dulciusexasperis

Points ownership should be covered in your terms of employment. It is nothing new for a company to claim ownership of all points earned in whatever way. Some do, some don't.

Often1 has given the most relevant answer to your question. If you want to get it changed, you need to present a business case to your employer that shows a 'win/win' they can agree to.

Years ago when credit card companies first started offering CDW coverage on rental cars as a perk, I persuaded my employer to pay for the annual $200 fee on my personal credit card by pointing out that they had paid out over $1000 on CDW coverage for cars I had rented. It was a no brainer for them to see that paying me $200 and letting me take care of the CDW with my card would save them money. I of course would save $200 a year plus get the other 'perks' the card gave me.

So you need to come up with a similar case to present to your employer counciltucky. As they are using Hotels com, that shouldn't be hard to do. It should be relatively simple for you to show you can get lower rates from the hotels by booking direct with the hotels yourself or through a TA.

Often1

If a third-party, such as an employer, pays for the ticket, then the fair market value of the VDB is taxable income. A meal or hotel would not be because those are simply paid by the carrier in lieu of the employer and are effectively part of business travel.

This isn't in the cards any more than FFP taxation, but it's the same context and it is much easier to track (by requiring a carrier to issue a 1099).

ft101

Your previous thread proved this not to be the case on many occasions, which might make such an exercise somewhat tricky.

dulciusexasperis

(deleted)
The problem with trying to 'prove' where you get a lower price is that you have to specify, the hotel, the date and then look for a price online vs. phoning the hotel and getting a price directly from them. Whenever I have done so, I have always got a better price from the hotel than I could see online with any third party booking site.

Usually when people say they found a lower price online with a third party booking site, they only compared the 3rd party booking site vs. the hotel's own booking site. That isn't good enough. Hotels often have to abide by agreements not to 'publish' a lower price than they offer through third party sites. But more and more hotels are not going along with that anymore and offering 'lowest price guarantee' for direct bookings. Many hotels are also withholding lower priced rooms from the third party sites and only giving them their higher priced rooms to try and sell.

For example, I recently booked a hotel in Switzerland where the third party sites had only the hotel's top 2 tier type rooms available. A phone call to the hotel and I booked a lower priced room with no problem whatsoever. I know the hotel and know what the difference in the rooms are. Basically a couple of square metres in size is the only difference. But you are not going to find those rooms at all on third party sites and they are not about to tell you, 'we have only these rooms available but the hotel has other rooms slightly smaller that they will offer you for less than we are asking.'

If I had been naive enough to believe what the third party sites were telling me, I would have had to conclude the prices and rooms they showed were all that was available. Never trust a third party booking site.

ft101

I'm sure you have, and more power to you for doing so. What you seem to ignore (that was pointed out by so many contributors on your previous thread) is that it isn't always the case. To say to the OP glosses over the facts that you seem determined to ignore.

dulciusexasperis

Huh? Are you saying that the OP is not capable of showing how you can get lower rates by booking direct? What fact am I 'glossing over'?

What 'isn't always the case"? Are you saying that you think that sometimes third party sites will get you a lower price? In the case of the OP, that would mean you are saying it is a fact that sometimes his company can get a lower price using Hotels com than they could if the room was booked directly with the hotel. How will you prove that to be true in order to argue that my case for booking direct is not better? You would have to phone the specific hotel for a specific date and get a price to compare to the Hotels com online price. You would also have to do it enough times to make a case for it being better overall.

The OP doesn't even actually have to prove anything. He just has to present as strong enough case to convince the necessary people, that overall, booking direct will benefit the company more than booking through Hotels com. It isn't even actually about 'facts' it is about changing a perception. Doing that is what salespeople do every day if they are actually salespeople rather than just 'order takers'.

Suppose I am the OP and I go to my boss and say, 'Boss, for my last 11 hotel stays, I have asked reception on arrival what the lowest price 'walk-up' rate was for the evening, before I told them I had a reservation and booked in. Here is a list of the 11 answers I got showing the price I could have got and the price we paid to Hotels com. You will see that in 9 out of the 11 times, the walk-in rate I could have got was lower and on the other 2 nights the rate was the same as Hotels com. If we then take one of those nights off the Hotels com list as being a 'free night', you can see that the total cost for 11 nights just walking in the door would have been $1100 while the total cost using Hotels com was actually $1154. Now it may well be that on certain nights at certain hotels, Hotels com gets us a lower price but there is nothing to show that they do so consistently and as you can see from the numbers, they certainly didn't on my last 11 stays. I would like to stop using Hotels com and find hotels myself.

