New controversial work travel policy

[Flyfrequently]

Would one potential avenue be that the company provides a shared room but if an individual want a private room, they are welcomed to cover the difference by paying the difference from their personal funds? This could perhaps be a neat way out of this and still remain within the policies, event arrangements and staff members' personal preferences.

That is how I approached it years ago as mentioned in my earlier post @tdimdad - it wasn't so much I didn't want to, but for a medical consideration after then recent surgery.

 

[luckypierre]

Thanks for your constructive contribution

Good questions;

Hotel room is not a suite/apartment style. It’s your typical double room (2 beds same room, next to each other, shared bathroom)…

In my working days when somewhat younger and a similar age and gender with colleagues, we were happy to share hotel/motel rooms on company travel. As we got older and grumpier, we valued our separate rooms, especially when travelling together for some time. On many occasions the two bedroom apartment arrangements worked well

 

[downgraded]

Thank you, I think this is a possibility and a good suggestion. We’ve been pondering this.

It will still disrupt the team as I’m sure people will object to having to pay to attend a work event, but it could be lesser of the evils and at least provide an option…

then you get in to the situation of those who can't afford the extra get stuffed. Non-attendance has to be the alternative option - ie the event becomes optional if the organization can't provide adequate/reasonable accommodation (I've worked my career at an MNC so know this is all rather difficult).

 

[jakeseven7]

then you get in to the situation of those who can't afford the extra get stuffed. Non-attendance has to be the alternative option - ie the event becomes optional if the organization can't provide adequate/reasonable accommodation (I've worked my career at an MNC so know this is all rather difficult).

Absolutely agree….

Thanks very much for the empathy, honestly, it just helps me knowing others understand the pain….as you know working at an MNC there are 1000 angles coming at us and this is a nightmare. As the day has unfolded today it’s leaked out amongst I think half the team already.

 

[docjames]

Interesting thread.

//one position//
If the meeting is that important then budget allocation should be appropriately allocated…..

//comment//

A 2BR/3BR serviced apartment is a very different proposition to a twin share (and usually tiny) hotel room.

//its 2023…..//
Shared gender room has a multitude of inherent issues (and is a 1990s solution to volume / demand)

//other thoughts/
A process for “application for exemption” demonstrating medical need, other (psychological, gender, wellbeing etc) will be useful, as will a “no consequence” for refusal to attend. ANother option would be (with consent) offer a “single supplement” price for the employees to pay as a co-contribution (ie. travel advice is on basis of twin share, same sex etc) and then process to seek medical exemption, or process to pay a single supplement, process for “pairing” requests (how do the employees decide without consequence to them on whom they are sharing with….)…..

The other issue that often leads to “sharing required” is if at an isolated hotel or period of high demand, and the hotel physically cant cater for enough of the staff on site (or immediately nearby), although that can be overcome at modest cost by providing an alternative hotel and transport (bus).

Just some thoughts. What a headache - how many employees (ballpark) are attending / how much are you actually saving by having this policy applied to your staff?

 

[moa999]

Certainly seen it happen at a number of meetings/ offsites etc as it's generally coming out of a different budget and it might be at an expensive location/ one without many rooms.

And this is at companies with otherwise good travel policies when on business.

 

[Warragul]

Only under extreme conditions.

More seriously - I had one very similar case. Working for Bankers Trust investment bank; whole team went to LA to conference with American cousins. Shared rooms ( gender segregation). Wasn't a preferred thing, but we simply choose a mate/ friend to share with. Bosses got their own rooms. Some pretty big egos there, but it was "whatever - just show me the bonus" .

As another example, international cricketers and Olympic athletes always share rooms.

I'm not sure what the "obvious reason" would be in the OP for always separate rooms in MNC - but it doesn't sound very savoury.

Australian senior national cricket squads haven't shared rooms, other than with family, for years. Part of the collective agreement for some time.

 

[Pushka]

Australian senior national cricket squads haven't shared rooms, other than with family, for years. Part of the collective agreement for some time.

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

 

[LondonAussie]

Moving from Australia to the UK some years ago, I found it quite unusual that sharing rooms on corporate travel to conferences has been the norm in most of the companies I've worked for here. What's surprised me more is that most people seem OK with it - they see it as allowing more people to attend than otherwise would be able to.

We also don't get many people complaining about being required to come into the office 3 days a week, whereas I hear back home in Australia almost everyone is complaining about being asked to go in just 1 or 2 days a week.

So I guess you just need to somehow explain the cultural differences and Australia's progressive workplace relations environment compared to the other markets your company operates.

 

[dajop]

The only other thought I had ... that last time I did one of these events from Australia most people were happy to attend even with sharing rooms as it involved travel to SE Asia, which wasn't all that common for most employees. Was still seen as a treat. By contrast people disliked it for local/domestic destinations such as Daylesford and Canberra, which aren't all that far from Melbourne. Now ganted this was all 15+ years ago , international travel perhaps less common even then that is is now and dare I say it, many employees have a stronger sense of entitlement.

And the most egregious thing? You're 4 nights away from Palladium tier on a specific hotel program and you are sharing a room with someone at a hotel in that same program for 4 nights - and you can't access those 4 nights credit as you shared a room (yes, I know, same applies to single occupancy rooms charged to master account, but hey, let's not let the facts get in the way of a good story)

 

[Scarlett]

Noting that I’m coming at this having shared tents with (up to 11 other) colleagues at times, I’m definitely in the some people are too precious camp. It’s a large organisation. When younger I’ve also shared 8 to a room, 4 to a room and two to a room more times than I can remember. Separately, cricket trips were always two to a room, so maybe I’m just used to it.

