Mixing
What can I do when my manager ignores our company's travel policy?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
up vote
5
down vote
favorite
I work at a megacorp with a famously liberal travel policy: you can book any fare that's below a (high) cap, and if you save money by going under cap, you get "credits" to use on your next trip. In practice, this translates to business class most of the time. This policy is publicized outside the company, told to prospective hires, well documented on the company intranet, and followed by all other teams that I know of.
Unfortunately, the director of the division I happen to work in (~500 employees out of the company's ~50,000) has decreed her own policy: All travel is to be in cheapest economy class, accumulated fare credits may not be used, and anybody who deviates from this will have their expense report rejected and will have to foot the entire bill themselves. This was announced as a "temporary" cost-saving measure, but it's been well over a year now, the company is making record profits, and there's no sign of a change.
Most of the group travels little, but my team is scattered across four continents, meaning any travel is long (my next trip will involve 48 hours on a plane), and my colleagues, my boss and my boss's boss are all unhappy with her policy. I've contacted the company's travel policy manager, who has apologetically informed me that the "policy" is, in fact, more of a wouldn't-it-be-nice-if guideline that can be overruled by individual managers.
Short of transferring to another division, what, if anything, can I do to get the company travel policy restored?
Update: The company has a number of internal forums where I could raise the issue, garner sympathy, and quite possibly get this escalated. They're not anonymous, though, and I'm unsure if I want to put myself on the line by taking direct action this way. Also, my division is a cost center, not a profit center (and this has been a useful reminder of why you should always aim to work in a profit center, but that's another story).
company-policy benefits travel
asked Jun 3 '14 at 12:22
grumpyflier
1486
 |Â
show 3 more comments
up vote
5
down vote
favorite
I work at a megacorp with a famously liberal travel policy: you can book any fare that's below a (high) cap, and if you save money by going under cap, you get "credits" to use on your next trip. In practice, this translates to business class most of the time. This policy is publicized outside the company, told to prospective hires, well documented on the company intranet, and followed by all other teams that I know of.
Unfortunately, the director of the division I happen to work in (~500 employees out of the company's ~50,000) has decreed her own policy: All travel is to be in cheapest economy class, accumulated fare credits may not be used, and anybody who deviates from this will have their expense report rejected and will have to foot the entire bill themselves. This was announced as a "temporary" cost-saving measure, but it's been well over a year now, the company is making record profits, and there's no sign of a change.
Most of the group travels little, but my team is scattered across four continents, meaning any travel is long (my next trip will involve 48 hours on a plane), and my colleagues, my boss and my boss's boss are all unhappy with her policy. I've contacted the company's travel policy manager, who has apologetically informed me that the "policy" is, in fact, more of a wouldn't-it-be-nice-if guideline that can be overruled by individual managers.
Short of transferring to another division, what, if anything, can I do to get the company travel policy restored?
Update: The company has a number of internal forums where I could raise the issue, garner sympathy, and quite possibly get this escalated. They're not anonymous, though, and I'm unsure if I want to put myself on the line by taking direct action this way. Also, my division is a cost center, not a profit center (and this has been a useful reminder of why you should always aim to work in a profit center, but that's another story).
company-policy benefits travel
asked Jun 3 '14 at 12:22
grumpyflier
1486
6
Given the reponse from the company's travel policy manager, there does not seem to be much you can do. Your director seems to be well within his rights. If this really has an undue impact on your well-being, try to transfer.
– Stephan Kolassa
Jun 3 '14 at 12:25
2
Obviously you might be in a better position to know this than us, but while the company is making record profits, your division may not be. Your director may have been set an objective of reducing cost overhead in their division, and sees this as an easy way of doing so.
– Rob Moir
Jun 3 '14 at 12:59
What have you tried? Have you contacted HR? Have you asked the director when the policy will be reverted? How often do you travel? The current form of this question is not really something we can help you with.
– IDrinkandIKnowThings
Jun 3 '14 at 13:44
6
"What to do when manager ignores company travel policy?"is either a leading or misleading question because it is clear from the OP's post that the company travel "policy" is not a policy but simply a guideline. The question is also leading or misleading in that the manager did not ignore the guideline but chose not to implement it. Since the OP's immediate superiors are unhappy with the manager's travel policy, it is up to them to work out the arguments and round up the political support from the higher ups that would lead the manager to review and rescind her travel policy.
– Vietnhi Phuvan
Jun 3 '14 at 14:35
1
If other parts of the company are indeed getting the full benefit of the 'policy' (and make sure you check that) making some enquiries about openings in other parts of the company might be worthwhile.
– DJClayworth
Jun 3 '14 at 19:13
 |Â
show 3 more comments
up vote
5
down vote
favorite
up vote
5
down vote
favorite
I work at a megacorp with a famously liberal travel policy: you can book any fare that's below a (high) cap, and if you save money by going under cap, you get "credits" to use on your next trip. In practice, this translates to business class most of the time. This policy is publicized outside the company, told to prospective hires, well documented on the company intranet, and followed by all other teams that I know of.
Unfortunately, the director of the division I happen to work in (~500 employees out of the company's ~50,000) has decreed her own policy: All travel is to be in cheapest economy class, accumulated fare credits may not be used, and anybody who deviates from this will have their expense report rejected and will have to foot the entire bill themselves. This was announced as a "temporary" cost-saving measure, but it's been well over a year now, the company is making record profits, and there's no sign of a change.
Most of the group travels little, but my team is scattered across four continents, meaning any travel is long (my next trip will involve 48 hours on a plane), and my colleagues, my boss and my boss's boss are all unhappy with her policy. I've contacted the company's travel policy manager, who has apologetically informed me that the "policy" is, in fact, more of a wouldn't-it-be-nice-if guideline that can be overruled by individual managers.
Short of transferring to another division, what, if anything, can I do to get the company travel policy restored?
