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

[Sweetmarzipan]

So background. DH works in a fairly male dominated industry.

When he first started in this company he would be away fairly often. One or two nights away every 4/6 weeks. One week in April and the odd conference.

I almost always went with him if I could for no other reason than the free hotel. If there were other colleagues they would have have their spouses with them as well. We became friends with many of them and still socialise. Irrelevant to my post but we always had separate bills and we never exploited expenses and we never saw other colleagues do this either but obviously the room was the same price regardless of occupancy.

Covid came along and other ways of doing things came about so audits etc were done remotely and these trips are now few and far between.

Last week I did join him for the first time in probably 6 months. He was leaving the centre with a male colleague in his fifties and a female colleague (mid thirties but I don’t know if anyone will find ages relevant) who had joined the company around three to six months ago (DH and colleague differ on the dates).

As they left to check into hotel the female colleague asked if they were eating, but they said that they had their wives with them and the male colleague said that she was welcome to join them but she declined. We had booked a pub meal on our own.

They were all together on Friday but over the weekend she has made a complaint suggesting that I and the other colleague’s wife had deliberately tagged along as they believed she would be unprofessional and inappropriate.

An email has now gone out saying that spouses are no longer able to tag along.

Colleague was spoken to face to face and the bosses did seem apologetic. DH was on a site and saw the email and was phoned by one of the directors again with apologies.

Surely she should have been told about the culture of the company. I am really gobsmacked. Two other wives have texted me this morning and they feel the same. We had a really nice lifestyle there which is bound to have created a nice work environment.

I know. It's almost as though the policy change was already signed off and ready to be rolled out isn't it!

Yes that’s me. Love me an auld fella auditor type. I’m just hoping one day one of the many wives finally has to something to do other than attend her husband’s business trips so I can make my move ;)

Oh good, a comment that is not intense and weird about a perfectly normal situation.

All sorted then :)

Of course, it wasn't the wives who thought the weird colleague was after their husbands, as far as we know. It's the weird colleague who self owned that she is known for inappropriate and unprofessional behaviour.

I wish the OP would give more info, but I think that's her buggered off.

I’ll go back to worrying about losing my job, while other people have the luxury of throwing their toys out of the pram because they were asked not to bring their OH on a work trip ;)

I agree with you but I think the whole thing is odder than that. The alleged reason for the complaint doesn’t sound right, either.

I am dismayed that so many are accepting this at face value and taking against the female colleague.

Of course, it's not a luxury not to be threatened with sacking or terrified of losing your job because you want to pay for your own wife to come on a trip with you and spend time with her after work finishes.

That would just be normal behaviour and be treated as such by an employer. And it's not actually the scenario the OP discussed anyway, just a possible one.

And, of course, the reality is they just probably won't bother now it's no longer a freebie.

Well it was actually the new colleague who threw her toys out of the pram trying to manipulate a situation where she gets to have dinner with these men she was so annoyed about spending their evening with their wives instead of her ;)

We can only go with what we're told. If the information is true the female employee is an intrusive, attention seeking weirdo with form for being unprofessional.

If OP cares to fill us in some more, we can make other judgements.

I don't think taking your spouse with you has ever been common, it certainly wasn't 20 or 30 years ago. If anything, I suspect it happens more now as people become more interested in a better work life balance, and wfh means that more spouses are probably able to travel.

But socialising after work when it's not the substance of your work (as it might be when you're networking at a conference, or entertaining a client) would be very hard to require. Now that ECHR is incorporated in UK law, tribunals tend to strike out clauses that breach article 8.

Why should people have to socialise with their colleagues in the evenings, though? I’m from London originally so if I have to stay overnight there for a work thing, I generally meet up with a friend or a relative for dinner in the evening. Do think that’s ‘inappropriate’ too? What about people who just want to watch a film in their hotel room with a room service burger? Should they give up their evening for a needy colleague who can’t source her own dinner?

For what it's worth, though I think the company are on pretty shaky ground trying to tell their employees what they can and can't do in their own time when they're traveling for work, I have sympathy for the female colleague given the environment the OP describes and can totally see why she might have made a complaint.

