margarita girl

Curious how people feel about the following scenario. SPG gives a choice of 20% off or 2000 points for an approved BRG. If you submit a BRG request and it is approved, your company gets the benefit of the lower matched rate. Are you ethically obliged to take the additional 20% off or can you choose 2000 bonus points for your efforts?

sethb

I would do whichever had the greater value. But then, my points tended to benefit my company, at least indirectly. (E.g. when I added a personal stay to a business stay, and used points for the personal stay, I'd pick up whichever nights were the most expensive in dollars when they all cost the same in points.)

nacho

You are still saving the company's money as SPG is matching the comparison rate even if you don't get the 20% off. I can certainly explain it to my company about the BRG because I'm saving them $ and at the same time I'm not spending extra to get the 2k points - that's the difference.

hockeyinsider

I take anything the Ninth Circuit says with a huge grain of salt. It's the most overturned federal court.

sethb

That's because it hears a lot of cases. On a percentage basis, it isn't the most overturned court.

No, the 9th Circuit isn't the 'most overturned court in the country,' as Hannity says | PunditFact

pinniped

I can also see this question getting asked in such a way that people unfamiliar with the exact scenario won't know what you're talking about.

Q1: There are bundled hotel rates that fall within our corporate rate guidelines. Can I book them?
Q2: I'd like to purchase some extra frequent flier miles or hotel points for personal use. Can I expense that?

Q1 might get a "yes" from someone unfamiliar with bundled hotel rates, or just thinking "bundled" means breakfast or parking is included.
Q2 usually gets a different response.

Marriott15

Our issue with our company is no where in our travel policy does it say anything about bundled rates or hotel packages. Most of the time it is cheaper to get the food and parking package then to do it individually. But I have never been questioned about a package in the last 4 years.

nacho

If you are happy with what you are doing and despite that could be "potential" consequences in the future, there's nothing anyone can do to stop it.

What some of us are trying to tell you that there "might" be consequences and I don't know how old you are but a lot of us here are not in their 20s or 30s.

Great that you have such a great job and if the company you are working for has HQ in Scandinavia then I can tell you that their travel policy doesn't allow what you are doing.

For your company money point purchasing, sometimes some Marriott hotels have elite rates that gives you 1k point per night/stay.

pinniped

Neither does ours. It could never get so detailed to cover every possible scenario we run across in travel, but at some point there's an expectation to be smart and ethical about it. So if the food/parking rate was legitimately a good value, I'd book it knowing that if anybody asked about it, it would be super easy to explain. A bonus-points bundle...not so much.

C17PSGR

That is the problem with bundled rates, expense accounts, etc. Companies presume we are acting ethically and appropriately. I presume the hotel that set the rates with points isn't expecting someone to expense the higher rate but thinks someone might pay extra to top off their points account.

In connection with corporate policies and interpretations, I'm confident that I have as much familiarity with this issue as anyone around. A supervisor might stretch an interpretation, but ultimately, policy interpretations on issues like this for companies that are publicly traded in the US roll up to the audit committee. If the audit committee was asked whether it is OK for an employee to expense a bundled rate at Marriott that included parking and meals, they would say of course (the answer might be different if they use a per diem approach to meals). If they were asked whether it is OK for an employee to pay a higher rate so that the employee can receive additional points, well ... we all know the answer to that.

All that being said, these rates that include points bonuses often make no financial sense. You can simply buy them 1000 for $12.50. That being said, if the rate was $5 higher for 2000 points (and you were paying the $5 out of your pocket), maybe it would make sense.

darthbimmer

Here's a hypothetical example for people applying the word "stealing" strongly. Not that I disagree with you, per se; I'm just curious if you see these situations as comparable. Suppose I am traveling to a location where a Holiday Inn Express and a Fairfield Inn are located close to each other. The HIX sells for $129++ per night, the FI for $139++. I'm using these brands in the example because a lot of people consider them comparable. (If you don't, fine, but let's not argue that here.) Both rates are well within my company's guidelines for expenditure. Now suppose that MR is offering a 2x bonus points promotion and IHG has no promo. (Haha, that's unlikely, but let's not argue that either.) If I pick the FI because of that bonus am I stealing $10 plus tax from my employer? What if there's no bonus and I just happen to like the FI better?

C17PSGR

I can make a business justification case that there is a business advantage to those who are paying my expenses. My relationship with Marriott generally results in a lower overall expense over the year because I don't need to expense breakfast or sometimes dinner, don't need to spend time figuring out a room (I have 130 actual nights this year in Marriott/SPG properties -- there is some time savings in usually knowing how everything works), etc. It enhances my productivity. I could fly on Spirit rather than AA but since I'm normally upgraded to first and can pop into the AC for a quiet place to work, my relationship with AA keeps me productive.

Can you make a business justification for paying $10 more just so you can have points in your account?

CJKatl

Breaking my pledge to stop participating in this way off topic and exceedingly silly thread...

Common sense should rule. Choosing the slightly higher rate for the FI above is likely within the rules for most companies. I have worked for companies that would allow us to forgo limited service brands for safety reasons, but I've usually felt safe in an FI and would stay there. (Not the Fayetteville NC FI near the Eiffel Tower! But there was even a murder there IIRC.) Having status means I'm more likely to get a quiet room and there may be additional considerations between an FI and HI. That's very different than spending $150 on a room versus spending $180 for the same room for nothing different than stuffing points into your pocket. The first is a decision based on many factors. The second is a decision solely made to convert company money into points. C'mon, everyone knows the difference between a points difference that comes along with a decision made for several reasons versus a decision made solely for points. The latter is stealing. If you are getting the same room in the same hotel either way but you are turning more of the company's money over to the hotel so that they give you more points, you are stealing. It's not complicated.

Most corporate travel policies include provisions such as this one off an Internet sample: "Travel program benefits can be retained by the traveling employee, but cannot be the basis for selecting the air carrier, hotel, or car rental, unless such choice is equal in cost to the lowest cost acceptable alternative." There can be many reasons for choosing one hotel over another, but choosing the same room but a different rate solely to get more points from the higher rate violates this type of provision as there is no reason other than points for choosing the higher rate. Even if there is no such provision, what can you call converting company money into personal points other than stealing?

If you were questioned by your employer and your employer indicates there is no clear written provision allowing you to choose a higher rate to get points, how would you explain that you thought spending money to get additional points was acceptable? Frankly, saying "I thought it was okay" would sound silly as would claiming the maximum allowable means you should spend the full amount. Those types of answers could be career enders. It can easily be explained that converting company money into personal points is wrong, but how would you explain the opposite: that converting company money into points is acceptable?

One last thing... as another poster already mentioned, those of us explaining over and over again why this is wrong are trying to keep some of you from making mistakes that can impact your future. Better to err on the side of caution and not do something that can be questioned than try to justify to yourself why something clearly wrong is acceptable. As you can see, you are not convincing those that view this as stealing. We are mostly more seasoned travelers here and would likely be the types you will be answering to when your behavior is caught. Are a few measly points worth your reputation, your job, having to pay back the money later or maybe even worse?

End of rant.

C17PSGR

+1

Any many of us have seen more than one person get fired for travel fraud.

clarkef

I'm amazed that it is even a discussion whether booking a higher cost room solely for additional points is acceptable. AS CJ said, if you believe that is acceptable, simply ask the powers that be. If you are unwilling to do so, that's your answer.