Update: The company has a number of internal forums where I could raise the issue, garner sympathy, and quite possibly get this escalated. They're not anonymous, though, and I'm unsure if I want to put myself on the line by taking direct action this way. Also, my division is a cost center, not a profit center (and this has been a useful reminder of why you should always aim to work in a profit center, but that's another story).
company-policy benefits travel
asked Jun 3 '14 at 12:22
grumpyflier
1486
I work at a megacorp with a famously liberal travel policy: you can book any fare that's below a (high) cap, and if you save money by going under cap, you get "credits" to use on your next trip. In practice, this translates to business class most of the time. This policy is publicized outside the company, told to prospective hires, well documented on the company intranet, and followed by all other teams that I know of.
Unfortunately, the director of the division I happen to work in (~500 employees out of the company's ~50,000) has decreed her own policy: All travel is to be in cheapest economy class, accumulated fare credits may not be used, and anybody who deviates from this will have their expense report rejected and will have to foot the entire bill themselves. This was announced as a "temporary" cost-saving measure, but it's been well over a year now, the company is making record profits, and there's no sign of a change.
Most of the group travels little, but my team is scattered across four continents, meaning any travel is long (my next trip will involve 48 hours on a plane), and my colleagues, my boss and my boss's boss are all unhappy with her policy. I've contacted the company's travel policy manager, who has apologetically informed me that the "policy" is, in fact, more of a wouldn't-it-be-nice-if guideline that can be overruled by individual managers.
Short of transferring to another division, what, if anything, can I do to get the company travel policy restored?
Update: The company has a number of internal forums where I could raise the issue, garner sympathy, and quite possibly get this escalated. They're not anonymous, though, and I'm unsure if I want to put myself on the line by taking direct action this way. Also, my division is a cost center, not a profit center (and this has been a useful reminder of why you should always aim to work in a profit center, but that's another story).
company-policy benefits travel
asked Jun 3 '14 at 12:22
grumpyflier
1486
edited Jun 4 '14 at 1:19
asked Jun 3 '14 at 12:22
grumpyflier
1486
asked Jun 3 '14 at 12:22
grumpyflier
1486
asked Jun 3 '14 at 12:22
grumpyflier
1486
1486
6
Given the reponse from the company's travel policy manager, there does not seem to be much you can do. Your director seems to be well within his rights. If this really has an undue impact on your well-being, try to transfer.
– Stephan Kolassa
Jun 3 '14 at 12:25
2
Obviously you might be in a better position to know this than us, but while the company is making record profits, your division may not be. Your director may have been set an objective of reducing cost overhead in their division, and sees this as an easy way of doing so.
– Rob Moir
Jun 3 '14 at 12:59
What have you tried? Have you contacted HR? Have you asked the director when the policy will be reverted? How often do you travel? The current form of this question is not really something we can help you with.
– IDrinkandIKnowThings
Jun 3 '14 at 13:44
6
"What to do when manager ignores company travel policy?"is either a leading or misleading question because it is clear from the OP's post that the company travel "policy" is not a policy but simply a guideline. The question is also leading or misleading in that the manager did not ignore the guideline but chose not to implement it. Since the OP's immediate superiors are unhappy with the manager's travel policy, it is up to them to work out the arguments and round up the political support from the higher ups that would lead the manager to review and rescind her travel policy.
– Vietnhi Phuvan
Jun 3 '14 at 14:35
1
If other parts of the company are indeed getting the full benefit of the 'policy' (and make sure you check that) making some enquiries about openings in other parts of the company might be worthwhile.
– DJClayworth
Jun 3 '14 at 19:13
 |Â
show 3 more comments
6
Given the reponse from the company's travel policy manager, there does not seem to be much you can do. Your director seems to be well within his rights. If this really has an undue impact on your well-being, try to transfer.
– Stephan Kolassa
Jun 3 '14 at 12:25
2
Obviously you might be in a better position to know this than us, but while the company is making record profits, your division may not be. Your director may have been set an objective of reducing cost overhead in their division, and sees this as an easy way of doing so.
– Rob Moir
Jun 3 '14 at 12:59
What have you tried? Have you contacted HR? Have you asked the director when the policy will be reverted? How often do you travel? The current form of this question is not really something we can help you with.
– IDrinkandIKnowThings
Jun 3 '14 at 13:44
6
"What to do when manager ignores company travel policy?"is either a leading or misleading question because it is clear from the OP's post that the company travel "policy" is not a policy but simply a guideline. The question is also leading or misleading in that the manager did not ignore the guideline but chose not to implement it. Since the OP's immediate superiors are unhappy with the manager's travel policy, it is up to them to work out the arguments and round up the political support from the higher ups that would lead the manager to review and rescind her travel policy.
– Vietnhi Phuvan
Jun 3 '14 at 14:35
1
If other parts of the company are indeed getting the full benefit of the 'policy' (and make sure you check that) making some enquiries about openings in other parts of the company might be worthwhile.
– DJClayworth
Jun 3 '14 at 19:13
6
6
Given the reponse from the company's travel policy manager, there does not seem to be much you can do. Your director seems to be well within his rights. If this really has an undue impact on your well-being, try to transfer.
– Stephan Kolassa
Jun 3 '14 at 12:25
Given the reponse from the company's travel policy manager, there does not seem to be much you can do. Your director seems to be well within his rights. If this really has an undue impact on your well-being, try to transfer.
– Stephan Kolassa
Jun 3 '14 at 12:25
2
2
Obviously you might be in a better position to know this than us, but while the company is making record profits, your division may not be. Your director may have been set an objective of reducing cost overhead in their division, and sees this as an easy way of doing so.
– Rob Moir
Jun 3 '14 at 12:59
Obviously you might be in a better position to know this than us, but while the company is making record profits, your division may not be. Your director may have been set an objective of reducing cost overhead in their division, and sees this as an easy way of doing so.
– Rob Moir
Jun 3 '14 at 12:59
What have you tried? Have you contacted HR? Have you asked the director when the policy will be reverted? How often do you travel? The current form of this question is not really something we can help you with.
– IDrinkandIKnowThings
Jun 3 '14 at 13:44
What have you tried? Have you contacted HR? Have you asked the director when the policy will be reverted? How often do you travel? The current form of this question is not really something we can help you with.
