Contract Restaurants???
Aug 27, 2012 | 8:57 pm
#46
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: US
Programs: DL GE
Posts: 1,654
And someone else may have been hired as a result. Good for you that you managed to get the benefits you get out of your employer, but at the end of the day it's part of your overall compensation. Me personally? I would rather have higher pay and then I could decide how much I want to spend on food.
I'm looking at it from the basis that employee meals ARE calculated into the overall cost of doing the business, which does affect the rest of your compensation.
I treat my employees like humans, I pay them, they do work, we hang out occasionally. The one thing I don't let them do is walk all over me when it comes to business, because a unprofitable business isn't a business it's a charity.
Nickle and diming occurs whether you like it or not, because at the end of the day that's how a business turns a profit by watching the expenses.
Would you rather have the per diem set for dining out or have it tacked onto your paycheck so you can decide whether you want to go to Chiles or brown bag it?
They also shouldn't be required to act as sugar daddies.... But employees nowadays are more entitled than ever, so it is what it is.
There is no such thing as a free lunch, and when there is it comes with strings attached and a cost of some kind.
I'm looking at it from the basis that employee meals ARE calculated into the overall cost of doing the business, which does affect the rest of your compensation.
I treat my employees like humans, I pay them, they do work, we hang out occasionally. The one thing I don't let them do is walk all over me when it comes to business, because a unprofitable business isn't a business it's a charity.
Nickle and diming occurs whether you like it or not, because at the end of the day that's how a business turns a profit by watching the expenses.
Would you rather have the per diem set for dining out or have it tacked onto your paycheck so you can decide whether you want to go to Chiles or brown bag it?
They also shouldn't be required to act as sugar daddies.... But employees nowadays are more entitled than ever, so it is what it is.
There is no such thing as a free lunch, and when there is it comes with strings attached and a cost of some kind.
I don't it....
We don't get the balance of our un-used food allowance, is that the confusion?
Aug 27, 2012 | 9:06 pm
#47
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: US
Programs: DL GE
Posts: 1,654
Packing, waking up at 4am to deal with the airport and a 6am flight across the country to then deal with delayed or lost luggage, car rentals, finding your hotel or work site in a new town, sleeping in hotel rooms away from your family, poor diets that include super-sized portions and massive amounts of sodium...
Then only to re-pack, check out, find a gas station, deal with another airport (with a lot of time guesses), landing around midnight and finally getting to bed around 1am with jet lag.....
My job isn't a constant vacation. There is nothing sexy about the places I visit BUT... I love what I do, I love working for the people I work for and the clients we have. If I could do it around my home and never have to travel I would still be happy as a clam.. As I am in a unique position, that isn't possible, it is a very particular product and as a result I have to travel.
Do I hate traveling? No.. Do I see it as a Perk? No... It is just one of many elements of my job..
Aug 29, 2012 | 11:49 pm
#48
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,944
I guess it depends on how much and what kind of travel we're talking about. It's nice for a while, but traveling for work gets old rather quick if you're doing it on at least a semi-regular basis.
Aug 30, 2012 | 1:17 am
#49
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Northern California
Programs: UA Premier Gold, 1.5 Million Mile Flyer
Posts: 3,698
It does depend I'm sure. Our typical cycle is 14-21 days out, with a minimum of 7, usually more, off work at home. It has stretched to 30-40 days out a few times, but that's very rare. Average about 150 days a year in hotels. Max in one year was 250. The bigger factor is the location, and even that is viewed differently by different employees. It never gets old to me, especially if it's somewhere new. I understand how people with deep roots ie. kids, etc would find it rough, but there are still many of all ages who don't. I also don't envy at all those who do constant multiple short trips.
Aug 31, 2012 | 7:34 am
#50
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 1,399
Taxes
So lets say with 75% travel (weekends included - which we get a bonus for - mind blown?) and $50 a day in food, your going to add $6,843.75 to my salary and cap my reimbursement to $25 a day? Why? What if I only spend $30 one day, $40 the next? This doesn't make any sense.. My food is a write off is it not? Are you claiming the full receipt value, even though your employee is paying half?
I don't it....
We don't get the balance of our un-used food allowance, is that the confusion?
I don't it....
We don't get the balance of our un-used food allowance, is that the confusion?
