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

Yes. I am. Safeguarding is not about who is staying at the hotel - otherwise they’d have to vet every employee and guest, wouldn’t they? Behave.

This has nothing to do with reasonable adjustments though-that is a completely separate point and not at all relevant here.

Yes - working from the home/UK office is generally no different to working in the overseas office.

Breakfast and dinner still eaten before and after the working day.

The only thing that changes is that the office in which the meetings take place. Work trips are really NOT that sexy. You get up, eat, go to an office, get signed in my security and issued a pass, you work/have meetings, and then when the scheduled day is done, you head home or to a hotel. It might be 42 degrees outside if you are in AbuDabi or Texas or Singapore, it might be chuffing cold on the schlep across Chicago or New York, the dog may yak up on your briefcase when you get home… but the evening meal in yet another soulless hotel or great local restaurant, a bit of telly, and a review of any emails is generally the norm before bed.

@KatsPJs they can’t blanket ban spouses as employees are entitled to reasonable adjustments. A needs someone to check his cpap machine, B wears hearing aids and may not hear fire alarm, C has an 12 month old breastfeeding and wants her dh to stay with baby so she can feed her to sleep as is their normal routine.
Simple solutions often had unintended effects I don’t moan if dh needs to work on holiday or fly out on a Sunday or at last minute due to some emergency. Dh could be a lot less flexible. It works both ways.

You’re 100% certain? Wow that’s amazing, and that’s exactly how safeguarding and risk assessments work: a person being 100% certain that something won’t happen.

I am 100% certain that a company that has been going for over 100 years, that has always allowed spouses to occasionally join, does so because it would never bloody happen. And would not be their legal responsibility anyway, as already explained. We’re talking [real] finance professionals, not the [fictional] lads from Auf Wedersehen Pet.

Then people can pick a career where travel is not expected.

And the best way of never even having to consider such situations? Do not allow employees to bring their spouses on work trips. All very simple really.

The person whose name is on the booking - ie with whom the contract is - is responsible obviously? They can then call the police to have you arrested and press for criminal charges and seek compensation from you via a civil suit.

But it has no more to do with the company of the person booking the Air B nB than if a wife got off her face and trashed her husband’s car one evening. I am not sure why you think the 50 something wives of 50 something/senior employees are likely to join them at a hotel and behave like rock band groupies, though? They will simply be shopping and visiting museums in the day and joining their husband for a meal/ drinks somewhere nice (at their own expense) in the evening.

All a bit far fetched really.

Travelling for work isn’t for everyone and lots of younger people in particular don’t want it.
It’s disruptive to family life.
Op is clear that the 3 colleagues were on site working Thursday and Friday during work hours. There’s no suggestion they slacked off or wives there distracting them.

Unless you have a flexible spouse or family support being away 2 days every 4-6 weeks is a pain if you have children. Some people won’t entertain it as they have caring commitments, pets or it disrupts their hobbies or volunteer commitments.

Perhaps you do live in a different world to the 50+ aged men taking their spouses, then? Which is what several of us, including OP I gather, are?

My DH is a senior exec with a FTSE100 company. He hasn’t done a 9-5 DAY in his entire working life and is on call 24/7, 365 days a year as his teams are spread across all the continents and time zone. He is processing emails/ calls/ documents/ whatever is Trump is doing from the moment he wakes up until he goes to bed and often over the weekends; and has not had a holiday in a decade that hasn’t involved mornings on emergency board meetings/zooms in our hotel room while I distract the kids at the pool. I suspect OP and others here have similar experiences.

The quid pro quo for a member of staff of his level being on call is based on trust and decades of professional respect that he has earned as a result. It isn’t that the company can dictate how they spend their evenings - and who with - when they have to visit a non- ‘home’ office, any more than they can when they are at home. If DH wants to take a few hours off to go sightseeing - on his own or with me when I go, if he knows people in the city [as he often does now] he will meet them for drinks and beers - it doesn’t mean he is in anyway ‘not focused’ on the business he is in the city to do. He is in no way less professional when he is meeting old colleagues, friends and family in far flung cities after a long day, than he is when he is holed up in his room alone, eating a room service meal with his laptop for company. I find it odd that you feel you would be.