– IDrinkandIKnowThings
Jun 3 '14 at 13:44
6
6
"What to do when manager ignores company travel policy?"is either a leading or misleading question because it is clear from the OP's post that the company travel "policy" is not a policy but simply a guideline. The question is also leading or misleading in that the manager did not ignore the guideline but chose not to implement it. Since the OP's immediate superiors are unhappy with the manager's travel policy, it is up to them to work out the arguments and round up the political support from the higher ups that would lead the manager to review and rescind her travel policy.
– Vietnhi Phuvan
Jun 3 '14 at 14:35
"What to do when manager ignores company travel policy?"is either a leading or misleading question because it is clear from the OP's post that the company travel "policy" is not a policy but simply a guideline. The question is also leading or misleading in that the manager did not ignore the guideline but chose not to implement it. Since the OP's immediate superiors are unhappy with the manager's travel policy, it is up to them to work out the arguments and round up the political support from the higher ups that would lead the manager to review and rescind her travel policy.
– Vietnhi Phuvan
Jun 3 '14 at 14:35
1
1
If other parts of the company are indeed getting the full benefit of the 'policy' (and make sure you check that) making some enquiries about openings in other parts of the company might be worthwhile.
– DJClayworth
Jun 3 '14 at 19:13
If other parts of the company are indeed getting the full benefit of the 'policy' (and make sure you check that) making some enquiries about openings in other parts of the company might be worthwhile.
– DJClayworth
Jun 3 '14 at 19:13
 |Â
show 3 more comments
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
up vote
19
down vote
Seems like there's not a lot to be done except complain. Next employee evaluation meeting you have, make sure to mention this inconvenience and how it affects your enjoyment and willingness to work there. Also mention that this was advertised as a benefit when you joined and you feel misled with the current situation.
My guess; I think she might be measured on how much her department costs and her bonus could be tied to her being able to reduce costs. So, this new policy could give her a larger bonus. You suffer, she benefits. Just a guess though, but it's quite common with bonuses tied to reducing costs.
edited Jun 3 '14 at 18:37
yoozer8
4,10442955
answered Jun 3 '14 at 12:34
Fredrik
4,33521429
5
Bingo on the second paragraph. Sorry OP, there's nothing you can do.
– Raystafarian
Jun 3 '14 at 12:36
2
There is no evidence to even support that line of thought though. Its pure speculation, even if true, its the director's decision to cut costs.
– Ramhound
Jun 3 '14 at 13:06
3
@Ramhound Speculation? Yes indeed, which is why I prefaced it with "My guess". I do know that these kind of goals exists and I think they may be fairly common. In the end though, it doesn't make any difference.
– Fredrik
Jun 3 '14 at 15:13
2
It's also possible she is not rewarded for reducing expenses tied to replacing unhappy employees. Note that I hope you intended your first paragraph as sarcasm. I think anyone who doesn't read it that way and applies your advice is headed for trouble.
– Amy Blankenship
Jun 3 '14 at 18:52
I am with Amy the first paragraph is bad advice and there really is nothing helpful here. It explains why the manager might implement this but not how to get the policy restored.
– IDrinkandIKnowThings
Jun 3 '14 at 19:06
add a comment |Â
up vote
11
down vote
So, I got the policy changed. More specifically,
- my team increased their travel budgets to match the company policy, and
- the company travel head has promised to change the way credits are accounted in next FY's budget, so there's no longer an incentive for teams to ban usage.
Without going into too much detail, I confirmed that my manager was on board with this plan, then posted a public question for the next company all-hands meeting about why the company isn't enforcing its own travel policy. I then drummed up some support on the company's internal forums, helped by a few well-respected people who shared my concern. It turned out my grievance was wide-spread, so the question was voted up to the top and put to the CEO, who decreed the change.
Now, since I did this under my own name, this did involve publicly outing my own org, and there was a bit of a private shitstorm with various muckety-mucks in the org accusing me of spreading 'misinformation' (eat my economy-class-flying shorts) and my manager needing to step into to do damage control. This was expected and I don't expect it to cause meaningful harm to my career; but my company is unusual, and there are plenty of other places where this would have been be a firing offense. YMMV.
answered Jun 14 '14 at 13:10
grumpyflier
1486
1
Congratulations for sticking your head out.
– Jan Doggen
Jun 14 '14 at 16:53
add a comment |Â
up vote
5
down vote
48 hours of travel is highly unreasonable for a large business. Be prepared to be let go, but I think this is one of those cases where you need to tell your manager or float it all the way up that you will not travel half way around the world in coach.
Also, this should be being paid directly by the company anyway or on a company card, so rejecting the expense report would not hurt you financially.
answered Jun 3 '14 at 19:31
Bill Leeper
10.7k2735
2
I hate flying. I'll do it if I have to, but forcing me to fly coach on a long, intercontinental flight would have me looking for a new job. Who is this clown that manages a distributed team but doesn't want to pay for reasonable travel accommodations?
– James Adam
Jun 3 '14 at 19:33
Company cards don't work that way. In most cases you are responsible and it may be your credit rating on the line too. The company card is just a convenience. It is ultimately backed by the company though so say an employee has a crappy credit rating they can still get a card to use for travel. If an expense report is rejected you are still responsible and in some cases the company will take it out of your paycheck for un re-imbursed expenses. Been there ate the lobster and paid for it.
– Bill Leeper
Mar 2 '16 at 23:58
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
This was announced as a "temporary" cost-saving measure, but it's been
well over a year now, the company is making record profits, and
there's no sign of a change.
You know what this sounds like to me? One of two things. Both not what you might think:
Back Door Layoffs: This could be a back door layoff method. Meaning, while your company might not be able to formally lay off staff, they can create scenarios where people doing their jobs will simply “fail†and then be let go for failure to perform. Or force you to do work in an environment that drives you so nuts, you leave.
Field-Testing New Policy: Yes, they had to engage in cost cutting before. But often a company sees cost cutting measures as a way to “field test†new “efficiencies†in their organization. Either consciously or not. So when the books are balanced again, higher ups meet, they see cost savings and then decide, “Let’s just make it policy!â€Â
Not much you can do to stop this. So I would just document the experience as much as possible.
answered Jun 4 '14 at 2:48
JakeGould
6,5821739
Please keep in mind that nr. 1 is ILLEGAL in most western countries (Europe + North America). It's hard to prove in court, though...
