OP, are the per diem rates billed to the clients? If they are, and clients are billed the per diem rates, then it sounds to me like the company is hoping to pocket the difference between what employees use and what the client is billed, rather than allowing the employees to pocket it. The lack of response about opting not to claim per diem makes it sound like that's what they're doing.

I too suggest starting to look elsewhere, but also asking for a written policy, including how dietary restrictions are handled as well as if one can opt out of taking the per diem amount.

That's outrageous. That said, Bone Fish isn't too bad and Texas Roadhouse is a guilty pleasure that I can't find near my home (only on the road). The list could be worse.

Still, this cannot possibly be sustainable long term. Penny wise, pound foolish.

Sounds like you're living in Dilbert's world. I'd probably be polishing my resume. Outrageous..

Yea, some of us have to pay for our meals when we work!

I'd look at it as a case of at least they're reimbursing you for some meals at restaurants they partner with instead of not compensating you for any meals...

Sorry for sounding UnAmerican, I guess my sense of entitlement is lacking today.

Just to be on the safe side, I would claim both Kosher and Halal.

My employer used to have (IMO) extremely generous per diems. If they'd reduced them by a third, I don't think anyone would have suffered - in most cases I couldn't spend the full amount even if I tried.

But instead, when they decided that travel expenses were too high, they replaced per diems with company credit cards (to be used when possible) and (if cc could not be used) reimbursement to employees of actual cost. There was no official daily limit; it was up to each employee to guess what was "reasonable" and then up to the employee's manager to decide whether they agreed that it was "reasonable." Needless to say, some employees were more thrifty than others; some managers were more accommodating than others, and in the end it's not clear it saved any money.

It did, however, increase the amount of time (during working hours) for the traveler to keep receipts and submit expenses, and for someone else to double check it and arrange reimbursements. But I'm sure they think this is a sensible use of time.

I've never heard of a company requiring employees on travel to pay for their own meals without any reimbursement whatsoever. It wouldn't surprise me however after reading the associated thread over on Travelbuzz.

I could see encouraging employees to eat in certain restaurants under contract, but mandating that is a completely different thing.

For US government travel if you look at the State Department web page it mentions that the perdiem rates are set as such to 'substantially' cover the cost of lodging and meals. Maybe your employer had a similar policy. When I used to travel on full per diem it was only very rarely that I would ever exceed the State Department rates, but often times I would meet the lodging rate because certain hotels in some countries always seemed to set their rates exactly at the maximum allowed US per diem rate.

Wouldn't they be better off just paying actuals on the corporate card, up to a certain per diem rate?

I'd tell them those places are unhealthy and I don't choose frozen and over processed foods high in sodium and all kinds of other preservatives.

Well, here is the way it was explained to me when I first started working out of town in the 80s. Per diem for meals is to help offset the cost of eating in restaurants as opposed to eating in your own home. You don't expect your employer to pay for your meals when you are home. Why should they pay 100% for nice restaurant meals every day out of town when that is something you might only occasionally splurge on when you are home? It made perfect sense to me then, and still does to this day. $20-25 per day even today in almost any city is more than fair, and if you want to splurge, pay for it yourself.

Perhaps. Ours was just for meals; hotels were paid directly in advance (by some mysterious transfer), and other out-of-pocket expenses (taxis, laundry...) were reimbursed from receipts. But the meal allowance for Europe would have covered a full cooked breakfast, three course lunch and three course dinner with wine every day. I love to eat, really, but I can't do that every day, particularly if I'm working.

In practice, the hotel rate included (a full cooked) breakfast so I got 75% of the per diem for lunch and dinner, and I made a tidy profit despite eating at some very nice restaurants in some of Europe's most expensive cities.

I don't really miss making the profit; my main complaint is the effort (and time) in collecting receipts (in handwritten French, Norwegian, Magyar, Japanese, ... - yeah, like anyone's going to check these!) and filing expense reports when I get back. The per diem ("here's your money; have a good trip") system was much easier and quicker.

I worked for one company that paid (straight reimbursement) for breakfast and dinner expenses on the road, but wouldn't pay for lunch. Supposedly, the rationale was that you would have had to buy lunch anyways -- I always thought it was wonky logic. And let to a lot of suspiciously late breakfasts/early dinners.

Why should traveling jobs pay for their employees meals?

How is it any different than a job where you don't get to travel?

We don't reimburse our employees for the lunches/dinners they get daily for working for us.

Meal reimbursement as a benefit seems pretty messy given the variables involved in deciding how much to reimburse a person and how large of a reimbursement to give them.

I understand reimbursing the employee for plane tickets and hotel rooms because it's part of the cost of traveling, but a person eating isn't doing anything he wouldn't normally be doing.

Then again none of my employees or I get to travel for work, but I'll be miffed if we start paying our employees lunch expenses.

The only difference, as I explained above, is that you are forced into eating out rather than having the (normally) cheaper option of eating at home. For this reason, a small per diem to help with the added expense is called for. Full reimbursement for fine dining is ridiculous.

Uhhh no...

If I am out of town for two weeks, so 14 days, you cannot assume if I was home I would be eating out for any of those days, let alone all of them.

The cost of doing business, out of town, should never affect the employee financially. I am there because it is my job to be there and I expect certain comforts as if I was at home, such as not eating Denny's every night and staying in comfortable rooms. I am a traveling tax write off.

We can just quash the whole "Get a room with a kitchen" BS, half the time I am lucky if I even find a decent room within 40 miles of my work site, let alone a kitchen suite.

Are you of the same opinion that businesses should pay for employees clothing? After all if I require my employees to dress sharp, it's affects the employee financially.

Where do you draw the line? If there are hourly employees and I need to cut back on hours due to a downturn in the economy I'll be affecting them financially via less work hours,?

The cost to be an employee needs to be weighed by the employee, if you don't want to pay for meals when you're being paid to travel the compensation isn't high enough and you shouldn't take the job.

Employee meals are simply another convoluted system of rewarding employees, in my opinion it's a lot less messy to just pay the employee a wage that is considered the industry "norm" and the employee can eat ham sandwiches if he wants to while traveling for work.

I guess it really doesn't matter, eventually there will be fewer and fewer people traveling for work thanks to technological advances and also because there will be fewer and fewer jobs....

If I have an employee work 13 hours in a row(a double) should I be required to BUY their lunch? After all they would otherwise be forced to financially shell out for food while "on" the clock(during their paid lunch/dinner break)


I give people money, they do a job that may require a uniform, training, travel, gas to get to work, gas to get home, hair cuts, shaving, etc.

Frankly as a business owner and also as someone that's been an employee, cash in the pocket of the employee is better than ME or them deciding benefits.

Happy employees are productive employees, the more work that is involved to make them happy means a loss of productivity.