I do miss the days when I worked for a company that had a brilliant policy: You get X per month. Don't exceed it.

Yes. That simple. The company decided that they were willing to spend X per month to get the job done. So long as I got the job done, I could spend it on bubble gum and yarn if I wanted. So long as the work got done. It didn't matter if I drove, or flew, or at fast food, or ate at 5 star restaurants. So long as the work got done.

To give incentives for staying under budget, the company allowed me to roll any savings from the monthly budget into the next month. So if I played my cards right, buy 3rd and 4th quarters I was flying in C and staying at resorts, enjoying steak dinners..and I never had to explain any of it because I got the work done and was under budget. It was amazingly simple.

As I've worked at smaller companies the past many years I've never had the benefit of a contracted low rate. I've got to pay market, which means that renting a car mid-week -- and generally on short notice -- typically runs about $70/day, with surges to $100+. Two days at such rates, plus $50-70 gas (on a 500 mile round trip), plus local transportation getting to/from the rental station, makes the cost comparable to driving my own car at the published reimbursement rate.

Of course, if I can find a rental car more cheaply it becomes a cost winner. OTOH if I need to make a longer trip, as when I'm working onsite with a customer for 3 days (ie, 4 days of rental) the cost of renting scales up while the cost of driving my own car does not. Though as you noted, the company's reason for specifying rental vs. driving is not purely cost savings. There are also insurance liability issues.

This isn't so much post-trip scrutiny as it is pre-trip annoyance: Our Concur travel program lets us book our own travel within our expense parameters. I live outside of Philly but usually fly out of EWR because it's pretty much equal distance and the flight options are better. Every time I request a flight out of EWR I have to get special permission to not accept JFK or LGA as cheaper alternatives. I have become quite snippy in the "state your reason for this exception" response box.

Years ago a former employer configured Concur with radio-button selections for explaining exceptions. One for airports was "Alternate airport adds 60+ minutes to travel time."

I swear I live by that exception box in Concur.

Concur, without fail, defaults to the cheapest airfare available..and without fail it's Spirit or Allegiant. Sorry..I have some basic standards and would rather be in a middle by the toilets on a Southworst flight than in an exit row on either of those carriers. The usual excuse is "scheduling".

Did stuff like this all the time and if my cost was higher all I had to do was pay the difference. We were encouraged to stay at places for weekend holidays and the company would pay the return fare as long as it was reasonable. Lots of time for example, if I had a connection in YYZ my favorite thing was that I'd do some research and say to our travel coordinator if you pay for me to be in the Sheraton airport on a club floor for 2 nights, you don't have to fly me back and forth for the weekend, and you'll save $400 overall or whatever.......and they're like, yeah why not !!

A lot depends on who you are in an organization and the flexibility the organization itself has. If you work for an employer which bills your expenses to clients, including government clients, there may be documentation requirements which have to be strictly followed if you want the business. Whether that makes sense is irrelevant. Hard to justify losing a $5 Million contract because your own people can't itemize liquor from food from tips. On the other hand, if you don't have these constraints, it may make more sense not to deny claims, but to note the error so that it does not reoccur. This shows the employee that you do watch things but aren't foolish about it.

Some of this also falls on the employee. Presumably adults know how to act like adults. Nickel and diming your employer just because you can may not put you ahead in the long-term. On the other hand worrying about a high performer having a second drink with dinner is foolish.

For those working at or through US-based employers, the new tax code may mean increased scrutiny by employers as the distinction between direct and necessary expenses vs. business development and entertainment will be much more acute.

I think issues like those are trickier. Some companies have negotiated travel insurance policies with companies, and while you could use your own, that also brings more trouble even if you're saving the company some money.

It's not so much companies don't see the big picture with money, it's that there's also a big picture in legal hassle. Does your credit card provide the same coverage your company has negotiated? Credit card insurance is nice but almost none of them cover liability. So they're great for fender benders but just in case someone gets injured, you may be screwed.

I was turned down suggesting something similar while working for a federal government agency in Toronto on a project that had me in YEG for three weeks. Even though it was more wildly more expensive the expectation was I would fly back and forth on the weekends. :rolleyes:

I'm curious, do you think that was done because of "optics" -- not wanting to give the impression to auditors, journalists, or member of the public who may be watching that the Canadian government is paying for employees' weekend vacations -- or because the agency presumed that employees want to spend weekends at home with their families rather than bear the hardship of extended time away? Possibly also with the latter there could be a concern that employees would need to be paid for weekends spent away from home in furtherance of government work.

Purely optics in response to heightened media attention on government travel expenses. It wasn't about helping employees because there wasn't a choice if you wanted to stay and there was no overtime in the higher classifications. These weren't government-wide rules but the overreaction of a Deputy Minister who did not want to risk anything putting her in a negative light.

The other condition was booking the flights closest to the beginning and conclusion of the regular office day. In the case of YYZ-YEG at the time that meant a Sunday night departure and a red-eye back on Friday. Using a little creativity, I changed three return flights to two one-way trips which was allowed, stayed in YEG and paid the weekend hotel rooms personally. It was a bit dumb checking out and then checking right back in to the same hotel but at least they were good enough to give me the government rate. Four nights in a hotel on my own dime was far better than red-eyes back to Toronto only to turn around the next day and go back. I was told after leaving the agency that they loosened the rules after staff began refusing travel assignments.

Well, after expensing $50 glasses of OJ, and one block long limo rides by our former Governor General, or whichever MP it was, I am not surprised by the CYA going on across the board within the halls of power.

Lots of CYA even if it costs the taxpayers more. It also makes people more creative when they submit expense reports. I paid for four nights in Edmonton due to stupid rules but it would be a mistake to conclude that there aren't ways to recoup those costs over time at public expense. ;)

Thankfully I now work for myself and I have clients pay me a flat fee for work trips that I deduct my expenses from...it's incredible.

At my last job they argued over every little penny. The biggest argument we had was that they wanted me to rent economy cars and I wanted to rent bigger cars. I asked if I could book what I wanted and just bill for the economy car. It took days to get this approved.

Carlson Wagonlit does the same thing. I live in Trenton so both PHL and EWR are easily accessible yet when I choose EWR, I continually get JFK and LGA options. Fortunately, in our justification box it has a pull down for "Reject alternate cities". The other thing that I don't seem to have to deal with is CWT choosing any low cost airlines (not consider Southwest low cost these days...)

I'm also an expense report approver. I try to treat the company's money like my own but I've got guys on long term assignments. I've got one that will book Business Class on Acela while the others are flying coach. Distances are different (Acela NYP-DC, flying to DFW) but we've not got any travel policy surrounding trains. As long as his train trips don't exceed the airfare policy and he's not egregiously booking, I'm fine with it.