PETER01

You could be onto something there corporate-wage-slave as mysteriously I am now a size 32 which I don't believe!
I’ll look out for that

Back on topic, I never realised it was so different between companies, it's really opened my eyes up should I ever have a job in the future travelling and been quite educational to read with so many different scenarios/the many travel policies and of course members views etc.

Pete

lhrpete

Although I'm now retired I always refused anything to do with any travel that was not in business or greater.

Twice I was told that the company policy was Y and no exceptions and twice I turned down the job only to have them come back and suggest I manage my own travel through expenses and not the company agent. That effectively meant I could book what I liked with who I liked and I did. Expenses were paid promptly.

The corporate world is more greedy today so I doubt it would happen but it was good while it lasted.

I am offered consultancy work these days and I only take it on the basis of fee plus expenses - and I determine the latter.

Raffles

LondonAndy

Perhaps, but in the roles I'm recruiting for there are a number of people who could do the job, so I'm less likely to hire someone who is seen as "needy". It also, from my personal point of view rather than professional, shows a lack of faith in the company doing the right thing for employees if you have to start questioning the T&E policies in the interview. We don't travel by plane so much but for train travel employees can travel by whatever class/route they want so long as it is less than the case of an anytime standard ticket - this means that many people travel on advance first tickets, and that's fine. When greater flexibility is required then sometimes people (including me) have to travel standard rather than first, and most people seem fine with that.

woodey

ords

And for me as a small business owner with 10 employees, we line item our travel budget to include J on trips over 4 hours, globally. Y anything within the US being based in Chicago. I was just in London for 1.5 day meeting and there would be no way I would have done Y and still be in the right mind set. From a company's perspective there's two areas I do no scrimp on; health benefits and travel. There's always a cost, either in time, health, money or opportunity and they're all interrelated.

To me there's no right or wrong to this answer. It's all about risk/rewards and it's going to be different with each person or company.

jbfield

Starship73

Often1

It all depends on the industry and the seniority. OP is someone who is being offered 24K after taxes (let us presume roughly 30K) merely for the asking. This is likely a more senior position than one where someone in HR has much say beyond processing paperwork and the like.

While the junior candidate who seems too needy may well be a problem employee, that is not the case when hiring senior people who have a wealth of experience. If the company is prepared to toss 30K on one issue, either the company is naive or the OP is a sought-after candidate.

You are entirely wrong about corporate TA's and their ability to do split billing. While I cannot speak for every branch of every corporate TA, in the US/EU, it is becoming entirely common for employers to require TA's to offer this. From the TA perspective, it is an additional 30-seconds work when ticketing because the corporate and employee credit cards are both on file and it is simply a matter of attributing how much of a ticket goes to which card and that split is established by the employer's policy.

If one is hiring clerk-typists who can be found for the asking, there is no reason to go out of the way for them. But, when it comes to senior professionals who may offer services which go directly to one's bottom line, acommodating differences is exactly what successful companies can do and routinely do. (Not to suggest that one can't be successful without doing this).

seattle29

A friend of mine founded an IT firm in Seattle that ended up having around 400 employees, all of whom were required to travel a lot. Back in around 2002 he announced a new policy that all travel was now to be in Y (even long-haul), which was obviously unpopular.

To mitigate the anger, he announced that in future, every time someone travelled, 1/3 of the theoretical increase to J would be put aside in a fund. For example, if J was $2000 and Y $500, 1/3 of the $1500 difference ($500) would be added to the pot.

At the end of the year, the pot was shared equally between all staff, and each received a Christmas bonus of around $30k (equal to 2-3 months salary). Everybody loved it and nobody complained about travelling in Y again. The company saved $24 million per year and everybody was happy.

Flexible preferences

But why would you see someone as 'needy' if they wished to ask about the company travel policy at interview? Likewise, the salary, hours, leave or any aspect of the work. I don't see the difference.

Jed

I would certainly not reject a good job just because of a Y only travel policy, as long as it was a job that required no/minimal work travel.

corporate-wage-slave

Well a clever interviewee would frame it all carefully without causing distress:
"I understand the job involves a certain amount of travel, what policies cover this area? And is there an expectation to travel at weekends for example?"

Mind you, many companies and government bodies are working on the basis of Structured Interview Protocols to keep HR and Legal on side, so you get through that in a fairly clinical fashion, make a decision about whether to offer a job, and then there is a separate dialogue about pay and conditions before acceptance of the job offer.

Flexible preferences

Yes, I can see what you're saying and would agree. I still don't get why it would be seen as needy to ask about the travel policy (assuming of course that was within a wider dialogue about many aspects of the role). To me it seems perfectly reasonable to ask.

rossmacd

If my questions in an interview defined me as "needy" rather than exploring all of the information I require to decide to accept a job offer, then I certainly would not want to be working for your organisation. Interviews are not all one-way streets.