I’d have thought local management could take the simple and practical solution of just letting everyone know the facts: the event is <here>, accom policy is <this>, sign up online <here>. If staff don’t want to go then they don’t have to. If that subsequently causes some sort of offence to the overseas organisers then politely explain that fewer numbers of staff attended because of the accom policy. Honesty can be pretty simple.

 

[RooFlyer]

Noting that I’m coming at this having shared tents with (up to 11 other) colleagues at times, I’m definitely in the some people are too precious camp. It’s a large organisation. When younger I’ve also shared 8 to a room, 4 to a room and two to a room more times than I can remember. Separately, cricket trips were always two to a room, so maybe I’m just used to it.

I wasn't going to mention my early professional years of field seasons (3 months or so at a time) spent 2 to a small tent in the outback or Top End, no aircon, drop toilets (or take a shovel), hose for a shower, lest it horrify some here. I can't recall 'management' outlining any particular 'accommodation' policy, but I did know that every manager, up to the Main Board Executive Director in charge of our group#, had done exactly the same in their time. Certainly not for everyone, not for every career, but not unknown for many of us so possibly more 'accommodating' of circumstances.

# For one of Australia's largest companies at the time.

 

[CaptJCool]

I’d just point out to them this is the policy of a Contiki tour when singles go along having agreed to share a room with an imperfect stranger

Shirley you’re company is taking the p..s
Cute contiki but not a professional outfit

 

[jase05]

Australian senior national cricket squads haven't shared rooms, other than with family, for years. Part of the collective agreement for some time.

Correct. A very close friend and a player I coached is currently in the Australian cricket side and they haven’t shared rooms for years. It still happens from time to time at state level from time to time but even that is rare.

As to the OP’s question, my work did attempt to bring this into practice several years ago but it was quickly knocked on the head.
I would pay for my own room and if this wasn’t permitted I’d “pick up” a mystery bug the week of the conference

 

[bluebagger05]

Absolutely agree….

Thanks very much for the empathy, honestly, it just helps me knowing others understand the pain….as you know working at an MNC there are 1000 angles coming at us and this is a nightmare. As the day has unfolded today it’s leaked out amongst I think half the team already.

@jakeseven7 I've lived this conundrum over the past 20 years working for MNCs, we had this challenge, assuming hotel is locked and rooms reserved there will usually be room availability.

My suggestion is have your ANZ/APJ business leader let his global leader on their next 1-1 call suggest to the VP HR that they need to:

- have an "option" for those who will need their own room ( perhaps for an additional fee )
- additionally, or at a MINIMUM you let people choose who they want to room with ( and yes they need to be prepared to have 2 employees of the opposite sex choose to share with each other )

I think you will find that global HR will take the required steps to "suggest" to Asia leadership that they need to accommodate more rooming options. At least this way it takes it out of your hands as local manager.

 

[Cynicor]

Really interesting. No way I would bother turning up with this sort of policy. I’m off work when i’m done and I want my own space. Its not a high school or uni camp, seperate rooms are a bare minimum

 

[jakeseven7]

Interesting thread.

//one position//
If the meeting is that important then budget allocation should be appropriately allocated…..

//comment//

A 2BR/3BR serviced apartment is a very different proposition to a twin share (and usually tiny) hotel room.

//its 2023…..//
Shared gender room has a multitude of inherent issues (and is a 1990s solution to volume / demand)

//other thoughts/
A process for “application for exemption” demonstrating medical need, other (psychological, gender, wellbeing etc) will be useful, as will a “no consequence” for refusal to attend. ANother option would be (with consent) offer a “single supplement” price for the employees to pay as a co-contribution (ie. travel advice is on basis of twin share, same sex etc) and then process to seek medical exemption, or process to pay a single supplement, process for “pairing” requests (how do the employees decide without consequence to them on whom they are sharing with….)…..

The other issue that often leads to “sharing required” is if at an isolated hotel or period of high demand, and the hotel physically cant cater for enough of the staff on site (or immediately nearby), although that can be overcome at modest cost by providing an alternative hotel and transport (bus).

Just some thoughts. What a headache - how many employees (ballpark) are attending / how much are you actually saving by having this policy applied to your staff?

Thank you, lots of good thoughts there.

To answer your question probably about 200-250 people all up?

 

[docjames]

Thank you, lots of good thoughts there.

To answer your question probably about 200-250 people all up?

So “saving” is ~ 100 -125 x $250/room (no idea what level hotel but if you’re booking 200-250 rooms then a decent discount on “market rate” is surely achievable).

So a WHS / P+C nightmare to save $30k on a trip where the airfares alone are no doubt over $250,000 total, plus transfers etc, plus the staff time cost…….. seems like a false economy to me

 

[Captain Halliday]

Building on the logic @docjames has outlined.

What’s your company’s risk tolerance @jakeseven7 ?

While I’m sure your people are all wonderful, it would only take one thing to go wrong and the company could find itself dealing with a complex, time consuming and costly HR matter.

Not to mention potential adverse publicity.

 

[Must...Fly!]

To help manage any negative commentary around people being asked to (potentially) pay a surcharge for their own room - which I think is probably reasonable in the circumstances - I assume it would be tax deductible for the individual? Might help dampen the negative responses.

How you manage the reality of executive level getting different treatment...well, I don't think you can. I would say if the lower staff are being asked to pay a surcharge for their own room, then the executive level should have to lead by example and pay it by default. Financially it shouldn't be an issue for them in theory.