A male dominated industry with very few, if any, women traveling to clients. She may well have already been subject to discrimination in the form of not being welcomed in the same way as a male colleague might. Not being asked to play golf or five-a-side or whatever. Subject to comments about her looks or assumptions that she's more junior than she is because that's what all the other women are. Difficulty getting people to acknowledge her idea in meetings. Etc. It can be very hard being one of the first women in a traditional firm. So I see why she might have been on edge and seen the presence of the wives (which is not a widespread practice) as one more way in which she's getting shafted by sexism in the workplace.

OP was a more generous about her than a lot of posters on here. And her suggestion - that the firm simply explain it's been happening for years and nothing to do with her presence on the trip - seems more reasonable than suggesting she's a problematic woman who will try and get all the guys into trouble the way some posters are.

Vs where I am mate it really bloody is. I wish I
had any way of saving my job not to mind such a small ask.

I think it is far more likely that this is what the female colleague flagged, rather than this made-up crap that she felt that the wives thought she wanted to jump their husbands.

"How did you find the trip"?

"I thought it was a bit unusual that some colleagues brought their wives along. I've never heard of that before, how do you get round the tax issues of rooms being for business-use only?"

It sounds to me like the wives in this case have decided that they are a part of the company and use work trips as an excuse for socialising all together. They feel put out that a single female colleague came along (especially when one husband invited her to dinner with him and his wife) and have made up some spurious gossip about why their jollies have finally been brought to an end. It's all a bit stifling, going away on business trips, having the phone numbers of your husband's colleagues' wives...

Perhaps find something to do of your own, OP, so that you don't feel put out when your husband's business trips no longer include you.

I am sorry you're going through that. That sounds hellish, and explains your stance. I wish you luck.

Better work life balance is soon to be replaced by mass redundancies. It’s highly unlikely in 20 years that 3 people will be going on such a trip, the auditor robot will do it.

I

Or they could get jobs or interests of their own? No one is telling them to stay in the kitchen.

Obviously these trips don't coincide with any work commitments so why should to not be allowed to go? Because new colleague was put out? Best they stay home right? She's trying to put them in their place.

If the room isn't fully tax deductible because one of the occupants is a non-employee using it for leisure, then there is a tax implication.

Sorting out might not be a mountain of work, but they're under no obligation to do it.

At the end of the day the basis for it is irrelevant. A policy of not allowing guests in a company room is not illegal, or discriminatory. It'd be non-contractual so an employer wouldn't even need employees agreement to implement it.

The employer can say no guests in the rooms they are paying for.
But they can’t dictate he spends his free time/eats with colleagues.
It also potentially means some staff will now ask for reasonable adjustments for health/disability reasons that haven’t previously been needed, taking employer time and possibly Occupational health costs.
There’s also the potential knock on effect of loss of staff goodwill. Employer may find staff less willing to travel and sticking to exact wording of their contract. In some professions it’s hard to recruit and retain experienced staff especially if anti social elements like regular working away from home is a requirement.

I feel sorry for this poor woman, being excluded by her colleagues because they all wanted to play happy holidays with their wives on what was meant to be a work trip. Certainly doesn't sound like a friendly place to work.

How does the female colleague have form? That would imply prior examples.

OP said that her DH ‘saw an email’. Either he snooped, or someone showed him something not meant for him. A director rang to apologise for the new company policy, sending a pretty strong message in so doing.

Someone is being unprofessional, but it does not sound like the female colleague.

I still find the anti-wives comments bonkers.

What do you all think about longer placements where the employer puts seconded staff in family accommodation? Is this, too, an outrageous abuse of corporate funds, a taxation nightmare, abusive toward single staffers who get a one-bed apartment and have to sort their own dinner plans?

What's the transition point, and why?

As it's a non-contractual policy change, all they're required to do is communicate it clearly and effectively and give reasonable notice before enforcing it.

This is a well worn bit of tax code. If the room is the same as the one they would book if OP didn’t tag along and costs the same regardless of how many people are in it, or if OP and her DH pay any excess, then there are no tax implications for the company. It’s only if the company pay more because OP is there. That there would be a concern about benefit in kind. But OP has been pretty clear that they do any extra billing separately and cover the excess costs themselves.

OP said that her DH ‘saw an email’. Either he snooped, or someone showed him something not meant for him.

Or this was referring to the staff email he saw before the director rang him? It's not clear.