New controversial work travel policy

[mannej]

not sure about current but likely so in Japan, but Olympic athletes have had to share rooms.

Not unusual in a sporting environment. Been there done that (not the Olympics that is)

 

[Scarlett]

I wonder if most people here have spent a long haul, overnight flight in whY, bum cheeks and/or shoulders and/or elbows touching? Survived yeah?

For a couple of days to get an overseas junket, sorry I mean shonk, sorry I meant valuable corporate experience, I think there are more shadows being jumped at than a room full of seven year olds on halloween.
<where’s the emoji for an extra large tic?>

 

[cove]

We mostly used two bedroom two bathroom apartments around Australia for our conference/sales meetings. It worked well. Meriton and Quest come to my mind as brands we used along with several others.
That cut out Hyatt, Marriott and Intercontinental in most instances.

 

[dajop]

Dunno, I reckon all sorts of legal issues could arise from this.

Could being the operative word,

I've been to about 8-10 events over about 20 years which were conducted in Australia or conducted in Asia that involved people coming from our Australian business, where rooms have been shared. Whilst I can't discount that confidential legal issues happened, the rumour mill is usually strong, and if there had been issues, I am sure this approach would have not continued. There's a risk, but I am sure there are lots of risks associated with such a meeting, whether or not rooms are shared. Especially if alcohol is plentiful.

 

[dajop]

It may depend on the type of meeting and level of seniority of people attending, but the other mechanism that I've seen effectively used (assuming the decision is non-negotiable) is HR in particular (and leadership) moving the conversation from being about the arrangements for the meeting to being about the meeting itself. Things such as encouraging people to set up breakfast and lunch meetings with various people (e,g. leaders someone might want to increase their visibility with, colleagues who are working in the same area etc), or in some cases a specific ask for each country that is participating.

I also found that coming from Australa, the travel policy being business class, and quite a few participants rarely having the opportunity to travel business class, this sort of was a tradeoff for having to share room (typically airfares came from local cost centre, whilst rooms and venue was paid for by the organiser cost centre, hence the contradiction).

 

[jakeseven7]

It may depend on the type of meeting and level of seniority of people attending, but the other mechanism that I've seen effectively used (assuming the decision is non-negotiable) is HR in particular (and leadership) moving the conversation from being about the arrangements for the meeting to being about the meeting itself. Things such as encouraging people to set up breakfast and lunch meetings with various people (e,g. leaders someone might want to increase their visibility with, colleagues who are working in the same area etc), or in some cases a specific ask for each country that is participating.

I also found that coming from Australa, the travel policy being business class, and quite a few participants rarely having the opportunity to travel business class, this sort of was a tradeoff for having to share room (typically airfares came from local cost centre, whilst rooms and venue was paid for by the organiser cost centre, hence the contradiction).

Thanks very much for your constructive contribution. I think the ‘look over here’ technique is highly likely to be used to help move focus off this…

So, I didn’t want to conflate the issues but since you brought it up. Our travel policy is as you say business class to this destination. However due to cost, the regional office is overriding that and making everyone fly Y….

I didn’t share that because I wanted to focus on how we manage the rooming arrangement issue primarily which is the bigger issue for us. However when people find out about the Y class travel I’m sure that will compound the issue….!

 

[equus]

So, I didn’t want to conflate the issues but since you brought it up. Our travel policy is as you say business class to this destination. However due to cost, the regional office is overriding that and making everyone fly Y…

I don't know what sort of MNC, but that decision has implications that could really come back to bite. If this is a company that consults or charges travel back to clients, as soon as a client discovers that the reasons they have been given for having to pay business class are not real because they can be overridden for reasons of cost if there isn't a client paying, then everyone can expect to be flying Y everywhere due to cost.

 

[funnymummy]

LinkedIn have an article about this.

Also- Probably already covered but it puts all parties at risk of allegations.
And-Previously I recall ready an employee that had their photo taken while asleep by other party sharing court action and we claims resulted.

 

[kookaburra75]

Thanks very much for your constructive contribution. I think the ‘look over here’ technique is highly likely to be used to help move focus off this…

So, I didn’t want to conflate the issues but since you brought it up. Our travel policy is as you say business class to this destination. However due to cost, the regional office is overriding that and making everyone fly Y….

