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?

What is the employee supposed to do all evening stuck in a hotel in a foreign industrial/commercial estate?

Take a bloody book with you.

Book
IPlayer
FaceTime

Doing my tax return this year I did wonder why childcare isn't a deuctible cost. I wonder if it would change if all men genuinely viewed childcare and costs as their responsibility ...

Assuming this is a general comment about why childcare is not tax deductible, the reason it is not deductible is because only "necessary" expenses are deductible. "necessary" means that the job could not be done (by anyone) without incurring those expenses.

If a job can be done by someone who doesn't have children, then expenditure on childcare isn't "necessary". The expense in that case is deemed to be a consequence of having chosen to have children.

Similarly, commuting is not tax deductible. If someone who live within walking distance could do a job, then the commuting expenses of someone who lives further away aren't "necessary" for the job to be done.

Same as I do at home, read a book, watch TV (s luxury I don't get at home much) do a word search puzzle, play candy crush, browse the Internet etc.

I've never used this term before but there's a lot of snowflakes on here incapable of thinking of anything to do that doesn't cost extra money. You're not doing the company a favour, you're doing your job that you get paid for. Direct and reasonable expenses are covered. Watch TV, browse internet, read a book, sleep, chat on the phone like you would at home etc. OR go spend your own money for extra entertainment if you really want to.

From the comments on this thread I think there are a lot of people who write expenses policies but dont actually do a lot of business travel.

Most of the hotels I have stayed in for business trips are dull. If there is a gym it is the size of a small bedroom, no pool, nowhere to sit except your room or the bar. After a fortnight you have read your books, not everywhere in the world has free wifi (not common at all when I was doing a lot of my long haul travel), not all tv is available in your local language.

The reality of business travel especially if it is international is that it is stressful, tiring and tedious. Hotels are chosen because they are convenient to the site being visited and cheap. Providing the weary traveller with a pleasant experience is a long way down on the priority list if it makes it on to the list at all.

Gnome - how common is it for a business trip to be longer than a fortnight though?
I've been away for three week trips, but that was for events so the last problem you had was nothing to do. We had long hours or social things to go to or you could just go for a drink with a colleague. The TVs in hotels work paid for also tended to have quite a lot of channels, more than at home or in a hotel I paid for myself.
I do sympathise if you're going for long stretches of time on your own, though and I'm sure it's true that the people in accounts or HR who are writing the expenses policies don't travel often.
I remember there being a discussion at one place I worked about whether staff should be allowed to make personal phone calls on their work mobiles when away. Strictly speaking, it's not part of the job, but if someone travels often then it makes sens I think.

Also 1970 born also take responsibility for my kids - single mum with uk travel for work sometimes over night - always in a travel lodge!

I watch Netflix or read to pass the time

Public sector so they pay a percentage of petrol or train/plane fair and occasionally pay for breakfast but other than that I cover the rest myself!

I find this thread a bit baffling too! I work a 4 day week, as does my DH with a different employer. We share childcare responsibilities and have to cover both my travel (often work away all week, with 1-2 nights in hotel) and his work meetings that have to cover working hours in Spain, Ukraine and the west coast of the US. (He's in London commuting 3hrs a day).

We have 1 DD and 1 DC overdue at the moment. I plan to go back to work as per current arrangement continuing the juggle because we have chosen to have children and careers. I can't see how either of us should expect our employers to pay for our choice, though we are lucky that both are very accommodating.

I would say it's true flexible working as we are often on laptops in the evening after having left the office at 3.30/4 to get DD from nursery! I don't see why I should ask my employer to pay for childcare, I think the challenge is showing them that you can make it work and deliver the results they need. If you have to be away for a week at a time, find a way to balance out by having short days when you're home, deliver the same results and your employer should still value you - that's the real challenge and it's not just about women!

Gnome at least one of my trips is three weeks or more each year. I don’t expect my employer to entertain me and I have a kindle full of books and an iPad and laptop full of films. They do pay for wine though!

Gwenhwyfar: IT projects, two week trips tended to depend on location, flight time and cost. Employer would find it cheaper for employees to stay over a weekend than fly home then out again.

I think employers are absolutely cynical. Crap hotel, nothing other than dinner paid for. Travelling employees do tend to end up working late into the evening out of sheer boredom.

Oh I see Gnome, you have a whole weekend there with nothing to do and no access to what you have at home. I can see how that would be difficult.
I don't suppose you could pay for a friend or your partner to come over just for the weekend, sharing your room?
When I was away it was at events so someone from the local organisation would have probably offered to show us around if there was some down time.