Aug 31, 2012 | 11:09 am
#51
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Dallas, TX
Programs: AA GLD, Marriott PLT, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 2,900
Sep 2, 2012 | 7:53 am
#52
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: US
Programs: DL GE
Posts: 1,654
Sep 2, 2012 | 1:18 pm
#53
Join Date: Apr 2012
Programs: United 1K, Marriott Platinum
Posts: 835
Or the good ones calculate that into their overall compensation, and if their compensation isn't high enough they walk.
Good employees know what they're worth and understand that they don't need bogus benefits if they're being paid what they're worth.
"Good" employees should resent being given per diems and instead should just opt for better pay.
Travel is often highly variable over the short and long terms which makes tying your compensation to it an unnecessary and unproductive risk for both parties (my travel month over month can vary 100% and year over year by 50% or more). How would I negotiate that into my compensation in a way that makes sense for both parties?
Do you also have your employees they have to buy their own office supplies? "Really, trust me, it's built in to your compensation." (And why stop there? Why not have employees pay for the office utilities and build that in to their compensation? They are, after all, the ones using up all the heat and A/C.) Not very many high end people are going to want to do that anymore than they're going to want to be told that they're on their own for meals while traveling for the company.
Last edited by KurtVH; Sep 2, 2012 at 4:06 pm
Sep 2, 2012 | 1:49 pm
#54
Suspended
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: DCA
Programs: UA US CO AA DL FL
Posts: 50,253
Most businesses which have compensation / reimbursement tax issues, either because of heavy travel to one location or international, pay for the tax accounting services which surround these issues and "gross up" the compensation of employees adversely affected by tax consequences.
While it's expensive and time-consuming for the individual to deal with this, a good accounting firm can make short work of this. If an employee pays roughly 40% of compensation in various taxes (federal, state, social security), a $10,000 tax treatment of compensation as reimbursement can mean $4,000 for the employee. Or put another way, if the employee travels at the employer's convenience to a location for a sufficient period of time to cause his reimbursements of $10K to become taxable, most employers would up the employee's compensation by $4K+ tax on that, so that the employee isn't affected by the travel issue.
While it's expensive and time-consuming for the individual to deal with this, a good accounting firm can make short work of this. If an employee pays roughly 40% of compensation in various taxes (federal, state, social security), a $10,000 tax treatment of compensation as reimbursement can mean $4,000 for the employee. Or put another way, if the employee travels at the employer's convenience to a location for a sufficient period of time to cause his reimbursements of $10K to become taxable, most employers would up the employee's compensation by $4K+ tax on that, so that the employee isn't affected by the travel issue.
Sep 2, 2012 | 2:03 pm
#55
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 129
Do you also have your employees they have to buy their own office supplies? "Really, trust me, it's built in to your compensation." (And why stop there? Why not have employees pay for the office utilities and build that in to their compensation? They are, after all, the ones using up all the heat and A/C.) Not very many high end people are going to want to do that anymore than they're going to want to be told that they're on their own for meals while traveling for the company.
At the end of the day nothing happens in a vacuum,and wildly unpredictable travel expenses means the business has wildly unpredictable expenses.
Do you think employers should pay for meals of all their employees? How is it any different or "unpredictable" than paying for meals when they travel?
At the end of the day a per diem IS part of the overall compensation and a lot of people would rather have cash in their pocket and would prefer to decide what they want to eat.
It's no different than restaurant employees having to buy their uniforms, flair, shoes, or anything else.
It's up to potential employees to decide whether or not the expenses of working are worth the job.
Sep 2, 2012 | 3:13 pm
#56
Original Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 739
> Don't you have receipts and turn them in with an expense report?
Yes, but ...
I'm supposed to charge ALL meals to the corp credit card. I am required to report them
on my expense report as NON-reimbursable. Then, I am to claim/expense only the daily
per-diem.
The NON-reimbursable gambit is how the employer shakes-down, errr, collects the
rebate from the contract restaurant(s).
Yes, but ...
I'm supposed to charge ALL meals to the corp credit card. I am required to report them
on my expense report as NON-reimbursable. Then, I am to claim/expense only the daily
per-diem.
The NON-reimbursable gambit is how the employer shakes-down, errr, collects the
rebate from the contract restaurant(s).
