darthbimmer

It's politically delicate to show up the boss with a vastly lower set of expenses for the same trip. If the boss's boss is watching, you may make an enemy of your boss.

It's important, though, to appreciate the difference between saving money prudently and saving it foolishly. Staying at a hotel across the street for half the price is usually a prudent tradeoff. Staying an hour away to save the same amount may not be, as it drives up transportation cost and harms productivity. I've seen a number of situations where employees thought they were being wise to save, say, $100 of hard expenses but at a soft cost of several hours of productivity.

CPRich

Same. I've had the option for 20+ years. I used it a few dozen times BK (before kids), only once that I recall AK.

I haven't seen anyone suggest that it was mandatory. This, of course, would be ridiculous.

Badenoch

It would however with large corporations dedicated to saving every penny "ridiculous" is often right in their wheel house.

MCOGUY

I think it's a no-brainer not to stay if an employee chooses. (Oh yes, I can hear the jealous accounting types "He's getting a free vacation", but that's beside the point.) While I do most East to West coast travel, even with that it's a 3 hour time difference and traveling back east is a whole day. My company gives us a choice to travel home or stay if you have back to back weeks, but it's really to both our advantages to stay over; i.e. MCO to SAN for two weeks. Not only is the hotel/car/meals cheaper for the two nights (would have to fly back on Saturday and then on Monday), but they get a full day on Monday productivity instead of travel. On international much more so due to the time change and jet lag - productivity is king!

invisible

And we have even more cases when one is not allowed to book non-stop transcon flight which is $200 more expensive and have to go thru connection which adds 8h more travel time in each direction.

HkCaGu

My experience is about a religious denomination holding a global conference every 5 years mostly in North America. About 2,500 delegates, 80%+ from outside North America. A few thousand staff and exhibitors. Their spouses and maybe children. 60k other visitors. Eight days of business session and two worship days. Each day is 8 am to 9 pm with two 2-hour meal breaks.

There have been problems of delegate absenteeism, especially during the business sessions. The conference organizers have contracted downtown hotel rates long ahead of time (we're talking about $150-200 per room per night), but I'm not sure how the payers, local church organizations, especially from Africa and Latin America, pay for their delegations. If they pay for extra days, would that promote attendance? Shopping and outing are obviously very attractive, and are what the other 60k visitors are doing most of the time.

Also, the event drives up the price of downtown hotels and even suburban hotels the whole time. Even air fares are driven up. Could paying for "rest days" save money when the whole gang doesn't leave on the same day? From what I heard, after the last event, the departure airport was not ready to handle the departees on the day after.

MissJ

It's always up to the employee, but I have offered it to my team active they have traveled overseas. I travel waaay more than they have and I'm not about to be the a hole who insisted an employee rush back from their first time in Paris, for example.

Like I said in the other thread, as long as I can see the savings, sure, go for it.

Loren Pechtel

Travel was not a usual part of his job, he didn't know his boss was going to do that.

jrl767

perfect examples of how/why ---
(1) "one-size-fits-all" policy never does
(2) common sense is ridiculously uncommon

Yachtman

I have worked for an employer who whilst staying on to explore or bringing the wife out (one trip per year at company expense) was a published benefit, they did require a waiver signing that you were no longer the companies responsibility, although were still eligible under the corporate overseas travel insurance policy.

Often1

All points to the need to see the bigger picture by both employer and employee. Also, no hard & fast rules. Some people will fly TATL to see their family for 6 hours. If that is what they want, that is what they are due. Others are very happy to see the world and that is fine too.

Central to this is productivity. The employee who creates a need to be somewhere on Friday so that he can have Saturday & Sunday paid for overseas may get away with that 1-2x, but is someone who will fail and good supervision ought to catch that. Unless, of course, the employee is a top performer and the extra hotel costs are pocket change to keep him with the company.

Tax & liability considerations are also an issue. But, those are specific to the employer and employee's tax situation and there is no global "right" answer. In the US, it makes sense to document the reason for paying what might look like leisure expenses so that they are treated as "reasonable & necessary" and thus deductions for the employer and [U]not[U] income for the employee. Similarly, liability for the employee's conduct and well-being over the weekend is an issue and just signing a waiver may or may not be enough.

All of these are issues to consider. But, suggesting that there is a blanket policy which is always correct is what leads to companies which don't keep up with the times and wind up without top people.

MSPeconomist

It's not the employer's business whether an employee spends weekends with family or not. What an employee does during off duty hours should not be the concern of the employer, nor should supervisors keep records or monitor how subordinates spend their free time. For all the boss knows, the employee is at the beginning of a nasty divorce and that employee being away from the family is better for everyone, including the employee's supervisors, colleagues, subordinates, and customers or clients.

deniah

Well that's exactly the point, isnt it?

It's not an employer's business what its employees does on their weekend. That's why the employer has no business suggesting or "promoting" where they should spend their weekend. Least of all, for the interest of saving money.

hey bob have you thought about staying there a few days longer? its a pleasant town. (and you'll save us some money)

in this part of the world, there's been chatter about policing off-hour email activity. we have electronic keycard control. not to ensure employees work their minimum required hours... but to prevent employees from staying above their contracted hours and getting into trouble with the labor authorities.

promoting weekend activities? good luck

Badenoch

What really stands out is if you and the boss fly in the same class, stay at the same hotel and his meal expenses are three times higher. I ran afoul of a previous supervisor who pressed the limit while travelling while I tended to be more responsible.

I'd rather eat a takeaway meal in my room with a half bottle of wine than sit in a restaurant. Unlike my former boss I'm also not the type to expense every little item or avail myself of the most luxurious ground transportation. He accused me of trying to make him look bad.

darthbimmer

A connection adds 8 hours each way? That's more than just adding a connection, that's choosing an itinerary with a flight that leaves first thing in the morning, forces you to wait all day for a connection, then has you connect on the last flight of the evening. Filtering out absurd itineraries like those is one of the reasons business travel portals allow you to specify time ranges for departure and arrival.