In my company any time spent traveling is on the clock. You don't charge for time in the hotel room, but time at the airport/in a plane/in the taxi all counts. The expenses people will cross reference your timecard to make sure you did it right too.

It's kind of annoying actually, because it means feeling guilty if you aren't working while on the plane, but at the same time I can't work because the seats are too close together and the guy ahead of me has reclined all the way so I can't even open my laptop.

Most employees are getting robbed by their employers, but those tend to be the ones who don't have expense accounts.

If you have a true expense account, you're likely on the robbing side, not the robbed.

What? Why? Wtf?

I'm also slightly surprised by the first two replies.

Expenses should definitely not be a method to get back at your employer for perceived and real sleighs. Probably, if your employer steals from you this problem should be corrected at source and not via expense claims.

For what it's worth: I think that (as a for example) an Amazon employee stands in the queue for half an hour, in order to get security checked, and is not paid for that that's wage theft. Plain and simple. No matter if the courts disagree.

Nevertheless you shouldn't fib expenses (as if those folks could) to get back at your employer.

The GP might be suggesting that it benefits both the employer and the employee here. The employee gets a better tax treatment and the employer can have a permissive approach to expenses when it might be politically difficult to officially give a raise.

Ah, OK. Thanks.

For what it's worth: I didn't downvote.

Nevertheless there seems to be an attitude in certain circles that expenses ar a form of free for all.

My assumption is that you have a relationship with your employer, which pays you for work provided. If something stinks in that relationship then it's the stink, which should be removed.

I'm aware that this is an idealized view. Especially in the US where courts seem to be overly employer friendly, or, even worse, where employees are completely shafted by mandatory arbitration clauses.

You are assuming the employer - at least the first level manager, but more likely all the way up - isn't aware of this, and approves.

Allowing expenses as pay is very common, widely practiced and normal. From buying books to hotel room stays to letting family travel along for long trips (and providing entertainment for them). Seems to happen all the time.

Hell, isn't the white house an example of it ?

(I would also like to point out that buying meat for a snake might simply be a mistake. I certainly would have tried feeding a python something dead first, wtf)

Although an official policy of being permissive with what expenses are covered seems like it'd be better than "we look away when you lie on your expenses claim". Legal safety for the employee, more fairness among employees. E.g. the first example in the article of someone having the company pay for dog care during business travel seems something that'd be fairly easy to justify as a policy.