Sep 2, 2012 | 3:40 pm
#57
Original Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 739
> My employees over the years have by and large considered traveling for work
> to be a privilege
Privilege? Really? How many nights/year do they spend away from home? Are these
seasoned/experienced professionals? Or; college hires that are pulses in chairs?
I'm doing 100+ nights/year away from home' for the past 15 years. I don't consider it a
"privilege." It's simply part of my job. It was fun/glamorous for the first 5-6 weeks of
year #1. Beyond that, it's merely a personal cost. My family indulges me, since my job
satisfaction has been high.
One of the "treats" of the job used to be seeking out the hole-in-the-wall restaurants
that do something "special." Sadly; the mom & pop ops, are seemingly, now out of
bounds.
Then there is the matter of road trips. It's quicker to drive FNT-to-DAY than fly. So I
drive. If I need a meal, I've gotta plot-out and seek-out the contract restaurants.
Frankly; I'd like to have the OPTION of eating a Wendy's spicy chicken sandwich & cup
of ice, while driving. But that's not Kosher; or kosher.
At this point, there's the whole matter of what-is and isn't permissible is a goofy
productivity inhibitor. Whoever dreamed-up this [cough] plan, cannot possibly have
traveled significantly. I remember a colleague inquiring about, buying a coach-meal
on a plane? Crickets. What about a meal in the terminal? Crickets.
Me? For now, I am not gonna claim the per-diem. Too many unaddressed nuances
that might result in one of the Whiz Bangs at the Head Shed deciding that I am
falsifying an expense report. The risk ain't worth my job or my pension. Besides, if
I collapse from malnutrition-while-travelling, the hospital (health insurance) will feed
me. <g>
> to be a privilege
Privilege? Really? How many nights/year do they spend away from home? Are these
seasoned/experienced professionals? Or; college hires that are pulses in chairs?
I'm doing 100+ nights/year away from home' for the past 15 years. I don't consider it a
"privilege." It's simply part of my job. It was fun/glamorous for the first 5-6 weeks of
year #1. Beyond that, it's merely a personal cost. My family indulges me, since my job
satisfaction has been high.
One of the "treats" of the job used to be seeking out the hole-in-the-wall restaurants
that do something "special." Sadly; the mom & pop ops, are seemingly, now out of
bounds.
Then there is the matter of road trips. It's quicker to drive FNT-to-DAY than fly. So I
drive. If I need a meal, I've gotta plot-out and seek-out the contract restaurants.
Frankly; I'd like to have the OPTION of eating a Wendy's spicy chicken sandwich & cup
of ice, while driving. But that's not Kosher; or kosher.
At this point, there's the whole matter of what-is and isn't permissible is a goofy
productivity inhibitor. Whoever dreamed-up this [cough] plan, cannot possibly have
traveled significantly. I remember a colleague inquiring about, buying a coach-meal
on a plane? Crickets. What about a meal in the terminal? Crickets.
Me? For now, I am not gonna claim the per-diem. Too many unaddressed nuances
that might result in one of the Whiz Bangs at the Head Shed deciding that I am
falsifying an expense report. The risk ain't worth my job or my pension. Besides, if
I collapse from malnutrition-while-travelling, the hospital (health insurance) will feed
me. <g>
Sep 2, 2012 | 4:03 pm
#58
Join Date: Apr 2012
Programs: United 1K, Marriott Platinum
Posts: 835
All of these are factored into the overall cost of doing business and DO affect employees compensation.
The labor market is just that, a market. Companies compete for employees just as they do for clients. The market is the main determinant for compensation; not the cost of travel or office supplies.
At the end of the day nothing happens in a vacuum,and wildly unpredictable travel expenses means the business has wildly unpredictable expenses.
Not sure what the point is here. Expenses fluctuate; sometimes a great deal. Sometimes increased costs result from increased business activity (e.g. sales) and are far from unwelcome; the converse can also be true. Other times increased costs result from poor management or other negative factors. Those are clearly a different thing. If a company's goal is to make travel expenses a constant on the backs of the employees, it won't retain the ones who have options (unless they're overpaying them, which will be much more detrimental to the company's viability than dealing with some fluctuations in travel costs).
Do you think employers should pay for meals of all their employees? How is it any different or "unpredictable" than paying for meals when they travel?
