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?

All these people talking about childcare being a gift in kind are wrong. I know people who work for the govt and they get childcare (or other caring duties) covered to enable them to travel. To not cover that is discrimination against parents/carers. Not the case for pets tho.

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".

They wouldn't say it out loud now!

No we are not wrong. Your employer can pay childcare if they choose to but it has to be taxed. Benefit in kind is a legal term from HMRC not something we've dreamed up.

There are also salary sacrifice childcare vouchers which are different.

To not cover that is discrimination against parents/carers.

No it really really isn't.

Yes it is discrimination, because it prevents qualified people who have external responsibilities that don't affect their performance during normal contracted hours from doing a part of the job which is beneficial but not compulsory. These people are disproportionately women, therefore it is sexual discrimination.

Also, I didn't make any comment about childcare expenses being taxed or not, I made a comment about not paying them at all.

What I meant was that childcare might be a benefit in kind but that's no reason for an employer not to pay it when they ask an employee to travel.

Yes it is discrimination, because it prevents qualified people who have external responsibilities that don't affect their performance during normal contracted hours from doing a part of the job which is beneficial but not compulsory. These people are disproportionately women, therefore it is sexual discrimination.

No it really really isn't.

You said we were wrong because we were saying it was a gift in kind (the term used was actually benefit in kind). I said we were not wrong because that's the legal term.

I choose to have children as did my dh. I have the right not to be discriminated against for being a parent e.g. Not being promoted, offered a job etc as does he, but all costs including childcare costs are my responsibility & not that of my employer.

What I meant was that childcare might be a benefit in kind but that's no reason for an employer not to pay it when they ask an employee to travel.

If they took the job knowing they have to travel then you accept the terms and conditions. It really is that simple.

When does personal responsibility kick in exactly?

Piglet fair enough re ts and cs of a job, people accept them when they accept jobs. Its not so black and white though. That being true still means certain people are excluded from taking certain jobs because of their external circumstances, that still doesn't feel right to me.

We're going to have to disagree on the discrimination point. Taking personal responsibility for having/looking after kids is nothing to do with whether your employer discriminates against people who have them in terms of the opportunities offered.

Sometimes it is the processes rather than policies that are the problem. When I worked part time with kids in nursery we tried to arrange my travel for days that I worked and DH could collect kids. Not always possible. Work would pay nursery for extra days to start with but then changed policy so we couldn't. My boss would happily sign off schemes like my travelling to near my parents, them driving me to my destination and then looking after the kids, then a cab for me back to their house, but then claims got more automated and if visiting X, only train tickets to the nearest station would be authorised (despite time savings if people got a cab from the main line station).

Eventually my manager just told me to take time off in lieu to cover extra costs, which was fine by me but annoying that we weren't supposed to.

Especially as I could still claim £10 a night for 'incidentals such as newspapers, phone calls and toothpaste', which helped cover the shortfall in the amount allowed for meals when travelling.

That being true still means certain people are excluded from taking certain jobs because of their external circumstances, that still doesn't feel right to me.

That's always going to happen. That is also due to the choices you make in your life which aren't your employers resposibility

Me and the dh are not contracted to travel but sometimes we're asked to anyway. But when one of us needs to travel for work then we need some extra help with petcare due to the other one working long hours (not normally an issue as one of us starts late and the other finishes early so the dog is only home alone for 5/6 hours).

We ask work to pay for pet care and if they say were to say no then we probably wouldn't travel, no big deal. However work tends to say yes as they want us to do the travel and understand that it would otherwise put us out of pocket (also the 20 quid pet daycare for the dog is a drop in the ocean compared to the other travel costs let alone the other project expenses).

So yes I think these things should be considered, but probably on a case-by-case basis rather than a blanket rule depending on budgets, needs, and value for money (our employers make enough money to chuck some extra money on our petcare) and to prevent people from taking the piss.

These trips and unsocial hours aren't 'designed with men in mind', they are just part and parcel of many jobs. If you feel that the trips aren't beneficial for your productivity then you could argue to be allowed not to attend, but if they are necessary for the job, then clearly you either have to sort childcare or change jobs.

