3 ms·

It depends on the environment and the employee. In the cases I personally know of, there was at least an element of the employee believing they had been cheate

by dpwm 8y ago

It depends on the environment and the employee. In the cases I personally know of, there was at least an element of the employee believing they had been cheated out of something: perks being removed, legitimate expenses being denied for seemingly arbitrary reasons.

CaptainZapp 8y ago
perks being removed, legitimate expenses being denied for seemingly arbitrary reasons I think that's fundamentally wrong and should - at least in an ideal world - never happen. I just don't think that fibbing expenses is a good way to get back at your employer. I'm aware that this reply has a certain whiff of Euro centrism, where such things are less likely to happen and workers really have better recourse to get back at their employers. Shit like mandatory arbitration agreements would be laughed out of court herearound.
- dpwm 8y ago
  > I think that's fundamentally wrong and should - at least in an ideal world - never happen. Agreed. But it does. Some of the perks removed were never perks but a form of negligence. Some of the expenses being denied for seemingly arbitrary reasons were denied because there is no way they can be justified as business expenses, but somebody in the past authorized them. > I just don't think that fibbing expenses is a good way to get back at your employer. We're in agreement on that. Just like theft from employer, it can only realistically have one outcome regarding employment once discovered -- no matter how small. > I'm aware that this reply has a certain whiff of Euro centrism, where such things are less likely to happen and workers really have better recourse to get back at their employers. My experiences relate to the UK -- albeit during the period where the recourse to get back at employers required paying for an employment tribunal to hear your case. Even after that was reversed, most disgruntled employees don't go to employment tribunals. > Shit like mandatory arbitration agreements would be laughed out of court herearound. Agreed. But you don't need those for injustices to be felt. Most employees don't really consider that expenses have to be a justifiable expense by the employer for tax purposes and that the people authorizing them are possibly over-worked and only distrust few people enough to check every item.
- dcosson 8y ago
  I don't think this is an EU vs US issue or an arbitration issue. Even if every dollar you spend while traveling is reimbursed, you don't really get compensated for the non-monetary annoyances of traveling. You might have to fly at weird hours and be tired or jetlagged, and you miss a few nights away from your family. Maybe you're traveling during the work day so you are being paid for that time, but you might have had to wake up earlier than usual, or sit in traffic on the way to the airport, or all kinds of other things that aren't compensated by the company. Even if nothing does go wrong, traveling is still somewhat stressful for a lot of people just because you're aware of the risk that something might go wrong. Not to mention the fact that you're forced to lend the company money for a month or two at 0% interest. If you have no problem with this imbalance between the company and employee, that's great for you. But IMO it's very easy to see why employees are incentivized to stretch their reimbursements as far as possible to help make some of it back. It's hard for me to see this as morally repugnant.

by dpwm 8y ago

CaptainZapp 8y ago

perks being removed, legitimate expenses being denied for seemingly arbitrary reasons I think that's fundamentally wrong and should - at least in an ideal world - never happen. I just don't think that fibbing expenses is a good way to get back at your employer. I'm aware that this reply has a certain whiff of Euro centrism, where such things are less likely to happen and workers really have better recourse to get back at their employers. Shit like mandatory arbitration agreements would be laughed out of court herearound.

dpwm 8y ago
> I think that's fundamentally wrong and should - at least in an ideal world - never happen. Agreed. But it does. Some of the perks removed were never perks but a form of negligence. Some of the expenses being denied for seemingly arbitrary reasons were denied because there is no way they can be justified as business expenses, but somebody in the past authorized them. > I just don't think that fibbing expenses is a good way to get back at your employer. We're in agreement on that. Just like theft from employer, it can only realistically have one outcome regarding employment once discovered -- no matter how small. > I'm aware that this reply has a certain whiff of Euro centrism, where such things are less likely to happen and workers really have better recourse to get back at their employers. My experiences relate to the UK -- albeit during the period where the recourse to get back at employers required paying for an employment tribunal to hear your case. Even after that was reversed, most disgruntled employees don't go to employment tribunals. > Shit like mandatory arbitration agreements would be laughed out of court herearound. Agreed. But you don't need those for injustices to be felt. Most employees don't really consider that expenses have to be a justifiable expense by the employer for tax purposes and that the people authorizing them are possibly over-worked and only distrust few people enough to check every item.
dcosson 8y ago
I don't think this is an EU vs US issue or an arbitration issue. Even if every dollar you spend while traveling is reimbursed, you don't really get compensated for the non-monetary annoyances of traveling. You might have to fly at weird hours and be tired or jetlagged, and you miss a few nights away from your family. Maybe you're traveling during the work day so you are being paid for that time, but you might have had to wake up earlier than usual, or sit in traffic on the way to the airport, or all kinds of other things that aren't compensated by the company. Even if nothing does go wrong, traveling is still somewhat stressful for a lot of people just because you're aware of the risk that something might go wrong. Not to mention the fact that you're forced to lend the company money for a month or two at 0% interest. If you have no problem with this imbalance between the company and employee, that's great for you. But IMO it's very easy to see why employees are incentivized to stretch their reimbursements as far as possible to help make some of it back. It's hard for me to see this as morally repugnant.