I didn’t share that because I wanted to focus on how we manage the rooming arrangement issue primarily which is the bigger issue for us. However when people find out about the Y class travel I’m sure that will compound the issue….!

I certainly feel for you - although I'm grateful that at the tail end of my career I don't have to worry about the higher levels of managing people, especially when you have overlords in another country.

I've always operated on the "No Surprises" rule, meaning none for my team, the client, or me, which requires people being sufficiently aware of what is planned, and what is not happening too. That helps cut down on the anxiety, and as dajop has suggested, get people focusing on the happier aspects helps too. Sometimes, I've had to do the Good News/Bad News discussions, but at least people are forewarned. You won't be able to please everyone, and there is a limit on how much you can 'consult'. One important aspect is clearly defining to people, when the boundaries between work and leisure are.

But I suggest that you do a formal risk assessment and management plan that you share with the next level up. As people are travelling long-sh distances, fatigue is a factor, especially when arriving back into country. Your responsibility as an employer doesn't end until they get home. Likewise if there are activities where there is a risk of injury or distress, work out how to mitigate any consequences. And alcohol is always a problem - the most senior members of the management, as the providers of the alcohol are the responsible parties and have to stay sober and manage any unwelcome or unwarranted interactions.

While this may seem a bit over the top to some, it's the way of the world and it is better to be prepared. It doesn't take long to do, and gives you the opportunity to assign the controls and mitigations to the other levels of management. Nothing gets their attention more than seeing their name on something.

 

[jakeseven7]

LinkedIn have an article about this.

Also- Probably already covered but it puts all parties at risk of allegations.
And-Previously I recall ready an employee that had their photo taken while asleep by other party sharing court action and we claims resulted.

Oh really? Do you have the link? I’d love to read.

 

[funnymummy]

Oh really? Do you have the link? I’d love to read.

Should Employees Share Their Rooms When Traveling for Business?

It is not illegal to ask employees to share rooms on business trips. Employers ask employees to share rooms for a variety of reasons, but should they? Cons come from employees who seem to universally dislike the practice.

www.linkedin.com

 

[funnymummy]

Another link. USA site

Why your employees shouldn’t be expected to share hotel rooms

Whether you’re sending dozens of employees to a conference or a few employees to visit an out-of-town client or attend a seminar, you can save money and/or allow more people to go by having some of them share hotel rooms. But should you? It’s not illegal to ask employees if they would be willing to

www.whglawfirm.com

 

[funnymummy]

I am in the train again so found this. Might be relevant

Introduction​

This guidance note aims to assist persons conducting a business or undertaking (PCBU’s) understand and meet their obligations under the NSW work health and safety laws when designing or choosing the form of accommodation provided for workers during work undertaken away from home. It makes reference to the Code of Practice for managing the work environment and facilities. (PDF 407kb)

 

[leadman]

I've noted before in other posts that I chair two biennial international technical conferences, which was 6 weeks ago in Siem Reap. We have over 1000 pax from 52 countries, and the two main hotels were the Sofitel ($175) and Sohka ($85). And, rooming levels change from country to country, company to company and surprisingly, hotel to hotel. It was nothing to have 4 to 6 in a twin room for some companies/countries. I will not mention the countries, but "filling the rooms" was also done by some Western Europeans.
Having done this for over 20 years I just find it "normal" and sort of funny reading comments like "codes of practice", "policies" and HR. Recently in India, a colleague and I found ourselves with one room left in the inn (overbooked), so I told them to get a rollaway bed and I would sleep in the corner. Mind you, the hotel was superb, and I noticed that the "sky didn't fall in" that night.
I once shared a room in Brugges with a work colleague who was diagnosed with Motor Neurone. What I learnt about humanity and how people deal with news and, ultimately fate, still lives with me. Would I have changed rooms, never.

 

[jakeseven7]

Ok an interesting update for anyone who is interested.

Firstly a huge thank you to all the constructive posts, apart from a couple of snide comments from the usual old suspects () this has been such an amazing thread with tonnes of great ideas that really helped, I used many of them. THANK YOU.

So, it turns out that the room sharing leaking (before it was ever announced) spread everywhere and there was general uproar not just in Australia but in the other Asian countries.