No, I think employers should pay for business expenses. That means when employees have to eat out because of travel the employer should cover those additional costs. Almost all companies do that by paying actual expenses or paying a per diem rate. Employees who are not traveling aren't incurring those costs in the course of conducting business for the company and thus are not compensated for an expense they didn't incur for the company. This is a very straightforward concept.
At the end of the day a per diem IS part of the overall compensation and a lot of people would rather have cash in their pocket and would prefer to decide what they want to eat.
Per diem for meals and incidental expenses is not a part of compensation. It is reimbursement of expenses the employee incurred on behalf of the company.
It's no different than restaurant employees having to buy their uniforms, flair, shoes, or anything else.
My company reimburses for shoes and other personal protective equipment. Others don't. What's the point?
It's up to potential employees to decide whether or not the expenses of working are worth the job.
The labor market is just that, a market. Companies compete for employees just as they do for clients. The market is the main determinant for compensation; not the cost of travel or office supplies.
At the end of the day nothing happens in a vacuum,and wildly unpredictable travel expenses means the business has wildly unpredictable expenses.
Not sure what the point is here. Expenses fluctuate; sometimes a great deal. Sometimes increased costs result from increased business activity (e.g. sales) and are far from unwelcome; the converse can also be true. Other times increased costs result from poor management or other negative factors. Those are clearly a different thing. If a company's goal is to make travel expenses a constant on the backs of the employees, it won't retain the ones who have options (unless they're overpaying them, which will be much more detrimental to the company's viability than dealing with some fluctuations in travel costs).
Do you think employers should pay for meals of all their employees? How is it any different or "unpredictable" than paying for meals when they travel?
No, I think employers should pay for business expenses. That means when employees have to eat out because of travel the employer should cover those additional costs. Almost all companies do that by paying actual expenses or paying a per diem rate. Employees who are not traveling aren't incurring those costs in the course of conducting business for the company and thus are not compensated for an expense they didn't incur for the company. This is a very straightforward concept.
At the end of the day a per diem IS part of the overall compensation and a lot of people would rather have cash in their pocket and would prefer to decide what they want to eat.
Per diem for meals and incidental expenses is not a part of compensation. It is reimbursement of expenses the employee incurred on behalf of the company.
It's no different than restaurant employees having to buy their uniforms, flair, shoes, or anything else.
My company reimburses for shoes and other personal protective equipment. Others don't. What's the point?
It's up to potential employees to decide whether or not the expenses of working are worth the job.
Sep 2, 2012 | 4:47 pm
#59
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Northern California
Programs: UA Premier Gold, 1.5 Million Mile Flyer
Posts: 3,698
> My employees over the years have by and large considered traveling for work
> to be a privilege
Privilege? Really? How many nights/year do they spend away from home? Are these
seasoned/experienced professionals? Or; college hires that are pulses in chairs?
I'm doing 100+ nights/year away from home' for the past 15 years. I don't consider it a
"privilege." It's simply part of my job. It was fun/glamorous for the first 5-6 weeks of
year #1. Beyond that, it's merely a personal cost. My family indulges me, since my job
satisfaction has been high.
> to be a privilege
Privilege? Really? How many nights/year do they spend away from home? Are these
seasoned/experienced professionals? Or; college hires that are pulses in chairs?
I'm doing 100+ nights/year away from home' for the past 15 years. I don't consider it a
"privilege." It's simply part of my job. It was fun/glamorous for the first 5-6 weeks of
year #1. Beyond that, it's merely a personal cost. My family indulges me, since my job
satisfaction has been high.
It does depend I'm sure. Our typical cycle is 14-21 days out, with a minimum of 7, usually more, off work at home. It has stretched to 30-40 days out a few times, but that's very rare. Average about 150 days a year in hotels. Max in one year was 250. The bigger factor is the location, and even that is viewed differently by different employees. It never gets old to me, especially if it's somewhere new. I understand how people with deep roots ie. kids, etc would find it rough, but there are still many of all ages who don't. I also don't envy at all those who do constant multiple short trips.
Specialized training and skills, yes.
Privilege, Really! For many. Not sure why this is such an odd concept, especially to folks who read and post here.
Sep 2, 2012 | 4:52 pm
#60
Suspended
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Atherton, CA
Programs: UA 1K, AA EXP; Owner, Green Bay Packers
Posts: 21,685
