Originally Posted by
lg10
But that doesn't even make sense...suppose his cousin lived in town and
he was staying with her instead, for example...are you saying that anyone
who opted out of the company-provided housing had to pay for what they
would have used?? The "other 50%" is just to make the bookkeeping
simpler for the company, i.e. a dummy employee. It's really the person
opting to rent their own accommodations.
--LG
Uh-uh.
In that case there's no charge - the company expects to pay for two in the room and will. If one party chooses not to sleep their, that's their business but they're not incurring extra expense for the company.
But you're right, in actual practice they are renting their own accomodations.
But when they do so it isn't a matter of simply paying 50% more and getting a private room.
In the situation I was describing the employee who doesn't want to double up is in effect, not accepting what the company is providing -- their half of the 2 person accomodation. So, although there's no out-of-pocket expense to them for doing so, they're still, in effect, "paying" (with their half of the lodging expense being provided to them) for one-half of the other party's now-private accomodations.
They're also Incurring a full (100%) charge for the private room they intend to occupy.
It's not simply a matter of "I'll pay the 50% so I can have a private room."
BTW, had it been up to me, everyone would have had a private room -- I think it is inherently unfair to force employees to involuntarily surrender their personal privacy as an expense saver.
If a company cannot find another way to do it, then let them meet via video conferencing.