I heard they then moved to a plan of only ‘some levels’ of employees were going to share, which got even more blow back and then it was heatedly discussed either ALL share or none. HR actually stepped up and said in todays world room sharing carries too much risk, so that also helped.

So clearly the senior leaders were not going to share…. So what happened was that they have culled the invite list and everyone going now gets their own room.

So success and a massive sigh of relief we don’t have to manage that slow moving train wreck!

The next issue we have to deal with (which an AFF member extracted from me upthread) is that they are overruling our travel policy of J for international and making everyone fly Y.

The tough thing for Aussies is that they’ve picked a remote location in Asia that will take us about 18 hours of travel to get to…. Sigh!

 

[Cynicor]

Always find it interesting that people legitimately think they are better than others because they are paid more.
Clearly that’s the only way they can feel that “some levels get their own room”.

Good outcome for now, best of luck with the Y vs J. In my industry it’s pretty easy. Walk out and find a job the next day…

 

[exceladdict]

Ok an interesting update for anyone who is interested.

Firstly a huge thank you to all the constructive posts, apart from a couple of snide comments from the usual old suspects () this has been such an amazing thread with tonnes of great ideas that really helped, I used many of them. THANK YOU.

So, it turns out that the room sharing leaking (before it was ever announced) spread everywhere and there was general uproar not just in Australia but in the other Asian countries.

I heard they then moved to a plan of only ‘some levels’ of employees were going to share, which got even more blow back and then it was heatedly discussed either ALL share or none. HR actually stepped up and said in todays world room sharing carries too much risk, so that also helped.

So clearly the senior leaders were not going to share…. So what happened was that they have culled the invite list and everyone going now gets their own room.

So success and a massive sigh of relief we don’t have to manage that slow moving train wreck!

The next issue we have to deal with (which an AFF member extracted from me upthread) is that they are overruling our travel policy of J for international and making everyone fly Y.

The tough thing for Aussies is that they’ve picked a remote location in Asia that will take us about 18 hours of travel to get to…. Sigh!

Well, surely the BFOD* just happens to be a daytime flight each way with a stopover in a convenient/comfortable place en route.

*with the right filters in your corporate travel tool

 

[Andyc]

It's easy to say we should have a 'one size fits all' travel policy, but the reality is that different team members will have different expectations when they travel.

I've worked in senior roles at two different companies that hosted big conferences. One company did room sharing once and then never again - the other has consistantly done it for their conferences. This thread made me think about why one company made it work.

I think the key was 1) demographics of the team members, 2) the purpose of the conference and 3) the level of social connection.

The company which made it work got almost nil push-back on sharing rooms. It was an Australian advertising business which would bring 50-100 team members together from multiple AU/NZ cities to destinations in either Aus or SE Asia.
On demographics, the advertising company skewed younger and seemingly took personal holidays with friends where they would share rooms too.
On purpose, it was critical for the team to perceve the conference as fun (ie. a reward, a holiday - not real work). So these were internal conferences and definality skewed towards drinks/dining/parties rather than work.
Finally, it was the social conneciton of the team. These were mostly sales people, so a lot of their day-to-day work involved taking clients out to drinks/meals/events. In doing so, the team members spent a lot of time socialising togerther and so were more like friends than coworkers.

The learning for me was that different rules can be applied to different situations and team members will understand the lack of consistency. But it can't just be a financial decision, you need to consider the make-up of the team and how they're going to percieve the trip.

 

[Andyc]

On a different note, I've worked at mutliple companies that allow employees to salary sacrafice travel upgrades. This is often a cleaner aproach than telling employees to claim back their extra costs on their tax return.

This may be paying for a nicer hotel room or a higher class of travel.

An employer & employee can agree to do a pre-tax salary sacrafice for almost any reason. This gives the employee an immediate tax benefit on any extras they pay for.
But, form the employers perspective, they don't wan tto get hit with fringe benefits tax. As long as it's a genuine work expense (eg. business class travel on a work trip, single hotel room at a shared room conference etc.) then you're in the clear.
But you usually can't use it to take a personal holiday or take the family along with you.

 

[adammarcos]

I don’t prefer it, but it’s not an unreasonable thing Nox Vidmate VLC to be required and happened to me many times in the past with national companies and smaller ones.