To think that employers should pay all out of pocket expenses for business trips?

[cantaffordtogotowork]

AIBU to think that if you incur additional expenses for traveling overnight / significantly outside of normal business hours, your employer should pay these costs?

Specifically,

• Overnight child care - if you're working normal hours you'd just pay for after school care, but for business trips overnight care is hard to find and expensive if you're a single parent with limited support
• Pet care - if you're working normal hours you'd feed your own pets, walk your own dog etc. I have a very obliging friend who often does this for me (reciprocal arrangement), but if they're unavailable when I'm on a business trip it costs me £40 per night (approx 40% of my take home daily pay) purely because I'm on a business trip (London prices, unavoidably so)

Obviously meals, train fares etc are covered. I can even get a glass of wine FFS. I can't help but feel that the expenses system is designed with the assumption that it's a man traveling while his wife dutifully stays at home.

AIBU to think that you should be able to expense such costs that are incurred purely because you're going the extra mile for your employer?

A lot of expenses policies do seem to have been written by people who have never been further than the next town and assume that all overseas trips are 'jollys'.

No laundry costs even for long trips
No bottled water except with a meal
No coffee while waiting for a flight

The list of out of pocket expenses is endless but few are claimable

@rightsaidfrederickII

This has nothing to do with feminism. It is to do with childcare and whether certain costs should be covered by an employer.

Women can choose to become parents as can men. Their marriages / partnerships can break down as can men's. They could become carers as could men. There is no disparity.

DH changed careers at 38 when he became a father for the second time. He took reduced hours and a sabbatical year and a half off the first time. This was because his job and the travel it entailed wasn't a good compromise in his opinion.

If you want to be a hands-on parent then no, you should not enter a career with extremely long hours or frequent travel. That is not a feminist issue.

The problem is at the home/private level, not the job level if a woman can't get childcare or has a shit partner.

I am an employer and I pay all expenses even including childcare etc but, I do try to find the employees who can get the job done cheaper and therefore find that some employees who would be perfect candidates to do don't get as much experience. Therefore, when it comes too pay rises etc the 'cheaper' employees get rewarded more. Doesn't that get close to indirect sexual discrimination? (Because in practice its more likely to be a woman with sole responsibility for childcare at night). And are you saying that someone who says "don't worry about paying my travel expenses" would be given more opportunities to progress their career?

latestDevelopments - it is a feminist issue so long as society's expectation is that women take primary responsibility for childcare. More women than men are sole carers for children, so any policy which discriminates directly against sole carers indirectly discriminates against women because it affects women more than men.

for example everyone needs to eat so why should the employer pay for food / drink expenses the employee would need to eat and drink anyway why can they not make a pack lunch pack their own for / pay for food out of their own pocket like at lunch break during normal hours etc.

That's what my employers now do - expect you to sort your own food out. Oh, and also pay for the first and last journey of the day, as they reckon that is 'your commute', despite the fact you'd never have taken a job that entailed you traveling that far each day. (Public Services). Indeed, when I present on training courses now, I go out and buy milk, and raid my kitchen for tea / coffee /sugar as it is no longer provided on the course, and, the dodgy area of the City we now use for training doesn't even have coffee shops even if the participants had the money to be able to afford them, and I could afford the time out of the day for everyone to troop off to buy them.

Totally agree LtestDevelopments.
It is part of your decision as a parent, whatever sex you are.
I'd also say that, whereas it can be more difficult for lone parents, issues still arise with couples when one - or potentially both - are expected to be able to go wherever the employers want them, too.

I can't help but feel that the expenses system is designed with the assumption that it's a man traveling while his wife dutifully stays at home.

That's a really good point. I've never thought of it like that before, but you're right.

For those saying that you shouldn't have taken on a job with travel, what you're really saying is that women shouldn't work in certain sectors because you might have kids, pets etc one day, DP might leave

No there is a point where personal responsibility takes over.

If your life isn't comparable with certain jobs then no you shouldn't do them.

There are certain jobs my DH couldn't do because of my illness.

"why can they not make a pack lunch pack "

I've already answered this. You can't make a packed lunch when you're away and don't have a kitchen. Also working hours when you're away can make it impossible to get to a supermarket.

meredintofpandiculation and RhiannonOHara

Are you actually saying that expenses policies are some kind of anti-woman discrimination? aS latestDevelopments and others said, having children is a choice and one that is often made at the expense of other possibilities.

Whether you like it or not, the cost of an employee is a factor in initial employment as well as promotion. Knowing I would need to cover childcare for a travelling employee would certainly count against them.

Out of interest, do you think the parent who looks after the children whilst the other travels (no idea of the PC term for this atm) should be paid by the traveling parent's company?