Children and pets are a responsibility that you chose to take on and it's not the employer's problem. People have to arrange their lives around their responsibilities.

But you took on a job that involved travel. Your personal circumstances changed, that's not your employers issue. So, no they shouldn't reimburse you for childcare / pet care costs. If you can't meet the terms of the contract you should look for another job

If it's part of your job and there is a mobility clause then the only costs the employer covers are those to get you to the other location (travel costs) plus accommodation and usually a maximum sustenance amount for breakfast/dinner. If employer provides lunch during normal working day then costs for lunch. But if you would normally bring your own lunch this would not be covered as it is not an extra for you as a result of being away.
Childcare/pet sitting costs - no.

@cantaffordtogotowork When I took this job (and when the small beings came into my life) my personal circumstances were very different - most noticeably I had a DP whose job didn't involve travel and could keep things going at home when I had to travel. (Un)fortunately DP is now ex DP, so that option no longer exists.

Before I read this, I was going to post and say that this is exactly the sort of thing you negotiate at contract stage in the hiring process. (When I took my current job, I explicitly negotiated a couple of new items into my terms and I know for one of them I was the sole UK employee with that perk). I post it now to warn other people who may be stepping into similar shoes - contract negotiations are a two-way thing.

However, that boat has sailed for you, so my advice would be to take this more formally when you are not due to travel - the cold light of day. Have a think beforehand what solution could apply. Is it childcare vouchers, is it TOIL or WFH (to recoup childcare costs via no travelling or nursery fees that day), is it some other solution that could be included in existing employee benefits for all employees, like the flying nanny service mentioned by a pp. Or is it formalising certain days when, or what you actually NEED to go to and what can be attended remotely or by deputies.

Basically go in there with solutions to the issue - ideally solutions that are easy to implement and are a minimal/nil cost to the business or that bring tangible benefits. Good luck.

It's legal to discriminate when the discrimination arises from the job requirements and it is not reasonably practicable to make adjustments. So if a job requires you staying away overnight on a regular basis, then it's up to you to meet those requirements, or not take the job. Or for the employer not to hire you if they are clear that you personally (and not just "most women") cannot meet those requirements.

It's a different matter if your job is standard office hours at your home office and then suddenly management demand you all go on a "team-building" session at a hotel in the middle of nowhere ....

... and if you then you miss out on a promotion because "you do not show enough commitment to the team" because you didn't stay overnight at the team building event because you couldn't get overnight childcare, then that really is tipping over into indirect discrimination - something that isn't key requirement of doing the job properly, which affects one sex disproportionately, and which materially disadvantages that person (in terms of loss of promotion).

I would expect travel and eating paid for.

But not childcare. An employer asking how many children etc. You have can leave them wide open for a discrimination case so I would not expect any more or less compensation because I have children.

www.gov.uk/employer-preventing-discrimination/recruitment

Many jobs evolve over time. The occasional trip to the head office in the next town becomes a regular intercontinental trip of several days because the company got taken over.

When it first happens it's new and exciting and nice to be asked. For a one off things get juggled around, favours asked etc. Then it gets to be routine and it's 'oh but you went last time and you know the people'. Now you are stuck with it.

Some employers are good and recognise that travel for work isn't a luxury. Others are just plain tight with mean policies and processes.

Yeah my employer is very tight. Hence one of the reasons I am leaving. They even wanted me to use my personal laptop instead of giving me one. I refused.

Some employers are good and recognise that travel for work isn't a luxury. Others are just plain tight with mean policies and processes.

Whilst I agree, expecting them to pay for child care and pet care is a step way too far.

So essentially what you are saying is it can legitimately cost a company more to employee a women that a man? That's not exactly going to encourage them to employ more women. It's issues like this that cause women to not be taken seriously.

I can claim: food up to £25 per day. But can also claim £6 breakfast if I start before 6am in addition to the £25. Hotel and Wifi up to £149 per night. I can claim childcare up to £70 for 24 hours if I’m working a weekend (as the job is Monday -Friday mostly)

The only reason my employer even knows I have children is because I've had to list my dependants with HR - it has never affected my work, stopped me from doing my work or caused me to ask for different treatment to my colleagues - and that's how it should be in my mind.

Your kids, your problem....