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?

So you took a job and accepted the travel because you had a dp.

Now dp is gone you want someone to pay for your childcare lol. It's your situation that has changed not your employer.

Today 22:51 MaximaDeWit

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

No it's not are you mental. If you know full well you don't have childcare you do not take a job with travel.

A lot of the time people dont 'take a job with travel' what happens is that they take a job, work out their childcare etc. All good then the travel starts to evolve into the role. Occasional trips which can be covered by juggling things about get more regular.

Travel expenses have been low hanging fruit for employers wanting to cost cut. When I first started work travel expenses were more generous with 'incidentals' allowances which were generous enough to defray some of the costs. Companies paid allowances for hotels, food etc. Employees could then choose to stay in a cheaper hotel, eat a cheaper meal and use the difference to pay for other costs.

Now everything is on receipt, only 'essential' expenses are paid with a very narrow definition of what is 'essential'. You want a cup of coffee while you wait for a flight? You pay. You want lunch while you are travelling? You pay. You have to arrange wrap around care because you will be leavig earlier than normal and getting home later? You pay.

Travel is no longer the preserve of people on big salaries who can cover the extras and see it as part of enhancing their careers. Now people are having to accept the travel coming into their role just as part of keeping the job they already have.

Exactly Gnomedeplume.
I've been with a big employer for years. When I first started in 2002 travel expenses were incredibly generous and as a result people abused that by flying with the more expensive airline that gave them airmiles and hundreds of other petty abuses.

Every time I move role within the organisation I ask about requirement to travel as although DS is getting older he still needs someone around and DH and I can flex around each other to an extent, there are some roles where weekly travel is an expectation.

In my current role I specifically asked about travel and overtime at the interview and was told that travel was very occasional - say once a quarter, and overtime was hardly ever. Except I was subcontracted out for my first project and was suddenly expected to travel 2-3 days per week and work 12-15 hr days. Luckily it was only for a short duration and I raised my concerns but as the new person in the department I didn't feel in a very strong position to point blank refuse it.

Plus as above hardly anything is covered these days. Dinner allowance - £20 including a drink - is less than it was when I started 16 years ago when it was £25 plus a drink.

Travel booking system seems to delight in forcing you to take ridiculously timed flights and then if you book your airport parking through them ( as strongly recommended) you'll be put in the long stay with the bus drive, thus necessitating an even earlier start and late finish. Most of us just work our way round it.

I'd be happy if it covered at least my actual expenses, never mind additional childcare costs.

No it's not are you mental. If you know full well you don't have childcare you do not take a job with travel.

Aaaand, now can we come back to the real world. Most jobs these days require some sort of travel at some stage that requires some for of expenses to be claimed.

Anyway, my point is why would employers want to rule out someone who could be perfect for a role just because they have childcare commitments outside 9-5?

The world is changing (too slowly!) and employers that think like you do will be the ones who are left behind. Flexibility is key to getting the best people for the jobs. Even my DH, who is not the "primary" caregiver as I am a SAHM requires flexibility of his employer so he can be available for HIS child.

Exactly what gnomedeplume and rookiemere said

I don't think an employer should be liable for lifestyle choices which are outside their control.
If you can't do unsociable hours, don't get a job with unsociable hours.
These kid of discussions worry me, as a woman who was a single parent for several years and a manager in an organisation which employs as many women as men: If I'm interviewing for a member of staff and we get down to 2 candidates who are both as strong, sometimes we do end up looking at salary expectation as the last thing: if people with pets or children or elderly parents are going to cost more to employ than single people surely there will come a point where those groups will be less likely to be employed purely on financial grounds. We can dress up equality all we like but in real terms if women, mothers, pet owners (!) want equal career opportunities they need to be in a position to give employers as much as the candidates without all those other ties.

Ha ha ha. I'm a freelancer and also employ freelancers. You have got to be kidding. Why would an employer pay for your personal choices in life? If someone tried to claim these costs, I simply wouldn't employ them. It would push parents out of the workplace.

The thing that keeps being said on this thread is that it's not about recruitment.

If you recruit for a role which requires flexibility to cover additional hours or travel then you set out your stall and applicants know that they will need to be flexible. In theory at least the salary and other T&Cs will take this into account. If you don't compensate for the flexibility you want then you may find it hard to recruit and retain staff.

The problems come when roles change and occasional travel or extra hours become the norm with no adjustments to salary and T&Cs.

ilookedinthewater it's incredibly shortsighted to think about this as women vs men.

We should be aiming for men and women being equally responsible for children (as they are pets, elderly relatives) and at that stage it will not be about women being at a disadvantage because they are assumed to be responsible for their children. They might be - it might work that way for one couple or the woman might be a single parent.

You wouldn't say "Well if you feel that you should have to eat 3 meals a day around 7am, 12.30 and 7.30pm then you should be applying for jobs where there might be meetings or work schedules during these times and you shouldn't expect your employer to pick these up if you're on a train or plane at the time".

*shouldnt Be

Unfortunately if your contract and job includes travel, regardless of gender, or issues around your travelling (pets, children, parents) you cannot expect your employer to cover these due a change in personal circumstances.

You can negotiate your contact as someone mentioned. But your change in personal circumstances causing you a cost is not for them to pick up,

But TheEmmaDilemmà what if it is the job circumstances which change rather than the employee's? The occasional travel becomes a regular requirement. Many people are pressured to accept this type of change or are told it is temporary only to find that it is now the new norm.

Travel expenses have been low hanging fruit for employers wanting to cost cut. When I first started work travel expenses were more generous with 'incidentals' allowances which were generous enough to defray some of the costs. Companies paid allowances for hotels, food etc. Employees could then choose to stay in a cheaper hotel, eat a cheaper meal and use the difference to pay for other costs.

Agree.

None of our meal allowances or per diems have gone up in the last 10 (or more) years so in real terms have come down given inflation. Its pretty hard to eat out for our dinner allowance now - and yes you could get a sandwich and eat that in your hotel room but I cook myself a proper dinner at home so should be able to have a proper meal when away with work too!

Travel booking system seems to delight in forcing you to take ridiculously timed flights and then if you book your airport parking through them ( as strongly recommended) you'll be put in the long stay with the bus drive, thus necessitating an even earlier start and late finish. Most of us just work our way round it.

Yup yup yup. Fuck off is the only hotel 'in policy' a travellodge on the other side of the city from the meeting location and where the client is staying...

Having to book 'room only' rates and then the hotel breakfast is more than we can expense.

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

Pretty difficult given taxable benefit rules.

Pretty difficult given taxable benefit rules.

There is nothing to stop the employer simply grossing up the amount to cover the tax liability. However I think the OP would be glad to have some contribution even if it was taxed