3 ms·

But as an aside why shouldn't they be covering a dog's kennel bill? If the employee only needs to utilize the kennel because of the work-related travel, that is

But as an aside why shouldn't they be covering a dog's kennel bill? If the employee only needs to utilize the kennel because of the work-related travel, that is a travel related expense. Seems like great software if your goal as an employer is to make your employees outright refuse work-travel or to find a different job without it. Don't misunderstand: Outright fraud is wrong. But in a lot of cases employer's travel expenditure policy was never fit for purpose, and employees worked around the problems by submitting mis-characterized claims like the dog-kennel example. Instead of fixing the policy, they'd prefer to ignore WHY employees are doing these things (i.e. talk to them) and just lash out with punitive measures.

pastage 8y ago
My children get great child care paid by the goverment just for this reason, to help me be able to work. It would not be very popular to offer the same thing to handle dogs atm.
ghaff 8y ago
>But as an aside why shouldn't they be covering a dog's kennel bill? Because it's not the sort of expense that companies normally cover. Especially people who travel a lot have all sorts of second and third-order expenses resulting from the fact that they're away from home, may have to dress up for client meetings, etc. that are rarely covered by expense policies. They're also working extra hours when they travel. As partial compensation, many are also expensing fancier meals than they'd have at home--and are presumably being paid a competitive salary that reflects a fair bit of business travel. Whether all this is "fair" is at least somewhat a value judgement but has been the approximate norm since I first traveled for work a very long time ago.
- Someone1234 8y ago
  > Because it's not the sort of expense that companies normally cover. Which is precisely what my post was saying was an issue with existing policy. I find it a little odd that you'd respond to point out the norm, to a post complaining about the norm, and expect the norm to be in and of itself a justification. Work created an additional cost via required travel. It isn't at all similar to your "clothing for meetings" example because you'd need those without the travel component. When travel itself creates additional costs: those costs should be compensated.
  - ghaff 8y ago
    And I'm saying there are any number of second order expenses associated with traveling a lot. For example, I have a lawn service that I probably wouldn't need if I were at home all the time. My driveway is too long to shovel by hand anyway but even if it weren't I'd need to get a service for when I'm away in the winter. Maybe the norm is wrong and a company should cover those things. (And the kennel seems to be more directly connected to travel than my other examples.) But it's not really surprising that most don't.
- dv_dt 8y ago
  I had a friend whom an employer pulled back from a tropical vacation a day early for an emergency. They wanted him to fly somewhere directly from a beach to somewhere very cold. When he brought up the logistical problem that he wasn't ready for that climate, the answer was to expense a cold weather wardrobe sufficient for his stay. Abnormal, but legitimate situations come up all the time.
  - ghaff 8y ago
    Sure. Exceptional situations arise. And, maybe, if someone basically never travels and they have to make a one-off trip for a customer problem or whatever, maybe it makes sense for them to tell their boss they'll need to get a dogsitter or pay for a kennel or whatever and they'll want to expense it. (At which point boss probably looks at them funny, sighs, and says "whatever, sure.") I did work for a company once that had an "offshore inconvenience allowance" fr when we were on rigs and shipyards. It was mostly in the vein of living conditions aren't great and you're working long hours, so here's some extra money. So that's one relatively fair comp mechanism you can use. But mostly it's just baked into people's normal comp plans.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
Scoundreller 8y ago
“For my friends, everything. For my enemies, the law”

pastage 8y ago

My children get great child care paid by the goverment just for this reason, to help me be able to work. It would not be very popular to offer the same thing to handle dogs atm.

ghaff 8y ago

>But as an aside why shouldn't they be covering a dog's kennel bill? Because it's not the sort of expense that companies normally cover. Especially people who travel a lot have all sorts of second and third-order expenses resulting from the fact that they're away from home, may have to dress up for client meetings, etc. that are rarely covered by expense policies. They're also working extra hours when they travel. As partial compensation, many are also expensing fancier meals than they'd have at home--and are presumably being paid a competitive salary that reflects a fair bit of business travel. Whether all this is "fair" is at least somewhat a value judgement but has been the approximate norm since I first traveled for work a very long time ago.

Someone1234 8y ago
> Because it's not the sort of expense that companies normally cover. Which is precisely what my post was saying was an issue with existing policy. I find it a little odd that you'd respond to point out the norm, to a post complaining about the norm, and expect the norm to be in and of itself a justification. Work created an additional cost via required travel. It isn't at all similar to your "clothing for meetings" example because you'd need those without the travel component. When travel itself creates additional costs: those costs should be compensated.
- ghaff 8y ago
  And I'm saying there are any number of second order expenses associated with traveling a lot. For example, I have a lawn service that I probably wouldn't need if I were at home all the time. My driveway is too long to shovel by hand anyway but even if it weren't I'd need to get a service for when I'm away in the winter. Maybe the norm is wrong and a company should cover those things. (And the kennel seems to be more directly connected to travel than my other examples.) But it's not really surprising that most don't.
dv_dt 8y ago
I had a friend whom an employer pulled back from a tropical vacation a day early for an emergency. They wanted him to fly somewhere directly from a beach to somewhere very cold. When he brought up the logistical problem that he wasn't ready for that climate, the answer was to expense a cold weather wardrobe sufficient for his stay. Abnormal, but legitimate situations come up all the time.
- ghaff 8y ago
  Sure. Exceptional situations arise. And, maybe, if someone basically never travels and they have to make a one-off trip for a customer problem or whatever, maybe it makes sense for them to tell their boss they'll need to get a dogsitter or pay for a kennel or whatever and they'll want to expense it. (At which point boss probably looks at them funny, sighs, and says "whatever, sure.") I did work for a company once that had an "offshore inconvenience allowance" fr when we were on rigs and shipyards. It was mostly in the vein of living conditions aren't great and you're working long hours, so here's some extra money. So that's one relatively fair comp mechanism you can use. But mostly it's just baked into people's normal comp plans.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

Scoundreller 8y ago

“For my friends, everything. For my enemies, the law”