Sharing hotel rooms with coworkers?

[sam_gordon]

I think most people who wish to be treated with respect would mentally note a policy like room sharing. It would make it much more likely they would be open to keeping an eye out for other opportunities. It's not specifically the hotel room, it's the lack of general respect for an employee's privacy.

I'm sure you didn't mean it like this (at least I hope not), but one could read the bolded that those of us who are willing (I don't think anyone has said it was a preference) to share rooms DON'T wish to be treated with respect.

 

[JoeA]

I'm sitting here in my hotel room, alone. I have my feet propped up and enjoying a glass of red wine while watching reruns of The Big Bang Theory. When the wine is done I'll get into bed and either find a movie or read for a few hours before nighty night.

And I'm in skivvies and old sweatshirt and that's it! Ah...solitude!

 

[gwynne]

I'm sure you didn't mean it like this (at least I hope not), but one could read the bolded that those of us who are willing (I don't think anyone has said it was a preference) to share rooms DON'T wish to be treated with respect.

I was only stating why this might be a big issue to some. Big enough to make an employee keep eye out for more employee friendly and respectful employer. Certainly those who are ok with sharing also want to be treated with respect, I get that.

 

[RedAngie]

That's how our schools were when I was growing up. And it was every bit as traumatizing as one might expect.

(Ouch on the decades ago comment, regardless of how true it is!)

I was very grateful that my own kids didn't have to deal with that. Definitely a "what were they thinking" issue.

Although maybe it made sharing a hotel room with a coworker seem like not such a big deal to me.

OK, we'll go with years ago.....like 5 years.

I'm not sure if group showers in school was the norm when DDs attended. They never brought up the subject and I never asked. But I doubt it was the case any longer.

In junior high taking a shower was actually part of the grade for gym class. There was a teacher's aide watching to make sure we did. And those awful gym uniforms. In high school they didn't care, and there usually wasn't time to take a shower anyway.

Yeah, I guess that's why sharing a room during business trips wasn't a big deal with my first stint with my company.

I took my wife on a business trip once. I paid for her flight & the company even picked up our tab for an extra night at the hotel because my Sat morning flight was WAY cheaper than a Sunday evening flight. DW just laid at the hotel pool all day while I worked - still swears 20 years later it was the most relaxing vacation she's ever had LOL

I went on a few business trips with exH. Once was even for 8 days in Hong Kong. He was there for 17 days. We paid for my flights in business class and my meals.

But current company doesn't allow it. There may have been a few incidents which led to the ban.

 

[mom2rtk]

OK, we'll go with years ago.....like 5 years.

I'm not sure if group showers in school was the norm when DDs attended. They never brought up the subject and I never asked. But I doubt it was the case any longer.

In junior high taking a shower was actually part of the grade for gym class. There was a teacher's aide watching to make sure we did. And those awful gym uniforms. In high school they didn't care, and there usually wasn't time to take a shower anyway.

Yeah, I guess that's why sharing a room during business trips wasn't a big deal with my first stint with my company.

Yep, part of your grade. The gym teacher stood by the shower exit with her clipboard checking off names. The only one excused were the ones brave enough to fess up to the gym teacher that they were having their period.

 

[gotomu212]

I think most people who wish to be treated with respect would mentally note a policy like room sharing. It would make it much more likely they would be open to keeping an eye out for other opportunities. It's not specifically the hotel room, it's the lack of general respect for an employee's privacy.

This! I have fortunately never been asked to share a room. I fly to Atlanta on Monday for my next trip. If for some reason I was told policy had changed and I was paired up in a room I would explain to my boss that I was uncomfortable with the expectation that I would have to sleep, change, and shower in a room with a colleague and that I'd require my own room or need to bow out of the trip. If they insisted that an accommodation wouldn't be made that would be my sign to find another job. If a company doesn't respect you enough to place you in a situation where you have expressed reasonable discomfort they aren't a place that will respect you in general.

As a boss and someone who deals with HR issues on a regular basis you have to remember that it's not whether you would be comfortable with something. It's how you respond when an employee tells you they are personally uncomfortable (and it's something somewhat reasonable). this comes up in harassment all the time. I think it's fine for someone to tell me I look good in a particular dress. If Beth comes to me though and says it makes her uncomfortable when Bob tells her she looks good in a dress, I have to tell Bob to please stop (even if I don't necessarily think Beth should be uncomfortable). I can't tell someone to get over it or that they are wrong to feel that way.

I feel like some posters here have the attitude that they're okay with it, so everybody should be okay with it. That's not respectful of employees.

 

[nkereina]

So I'd like to know how many people have turned down an assignment or left a company (which has been suggested in this thread) based solely on the "room sharing" policy.

I'm inclined to think that most companies DON'T have a room sharing policy. The ones that do are likely in the minority. Companies that have employees who travel with any regularity have the ability to budget properly to accommodate a single room per person.

 

[mom2rtk]

I'm inclined to think that most companies DON'T have a room sharing policy. The ones that do are likely in the minority. Companies that have employees who travel with any regularity have the ability to budget properly to accommodate a single room per person.

