other that she really does look fat in that dress. In corporate life, you learn to choose your battles. If critiquing your employer's work harshly is a ticket to corporate Siberia, you shut up, smile a lot, and say that everything is great when asked. After a while, you might even start to believe it.