I'm with molgrips on this one, as someone who has to work away a lot. If the company wants you to be staying away, with limited access to fridge/food cupboard and often nearby shops, they should pay for three reasonably priced meals a day.
I suppose its better than the companies real thought process or policy of "think yourself lucky you have/can get a ****ing job"
I didn't check the expense policy before I took the job
Hihiihihihihihi
Congratulations,
You are the stupidest person I have ever communicated with.
You have a responsible job?
Really?
You're actually 12 aren't you.
I'm so stupid, you'll have to explain yourself.
Which part would you care me to clarify?
The part where you failed to check how much money you were getting?
Then the part when you came on heretofore cry about it?
That's a bit nasty and uncalled for. Bad iolo.
So have we established what 'on-site catering' means yet?
LOL at not answering the "wrong" questions!
Anyway, this expenses policy, does it have pictures? Presumably yes, otherwise how would you know what you're getting? So my advice is to look at the pictures.
Iolo. If you were out of work, and someone offered you a job, would you ask to see the expense policy first and possibly reject the job if it didn't suit?
So have we established what 'on-site catering' means yet?
No, iolo is busy flexing his muscles.
I cant be arsed to make sarnies and always buy food out from the bacon butty van ! or Tesco express etc
Not having read all the way through this modern tale of woe, I'd like to point out that I get 2 20 minute breaks for each 12 hour shift, and I have to buy my own dinner and tea.
As you were.
I'm not flexing any muscles. I am merely explaining that you must always ensure that you are happy with whatever is offered before you sign for a job. If you wanted lunch you should have stipulated this was in your contract. If its not there and you've signed then its too late. That is all.
I am merely explaining that you must always ensure that you are happy with whatever is offered before you sign for a job.
I'm willing to bet no-one else goes into that level of detail. Except perhaps your awesomeness.
The original post was about a possible misleading wording of the policy. Not a complaint about my contract of employment.
It's not "misleading" at all from what you have said.
If there is no "on site catering" you can claim for lunch.
If there is, you can't.
That's pretty straightforward I would say.
A definition of "on site catering" would be if there was "catering facilities", and they were "on site"
I presume that there are, otherwise you wouldn't be moaning about it ?
There's no legal obligation for them to make sure I'm not out of pocket, is there?
Correct.
There isn't.
Sorry but that is exactly what everyone does. I'm really not trying to be awesome.
You only work to get paid. You don't do it for fun.
You need to know exactly (to the penny) what you get.
This way you can pay your bills and know what you have left.
Then, and only then can you decide what to save and what to spend on bikes.
That's pretty straightforward I would say.
But at that reading, it makes no sense at all. Why would it be reimbursable if the money was spent outside, but not if it was spent inside?
The effect on my pocket is the same. That's what I don't understand. Why would the policy be like that? There's a possibility it's been mis-worded.
Sorry but that is exactly what everyone does.
I don't believe that, and I don't believe you know what everyone does.
People look at the salary and benefits. The expense policy isn't even an external document so you can't see it if you're not an employee.
I'm not flexing any muscles. I am merely explaining that you must always ensure that you are happy with whatever is offered before you sign for a job. If you wanted lunch you should have stipulated this was in your contract. If its not there and you've signed then its too late. That is all.
Your being a tool. That is all.
Do really people examine the lunchtime expenses policy before they take a role? It's totally reasonable to not be out of pocket when working away from base.
But at that reading, it makes no sense at all. Why would it be reimbursable if the money was spent outside, but not if it was spent inside?
You said it was misleading, it isn't.
It's actually really easy to understand.
You can argue that you don't think it's logical or that you don't think its a good policy, but that's a different point entirely.
It's totally reasonable to not be out of pocket when working away from base.
Be that as it may, molgrips isn't out of pocket. If he'd answered any of the "wrong" questions about the impact of his free breakfasts and dinners vs paid for lunches on his bottom line that would be (even more) clear.
I don't know how much money I spend on food at home, if that answers your question? So it is possible that overall I am not out of pocket, but I don't expect I am.
SO HOW DO YOU KNOW YOU'RE OUT OF POCKET?!
Edit: Nice ninja edit
But the benefits will show what's included ? Or not?
The presence of a canteen puts me out of pocket, according to this rule. That's the point.
But the benefits will show what's included ? Or not?
No, they relate to pensions, health etc. Expenses are not a benefit.
Aagggrrrrhhhhh! Or it puts you less [i]in[/i] pocket, or it doesn't make a blind bit of difference. The policy is what it is and you don't even know if you're up or down because of it. I'm out.
