teddybear99

Sorry, I don't "travel" for work, so I don't see why every meal needs to be reimbursed. I understand that your are not at "home" so you can't cook to save money when you eat, but I don't bring my lunch to work, and since I must take a break every day, I go out to eat. Also, as I don't like to cook and my wife is too tired after work to do so, we end up eating out most of the time. My job would not expect to pay me for my meals.

I don't see why every meal on the road needs to be reimbursed if you would not be reimbursed for a meal if you were working out of your home office. To me this is an added expense that just doesn't make sense.

I want to understand the reasoning most people feel they have to be reimbursed for something that would be an everyday occurrence back home. So please let me know why you feel your company needs to pay you for all your meals on the road when you would not get paid if you were at home.

lhrhappy

At home, I have the option to eat at home for one-tenth the cost of going out. On the road, that is not an option.

It is transparently anti-worker to suggest that someone should have to pay for the privilege of doing their job.

Suggesting that someone pay the inflated cost of dining out in a different city so that they can serve their employer's interests is downright stupid.

TTT

+1

It's the option to eat at home vs. eating out. Sure, I can choose to eat out if I want but when on the road I no longer have the choice.

HomerJay

Because when I'm on the road, I can't go to the fridge and pull out a salad I bought at Wegman's, or pull out something from the freezer that I can nuke. And if I make myself a burger, it certainly won't cost as much at home as it will in the hotel restaurant or even the chain restaurant down the street from the hotel. I don't tip myself at home, either.

If I stay at a hotel that comps me breakfast because of my status, I can see not asking for a breakfast per diem, but the other meals, there should be some per diem or reimbursement for the added expense and effort.

The other reality is that reasonable per diem money is tax free - and it enables some companies to actually pay less to younger, less experienced workers. They watch their expenses and pocket some of the money - without taxes - and that's a big plus for those just getting started.

Many years ago, I was just starting out and had a job with a management consultant company and being able to pocket a portion of the per diem money was like manna from heaven. The ramen noodles and fast food meals, not so much.

eigenvector

At home I spend around $200/month on food. I eat at restaurants perhaps two or three times a month. While travelling I often don't have the choice of where to eat (for example having to buy a $25 sandwich at Heathrow because of a flight near mealtime) and some cities are quite expensive. In London you can easily spend USD$100/day just eating basic meals. In America tips alone will run more than my normal food expenses for a day. On top of that I'm often stuck eating greasy, mediocre food that is available in hotels and airports because I don't have time to research good or healthy places to eat in a new city. So I expect either reimbursement or a per diem to cover the additional meal costs of travelling, just like I expect my employer to cover the cost of laundry if I'm away for a long time.

mdkowals

Ok, I'm fully on board now - that is a messed up policy.

Often1

It is all about choice.

If you choose to eat out for lunch every day, that is up to you. Same thing with how you define "eat out." Are we talking about a sandwich or a 3-course meal and at what type of restaurant. Or bring a PB&J from home.

That is not really true on the road and even more so when one is in a strange city or a place where food safety is a concern.

More importantly, it is about how an employer values its employees. Companies which treat their employees this way are at the head of the list for poaching. Not that people jump ship over a steak sandwich, but overall tone matters.

Companies got away with this during the financial crisis because it's better to have a cheapo employer than no employer at all. With the economy on screech, you get what you pay for.

mdkowals

For me on US travel, lunch is about $5-10/day more expensive on the road and dinner is about $20-25/day more expensive on the road for similar quality of food that I can make at home. My wife and I do love to cook, and her costs when I'm gone also don't scale down linearly (i.e. if a recipe costs $20 for the both of us, it'll cost $15 just for her).


In the short time that I've been travelling while married, my familes food costs are kept roughly whole by my company reimbursing lunch/dinner for me while travelling. I think that's what most people want, to be kept whole. If my company didn't reimburse meals, I'd be out $140-$150/week (>$2k/year for 40% travel).


Also from the business side, what if a company tries to save money by only recruiting people for travel positions that eat out every meal anyway, thus justifying the decision to not reimburse meals. (meaning only recruiting people who spend 700+ meals/year in an American restaurant)? Aside from limiting the talent pool, I believe there's a significant chance long term that health care costs would offset any savings on lunch.

There are some people that can pull off that lifestyle, but I'm not sure how many - I know I'm not one of them (I've tried, the results weren't pretty)!!

Exterous

Very recently my company (Who's annual budget is ~$1bn) started a policy that expense reports need to be reviewed by a Business Analyst for approval before being sent to the Supervisor for approval. Previously it just went to the Supervisor and mine were generally approved within 24 hours of being submitted without any real questions as long as it looked reasonable. I submitted my report on Monday and on Wednesday got asked why I was asking to be reimbursed for 3 Uber rides since I asked for personal mileage to and from the airport. "Shouldn't it only be two Uber rides at the destination?" So I had to explain that my wife took me to the airport but wasn't available to pick me up and that was cheaper than a week's worth of airport parking. The Uber ride in question was $21 and had a receipt attached.

One of my employees was retiring after 20 years of service to the company. In addition to cake, refreshments and some other snacks ordered by our admin assistant I picked up $33 worth of fruit and cheese platters from Costco that I submitted on Tuesday. Today I was asked to tally all the expenses to make sure that $33 didn't put us over our "hosting budget". Heaven forbid we might go $33 over on a party for someone who spent 20 years working for us. The horror!

Hopefully this settles down once the new policy gets rolling.

Proudelitist

Because I am away from my personal food supply, on behalf of the company. It's also why they pay for hotels. I am away from my own personal bed, on behalf of the company.

dangerhsun

Yes. As you said, we are traveling on behalf of the company. So the company is obligated to pay for whatever it is I need while traveling. The company is obligated to make my travel as comfortable as possible, because I am traveling for them. A weak or oppressive travel policy is a huge red flag for a company. It sends the wrong message, in my opinion.

Bandicoot

Keeping employees "whole" is only one part of it. When you travel, you're also giving up being at home, with your family, doing things you would be doing otherwise on evenings and weekends. It's not easy to put a dollar amount on that and reimburse an employee for the personal time they're giving up, but the next best thing, IMO, is not to be stingy about reimbursement for meals, accommodation, and reasonable other incidental costs during travel to keep employees comfortable. One hopes that the value the company is getting out of the employee's travel is not so low that a few dollars more or less materially affects the business case for the travel.

Proudelitist

I was at a company that got squirrley when I began buying food at the local supermarket instead of in restaurants. I did it for two reasons: It provides healthier options, and it's significantly cheaper. I didn't see a downside. THEY of course, saw it as a red flag...personal shopping. I provided itemized receipts..no personal items on there. All food. Really, I lived in PHX at the time..did they really think I was going to do my personal grocery shopping in Kansas City and haul it all home?? What's more, my expenses went way down from an average of 250 USD on a 4 day trip to 75 USD. I save them thousands over the course of a year.

They finally agreed, but it shouldn't even have been an issue.

lost_perspicacity

We have a dollar limit per meal, but no limit on number of meals per day.

Often1

Random audits are the best way to get rid of a lot of this silliness. Rather than paying an extra person to look at who might have spent too much on an Uber, better to randomly pull some reasonable percentage and go through those carefully. Perhaps one differentiates between small vouchers and large ones which have odd charges on them.