Why would anyone work in the public sector with policies like this?

I don't expect to sub my employer for anything. I will pay for petrol to get to and from my office, but that is it.

Oh - and there is no implication that part of my salary is available to be spent on work travel either.

Mind you, I don't take the mick on claims either.

topcat - not an issue for those who don't travel is it and the pensions are good, even if not as good as they sued to be.

Unfortunately I have had nothing like that. And have to pay for alcohol and soft drinks

Are you actually saying that expenses policies are some kind of anti-woman discrimination? Policies which mean that one group of people are less favourably treated are indirect discrimination even if that wasn't their intention. No problem with indirect discrimination if it's vital to the job, but then it's best to do it in terms of job requirements "this job requires the physical strength to do x,y,z" not "this job is for men only". That's probably why many jobs re advertised with the statement that they require the person to be available for traveling and overnight stays. That may be preferable to paying childcare expenses and then penalising the person by not offering them advancement opportunities.

Whether you like it or not, the cost of an employee is a factor in initial employment as well as promotion. Knowing I would need to cover childcare for a traveling employee would certainly count against them. Would you also avoid employing women knowing that you may have to incur costs associated with maternity leave?

You aren't going the extra mile though, you'll be being paid a lot more than somebody on a lesser role that doesn't have to travel.
If it's part of the job you pay your own extra costs.
Obviously the employer should pay the cost of hotel, travel and sustenance.
Your childcare to do the job you applied for is your own concern.

For those saying that you shouldn't have taken on a job with travel, what you're really saying is that women shouldn't work in certain sectors because you might have kids, pets etc one day, DP might leave

No, they're saying that PARENTS are responsible for their own children's childcare, not the employer.
If you can't do the job you don't take it on, whether you are male or female.
In fairness though, it's only women who complain about this, the men just get on with it.
Maybe the women should take the attitude their partners take, expect their partners to work around their career.

"You aren't going the extra mile though, you'll be being paid a lot more than somebody on a lesser role that doesn't have to travel."

Gilly, did you read my post above. I've travelled loads as a secretary and never had a high wage.

"If you can't do the job you don't take it on, whether you are male or female."

It's not the case of being able to do the job in its regular form. It's a case of being (sometimes severely) out of pocket when required to duties beyond normal hours.

and of course, the argument for Dc never impinging on working life is also the argument for no forms of parental/emergency leave, no right to request flexible working, maternity leave scaled back to where it was in (being slightly random here) the 1980s (not that much longer than physical recovery)

I agree with posters earlier in the thread who say that attitudes to flexible working arrangements have come a long way, and that this is good for society.

Gwen
You must have known about the travel when you applied though and I'm sure you are paid more than a min wage entry job.
The fact you have to travel will be included in your wage.

gilly - no, there was never a travel component in my wage. My wage was based on the skill and experience level of the job. A colleague who didn't travel was paid exactly the same. My first job involving travel was very low paid, 1000 euros a month (about 800 pounds at the time). Please just accept that a job involving travel does not equal a highly paid job.

meredintofpandiculation

Would you also avoid employing women knowing that you may have to incur costs associated with maternity leave?

You won't like my answer to this.

Yes.

However, a large part of my job is recruiting people for ex-pat roles.

We look favourably on families who are likely to be settled and likely to renew their contracts several times. We love employing husbands and wives (mothers and fathers) together as this is beneficial for us.

Childless couples of an age where this is likely to change take a big hit in terms of employability.

Single applicants - they're looked on pretty equally regardless of sex. There's an age where people are still still single they are likely to return home to find a partner and this is younger in women than men so this is a consideration.

Employing women with a trailing spouse or one which works for another company; yes, they need to make up for this in other areas to get the job.

It all depends on the role of course. I would be foolish to ignore the likelihood of a married woman approaching 30 getting pregnant. If her job involved travel or something else that was quite incompatible with parenthood then I balance it out. I would be failing in my role if I didn't.

If you don't like my answers, blame God etc or Darwin.

We used to get travel costs and a 'per diem'. Some spent it on alcohol, some on childcare and some saved it.

jaxhog - yes, in come jobs I got a per diem as well although in one job it was interpreted differently by different bosses and one boss would only give the per diem if you weren't claiming for other things as well. I considered it a payment because I thought that really I should have been paid for all the hours I was away from home, rather than just the 9-5 I usually did. If I'm in an airport at 10pm for work, I'm working aren't I?

When I began my career, some men were quite vocal in saying they would not employ a woman "because we'd just get her trained and then she'd leave to have a baby". Meanwhile employment statistics showed that on average women stayed with the same employer longer than men.

It seems that things have not moved on very far (or perhaps they have, but are now moving backwards again).