– Radu Murzea
Jun 4 '14 at 8:16
@Radu, "Constructive Dismissal" might be illegal, but it still happens all the time. The problem is, as you say, that it's very difficult to prove.
– James Adam
Jun 4 '14 at 13:42
@RaduMurzea Yes, that would be illegal. Bt without any corroborating evidence or a deep history you can’t do anything. In this case, the original poster might be able to get a group of people to work together to make a combined case, but that is doubtful. The law & reality of the workplace are two different things.
– JakeGould
Jun 4 '14 at 13:52
add a comment |Â
StackExchange.ready(function ()
$("#show-editor-button input, #show-editor-button button").click(function ()
var showEditor = function()
$("#show-editor-button").hide();
$("#post-form").removeClass("dno");
StackExchange.editor.finallyInit();
;
var useFancy = $(this).data('confirm-use-fancy');
if(useFancy == 'True')
var popupTitle = $(this).data('confirm-fancy-title');
var popupBody = $(this).data('confirm-fancy-body');
var popupAccept = $(this).data('confirm-fancy-accept-button');
$(this).loadPopup(
url: '/post/self-answer-popup',
loaded: function(popup)
var pTitle = $(popup).find('h2');
var pBody = $(popup).find('.popup-body');
var pSubmit = $(popup).find('.popup-submit');
pTitle.text(popupTitle);
pBody.html(popupBody);
pSubmit.val(popupAccept).click(showEditor);
)
else
var confirmText = $(this).data('confirm-text');
if (confirmText ? confirm(confirmText) : true)
showEditor();
);
);
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
19
down vote
Seems like there's not a lot to be done except complain. Next employee evaluation meeting you have, make sure to mention this inconvenience and how it affects your enjoyment and willingness to work there. Also mention that this was advertised as a benefit when you joined and you feel misled with the current situation.
My guess; I think she might be measured on how much her department costs and her bonus could be tied to her being able to reduce costs. So, this new policy could give her a larger bonus. You suffer, she benefits. Just a guess though, but it's quite common with bonuses tied to reducing costs.
edited Jun 3 '14 at 18:37
yoozer8
4,10442955
answered Jun 3 '14 at 12:34
Fredrik
4,33521429
5
Bingo on the second paragraph. Sorry OP, there's nothing you can do.
– Raystafarian
Jun 3 '14 at 12:36
2
There is no evidence to even support that line of thought though. Its pure speculation, even if true, its the director's decision to cut costs.
– Ramhound
Jun 3 '14 at 13:06
3
@Ramhound Speculation? Yes indeed, which is why I prefaced it with "My guess". I do know that these kind of goals exists and I think they may be fairly common. In the end though, it doesn't make any difference.
– Fredrik
Jun 3 '14 at 15:13
2
It's also possible she is not rewarded for reducing expenses tied to replacing unhappy employees. Note that I hope you intended your first paragraph as sarcasm. I think anyone who doesn't read it that way and applies your advice is headed for trouble.
– Amy Blankenship
Jun 3 '14 at 18:52
I am with Amy the first paragraph is bad advice and there really is nothing helpful here. It explains why the manager might implement this but not how to get the policy restored.
– IDrinkandIKnowThings
Jun 3 '14 at 19:06
add a comment |Â
up vote
19
down vote
Seems like there's not a lot to be done except complain. Next employee evaluation meeting you have, make sure to mention this inconvenience and how it affects your enjoyment and willingness to work there. Also mention that this was advertised as a benefit when you joined and you feel misled with the current situation.
My guess; I think she might be measured on how much her department costs and her bonus could be tied to her being able to reduce costs. So, this new policy could give her a larger bonus. You suffer, she benefits. Just a guess though, but it's quite common with bonuses tied to reducing costs.
edited Jun 3 '14 at 18:37
yoozer8
4,10442955
answered Jun 3 '14 at 12:34
Fredrik
4,33521429
5
Bingo on the second paragraph. Sorry OP, there's nothing you can do.
– Raystafarian
Jun 3 '14 at 12:36
2
There is no evidence to even support that line of thought though. Its pure speculation, even if true, its the director's decision to cut costs.
– Ramhound
Jun 3 '14 at 13:06
3
@Ramhound Speculation? Yes indeed, which is why I prefaced it with "My guess". I do know that these kind of goals exists and I think they may be fairly common. In the end though, it doesn't make any difference.
– Fredrik
Jun 3 '14 at 15:13
2
It's also possible she is not rewarded for reducing expenses tied to replacing unhappy employees. Note that I hope you intended your first paragraph as sarcasm. I think anyone who doesn't read it that way and applies your advice is headed for trouble.
– Amy Blankenship
Jun 3 '14 at 18:52
I am with Amy the first paragraph is bad advice and there really is nothing helpful here. It explains why the manager might implement this but not how to get the policy restored.
– IDrinkandIKnowThings
Jun 3 '14 at 19:06
add a comment |Â
up vote
19
down vote
up vote
19
down vote
Seems like there's not a lot to be done except complain. Next employee evaluation meeting you have, make sure to mention this inconvenience and how it affects your enjoyment and willingness to work there. Also mention that this was advertised as a benefit when you joined and you feel misled with the current situation.
My guess; I think she might be measured on how much her department costs and her bonus could be tied to her being able to reduce costs. So, this new policy could give her a larger bonus. You suffer, she benefits. Just a guess though, but it's quite common with bonuses tied to reducing costs.
edited Jun 3 '14 at 18:37
yoozer8
4,10442955
answered Jun 3 '14 at 12:34
Fredrik
4,33521429
Seems like there's not a lot to be done except complain. Next employee evaluation meeting you have, make sure to mention this inconvenience and how it affects your enjoyment and willingness to work there. Also mention that this was advertised as a benefit when you joined and you feel misled with the current situation.