I'm inclined to think it probably varies by industry. I have worked for a variety of companies that had employees share rooms. None of it was ever for regular travel though. As I mentioned before, I can see that being different.

 

[tvguy]

. But you could not, for example, be asked to drive 3 hours to a forest fire, fight it for 8 hours and then drive back home 3 hours in the same day.
I have a friend here who used to be a fire fighter---I will double check with him and if I am wrong, I'll come back and correct this.

Wow, that certainly would be allowed here.

 

[gwynne]

I'm inclined to think it probably varies by industry. I have worked for a variety of companies that had employees share rooms. None of it was ever for regular travel though. As I mentioned before, I can see that being different.

Well, I guess I should clarify, my comments are based on regular, run of the mill business travel.
Very unusual situations I would think most would look at case by case.

 

[kamik86]

Wow, that certainly would be allowed here.

I didn't want to go back and find the original post to quote but the whole 10 hour day with travel does seem odd to me... espeically if it counts trips by plane.

For example one of the locations I travel to regularly is Seattle. Flying from Seattle either means 6 hours of flights plus a connection to get to either Albany or Hartford then an hour drive to where I work (for the purpose lets assume someone that lives very close to our office)

The location we actually work at is an hour drive from Seattle, but we do have the option to stay in a hotel near the airport before an early flight so lets assume I did that.

I leave the hotel 2 hours before my flight, 6 hours of flying, 1.5 hour connection. I'm already at 9.5 hours... do they have to pay for a hotel in Albany or Hartford because I can't be expected to make the hour drive home?


I also wonder is it that the company can't FORCE you to go over 10 hours or that they can't allow you to go over 8 hours? I once did a 9 hour 9 PM to 6 AM shift for running a test for work. I then drove directly to the airport for an 8 AM flight and flew home. It was from FL so lets assume 3 hours direct. So I was over 8 hours.

The thing is this was my choice. The company would have (and did for other coworkers) paid for another day in a hotel for them to get some sleep and they traveled on flights leaving later in the evening after some sleep or the next morning. However I was going on vacation with my DH the next day so I needed to meet up with him for our other pre-arranged travel plans and this option worked best for me.

 

[tvguy]

I didn't want to go back and find the original post to quote but the whole 10 hour day with travel does seem odd to me... espeically if it counts trips by plane.

For example one of the locations I travel to regularly is Seattle. Flying from Seattle either means 6 hours of flights plus a connection to get to either Albany or Hartford then an hour drive to where I work (for the purpose lets assume someone that lives very close to our office)

The location we actually work at is an hour drive from Seattle, but we do have the option to stay in a hotel near the airport before an early flight so lets assume I did that.

I leave the hotel 2 hours before my flight, 6 hours of flying, 1.5 hour connection. I'm already at 9.5 hours... do they have to pay for a hotel in Albany or Hartford because I can't be expected to make the hour drive home?


I also wonder is it that the company can't FORCE you to go over 10 hours or that they can't allow you to go over 8 hours? I once did a 9 hour 9 PM to 6 AM shift for running a test for work. I then drove directly to the airport for an 8 AM flight and flew home. It was from FL so lets assume 3 hours direct. So I was over 8 hours.

The thing is this was my choice. The company would have (and did for other coworkers) paid for another day in a hotel for them to get some sleep and they traveled on flights leaving later in the evening after some sleep or the next morning. However I was going on vacation with my DH the next day so I needed to meet up with him for our other pre-arranged travel plans and this option worked best for me.

Maybe the person who brought up the 10 hour limit can explain. I've never heard of such a thing. In my industry, during breaking news, a double shift (16 hours) is not uncommon. And I found out the person I mentioned that drove from Sacramento, to Reno, back to Sacramento, and back to Reno on Monday ended up being on the clock for 24 hours. Everything past 8 hours was time and a half, and there were penalties if he did not get 2 meal breaks, but it is perfectly legal to work 24 hours straight.

 

[LisaR]

DH travels frequently and has never shared a room.

One thing I just discovered from two different friends is that while their companies don't make them share rooms, they do make them travel coach no matter the length of the trip. DH gets business class on trips six hours or longer. He travels to Asia and Europe frequently. Those that don't get to travel business class either end up stuffed back in coach or they have to use their points to upgrade. That would suck. One of the perks of DH being gone so much is that we can at least use his points to go somewhere together.

Different companies, different policies. DH loves his job and has worked for the same company for 37 years partly because they treat their employees well.

 

[Minniesgal]

For me personally a room sharing policy would in the first instance lead to me cutting down on or cutting out travel and also to me looking around for other positions.

To me a room sharing policy is totally disrespectful and unacceptable and I wouldn't do it. But I'm lucky I decide whether I travel or can manage with a VC most of the time.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

Maybe the person who brought up the 10 hour limit can explain. I've never heard of such a thing. In my industry, during breaking news, a double shift (16 hours) is not uncommon. And I found out the person I mentioned that drove from Sacramento, to Reno, back to Sacramento, and back to Reno on Monday ended up being on the clock for 24 hours. Everything past 8 hours was time and a half, and there were penalties if he did not get 2 meal breaks, but it is perfectly legal to work 24 hours straight.

