It might be if the person is more productive staying at the Ritz because it makes them more relaxed and that in turn helps them think, or do a killer presentation or whatever.
It's the problem with these policies. They're written open-ended, but there is really a "right" answer and it's whatever the boss decides. Good boss? Maybe they stick up for you. Bad boss? You're going to regret that decision.
No. No reasonable person would think that paying the premium for the Ritz would result in comparable increased returns.
They are looking for sensible people, not people who try to weasel every single definition and sentence. This applies to all communication, being able to understand others and read between the lines, and not try to one-up people by interpreting their words literally.
When the policy is "use common sense", that means "you don't have to go to a motel, you can expense breakfast, you can use the laundry if you're staying for a week or more".
Of course, people's perspectives vary. That's why you can talk and communicate to understand better. "Hey, I need to take a week long business trip, can I expense laundry?" It's not difficult.
> Bad boss?
If so, an open policy is the least of your problems.
Would you pay for Ritz Carlton out of your own pocket for a business trip?
Imagine for a second that company is not reimbursing you for travel expenses, would you go for medium priced hotel or for 5* hotel with your own money for company business trip (not your leisure vacation)?
answer becomes obvious if you look at issue this way
> Would you pay for Ritz Carlton out of your own pocket for a business trip?
Yes. I would and have. Your personal means and current state in life shouldn't be part of company policy.
Policies like this are simply terrible for everyone. Those who would spend trip over some unspoken convention and upset others without knowing. Those who would not spend are left with a worse experience for no reason. No one has a clue about what is or isn't allowed, so everyone suffers.
Maybe the Ritz Carlton is a little excessive but I've seen a lot of companies that deny international business class flights for anyone below the director level even when I know many coworkers who regularly fly business class for personal vacations. Your analogy breaks down a little because if I'm traveling for work then I can't imagine being required to pay for the trip myself. However if I was traveling there on vacation, I can imagine a world where I'd splurge. Do you think the company should pay in that case? Or is their value less about being cheap more than it is about not being excessive?
Imagine company gives $100/night allowance for hotel, but we can make thought experiment and say that allowance is $0 (and $100/night is included in salary instead).
That makes travel allowance a part of your paycheck, and all expected travel expense is loaded upfront in your salary.
then it becomes up to you - whether you go to luxury hotel for a business trip, or a medium range. Company becomes indifferent to your choices, and it becomes your choice how much to spend.
It's also not a good comparison because if you're truly an employee, you pay tax on that money, whereas the company saves tax on that company expense. The answer of your previous hypothetical would totally depend on _all_ the circumstances. Do I personally control the reward system for having gone to the conference? Do I need day to day consistency? What are my available options in the area and how do those help or hinder my ability to succeed? How much does the company, employed or otherwise, stand to make from my performing this task?
The only situation in which it'd actually be obviously excessive is when the choice would be considered truly opulent and wildly expensive given all of the circumstances.
A 3 star to a 4 or 5 star is probably not so clear if all options are available.
If I was tasked with going somewhere on behalf of a company that I don't control, then I'd pick a place that would likely start at a cost of around $3-400 USD per night with no exceptional circumstances prevailing. All hotels basically suck, that range would let me not be concerned about where I'm staying, and do well the next day if I needed to.
Amazingly corporations decided budgeting it out would save them money. Even a 500/night hotel cap is better than the difference going in the employees pocket from the corporation vantage point.
Why are so many people so intent on assuming malicious intent on behalf of individuals and positive intent on behalf of organizations. Corporations have exactly one mandate: make as much money as possible. You are a line item, a cost. They will always squeeze you because it is the nature of the organization.
I would make a different choice because it’s a totally different situation. If a company wants me spending $100/night on hotels then give me $100/night. Don’t say, “Spend our money as if you were spending your own money” and then be upset when I do that.
company i work for just gives us the prices. choose the location and they tell you how much you can spend on flight on hotel based on current rates. very easy. but we have access to a lot of data.. probably not so easy for other companies to price map the world.
but they could probably at least give specific examples. ritz Carlton no, but something nicer than motel 6... maybe take the median price for hotels within x mile radius and add 10% or whatever, let the employee work it out and if some excessive expense shows up it shouldn't be too hard to work it out by hand to see if they were being unreasonable
i wouldn't pay for a hotel out of my own pocket for a business trip. the whole point of a business trip is that you are going out of your way to do something valuable for the company, and would like to be as comfortable while doing so as the company's limits allow. it's up to the company to tell you what those limits are.
You assume your fictional business is doing poorly. I assume my fictional business is killing it and so yes I would stay at the Ritz with my peerset that I might see at breakfast, or the evening happy hour, or in SF especially, walking to a client/office.
Often (a similar class of hotel) can be a fairly efficient use of resources.
In many cities (London, Dublin, etc) the price difference between shit tier and excellent hotels is marginal, and the excellent ones tend to be better located, leading to less travel/lost time.
The same can be applied to flights: taking the faster, business class ticket, direct flight with a flag carrier airline is often more economical in terms of "lost time" than using the budget airlines.
It's the problem with these policies. They're written open-ended, but there is really a "right" answer and it's whatever the boss decides. Good boss? Maybe they stick up for you. Bad boss? You're going to regret that decision.