My guess; I think she might be measured on how much her department costs and her bonus could be tied to her being able to reduce costs. So, this new policy could give her a larger bonus. You suffer, she benefits. Just a guess though, but it's quite common with bonuses tied to reducing costs.
edited Jun 3 '14 at 18:37
yoozer8
4,10442955
answered Jun 3 '14 at 12:34
Fredrik
4,33521429
edited Jun 3 '14 at 18:37
yoozer8
4,10442955
edited Jun 3 '14 at 18:37
yoozer8
4,10442955
edited Jun 3 '14 at 18:37
yoozer8
4,10442955
4,10442955
answered Jun 3 '14 at 12:34
Fredrik
4,33521429
answered Jun 3 '14 at 12:34
Fredrik
4,33521429
answered Jun 3 '14 at 12:34
Fredrik
4,33521429
4,33521429
5
Bingo on the second paragraph. Sorry OP, there's nothing you can do.
– Raystafarian
Jun 3 '14 at 12:36
2
There is no evidence to even support that line of thought though. Its pure speculation, even if true, its the director's decision to cut costs.
– Ramhound
Jun 3 '14 at 13:06
3
@Ramhound Speculation? Yes indeed, which is why I prefaced it with "My guess". I do know that these kind of goals exists and I think they may be fairly common. In the end though, it doesn't make any difference.
– Fredrik
Jun 3 '14 at 15:13
2
It's also possible she is not rewarded for reducing expenses tied to replacing unhappy employees. Note that I hope you intended your first paragraph as sarcasm. I think anyone who doesn't read it that way and applies your advice is headed for trouble.
– Amy Blankenship
Jun 3 '14 at 18:52
I am with Amy the first paragraph is bad advice and there really is nothing helpful here. It explains why the manager might implement this but not how to get the policy restored.
– IDrinkandIKnowThings
Jun 3 '14 at 19:06
add a comment |Â
5
Bingo on the second paragraph. Sorry OP, there's nothing you can do.
– Raystafarian
Jun 3 '14 at 12:36
2
There is no evidence to even support that line of thought though. Its pure speculation, even if true, its the director's decision to cut costs.
– Ramhound
Jun 3 '14 at 13:06
3
@Ramhound Speculation? Yes indeed, which is why I prefaced it with "My guess". I do know that these kind of goals exists and I think they may be fairly common. In the end though, it doesn't make any difference.
– Fredrik
Jun 3 '14 at 15:13
2
It's also possible she is not rewarded for reducing expenses tied to replacing unhappy employees. Note that I hope you intended your first paragraph as sarcasm. I think anyone who doesn't read it that way and applies your advice is headed for trouble.
– Amy Blankenship
Jun 3 '14 at 18:52
I am with Amy the first paragraph is bad advice and there really is nothing helpful here. It explains why the manager might implement this but not how to get the policy restored.
– IDrinkandIKnowThings
Jun 3 '14 at 19:06
5
5
Bingo on the second paragraph. Sorry OP, there's nothing you can do.
– Raystafarian
Jun 3 '14 at 12:36
Bingo on the second paragraph. Sorry OP, there's nothing you can do.
– Raystafarian
Jun 3 '14 at 12:36
2
2
There is no evidence to even support that line of thought though. Its pure speculation, even if true, its the director's decision to cut costs.
– Ramhound
Jun 3 '14 at 13:06
There is no evidence to even support that line of thought though. Its pure speculation, even if true, its the director's decision to cut costs.
– Ramhound
Jun 3 '14 at 13:06
3
3
@Ramhound Speculation? Yes indeed, which is why I prefaced it with "My guess". I do know that these kind of goals exists and I think they may be fairly common. In the end though, it doesn't make any difference.
– Fredrik
Jun 3 '14 at 15:13
@Ramhound Speculation? Yes indeed, which is why I prefaced it with "My guess". I do know that these kind of goals exists and I think they may be fairly common. In the end though, it doesn't make any difference.
– Fredrik
Jun 3 '14 at 15:13
2
2
It's also possible she is not rewarded for reducing expenses tied to replacing unhappy employees. Note that I hope you intended your first paragraph as sarcasm. I think anyone who doesn't read it that way and applies your advice is headed for trouble.
– Amy Blankenship
Jun 3 '14 at 18:52
It's also possible she is not rewarded for reducing expenses tied to replacing unhappy employees. Note that I hope you intended your first paragraph as sarcasm. I think anyone who doesn't read it that way and applies your advice is headed for trouble.
– Amy Blankenship
Jun 3 '14 at 18:52
I am with Amy the first paragraph is bad advice and there really is nothing helpful here. It explains why the manager might implement this but not how to get the policy restored.
– IDrinkandIKnowThings
Jun 3 '14 at 19:06
I am with Amy the first paragraph is bad advice and there really is nothing helpful here. It explains why the manager might implement this but not how to get the policy restored.
– IDrinkandIKnowThings
Jun 3 '14 at 19:06
add a comment |Â
up vote
11
down vote
So, I got the policy changed. More specifically,
- my team increased their travel budgets to match the company policy, and
- the company travel head has promised to change the way credits are accounted in next FY's budget, so there's no longer an incentive for teams to ban usage.
Without going into too much detail, I confirmed that my manager was on board with this plan, then posted a public question for the next company all-hands meeting about why the company isn't enforcing its own travel policy. I then drummed up some support on the company's internal forums, helped by a few well-respected people who shared my concern. It turned out my grievance was wide-spread, so the question was voted up to the top and put to the CEO, who decreed the change.
Now, since I did this under my own name, this did involve publicly outing my own org, and there was a bit of a private shitstorm with various muckety-mucks in the org accusing me of spreading 'misinformation' (eat my economy-class-flying shorts) and my manager needing to step into to do damage control. This was expected and I don't expect it to cause meaningful harm to my career; but my company is unusual, and there are plenty of other places where this would have been be a firing offense. YMMV.
answered Jun 14 '14 at 13:10
grumpyflier
1486
1
Congratulations for sticking your head out.
– Jan Doggen
Jun 14 '14 at 16:53
add a comment |Â
up vote
11
down vote
So, I got the policy changed. More specifically,
- my team increased their travel budgets to match the company policy, and
- the company travel head has promised to change the way credits are accounted in next FY's budget, so there's no longer an incentive for teams to ban usage.
Without going into too much detail, I confirmed that my manager was on board with this plan, then posted a public question for the next company all-hands meeting about why the company isn't enforcing its own travel policy. I then drummed up some support on the company's internal forums, helped by a few well-respected people who shared my concern. It turned out my grievance was wide-spread, so the question was voted up to the top and put to the CEO, who decreed the change.
