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

The room costs the same whether there’s one occupant or two.

Appreciate that my DH is senior now, but he wasn’t always and is also a qualified accountant so his work role in finance is not too dissimilar - and his work day and expectations are not really that different from when he was junior, so haven’t change: eat sleep work, repeat, get on a plane somewhere, same schedule at home/somewhere else.

A ‘work trip’ in the way many seem to perceive it here isn’t how he would describe business trips. They are visits to other offices - and are just the same work, with different regional teams, in different offices, meeting with local finance officials in each jurisdiction. The aim is usually to get F2F time with team members in each office, to build rapport, and get to know them in person rather than via zoom. I imagine senior audit staff have similar days. I was in audit myself once and it was no different, really, just substitute client for another office.

Travel, accommodation and meal budget don’t make it a ‘trip’ - they are to cover the practical expenses associated with facilitating the work being carried out.

I don’t think it’s outdated. Many people have diagnosis of autism/adhd/anxiety or health needs. Over 80% of men in 50s overweight or obese, good chance many diabetic or cpap machine users.
I suspect what will happen is staff may go down reasonable adjustments route if there is a blanket ban and one expensive occupational health report later upshot will be same that spouse can accompany.

I think taking the spouse along is pretty outdated, TBF. I used to travel a lot for work - UK and internationally. On occasion, I had a pal/my Mum join me at the end of my work trip, and we stayed on (at our own expense, obviously!) Once or twice, they were there the last night of the work week, as we were often away Sun-Sat, so we could work the full five days. They had to understand, however, that work came first, and if we had to work late, or entertain colleagues at the partner company, then that came first.
I think that a request to have someone else there, sharing the hotel room, would have been pretty looked down upon. I don't know why, but it just doesn't feel very professional to me. (Just my gut feeling.)
So, could you go meet him at the end, and pay to stay on an extra night or two?

This. She sounds like a professional victim of something only in her own mind . 🙄

Why would it bother you any more than the fact they have a partner when they are in the home office?

Work is done for the day just the same at home or away.

If someone’s spouse comes to the home office to meet them and go for a drink - how is that different from their spouse meeting them in the hotel bar?

Banning spouses/partners doesn’t mean the colleagues will socialise though. There’s no requirement to socialise with colleagues outside work hours.
It doesn’t follow get wives banned they’ll suddenly all want to hang out together.
Both men could meet friends for dinner next month, not breaching the new no wives rule but still opting to eat with a none employee not with that colleague. She’s still eating alone unless she makes her own plans like they do.

It's not your colleagues' responsibility to keep you company in your free time just because you're single. If everyone wants to have dinner together then that's lovely, but if not then as grown adults people should sort themselves out.

And you think not allowing a spouse free accommodation on an employee’s work trip would be classed as a breach? I’ve heard it all now.

Why would you be just "sitting there?" If your work is finished for the day why don't you go to the cinema, or order room service, or go shopping or whatever else catches your fancy?

I don't see why colleagues have to hang out with each other in their free time. If they want to, of course that's fine, but there's nothing wrong with saying goodbye at the end of the work day and going your own way.

The laws would be the EHRC article 8 and the Human Rights Act 1998 (which required UK courts to interpret all law in keeping with the EHRC). This means that when the courts (any court, but mainly Employment Tribunals) rule on the reasonableness of management instructions one of the things they consider is whether such an instruction breaches the employees right to a private and family life, and if it does so then whether such instruction is proportionate and in pursuit of a legitimate aim.

Urgh imagine having to sit there like a spare part at a wedding while your colleagues and their spouses treat a work trip like a holiday - can’t think of anything worse.

It’s utterly bizarre! And so many people seem to be struggling with the concept of what work is for. And your point is a really good one, I would certainly be uncomfortable in a company that had the culture of inviting spouses on work trips, because as a lesbian, I tend to prefer to not refer to my wife in certain work situations as it can (and has) led to me being treated differently. I like a culture of professionalism where home is left at home and work is for work.

I mean, all this nonsense really does take the “bring your whole self to work” mantra to the extreme!

So bad luck if you are single

It's not the work that's bad, it's the being away from home. Research is pretty clear that traveling for work is generally bad for employees wellbeing and that taking a companion improves things.

Did you mean to quote me? Because we seem to be on the same "side" here.

If they are real 😀

I guess we are probably not the sort of people whose first thought is "it's all about me". My first thought (and frankly only thought) is how the management - especially the executive management - have allowed such a can of worms to build up withough someone saying

"Er, you know how we always let staff bring their (heterosexual) spouses on work outings ? Has anyone checked to see if that policy, official or not, has any implications for us legally ? In particular how it might be viewed from the point of view of ensuring we treat employees according to the various obligations of the 2010 EA ?"

Obsessing over who raised the issue and their possible motives - with decreasing connection to reality - seems a tad odd to me.

Having spent more time than I ever wanted to working out how my team could be invited to an extracurricular event a couple of years ago, I thought I was au fait with some of the issues.

I deleted that when I quickly remembered she had died.

The OP’s husband works in audit where he goes away for short periods to work on audits. You’ve described a very senior role, where even if the OP’s husband was an audit partner he wouldn’t be at that level.
There’s obviously a difference between very senior roles and most roles. I know a guy who works like your husband but he’s a CEO, he’s not comparable to the guy doing the audit.

I do live in a different world to your husband, so do most people as senior executives are only a handful of the workforce.

Indeed, that is what I’ve been trying to get across too. Business travel is really rather mundane 99% of the time.

Pretty sure Mrs Branson has a completely different existence to this frankly (edits are visible as you know).

Whether you are Manchester, Berlin or Bognor - the working day is pretty much uniform wherever you are for most people.

I think some of the disconnect on this thread may be that ‘work trips’ means something very different to different people.

Some are seeing it as a special group thing rather than just doing your work day in a different location.

i think you’re talking about a different kind of existence

You can’t say that though. They may have never needed to declare any health needs as custom and practice until Monday was for spouse to be able to tag along.

Actually I can’t bear the stupidity on this thread any more - the way some posters are responding it is a bloody wonder that employees are allowed to work anywhere other than from their homes, and even then there would need to be a risk assessment before they were allowed to pull out the dining room chair.

Ridiculous. I am out.