Other peoples' money, your back, everybody's carbon

[fivemack]

[Poll #1398090]

Comments

[purpletigron.livejournal.com]

I couldn't answer the first poll, so the statistics ignore me ... I don't think it's ever reasonable for me to fly again :-)

[fanf]

+1

[j4.livejournal.com]

+1

And not just "for me" - I don't think it's reasonable for most people to fly at all until or unless there is a viable technological solution for undoing the damage it causes (and I am far from optimistic that this will happen).

[vyvyan.livejournal.com]

Yes, this.

[seawasp]

I couldn't clicky in the second poll because the answer would be "Mine, if I was so broke that I couldn't squeeze the money for comfort; otherwise economy never trumps comfort. If you're forcing me to travel away from my home, you're damn well making it comfortable for me."

[dd-b.livejournal.com]

This is one of the reasons that "reasonable corporate policy" is so hard. Some people really don't want to be away, but will if necessary but feel they're already giving up a lot. You sound a bit in that camp. I've mostly enjoyed business travel, and try to take advantage of it to see places or people I don't get to see otherwise, and a business can IMHO reasonably take account of the fact that people like me exist, too. In fact, if they can reasonably send me instead of you, it sounds like it might be a win for everybody. And to get *me* to go they don't have to offer as much :-). But trying to sort people out that way and expecting them to be consistent is hard, too, and leaves lots of room for gaming the system.

[bohemiancoast.livejournal.com]

It's a balance, isn't it? If the combination of travel requirements and expenses policy is too onerous, you get a different job.

[addedentry.livejournal.com]

I have just turned down on environmental grounds a work trip to New York City including a weekend at leisure /-:

[purpletigron.livejournal.com]

FWIW I would do the same.

[emperor]

Is the timing of this poll less than conincidental with my most recent LJ post??

[fivemack.livejournal.com]

You made me think and so I put up the poll. It wasn't aimed to offend, and I hope it hasn't.

[rezendi.livejournal.com]

Heh. The people have spoken, and they are not fond of Ryanair.

[fivemack.livejournal.com]

Though they seem to like Toronto even more than they dislike Ryanair.

I wonder if Katowice is insufficiently famously dreadful to pick for the November stopover; I thought thoroughly Stalined industrial Silesia would have put more people off ...

[ptc24.livejournal.com]

Padding conferences: the general rule is that a) I do it if the flights are the same price, or cheaper, b) I pay for the extra nights if the flights are similar prices, c) they pay if the flights are so much cheaper that the discount pays for the extra hotel nights.

In general, trade-offs for comfort and convenience apply no matter who's paying - there's some stuff that's reasonable whoever's paying, and some stuff that isn't. I would have scruples about being excessive on expenses, even if those expenses were being paid by someone I was considering suing/campaigning against/etc.. That said, comfort may be recognised as a perk of the job, and factored into how much you get paid, what you get sent on, etc. so it's not a bad thing to see what the norm is in your organisation and follow that.

[bohemiancoast.livejournal.com]

Almost exactly what I would have said.

[redbird]

The problem with all those tickyboxes is that after about three, I realized I was checking only the ones I was sure my answer was yes on: there are a whole bunch where I don't really have an opinion (for example, never having flown Easyjet or Ryanair, I don't know how much less comfortable they would be _for me_ than a national carrier). And I don't have a generic "reasonable person" here to check that against. [I have not yet answered the poll.]

I suspect other people may react similarly, skewing things to looking more like "no" when some are "no opinion."

[ptc24.livejournal.com]

Also: Fly instead of taking a cheaper train, because it's quicker: depends how much you're saving. To Prague, yes. To Scotland, no. (That said, if it were just about the money, yes).

[the-magician.livejournal.com]

I flew to Scotland for some conventions, because it meant I could complete a day of work and then head up there whereas the slower train would mean taking additional half or full days off work ... put a value on my vacation time and it's *much* cheaper to fly in those situations!

[dd-b.livejournal.com]

I *might* allow economy to override comfort in any of those cases (last set), depending on the difference in price and the difference in comfort. Both extremes, skin-flint and extravagant, are in theory more likely with my own money.

When I was at DEC in the 1980s, and did some international travel for them, corporate policy was that for flights over 5 hours employees were entitled to business-class seats (or first-class if there was no business class). Having made a number of slightly-over-5-hour trips to the UK on my own money in tourist class, and a business trip from Massachusetts to Australia and New Zealand in business class for DEC, I think it's a very reasonable policy. Some people with various joint and back issues really couldn't tolerate those long flights in tiny seats at all, and even for the rest of us we arrive a lot more ready to accomplish something.

[addedentry.livejournal.com]

Climate change aside - if only - other people's money goes further on a business trip if you're not bleary-eyed and bruised from failing to sleep on a sleeper train.

[emperor]

I can sleep OK on sleeper trains, but only if I have a compartment to myself (or myself-and-atreic); my mad scheme for going to Venice is somewhat cheaper than a single-person-compartment return on the sleeper.

[lnr]

I think most of those are reasonable, provided whoever paid for it agrees it's OK (in the expensive but convenient cases) or you agree that it's worth the savings (in the inconvenient but cheap cases). And that kinda answers the second half.

NB: work are very unlikely to ever have any reason to send me anywhere far enough away to be worth flying, and not very likely to send me anywhere I can't cycle to (West Cambridge is as far as I've got on work business in the last 7 years).

It's interesting you don't include *driving* to places. When my dad has a business trip within the UK he either gets the train or drives, depending on which works out more sensible.