Now, since I did this under my own name, this did involve publicly outing my own org, and there was a bit of a private shitstorm with various muckety-mucks in the org accusing me of spreading 'misinformation' (eat my economy-class-flying shorts) and my manager needing to step into to do damage control. This was expected and I don't expect it to cause meaningful harm to my career; but my company is unusual, and there are plenty of other places where this would have been be a firing offense. YMMV.
answered Jun 14 '14 at 13:10
grumpyflier
1486
1
Congratulations for sticking your head out.
– Jan Doggen
Jun 14 '14 at 16:53
add a comment |Â
up vote
11
down vote
up vote
11
down vote
So, I got the policy changed. More specifically,
- my team increased their travel budgets to match the company policy, and
- the company travel head has promised to change the way credits are accounted in next FY's budget, so there's no longer an incentive for teams to ban usage.
Without going into too much detail, I confirmed that my manager was on board with this plan, then posted a public question for the next company all-hands meeting about why the company isn't enforcing its own travel policy. I then drummed up some support on the company's internal forums, helped by a few well-respected people who shared my concern. It turned out my grievance was wide-spread, so the question was voted up to the top and put to the CEO, who decreed the change.
Now, since I did this under my own name, this did involve publicly outing my own org, and there was a bit of a private shitstorm with various muckety-mucks in the org accusing me of spreading 'misinformation' (eat my economy-class-flying shorts) and my manager needing to step into to do damage control. This was expected and I don't expect it to cause meaningful harm to my career; but my company is unusual, and there are plenty of other places where this would have been be a firing offense. YMMV.
answered Jun 14 '14 at 13:10
grumpyflier
1486
So, I got the policy changed. More specifically,
- my team increased their travel budgets to match the company policy, and
- the company travel head has promised to change the way credits are accounted in next FY's budget, so there's no longer an incentive for teams to ban usage.
Without going into too much detail, I confirmed that my manager was on board with this plan, then posted a public question for the next company all-hands meeting about why the company isn't enforcing its own travel policy. I then drummed up some support on the company's internal forums, helped by a few well-respected people who shared my concern. It turned out my grievance was wide-spread, so the question was voted up to the top and put to the CEO, who decreed the change.
Now, since I did this under my own name, this did involve publicly outing my own org, and there was a bit of a private shitstorm with various muckety-mucks in the org accusing me of spreading 'misinformation' (eat my economy-class-flying shorts) and my manager needing to step into to do damage control. This was expected and I don't expect it to cause meaningful harm to my career; but my company is unusual, and there are plenty of other places where this would have been be a firing offense. YMMV.
answered Jun 14 '14 at 13:10
grumpyflier
1486
answered Jun 14 '14 at 13:10
grumpyflier
1486
answered Jun 14 '14 at 13:10
grumpyflier
1486
answered Jun 14 '14 at 13:10
grumpyflier
1486
1486
1
Congratulations for sticking your head out.
– Jan Doggen
Jun 14 '14 at 16:53
add a comment |Â
1
Congratulations for sticking your head out.
– Jan Doggen
Jun 14 '14 at 16:53
1
1
Congratulations for sticking your head out.
– Jan Doggen
Jun 14 '14 at 16:53
Congratulations for sticking your head out.
– Jan Doggen
Jun 14 '14 at 16:53
add a comment |Â
up vote
5
down vote
48 hours of travel is highly unreasonable for a large business. Be prepared to be let go, but I think this is one of those cases where you need to tell your manager or float it all the way up that you will not travel half way around the world in coach.
Also, this should be being paid directly by the company anyway or on a company card, so rejecting the expense report would not hurt you financially.
answered Jun 3 '14 at 19:31
Bill Leeper
10.7k2735
2
I hate flying. I'll do it if I have to, but forcing me to fly coach on a long, intercontinental flight would have me looking for a new job. Who is this clown that manages a distributed team but doesn't want to pay for reasonable travel accommodations?
– James Adam
Jun 3 '14 at 19:33
Company cards don't work that way. In most cases you are responsible and it may be your credit rating on the line too. The company card is just a convenience. It is ultimately backed by the company though so say an employee has a crappy credit rating they can still get a card to use for travel. If an expense report is rejected you are still responsible and in some cases the company will take it out of your paycheck for un re-imbursed expenses. Been there ate the lobster and paid for it.
– Bill Leeper
Mar 2 '16 at 23:58
add a comment |Â
up vote
5
down vote
48 hours of travel is highly unreasonable for a large business. Be prepared to be let go, but I think this is one of those cases where you need to tell your manager or float it all the way up that you will not travel half way around the world in coach.
Also, this should be being paid directly by the company anyway or on a company card, so rejecting the expense report would not hurt you financially.
answered Jun 3 '14 at 19:31
Bill Leeper
10.7k2735
2
I hate flying. I'll do it if I have to, but forcing me to fly coach on a long, intercontinental flight would have me looking for a new job. Who is this clown that manages a distributed team but doesn't want to pay for reasonable travel accommodations?
– James Adam
Jun 3 '14 at 19:33
Company cards don't work that way. In most cases you are responsible and it may be your credit rating on the line too. The company card is just a convenience. It is ultimately backed by the company though so say an employee has a crappy credit rating they can still get a card to use for travel. If an expense report is rejected you are still responsible and in some cases the company will take it out of your paycheck for un re-imbursed expenses. Been there ate the lobster and paid for it.
– Bill Leeper
Mar 2 '16 at 23:58
add a comment |Â
up vote
5
down vote
up vote
5
down vote
48 hours of travel is highly unreasonable for a large business. Be prepared to be let go, but I think this is one of those cases where you need to tell your manager or float it all the way up that you will not travel half way around the world in coach.
Also, this should be being paid directly by the company anyway or on a company card, so rejecting the expense report would not hurt you financially.
answered Jun 3 '14 at 19:31
Bill Leeper
10.7k2735
48 hours of travel is highly unreasonable for a large business. Be prepared to be let go, but I think this is one of those cases where you need to tell your manager or float it all the way up that you will not travel half way around the world in coach.