I feel your pain.
When I work at home, I tend to just lounge around in my pants, but if I go to the office they expect me to wear trousers, but they don't give me a trouser allowance!
Bastards.
The irony being I'm out of pocket to get pockets.
So there was a chance that, for this contract, you would have no expenses paid for?
No hotel or food at all?
But yet you signed the contract.
Maybe next time ask a few more questions.
I don't know how much money I spend on food at home, if that answers your question?
Well you certainly sounded like you knew earlier.
As it happens, you've no idea.
Bit of a turnaround.
Totally pointless thread really now isn't it.
I'm out
Thank f*** for that 🙂
So there was a chance that, for this contract, you would have no expenses paid for?
No. I knew a lot of people who worked there quite well; I had worked for them before on a contract; and I was told verbally that expenses were reimbursable generally speaking.
But this isn't what the thread's about. I think the wording might be wrong. That's why I asked for useful thoughts and opinions, which some people gave. And for some reason you came on and started an argument. Not sure why tbh.
Totally pointless thread really now isn't it.
Yes, it's turned into another 'isn't molgrips stupid' thread. That keeps happening doesn't it?
Yes, it's turned into another 'isn't molgrips stupid' thread. That keeps happening doesn't it?
It does seem to be a common theme yes.
Maybe you should look for a common element in all those threads to see if you can figure out what's causing the phenomenon ?
Odd, that...
Molgrips I don't get lunch paid either regardless of whether there is a canteen or not. They reimburse everything else, early start breakfasts / late night dinner etc as well as when away properly.
This is for an extremely large bank so I don't think it is an uncommon scenario.
I can't be bothered to read all 5 pages, but for once I agree with Molgrips.
As someone who spent most of their life travelling, this has pi55ed me off for the best part of +20 years. In fact expenses as a whole pi55 me off, especially as there are usually differing rules depending on how high up the corporate ladder you are.
Mind you, now I'm working in the Public Sector and can claim 67 pence per mile for business miles. Never worked anywhere before that paid more than HMRC's 'guidelines', and worked at many that paid less.
67p? Jammy git, I get 15p! 🙂
Maybe you should look for a common element in all those threads to see if you can figure out what's causing the phenomenon ?
It's people. They are the problem. They are all weird.
In fact expenses as a whole pi55 me off
Stop claiming them then 🙄
That'll teach 'em.
It's people. They are the problem. They are all weird.
Try being a bit more specific.
The answer is there if you look for it.
So what, you're saying I'm weird?
Well.
I'm just spotting the common elements in those threads.
And this complete non problem, and the following badly thought out arguments are fairly strange.
It isn't a problem, you're right. I didn't post a problem thread.
I am weird though, I suggest you get used to it 🙂
think like an MP and if HMRC question your expenses use an MPs expense claim morality ...you can easily afford caviar on your chips instead of vinegar
anyway, while this is all fascinating, i've got two dogs to walk in the sun, before heading for the airport for a few days work in scandanavia, where i will 'luxuriate' in the 30GBP/day sustenance allowance i negotiated in to the contract. breaky is provided by the hotel, and there's a site canteen, which is free to me...
30 quid? Trust me, you'll be out of pocket 🙂
anyway, while this is all fascinating, i've got two dogs to walk in the sun, before heading for the airport for a few days work in scandanavia, where i will 'luxuriate' in the 30GBP/day sustenance allowance i negotiated in to the contract. breaky is provided by the hotel, and there's a site canteen, which is free to me...
30 quid? Trust me, you'll be out of pocket
out of pocket? ****ing bankrupt more like! it is incredibly expensive up there!
On-site catering facilities = a canteen
or
On-site catering facilities = a kitchen that you can use with fridge and microwave
If the latter then the policy makes more sense.
Can I raise a practical question at this point?
If you could have your lunch written into a legally binding contract, but it has to be the same thing every day, what would you have?
I'd have a chicken tikka kebab, on naan, with everything on, delivered to my desk every lunchtime. It's got to be from Hunters Barbecue though. Or equivalent standard
You.....?
Roast beef and Mustard baguette from Krusties on Newgate Market in York.
Bag of salt and vinegar McCoys
A Twix and a can of Mango Rubicon.
Can I raise a practical question at this point?If you could have your lunch written into a legally binding contract, but it has to be the same thing every day, what would you have?
I'd have a chicken tikka kebab, on naan, with everything on, delivered to my desk every lunchtime. It's got to be from Hunters Barbecue though. Or equivalent standard
does this come with free onsite paramedics for the impending congestive heart failure