3 ms·

The employee is assumed to be cost efficient... - When traveling they should strive to stay over at their fellow employees’ places and/or share rooms with

The employee is assumed to be cost efficient... - When traveling they should strive to stay over at their fellow employees’ places and/or share rooms with their fellow employees. (This item can be overridden with a ‘good cause’ by their manager) Isn't the "right of physical privacy" a good cause in itself? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy#Physical http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy#Physical

tptacek 15y ago
That item jumped out at me as well. I'm reasonably sure you can't enforce it in the US; that, instead, you could get in trouble for having a clause in your handbook suggesting that you were expected to open your house up for coworkers. It's also just creepy.
- hugh3 15y ago
  And how much money can it really save? If an employee doesn't travel often then who cares about a hundred bucks a night for a moderately-priced hotel, and if the employee does travel often then it'd have to be completely intolerable.
Silhouette 15y ago
That's a good example of what I meant in my earlier post. More generally, I didn't like the "low-cost" approach to things like travel and accommodation. Partly, that smacks of treating employees as nothing but "human resources", a term which is forbidden in any company I own, BTW. It ignores the massive disruptive effect you are having on their lives by expecting them to stay away from their home, family and social life outside of office hours. Even without that, if you're sending an employee to conduct business in person at a remote location, you're surely committing a lot of time and money to whatever it is they're doing. It seems a no-brainer for me that you make travel arrangements that minimise the hassle to them, book comfortable accommodation, and provide some sort of catering/recreation budget so they can relax when they're not working. Otherwise, you just spent a lot of money to get a valuable member of staff somewhere, and then you made the member of staff tired and stressed so they aren't at their best anyway. How does that make any business sense?

tptacek 15y ago

That item jumped out at me as well. I'm reasonably sure you can't enforce it in the US; that, instead, you could get in trouble for having a clause in your handbook suggesting that you were expected to open your house up for coworkers. It's also just creepy.

hugh3 15y ago
And how much money can it really save? If an employee doesn't travel often then who cares about a hundred bucks a night for a moderately-priced hotel, and if the employee does travel often then it'd have to be completely intolerable.

Silhouette 15y ago

That's a good example of what I meant in my earlier post. More generally, I didn't like the "low-cost" approach to things like travel and accommodation. Partly, that smacks of treating employees as nothing but "human resources", a term which is forbidden in any company I own, BTW. It ignores the massive disruptive effect you are having on their lives by expecting them to stay away from their home, family and social life outside of office hours. Even without that, if you're sending an employee to conduct business in person at a remote location, you're surely committing a lot of time and money to whatever it is they're doing. It seems a no-brainer for me that you make travel arrangements that minimise the hassle to them, book comfortable accommodation, and provide some sort of catering/recreation budget so they can relax when they're not working. Otherwise, you just spent a lot of money to get a valuable member of staff somewhere, and then you made the member of staff tired and stressed so they aren't at their best anyway. How does that make any business sense?