I believe the concern is with the driving. For example, it would NOT be legal for a truck driver to work a 24-hour shift behind the wheel, nor even a 16-hour shift.

 

[tvguy]

I believe the concern is with the driving. For example, it would NOT be legal for a truck driver to work a 24-hour shift behind the wheel, nor even a 16-hour shift.

Correct, if that person was driving a vehicle that required a commercial license. I am not aware of any such law regarding vehicles that do not require a commercial driver's license.
Many TV stations, when they bought their first satellite trucks in the 1980's where shocked to discover that they required commercial licenses and that meant there were restrictions not just on driving, but included the hours you were working but not driving. This was something they were not used to with their E-350 Microwave Live trucks.
Well, technology has made satellite trucks smaller, many in good old E-350 vans, and there are no restrictions on how many hours you can be on the clock or behind the wheel.

 

[TheIncredibles!]

Correct, if that person was driving a vehicle that required a commercial license. I am not aware of any such law regarding vehicles that do not require a commercial driver's license.
Many TV stations, when they bought their first satellite trucks in the 1980's where shocked to discover that they required commercial licenses and that meant there were restrictions not just on driving, but included the hours you were working but not driving. This was something they were not used to with their E-350 Microwave Live trucks.
Well, technology has made satellite trucks smaller, many in good old E-350 vans, and there are no restrictions on how many hours you can be on the clock or behind the wheel.

It goes by vehicle size not by the type of license you have. A commercial van or truck under 10,001 lbs that is not carrying hazmat or people does not need a dot number and the driver does not need a log book etc. 10,001 lbs and over the company must have a dot#, drivers are required to have a current medical card, maintain log books, daily inspections etc and are limited in the hours they can work. A CDL is not required until you hit the 26,000 Gvw trucks.

 

[Donnainnj]

http://www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/summaries-of-current-drowsy-driving-laws.aspx

 

[cijay]

I don't know what you do for a living but those of us working for major corporations don't sign a contract. There is likely a general LOA with salary and benefits outlined but not specifics about travel arrangements. Likely that's a discussion item when an offer is made and there is a verbal agreement. I've traveled, worked different hours to accommodate family needs, etc. None was in writing.

I'm not in a major corporation so I suppose you may do it differently but when we apply for a job - there's a process. You don't just 'agree' verbally to anything. Everything from job description, expectations, conditions of employment, holidays etc is discussed and at the end, there is a signature. (We call binding documents with signatures 'contracts' here. Maybe it's a different word in the major corporations.) During this process, the topic of travel for work would come up and that would be when you do your asking 'where do I stay? Who is paying for it?' questions would be asked. Here, you're bound by what is on the contract (or whatever you call it there) and anything that is NOT on there, and just an 'agreement' may as well be a pinkie-swear or high-five. The company doesn't owe you anything that's not on the document with the signature.

 

[NHdisneylover]

I didn't want to go back and find the original post to quote but the whole 10 hour day with travel does seem odd to me... espeically if it counts trips by plane.

For example one of the locations I travel to regularly is Seattle. Flying from Seattle either means 6 hours of flights plus a connection to get to either Albany or Hartford then an hour drive to where I work (for the purpose lets assume someone that lives very close to our office)

The location we actually work at is an hour drive from Seattle, but we do have the option to stay in a hotel near the airport before an early flight so lets assume I did that.

I leave the hotel 2 hours before my flight, 6 hours of flying, 1.5 hour connection. I'm already at 9.5 hours... do they have to pay for a hotel in Albany or Hartford because I can't be expected to make the hour drive home?


I also wonder is it that the company can't FORCE you to go over 10 hours or that they can't allow you to go over 8 hours? I once did a 9 hour 9 PM to 6 AM shift for running a test for work. I then drove directly to the airport for an 8 AM flight and flew home. It was from FL so lets assume 3 hours direct. So I was over 8 hours.

The thing is this was my choice. The company would have (and did for other coworkers) paid for another day in a hotel for them to get some sleep and they traveled on flights leaving later in the evening after some sleep or the next morning. However I was going on vacation with my DH the next day so I needed to meet up with him for our other pre-arranged travel plans and this option worked best for me.

I already said it did NOT include trips by plane (or train) or business dinners -- it is intended largely to keep overtired, unsafe drivers off the roads by not allowing companies to make employees work long days and then drive back from an off site location afterwards (like TV Guy was saying where the reporters would work all day and then drive back home arriving at 3:00 am because the company will not pay for them to get a room after the work).
And no it is not simply that they cannot FORCE you to go over, you are not allowed to go over. When DH was new here and did not really "get it" he went over (by an hour or less) a few times and was told in no uncertain terms that he had to stop that--it is a huge liability for the company to knowingly allow it and they have to take measures to try to know (like having even salaried people clock in when in the main office, and send in schedules when not).