beachmouse

I've had employers who see some dietary requirements as a good thing- can be a perception that someone who is seen as a healthy eater will take care of themselves in general and miss less work or require less accommodation in the workplace because of preventable illness or conditions. This is especially common with women- at a business lunch, you lose 'points' if you go with the fettucine alfredo instead of a salad-hold the cheese, dressing on the side.

COSPILOT

I'm very frugal with expenses, but it seems to be more common that someone demands more. I'm of the opinion that if you have specific diet needs, for whatever reason, you should mention that in your interview. I'm growing tired of traveling with people that make something simple become complicated. Eat the free breakfast with the hotel, or spend your own money. I hate hotel coffee for example, but that is my choice to have a higher standard. Shouldn't cost a company more money because of all this crap of I need XYZ or else... I miss the old days when people weren't so sensitive and sucked it up.

I bought sandwiches and coffee Tuesday morning from Starbucks to the tune of $63 dollars at 6 am for a group, and 1/3 of the group complained that I didn't consider their unique diet needs when I did this. Screw you and buy your own food.

rbwpi

+1 Sometimes I think, since you can't please all the people all the time, why even try.

Kevin AA

Of course they wouldn't expect you to eat pork. But they probably would approve the expense for fear of getting sued.

Proudelitist

A few weeks ago I admittedly booked a hotel outside of our travel booking department. But it was a good deal. 80 for a night plus some airmiles. Well, wouldn't ya know it, the boss had me cancel and book through the service..resulting in an expense of 100 dollars more at a less nice place.

RichMSN

I spent the last 5 years approving expense accounts as well as submitting them.

I've never rejected a single item nor have I had one rejected myself by my boss. I've asked a question or two, as has he, but it's always just to find out what the expense is (our expenses are approved and the receipts come later).

I've always instructed my employees that when they travel for the company, they should not feel they need to be out of pocket any more than if they were home. I gave lots of examples -- Starbucks in the afternoon, snacks between meals, if needed, whatever. We also didn't blink on someone who wanted to drink a few beers with dinner or even went out for a few beers with teammates or clients *before* dinner. Even alone.

This whole "not eating the hotel free breakfast" wouldn't even hit my radar cause I don't sit and wonder what kind of breakfast the hotel provides. I've stayed in hotels where the options were cereal and a wafflemaker with coffee-flavored water and I would never expect someone else to eat that in lieu of a nice breakfast.

Truth of the matter is this -- when people are trusted and you demonstrate to them that you trust them and that you're not treating them like children, they are better employees. They will go an extra mile for you and the company and they will, left to their own devices, do the right thing.

There's never been a single instance with my team where I thought someone was trying to take advantage of me or the company.

Others' mileage may vary.

Nhilar

Your implication is that these people should not be hired. Which if the dietary reasons are due to religious (no pork, no meat, exedra) or medical (no gluten, carbs, etc.) would be very illegal to bring up in an interview (USA). It is very unreasonable that because you are a cheapo and have no care about what you shove down your gullet to expect other people should behave as you do. Travel is very expensive for an employee, far more expensive than most people realize, far more than companies reimburse. It has been demonstrated that the additional costs are 1) Opportunity costs of not being home 2) Extra wear and tear on clothing (statistically proven) 3) Extra health implications cause by long flights (statistically proven) 4) Cast to provide luggage 5) Unreimbursed time for packing, unpacking, local travel, etc. Are you are complaining that someone wants to eat in a fashion that they are satisfied with and that they would otherwise if not at home?

COSPILOT

I should have probably phrased it better, because you are correct. That said, buying coffee and sandwiches used to garner a thank you, not a complaint session. I know the people well that I travel with, and their specific needs aren't religious or diet specific. They want what they want, and to heck with the entire group even it means multiple stops adding extra time.

So what I should have suggested is that someone mention that on any given day, because they saw something on FaceBook and are now boycotting Starbucks or McDonalds for whatever reason should be listed as high maintenance. I hate traveling with people like that, and yes, they increase expenses and more importantly our time away from home. When I travel, I want to accomplish as much as possible in the time that I'm in that city, not have a few in the group demand we bounce around different places for breakfast. The guy that refused to travel on UA after the Dao incident didn't do so for diet needs, he did it because he was boycotting UA at the expense of the rest of us. During his 6 months of temper tantrums, he cost us time and money. Throwing your hand up and waving your eyes at me because I suggest its best if we make do with the hotel breakfast that is free and very convenient because you have high standards? Sounds a bit like some of my family members that think anything less than a 5* hotel is a dump. Well, I stayed in a MicroTell Inn or whatever it's called and survived. Didn't like it, but I didn't complain to the person paying the bill...

Kevin AA

It's not illegal for a potential hire to bring that up in an interview. It's only illegal for the employer to decide not to hire someone because of their religion.