Also, this should be being paid directly by the company anyway or on a company card, so rejecting the expense report would not hurt you financially.
answered Jun 3 '14 at 19:31
Bill Leeper
10.7k2735
answered Jun 3 '14 at 19:31
Bill Leeper
10.7k2735
answered Jun 3 '14 at 19:31
Bill Leeper
10.7k2735
answered Jun 3 '14 at 19:31
Bill Leeper
10.7k2735
10.7k2735
2
I hate flying. I'll do it if I have to, but forcing me to fly coach on a long, intercontinental flight would have me looking for a new job. Who is this clown that manages a distributed team but doesn't want to pay for reasonable travel accommodations?
– James Adam
Jun 3 '14 at 19:33
Company cards don't work that way. In most cases you are responsible and it may be your credit rating on the line too. The company card is just a convenience. It is ultimately backed by the company though so say an employee has a crappy credit rating they can still get a card to use for travel. If an expense report is rejected you are still responsible and in some cases the company will take it out of your paycheck for un re-imbursed expenses. Been there ate the lobster and paid for it.
– Bill Leeper
Mar 2 '16 at 23:58
add a comment |Â
2
I hate flying. I'll do it if I have to, but forcing me to fly coach on a long, intercontinental flight would have me looking for a new job. Who is this clown that manages a distributed team but doesn't want to pay for reasonable travel accommodations?
– James Adam
Jun 3 '14 at 19:33
Company cards don't work that way. In most cases you are responsible and it may be your credit rating on the line too. The company card is just a convenience. It is ultimately backed by the company though so say an employee has a crappy credit rating they can still get a card to use for travel. If an expense report is rejected you are still responsible and in some cases the company will take it out of your paycheck for un re-imbursed expenses. Been there ate the lobster and paid for it.
– Bill Leeper
Mar 2 '16 at 23:58
2
2
I hate flying. I'll do it if I have to, but forcing me to fly coach on a long, intercontinental flight would have me looking for a new job. Who is this clown that manages a distributed team but doesn't want to pay for reasonable travel accommodations?
– James Adam
Jun 3 '14 at 19:33
I hate flying. I'll do it if I have to, but forcing me to fly coach on a long, intercontinental flight would have me looking for a new job. Who is this clown that manages a distributed team but doesn't want to pay for reasonable travel accommodations?
– James Adam
Jun 3 '14 at 19:33
Company cards don't work that way. In most cases you are responsible and it may be your credit rating on the line too. The company card is just a convenience. It is ultimately backed by the company though so say an employee has a crappy credit rating they can still get a card to use for travel. If an expense report is rejected you are still responsible and in some cases the company will take it out of your paycheck for un re-imbursed expenses. Been there ate the lobster and paid for it.
– Bill Leeper
Mar 2 '16 at 23:58
Company cards don't work that way. In most cases you are responsible and it may be your credit rating on the line too. The company card is just a convenience. It is ultimately backed by the company though so say an employee has a crappy credit rating they can still get a card to use for travel. If an expense report is rejected you are still responsible and in some cases the company will take it out of your paycheck for un re-imbursed expenses. Been there ate the lobster and paid for it.
– Bill Leeper
Mar 2 '16 at 23:58
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
This was announced as a "temporary" cost-saving measure, but it's been
well over a year now, the company is making record profits, and
there's no sign of a change.
You know what this sounds like to me? One of two things. Both not what you might think:
Back Door Layoffs: This could be a back door layoff method. Meaning, while your company might not be able to formally lay off staff, they can create scenarios where people doing their jobs will simply “fail†and then be let go for failure to perform. Or force you to do work in an environment that drives you so nuts, you leave.
Field-Testing New Policy: Yes, they had to engage in cost cutting before. But often a company sees cost cutting measures as a way to “field test†new “efficiencies†in their organization. Either consciously or not. So when the books are balanced again, higher ups meet, they see cost savings and then decide, “Let’s just make it policy!â€Â
Not much you can do to stop this. So I would just document the experience as much as possible.
answered Jun 4 '14 at 2:48
JakeGould
6,5821739
Please keep in mind that nr. 1 is ILLEGAL in most western countries (Europe + North America). It's hard to prove in court, though...
– Radu Murzea
Jun 4 '14 at 8:16
@Radu, "Constructive Dismissal" might be illegal, but it still happens all the time. The problem is, as you say, that it's very difficult to prove.
– James Adam
Jun 4 '14 at 13:42
@RaduMurzea Yes, that would be illegal. Bt without any corroborating evidence or a deep history you can’t do anything. In this case, the original poster might be able to get a group of people to work together to make a combined case, but that is doubtful. The law & reality of the workplace are two different things.
– JakeGould
Jun 4 '14 at 13:52
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
This was announced as a "temporary" cost-saving measure, but it's been
well over a year now, the company is making record profits, and
there's no sign of a change.
You know what this sounds like to me? One of two things. Both not what you might think:
Back Door Layoffs: This could be a back door layoff method. Meaning, while your company might not be able to formally lay off staff, they can create scenarios where people doing their jobs will simply “fail†and then be let go for failure to perform. Or force you to do work in an environment that drives you so nuts, you leave.
Field-Testing New Policy: Yes, they had to engage in cost cutting before. But often a company sees cost cutting measures as a way to “field test†new “efficiencies†in their organization. Either consciously or not. So when the books are balanced again, higher ups meet, they see cost savings and then decide, “Let’s just make it policy!â€Â
Not much you can do to stop this. So I would just document the experience as much as possible.
answered Jun 4 '14 at 2:48
JakeGould
6,5821739
Please keep in mind that nr. 1 is ILLEGAL in most western countries (Europe + North America). It's hard to prove in court, though...
– Radu Murzea
Jun 4 '14 at 8:16
@Radu, "Constructive Dismissal" might be illegal, but it still happens all the time. The problem is, as you say, that it's very difficult to prove.
– James Adam
Jun 4 '14 at 13:42
@RaduMurzea Yes, that would be illegal. Bt without any corroborating evidence or a deep history you can’t do anything. In this case, the original poster might be able to get a group of people to work together to make a combined case, but that is doubtful. The law & reality of the workplace are two different things.