He’s planned for me to start joining him because other senior people do occasionally take their spouses, and we are finally in a position where I can pack a bag, jump on an easy jet flight and join him without a moment’s thought for the kids - and the company clearly have no issue with it.

I've noticed this a lot on Mumsnet in general.

Firstly, that a lot of people seem to actively dislike their partner and spending time with them, and whose marriage is just a sort of bleakly endless battle of the sexes where neither of them really likes the other at all.

Secondly, that a lot of people are such absolutely sticklers for being 'professional' that they're almost at the point where they're humiliating themselves for the employers, offering themselves up like cap-doffing boot-lickers for the privilege. All this 'It's important to mix with colleagues in the evenings, it's professional, it's for the good of the team, you owe you employer something more than the hours you're paid for, if you don't work late all the time then you can't possibly have a PROPER job in a PROFESSIONAL environment' makes me cringe. This stuff is basically one step away from the 'Boar On The Floor' episode of Succession.

Also, people on Mumnset who think you have to mingle with colleagues and 'network' in the evenings on work trips tend to be the same ones who think it's 'unprofessional' to, eg, laugh and joke with colleagues during the day or have any kind of chat about your personal life, which feels oddly contradictory.

Honestly, some people really just need a bit of non-regulation joy in their lives and something to think about beyond making their employer some more money.

I mean not necessarily just for work. If the stint is a long one then clearly there's going to be downtime too. And so what if that downtime is with a spouse or partner?
Does the thought of people enjoying themselves somehow irk you?

💯 this.

Depends on employment contract. But lots of companies rely on staff goodwill.
Say contract is 10 overnight audits a year but in practice the two older men have been happily doing more and picking up slack in emergencies if a colleague has a sick child etc. They aren’t doing anything wrong by now sticking to their contract.
Or travelling evenings and weekends. 50s chap may happily have travelled Sunday and stayed Sunday night as that client preferred an 8am Monday start. It suited company and him as wife could tag along. Now he says no can do to Sunday I’ll travel Monday and can’t do 8am start etc.
If they are experienced long serving staff they can’t be sacked for working to rule. I’ve seen some pushbacks in my time.
Employer then moans about lack of swings and roundabouts.

What’s the bad situation? Going on a work trip?

God no wonder productivity is so low: the horror of having to do a bit of work!

You would go ‘Ballistic’….?
At who exactly? The company? Your husband?
okayyyyyy 🤦‍♀️

Some people like socialising with their colleagues. Some prefer socialising with their spouses. That's not the point.

The argument is whether what employees do in their free time is up to them and if it's right to complain to HR because a colleague hasn't invited you to join them for dinner.

I’m not the one fixated on who people sleep with - that’s what I was referring to in terms of ridiculousness. And what “courts” are you talking about? What law are you referencing?

The work trip is for work. That's what OP's DH is doing while he's there.

Why this insistence that it is somehow wrong to make the best of a bad situation?

Okay, I’m going to simplify it for you: let’s say you book an Airbnb with your card and under your name. You then invite me along. I get off my face and proceed to smash up the place. Who will be liable for the damage? Me? Or you: the person who paid and entered into a contract with Airbnb? Now expand that out to any other type of criminal/destructive behaviour. The employee has a contract with the employer, the employer has a contract with the travel provider. The travel provider has a contract with the hotel/airline etc.

Agree with this. It’s just not realistic. This is a business handling things badly and pinning the blame on someone else.
I just can’t imagine anyone professional actually saying this (even if they thought it).
It is so wierd.

Pointing out the law is "ridiculous"? Bowing out is a good idea. Probably best if you don't get involved in any discussions if you think pointing out legal limits to what people can do is problematic.

Well surely if they refuse to do the work required by their company they will then be managed our accordingly? An employee shouldn’t need the sweetener of hanging out with their spouse to do their job. Am I in the twilight zone or something?

I am asking how the company can be liable for the spouse, not the employee. if the employee does something illegal the company might be liable. But if the spouse does, how would the company be liable unless the employee did it too (which, obviously, they can do without their spouse there)?