I think the point that many posters are trying to make is that even with the supposed benefits (e.g., increased pay and the privilege of travel) you are offering, you will still lose (or never acquire) top talent. Maybe you pay a bit more in salary, but many will consider the travel and reimbursement policies, make a judgment on how you treat your employees, and decide that it isn't worth the hassle of dealing with. "Do I really want to work for someone who is going to nickel and dime me?"

Every company nickles and dimes, those that don't tend to go out of business extremely quick.

If you're saying that most companies can't acquire "top" talent because they nickle and dime, then they probably don't want the top talent anyways.

The problem with employees is that they tend to think they're irreplaceable, in a global market no one is THAT talented.

A lot of "top talent" is unemployed because they refuse to accept that they might not be worth as much as they think they are worth; they're only worth what the market will pay.

If the market dictates that the per diem can only be used at certain restaurants, the employees can suck it up or end up unemployed, there will be another dozen people willing to do the job at the pay/compensation offered.

Your first statement, that "every company nickles and dimes..." is demonstrably false. Especially as regards the topic here: How companies handle travel expenses, specifically the use of contract restaurants. The vast, vast majority of companies do not do what you are advocating. Very few companies of any size build per diem in to the base compensation of their employees. More broadly speaking, good companies control their costs well (what I think you mean by "nickle and diming"), but not on the backs of their employees (with some exceptions such as highly cyclical businnesses that also share a lot of the upside with employees)

Truly top-tier talent is never unemployed long if they want a job. There may be people who think they're in that category who can't find work but that's not the same thing.

While there may be dozens of potential employees lining up for every vacancy, very few of them measure up to the standards of successful companies. We have year-old vacancies at my company that we can't find the right people for.

Employee as commodity - got it ^^

No they don't, my company is extremely fair in compensation, benefits, time off and travel policy.

Not irreplaceable, but very successful at what I do (measured). I would estimate it would take maybe up to a year for a new employee to even be comfortable in my position.

I perform to the expectations of what I get in return which is always negotiated before we even start and continually followed up every year in annual performance reviews. If at anytime I could not be compensated as I wish, then I would just find something else. Nothing is below me, I would go get a McJob if that was the only option.

However, as long as what I do is in demand, then I will continue to ask and expect what I get in return for it. It works out for both parties, as it is measurable performance.

Ahhh, no... I got better things to do with my time then worry about stupid policies that people who feel insecure about their position, or need a way to feel "powerful" come up with.

I don't remember who it was in this thread that wanted to pay someone more so they could pay less per diem, apparently, just because it made them feel better?

If there is a logical reason, or significant cost savings that can be measured that does not affect job performance I am all for it, however, the things mentioned here are just silly...

Didn't you start another posting because your former company always flew you up front? And you needed advice because you didn't even know what the coach section even looked like?

... Is your business the Marie Antoinette Cake Company?

I don't remember who it was in this thread that wanted to pay someone more so they could pay less per diem, apparently, just because it made them feel better?

I'm surprised they don't keep the same salary and expect the employees to suck it up and pay for everything themselves. Better yet, why not pay minimum wage with the same expectations? After all, no one should feel entitled to have a job, right? There's a long line out the door of people with PhDs clamoring for any minimum wage job, some money is better than none, it avoids the unemployment office, and it gives the employee something to do, right?

Nope, wasn't me. I rarely fly for work, and when I do it's out of my own pocket.

I really don't see why people don't see or refuse to see a per diem as nothing more than part of their compensation.

Would you rather have meals reimbursed or more cash in your pocket?

Nickle and diming IS part of life, except maybe to the folks that think the US government losing a trillion dollars that can't be accounted for is part of life.

The degree to which companies nickle and dime is up to them, if they can get away with it they will, if they can't the market will respond accordingly.

If your company says you can get reimbursed at certain restaurants, you can either start job hunting or deal with it.

You're entitled to what you can negotiate, if you suck at negotiating or want meals reimbursed instead of cash in your pocket that's all on you.

Not sure if really sarcastic or being serious, but my company hires entry level work at twice the minimum wage and we get people with PHDS and masters that ARE willing to work for the wages we offer.($12-14 an hour is hardly what I assume most PHDS and people with masters degrees would want to work for)

The job market sucks, even for the highly "skilled" and I doubt most travel jobs are irreplaceable.

My apologies serioustraveler I was mistaken

It's all good, I always find it amusing when I get mistaken for someone else's ramblings, it's almost more amusing than when my words are taken out of context or extrapolated to mean anything except what I've said.

My take is that per diem shouldn't be comp because travel frequency and destination are variable. The employer has the authority to ultimately determine if travel is required. Why should the employee take the risk?

If it is built into my base comp then each time a trip is proposed everyone takes one step back. The "volunteer" gets the honor of higher costs to eat on the road than the office mate remaining in the cube. Or I volunteer for the trip to Tulsa rather than NYC

A per diem (ideally with COLA for location) assigns the employee some limited risk that reimbursement by receipt does not. It is a good balance of risk to authority. I can manage my travel meals to some extent but food in the terminal will always cost more and brown bagging isn't always viable based on location, trip length or whether hotel has refrig

Ohhhh, that explains it, you are being screwed, have some kind of stockholm syndrome going on and expect others should suffer too? Unless your the boss/owner, then that is even weirder.

Because it's not.

That makes sense to you? They equal the same thing. Either the company is paying for the full cost of travel (win) or paying you some obscure amount more so you can pay part of all of the cost of travel (complicated for no reason except for the reason of being complicated).

So... I would rather be compensated for the amount agreed upon before being hired then to have my company cover all travel related expenses as agreed upon before working

Ummmm....

And yet you have to pay to fly yourself................

It actually doesn't suck in my market.... Just sounds like you are in a bad position and think it is OK...

After reading that thread, I guess the next step for the OP employer is to make an arrangement with those contract restaurant on a prix fixe menu (soup of the day, followed by one of the following 3 main courses, soft drink and coffee) to make sure that they don't pay a dime more than what they planned!

braslvr's opinions on employee "perks" are unfortunately very common among small business owners, and is why so many small business stay small.

Why should a top performer have to make that choice?

And by top performer, specifically in a consulting environment, I mean someone who can be billed to a client at $2000+ per day - for which the client gladly pays, because they derive more value than that from the services.

For that person - why would she ever have to make that kind of choice? That person will negotiate a full salary reasonable for that level of performance and expect all allowable travel expenses to be reimbursed in addition - preferably by per diem, if for no other reason than to not have to worry about any of these knucklehead details.

(And "top performer" has equivalent definitions in other settings. For example, if you have a financial auditor, who can "close the books" at a remote site in half the time as anyone else, that person would expect the same environment. And would get it somewhere.)