That last sentence puts the ball squarely in the lap of the boss. It requires the boss to come up with an answer. If it is a simple, 'not gonna happen', then that boss is not much of a manager of people at all. That's a boss that is likely to have a high turnover of staff. Which would include me if I got that kind of answer. A reasonable and skilled boss would have to provide a rebuttal of your proposal or an acceptance of the case you presented.

I don't know how much convincing they would need, nor does anyone else. It could be as simple as showing them that their preferred method does not get them the best price every time even allowing for their supposedly 'free' nights. Does anyone really believe anything is free?

I'm not glossing over anything ft101, I'm saying third party sites do not consistently get you the lowest price and showing that is not very hard to do. There are many ways to present a business case, all it takes is someone wiling to do so and figure out a case to present. The OP appears to want to do that.

You seem to start from the premise of, 'the OP can't do this.' Or perhaps, 'this is not easy to do.' That is a very negative premise to start from don't you think? You may call it 'realistic', I call it defeatist. If I were the OP and worked for his company, I would get it changed. If I were his employer and knew he wanted me to change this and yet couldn't present a case to get me to change it, I'd fire his butt if he were a salesperson.

The OP is asking for advice on how to get the policy changed. I am trying to give him help with that. What are you trying to do? My suggestions might not work for the OP, I can't guarantee they will. What suggestions do you have for him? Specific suggestions preferably. How would you go about getting the policy changed? Forget about trying to argue with me, try to help the OP.

Often1

Time is money. If your employees are spending their time researching and calling properties to save a couple of bucks, then they aren't doing whatever it is that they get paid to do.

While I am not a personal fan of most third-party sites, if you don't have the benefit of a high-quality TA and don't know the territory, using a simple website which can show you properties in a given location sorted by whatever it is that matters to you, becomes a chore.

As with many things, the lowest cash expenditure is not necessarily the cheapest when the task is completed.

ft101

Nope. I'm saying your statement is bunkum. The facts were presented by many, many contibutors in your previous thread on the subject.

If you'd said "It may be" rather than "It should be" you might have got limited support, but you chose to present your bias as a factual starting point when the other thread shows it isn't.

dulciusexasperis

Umm, I agree that time is money IF it is your employer's time Often1. If the OP wants to change the company policy, then the OP will have to invest his own time into preparing his case, not his employer's time. Do not assume as you seem to have, that he will be spending his employer's time.

I have only given an example of how it might be done. The OP may choose to follow a path that involves a 'high quality TA' as you mention. I am certainly not suggesting any restrictions on what the OP may choose to do. Don't assume what method the OP might choose to get the policy changed.

Nor is the objective to achieve the cheapest way. The objective is to find a win/win solution that both sides will be happy with. It may or nay not include being the cheapest way. I have closed many sales deals with clients where my answer was not the cheapest. I would change your last sentence to read, ' As with many things, the lowest cash expenditure is not necessarily the best solution when the task is completed.'

Why don't you offer the OP some suggestion of a way you think he might achieve his goal using a TA, rather than just saying why something you assume he would do, won't work.

dulciusexasperis

Ft101, you keep saying, "the facts" but you do not present any facts, only your opinion. If you have some actual facts that show that it will not be easy, then present them. Otherwise, your opinion in no way outweighs my stated opinion that it 'should be' relatively easy. I also suspect that your belief that the facts won't support a case for change, are based on nothing but cost. You ignore the concept of win/win in any other form entirely.

Again, all you seem to be interested in is 'proving' a suggestion can't be done. The OP did not ask anyone to prove he can't change the policy. He asked for help in figuring out how to do what he has stated as a fact, is what he intends to do. That is, get the policy changed. Why don't you try helping the OP with suggestions of how to do that rather than wasting his time telling him how you think my suggestion won't work.

Why are you here? To help the OP or challenge me?

Eltham

dulciusexasperis

And that is the sum total of your help offered to the OP is it? Why do you people not try to help the OP instead of wasting your time attempting to bother me.

LondonElite

Almost certainly never....

Eltham

ft101

As already mentioned, your other thread showed numerous examples.


Pointing out the misleading statement in your first post should help the OP.