Husband’s female colleague’s issue being taken very seriously.

I find it more weird that spouses go on work trips. Did you take annual leave from your own job to go?

Yeah, I'm not really buying the badass woman, forging her independent way in a man's world, can't cope with dinner on her own or with another woman at the table.

I've forged my independent way all over the place. I'd have taken the invitation as an opportunity to learn more about the culture, make friends with the bloke by making friends with his wife, and been rather pleased that I could bring a pal/sister/boyfriend on future offsite gigs if I wanted.

I sure as hell wouldn't have gone crying to the boss that my colleagues weren't forced to perform inane chitchat, exclusively with me, in their free time. If you mean to charge in with a wrecking ball, this is not the thing to wreck! She's managed to be weak and hostile at the same time. Weird.

Does she think they’re going to socialise with her now on away trips after this?

I’d be mortified to have made such a fuss of myself. Colleagues don’t have to babysit you.

Absolutely this.

OP, you keep insisting that this policy "created a happy community". And I'm sure it did, in the days when it was a complete boys club. But it clearly wasn't creating a happy community when a woman who was there in her own right was grudgingly invited to tag along as a third wheel to dinner with her colleague and his wife, while the other colleague nipped off for a cosy dinner with his own wife.

DH and I have both worked in places where it's fine to bring along a spouse as long as it doesn't cost the company, but it would never be considered acceptable to make your own arrangements and leave out a colleague who was there on their own, and only invite them along when they ask about dinner.

Hahahaha! I love a comedy comment 😅

As a female in a male dominated industry this would piss me off. It should have been communicated prior to the trip that partners were allowed to join, otherwise it seems like sexist “being the wives along” crap from years gone by.

This poor woman’s probably already battling a gender pay gap and everyday sexism and she’s fed up with “old boys” style office dynamics.

I do wonder if it would be thrown out in court, though. It seems like a pretty clear breach of ECHR article 8 so courts likely to find it unreasonable.

You have no idea how it works at this or any other particular company. Not every policy addition or amendment needs multiple drafts, edits and a comms plan. They might have fewer staff than you've got tasks there for all we know.

This is unambiguous, non-contractual. There's absolutely no reason why the directors couldn't have made the decision over the weekend and told someone to bash an email out first thing Monday.

May be so. But completely irrelevant to this thread.

This!

That’s assuming a bigger company.
I could easily see this scenario when I worked in a small firm. Boss gets complaint and knee jerks sending an email to all staff saying no overnight guests in rooms paid for by company. Speaks to the two men involved to try and soften the blow. Thinks that’s all sorted. Not realising the potential knock on effects. 6 months later moaning about swings and roundabouts and lack of co operation from staff.

It doesn't happen like that. Discussion takes place, policy is drafted or amended. That gets reviewed and edited, then re-reviewed for approval. Once the policy is ready for implementation there's a comms plan to brief people.

That doesn't all happen in one Monday morning.

OP said that her DH ‘saw an email’. Either he snooped, or someone showed him something not meant for him.

Or this was referring to the staff email he saw before the director rang him? It's not clear.

This is a well worn bit of tax code. If the room is the same as the one they would book if OP didn’t tag along and costs the same regardless of how many people are in it, or if OP and her DH pay any excess, then there are no tax implications for the company. It’s only if the company pay more because OP is there. That there would be a concern about benefit in kind. But OP has been pretty clear that they do any extra billing separately and cover the excess costs themselves.

As it's a non-contractual policy change, all they're required to do is communicate it clearly and effectively and give reasonable notice before enforcing it.

I still find the anti-wives comments bonkers.

What do you all think about longer placements where the employer puts seconded staff in family accommodation? Is this, too, an outrageous abuse of corporate funds, a taxation nightmare, abusive toward single staffers who get a one-bed apartment and have to sort their own dinner plans?

What's the transition point, and why?

How does the female colleague have form? That would imply prior examples.

OP said that her DH ‘saw an email’. Either he snooped, or someone showed him something not meant for him. A director rang to apologise for the new company policy, sending a pretty strong message in so doing.

Someone is being unprofessional, but it does not sound like the female colleague.

I feel sorry for this poor woman, being excluded by her colleagues because they all wanted to play happy holidays with their wives on what was meant to be a work trip. Certainly doesn't sound like a friendly place to work.

The employer can say no guests in the rooms they are paying for.
But they can’t dictate he spends his free time/eats with colleagues.
It also potentially means some staff will now ask for reasonable adjustments for health/disability reasons that haven’t previously been needed, taking employer time and possibly Occupational health costs.
There’s also the potential knock on effect of loss of staff goodwill. Employer may find staff less willing to travel and sticking to exact wording of their contract. In some professions it’s hard to recruit and retain experienced staff especially if anti social elements like regular working away from home is a requirement.

If the room isn't fully tax deductible because one of the occupants is a non-employee using it for leisure, then there is a tax implication.

Sorting out might not be a mountain of work, but they're under no obligation to do it.

At the end of the day the basis for it is irrelevant. A policy of not allowing guests in a company room is not illegal, or discriminatory. It'd be non-contractual so an employer wouldn't even need employees agreement to implement it.

Obviously these trips don't coincide with any work commitments so why should to not be allowed to go? Because new colleague was put out? Best they stay home right? She's trying to put them in their place.

Or they could get jobs or interests of their own? No one is telling them to stay in the kitchen.

Better work life balance is soon to be replaced by mass redundancies. It’s highly unlikely in 20 years that 3 people will be going on such a trip, the auditor robot will do it.

I

I am sorry you're going through that. That sounds hellish, and explains your stance. I wish you luck.