Work trip to Germany was quite good. The travelling was easy, as was spending three days in the company of people from work (one from my office, one from one of the German offices
( Read more... )
If you're cash strapped, it's a salary perk for 'going away from home' which doesn't seem evil, and if you're wanting to live the high life in new and exciting foreign cities, you don't have that weird 'I want to buy 15 pounds of steak, but I'm only comfortable expensing 10 pounds on dinner, I can't get a receipt for 2/3rds of my steak' problem.
Yeah, that definitely seems reasonable.
I think is the start of a slippery slope that means anyone who takes more money in wages than the bare minimum they need not to starve and have a roof over their head is somehow doing something 'wrong'.
I think I see what you mean, but I don't think that's quite what I meant. If expenses are routinely approved up to $20, and everyone expenses exactly $20, rather than sometimes less, that suggests that they feel they can't afford NOT to, either because they're coming out behind financially and need to compensate, or because everyone else is getting the maximum perks possible, and they feel like a chump for not doing so. As in, it's a symptom of unclear policies and/or not paying enough, not dishonest employees (though it could be).
Maybe expenses should come with a "reasonable" band, rather than just a maximum, so by default everything is approved, but if someone is always over, you can check, were they somewhere inherently expensive, or should they dial it back a little?
I think I would have a no-questions-asked per-dium, which would be OK, but not huge, and then a policy that more than the per-dium could be paid with receipts and formal approval of expenses.
Yeah, I was thinking along those lines. I'm worried work wouldn't like it because it sounds like a max(a,b) policy, when many workplaces have a min(a,b). But it seems to fix the obvious problems and not obviously be open to abuse, assuming (a) the per-dium is reasonable and (b) expenses are in fact usually approved, but checked for discrepancies.
Yeah, that definitely seems reasonable.
I think is the start of a slippery slope that means anyone who takes more money in wages than the bare minimum they need not to starve and have a roof over their head is somehow doing something 'wrong'.
I think I see what you mean, but I don't think that's quite what I meant. If expenses are routinely approved up to $20, and everyone expenses exactly $20, rather than sometimes less, that suggests that they feel they can't afford NOT to, either because they're coming out behind financially and need to compensate, or because everyone else is getting the maximum perks possible, and they feel like a chump for not doing so. As in, it's a symptom of unclear policies and/or not paying enough, not dishonest employees (though it could be).
Maybe expenses should come with a "reasonable" band, rather than just a maximum, so by default everything is approved, but if someone is always over, you can check, were they somewhere inherently expensive, or should they dial it back a little?
I think I would have a no-questions-asked per-dium, which would be OK, but not huge, and then a policy that more than the per-dium could be paid with receipts and formal approval of expenses.
Yeah, I was thinking along those lines. I'm worried work wouldn't like it because it sounds like a max(a,b) policy, when many workplaces have a min(a,b). But it seems to fix the obvious problems and not obviously be open to abuse, assuming (a) the per-dium is reasonable and (b) expenses are in fact usually approved, but checked for discrepancies.
Reply
Leave a comment