Of all the overblown arguments you've made against business travel, the one I bolded is the most ridiculous.

If business travel is that onerous to you, then don't take a job that requires travel. Problem solved.

Most people can deal with long flights and "unreimbursed packing time" (another ridiculous complaint). The FF miles and visits to other cities on the company's dime are worth it.

What makes business travel irritating (besides things out of everyone's control, like bad weather or rude airline employees) is whiny complaining picky high maintenance co-workers. Fortunately I never had to deal with that.

Nhilar

I've been business traveling for almost two decades now. I accept the downsides of travel because I like the job content and not necessarily the travel (And the companies I have worked for have all recognized the enhanced burden and treated us accordingly), perhaps if the travel were not all US domestic I would have a different opinion - really how often can one really care about seeing South Bend - and really when we go to "exciting places" it is not a vacation it is work - How much fun can you have after a 14-16 hour day anyway.

Extra clothing costs are real (two weeks ago I ripped a shirt cuff on a folding in arm seat tray due to a large metal sliver on edge) as is packing time (if like many of us, we may be "salaried" but we bill hourly and we must charge all work related time).

As ridiculous as my complaints sound to you, "high maintenance co-workers" sounds really silly to me - I worked for three companies in the same field for those nearly two decades and the travel rules are simple:

1. All have preferred Airlines, my current is UA others have been Delta, most of us are 1k some are GS - BE is not required - use of any other airline requires a waiver cost is of no concern - free to upgrade to first on our dime.
2. All have preferred Hotels, my current is Marriott any category - use of any other brand requires a waiver - cost here is usually the driving factor unlike airfare.
3. All allow independent rental cars, no need to share or no need for one if you prefer to Uber/Taxi (This one I found interesting as often 20 of us go to the same location) - we also have preferred rentals - current is National -
4. Companies pay GSA pre-diem for meals/incidentals no receipts required and they just pay the max - accounting departments found it was cheaper not to nit pick here.

So...where does "High maintenance" impact this at all, how is it even possible to be high maintenance - you book your plane, hotel, car and get paid per diem automatically - no chance to complain or ask for anything else? Anything above per diem you pay.

The enhanced cost of travel borne by employees has always been recognized by the companies I have worked for - we get to keep miles/points AND get a bonus over a certain travel threshold. If any company I move to in the future would not recognize that I would negotiate a higher salary.

P.S. Woe to the company that asks any questions relating to protected classes or medical and then DOES not hire the person.

Badenoch

I've had to deal with the prima donnas and it is one serious pain in the posterior. Traveling co-workers who fall into that category get a quick reminder that I am not their tour guide, father confessor or friend. We are there to do a job and nothing more.

Loren Pechtel

I think it comes down to how bad the free offering is. Most businesses wouldn't expect an employee to accept a Motel 6, they shouldn't expect employees to accept the Motel 6 level of food, either.

emma69

I see it another way. If my company doesn't see it fit that I use my own judgement when it comes to food (or flights, or accommodation - I select my airline / hotels when I travel, there is no chain preference or list to pick from) then why would they see it fit that I use my judgement when it comes to the decisions I make, the costs I incur and the contracts I sign on behalf of the company. It seems absurd that they would not bat an eyelid at my professional decisions which have a heck of a lot more cost implications, but would question my $15 breakfast. Ultimately, if you trust someone to have integrity when it comes to the job, that should extend to other areas of their professional life.

der_saeufer

This. Government does a lot of stupid stuff, but this isn't one of them. Excepting the situation where employees are expected to buy for others (e.g. entertaining clients), I don't understand why any organization feels the need to kill trees and waste time scrutinizing receipts for travelers' meal expenses. Set a fair per diem, pay it to everyone and be done with it. If the hotel breakfast is inedible, who cares if I spend $10 getting something edible down the road? If I want to make instant ramen in my hotel room coffee pot for 3 meals a day and save the rest towards a BMW, who but my cardiologist cares? And if I want to spend twice the per diem eating at really nice restaurants, it's my money anyway.

Treating your employees like kindergarteners just breeds resentment--especially when you're micromanaging something as personal and as irrelevant to work as people's food choices... and I say this as someone who's the exact opposite of a picky eater.

cbn42

Following that logic, if the hotel is good enough for you to stay at, their food should be good enough for you to eat. I don't think it's proper to have a higher standard for food than for accommodation.

I'm sure you realize the difference between performing your job duties (where you have no personal stake in the contract you are signing on the company's behalf) and reimbursement of your expenses (where you definitely have a personal stake).

But personally, I tend to not trust those who demand to be trusted and object to scrutiny of their actions. If your expenses are appropriate, you should have no problem justifying them when requested. If this bothers you, I would not trust you to make decisions on someone else's behalf. Ultimately, people who get defensive and indignant when questioned are often the ones who are more likely to be hiding something.