– JakeGould
Jun 4 '14 at 13:52
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
This was announced as a "temporary" cost-saving measure, but it's been
well over a year now, the company is making record profits, and
there's no sign of a change.
You know what this sounds like to me? One of two things. Both not what you might think:
Back Door Layoffs: This could be a back door layoff method. Meaning, while your company might not be able to formally lay off staff, they can create scenarios where people doing their jobs will simply “fail†and then be let go for failure to perform. Or force you to do work in an environment that drives you so nuts, you leave.
Field-Testing New Policy: Yes, they had to engage in cost cutting before. But often a company sees cost cutting measures as a way to “field test†new “efficiencies†in their organization. Either consciously or not. So when the books are balanced again, higher ups meet, they see cost savings and then decide, “Let’s just make it policy!â€Â
Not much you can do to stop this. So I would just document the experience as much as possible.
answered Jun 4 '14 at 2:48
JakeGould
6,5821739
This was announced as a "temporary" cost-saving measure, but it's been
well over a year now, the company is making record profits, and
there's no sign of a change.
You know what this sounds like to me? One of two things. Both not what you might think:
Back Door Layoffs: This could be a back door layoff method. Meaning, while your company might not be able to formally lay off staff, they can create scenarios where people doing their jobs will simply “fail†and then be let go for failure to perform. Or force you to do work in an environment that drives you so nuts, you leave.
Field-Testing New Policy: Yes, they had to engage in cost cutting before. But often a company sees cost cutting measures as a way to “field test†new “efficiencies†in their organization. Either consciously or not. So when the books are balanced again, higher ups meet, they see cost savings and then decide, “Let’s just make it policy!â€Â
Not much you can do to stop this. So I would just document the experience as much as possible.
answered Jun 4 '14 at 2:48
JakeGould
6,5821739
answered Jun 4 '14 at 2:48
JakeGould
6,5821739
answered Jun 4 '14 at 2:48
JakeGould
6,5821739
answered Jun 4 '14 at 2:48
JakeGould
6,5821739
6,5821739
Please keep in mind that nr. 1 is ILLEGAL in most western countries (Europe + North America). It's hard to prove in court, though...
– Radu Murzea
Jun 4 '14 at 8:16
@Radu, "Constructive Dismissal" might be illegal, but it still happens all the time. The problem is, as you say, that it's very difficult to prove.
– James Adam
Jun 4 '14 at 13:42
@RaduMurzea Yes, that would be illegal. Bt without any corroborating evidence or a deep history you can’t do anything. In this case, the original poster might be able to get a group of people to work together to make a combined case, but that is doubtful. The law & reality of the workplace are two different things.
– JakeGould
Jun 4 '14 at 13:52
add a comment |Â
Please keep in mind that nr. 1 is ILLEGAL in most western countries (Europe + North America). It's hard to prove in court, though...
– Radu Murzea
Jun 4 '14 at 8:16
@Radu, "Constructive Dismissal" might be illegal, but it still happens all the time. The problem is, as you say, that it's very difficult to prove.
– James Adam
Jun 4 '14 at 13:42
@RaduMurzea Yes, that would be illegal. Bt without any corroborating evidence or a deep history you can’t do anything. In this case, the original poster might be able to get a group of people to work together to make a combined case, but that is doubtful. The law & reality of the workplace are two different things.
– JakeGould
Jun 4 '14 at 13:52
Please keep in mind that nr. 1 is ILLEGAL in most western countries (Europe + North America). It's hard to prove in court, though...
– Radu Murzea
Jun 4 '14 at 8:16
Please keep in mind that nr. 1 is ILLEGAL in most western countries (Europe + North America). It's hard to prove in court, though...
– Radu Murzea
Jun 4 '14 at 8:16
@Radu, "Constructive Dismissal" might be illegal, but it still happens all the time. The problem is, as you say, that it's very difficult to prove.
– James Adam
Jun 4 '14 at 13:42
@Radu, "Constructive Dismissal" might be illegal, but it still happens all the time. The problem is, as you say, that it's very difficult to prove.
– James Adam
Jun 4 '14 at 13:42
@RaduMurzea Yes, that would be illegal. Bt without any corroborating evidence or a deep history you can’t do anything. In this case, the original poster might be able to get a group of people to work together to make a combined case, but that is doubtful. The law & reality of the workplace are two different things.
– JakeGould
Jun 4 '14 at 13:52
@RaduMurzea Yes, that would be illegal. Bt without any corroborating evidence or a deep history you can’t do anything. In this case, the original poster might be able to get a group of people to work together to make a combined case, but that is doubtful. The law & reality of the workplace are two different things.
– JakeGould
Jun 4 '14 at 13:52
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworkplace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f25821%2fwhat-can-i-do-when-my-manager-ignores-our-companys-travel-policy%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
6
Given the reponse from the company's travel policy manager, there does not seem to be much you can do. Your director seems to be well within his rights. If this really has an undue impact on your well-being, try to transfer.
– Stephan Kolassa
Jun 3 '14 at 12:25
2
Obviously you might be in a better position to know this than us, but while the company is making record profits, your division may not be. Your director may have been set an objective of reducing cost overhead in their division, and sees this as an easy way of doing so.
– Rob Moir
Jun 3 '14 at 12:59
What have you tried? Have you contacted HR? Have you asked the director when the policy will be reverted? How often do you travel? The current form of this question is not really something we can help you with.
– IDrinkandIKnowThings
Jun 3 '14 at 13:44
6
"What to do when manager ignores company travel policy?"is either a leading or misleading question because it is clear from the OP's post that the company travel "policy" is not a policy but simply a guideline. The question is also leading or misleading in that the manager did not ignore the guideline but chose not to implement it. Since the OP's immediate superiors are unhappy with the manager's travel policy, it is up to them to work out the arguments and round up the political support from the higher ups that would lead the manager to review and rescind her travel policy.
– Vietnhi Phuvan
Jun 3 '14 at 14:35
1
If other parts of the company are indeed getting the full benefit of the 'policy' (and make sure you check that) making some enquiries about openings in other parts of the company might be worthwhile.
– DJClayworth
Jun 3 '14 at 19:13