[monkeyhands.livejournal.com]

I think my attitude is: if you're flying, why would you feel guilty about money?

So if your trip to Toronto really is important enough to justify flying, make the most of it and spend as long as you can there because you've just used up several years' worth of what your carbon allowance would be if we lived in a fair world.

As for the questions about convenience, e.g. the expensive fast train over the cheap slow one, time is money! If you're important enough to be sent places, you're probably paid enough for your workplace to see your time as a significant resource. Or you're an academic.

[bohemiancoast.livejournal.com]

I think this is right too. First, make sure that you really, really need to be there in person.

[ckd]

"It depends."

I've flown in domestic First from Boston to Orlando, and I've flown in coach from LAX to Tokyo. My general rule of thumb is that for business travel I will travel as if it were my own money, but with a bit more lean toward the "time" side of "time/money" tradeoffs since they're paying for my time. ("Money/comfort" tradeoffs are different, and IME usually addressed by organizational policy like the 5 hour rule dd_b mentions.)

This means that I'll take the T to the airport instead of a cab or car service unless the flight is a really early departure or a really late arrival (or it's a long enough trip that I'm dealing with more baggage than usual), and it means that I'll see if there's a cheaper breakfast option near enough to the hotel that I can get a similar meal for about 2/3 the price by walking for 3 minutes. It doesn't mean that I'll stay in a hotel other than the conference HQ, or share a room with three other people.

I'm flying to Worldcon (on my money), because the (time+comfort)/money tradeoff between that and taking the bus is worth it to me. If there were reasonable rail options (there aren't), I'd certainly have considered them.

[jiggery-pokery.livejournal.com]

A fascinating series of polls, not least because I am surprised that people see so many of these as being unreasonable at all.

[filkerdave.livejournal.com]

Speaking as someone who flies a LOT...

Usually, I have to go with the policy of whatever $CLIENT will pay $EMPLOYER for. That almost always means "fly coach on a national carrier" even for longhaul flights. Our trips to Zurich were coach (despite the fact that $CLIENT would pay for their own people to fly business), for example.

Super long-haul, though, I'd either insist on business or coming in a day or three early to recover.

[seawasp]

I actually don't really have much problem with the type of flight; I usually fly Southwest.

It's the accommodations at the end that have to be good.

[hilarityallen.livejournal.com]

When I say 'reasonable to take train rather than fly for environmental reasons', I do mean if your company is sensible. I think it's reasonable in the abstract; convincing your company accountants maybe more difficult.

[jvvw.livejournal.com]

Don't get me started on the hassle I went through to get work to allow me take the train to Holland rather than fly!

[pavanne.livejournal.com]

Arg, I need to make this decision for one of the companies listed! I think they're going to pay extra for me to be back from Texas in time to man the animal stand at the Landford village fete.

But usually it kinda depends on how *much* faster, cheaper, etc. I know work wouldn't mind paying say 10% extra for me to have a cleaner environmental conscience, have a significantly more convenient trip or not lose my weekend, but 50% extra is probably not reasonable. Also Toronto sounds like a necessary flight.

[liv]

I'm an academic, so I do end up doing a fair amount of flying on expenses. But the expenses are usually ultimately either the taxpayer or a cancer charity, so I'm more than usually careful to make sure they get good value for money. Even when it's my own money, reducing the cost is generally a high priority in my decision making. Also, if I happened to get expenses paid by a rich institution, I'd want to be reasonable enough that they would want to continue sending me on business trips rather than fire me for abusing the expenses policy!

A cheaper, slower option is fine if it's a matter of hours, but if it's so much slower that it requires an overnight stopover, it ends up being more expensive because my employers have to pay extra for accommodation. Likewise, I would choose a cheaper, less comfortable option up to the point where it was so miserably uncomfortable that I needed an extra day to recover before I could do any work.

It's actually rare that Ryanair serves the same route more cheaply. Because a lot of the time Ryanair doesn't serve the same route, but goes to some obscure middle of nowhere airport. Or by the time you've added in all Ryanair's hidden costs, it's not actually cheaper. Especially as expenses are more likely to cover the theoretical cost of the air ticket than the charges for the privilege of giving Ryanair money or bringing luggage with you on your trip, or getting transport to an out of the way airport.

Conscience: I was trying to cut down on flying, until I got into a transnational relationship. Travelling within the UK I will take the train if at all possible, and even within continental Europe. But I can't always afford to take three days and pay ten times the price to make a trip, unfortunately. Similarly, I would strongly rather avoid Ryanair because of their really appalling attitude towards disabled people. Adding a few hours and a few tens of pounds to my journey is a worthwhile trade-off, but adding a whole day and hundreds of pounds is, again, beyond my budget.

I do feel that being physically present at conferences is necessary for a scientist. Sure, a business meeting with a few other people would be better handled by teleconferencing, but connecting with hundreds of colleagues at a time is pretty critical for building the kind of collaborations that lead to meaningful scientific progress.

[vicarage.livejournal.com]

A lot depends if the employer counts travel time as work time. If they do, they have the right to choose a method that minimises staff and travel cost. In practice much travel is actually overtime, and overtime performed at antisocial hours, so there is give and take with the employer.

1) If travel involves an overnight trip, they they should offer a paid recovery day for travel in economy. If they expect you to work on the arrival day, they should pay for business+ class.

2) If the cost to travel earlier or later at the employees request is much the same, they should grant it. If its a substantial difference, perhaps the employee could pay the difference.

So to start work a continent away on Tuesday they should fly you business class on Monday night, economy on Friday-Sunday