I have grim memories of being stuck in Blackpool in late October when a case was adjourned from Monday to Wednesday. Out of season and soaking wet and chilly. Purgatory!

Gwenhwyfar we may do that now the children are all adults and fine to be left in the care of the cat and dog!

Andrewofgg ah the glamour of a wet mid week in Blackpool!

I get paid "plain time" (ie overtime but at normal rate not time and a half) up to midnight when I have an overnight, which i think is excellent and way more than my previous company did. So if i have a very early meeting the next day say in Inverness, I drive up the day before and am paid from 5pm to midnight to basically sit in a nice hotel (mid-range) or sleep. Dinner is paid up to £22 (no alcohol). I take a book and my laptop and am as happy as larry.

Public sector so they pay a percentage of petrol or train/plane fair and occasionally pay for breakfast but other than that I cover the rest myself!

See my point above re employees being expected to pay to work and not everyone being able to afford to do that.

We share childcare responsibilities and have to cover both my travel (often work away all week, with 1-2 nights in hotel) and his work meetings that have to cover working hours in Spain, Ukraine and the west coast of the US. (He's in London commuting 3hrs a day).

So you rely on another adult for childcare (free?), which is the issue outlined in the opening post.

Some posters seem to think that this thread is about employers paying for regular childcare. It's about the employer covering the cost of extra childcare, costs that are only incurred because the employee is asked to work outside of normal hours. Can't believe this needs to be spelt out

Yes I do - but that's my point - I rely on the other parent as having children was our choice and not our employers - that's why I'm baffled! If there was no other parent around it would still be up to me to sort childcare, not my employer - the point of my post was - finding a way to prove to the employers that we can work flexibly etc but achieve the results they want is the challenge. Demanding money for childcare isn't going to go down well!

device, Are you actually saying that expenses policies are some kind of anti-woman discrimination?

No, I don't think it is; at least not exactly or deliberately. It DOES seem to be the case, though, that there's a societal assumption that an employee can just go off on business travel at the drop of a hat, even if they have dependents, which in turn kind of assumes that there's someone there to look after the dependents with no extra hassle or cost.

It's not specifically about women, though; obviously people who are single and/or living alone, of either gender, are affected too – if you're alone and have a child/dog/etc, you'll need to arrange and probably pay for care for them if you go away overnight. Although of course this DOES tend to mean it's about assuming that there's a woman at home holding the fort, if only because in our society it's historically, generally been the case that it's been women to take this role...

I think I'm rambling But I'm just trying to say that the OP did make me think about this issue in a way I never have before.

Dh has to pay for his food and sometimes travel as well when he goes away for work.

Various posters aren't talking about the same things in this thread at all.

Some posters are talking about accepting jobs or working in sectors which have known travel or personal cost implications.

Others are talking about situations where an employee has assessed a job's needs and fulfils them, then the employer changes the goals (office relocates, new business means they need someone to travel, unexpected illness or turnover meaning the usual team member can't travel, poor HR practices meaning they think having a jolly on a team building day remotely somewhere suits all the alpha males in the team, or something else).

It's not 100% clear which situation the OP was talking about, but they're very different scenarios...

"Dh has to pay for his food and sometimes travel as well when he goes away for work."

How can that even be legal? I would refuse to travel if it left me out of pocket.

OP - the harsh reality is if they want to keep you, your employer may we'll consider covering this.

I know of someone who negotiated similar (babysitting costs) but that was before accepting the job. Realistically if you took the job knowing all of the overnight etc requirements, I don't think it's unreasonable for your employer to expect you to deliver without issue.

Personally, I'd discuss it with them, but then move if they were unwilling to help. Not in a huff, but just because i wouldn't want to be paying for all the extra costs myself.

Sorry, no, children and pets are nothing to do with your employer.

Ultimately I think we have to vote with our feet.

There are many posts in a similar field in a university town hear me which remain unfilled - guess what?! Because the conditions are shit! Shit jobs = unfilled roles or crap people filling them = shit for employer = employer finally smells coffee & does something to make things not so shit!

This is an excellent post and not something I'd ever considered but YANBU. Certainly not about the childcare aspect.

If you know travel etc is part if the job then you accept that when you take it.

This just means there are people ruled out of applying for or accepting certain jobs just because they are single parents, primary caregivers, etc. It's another aspect of employment and flexibility that should be looked at and reviewed