Sales, architects, consultants at my company (all the frequent fliers) lost their shit when we mandated the use of corporate cards for all travel.
"Earning enough points to take my family on a free vacation each year is compensation for the time I'm gone"... "My wife and I get upgraded most trips we take because of this benefit"...
Actual tone-deaf quotes at a time when we were laying people off (not to mention that corporate cards had been around for a while and had been 'encouraged'. And most other managers had already mandated their use.
It's a perk. But when it's a perk only some people get, or get more of, you can't expect too much sympathy from everyone else when it's taken away.
It’s disingenuous to call it a “perk”. It’s not the same as having office coffee or a ping pong table at the office.
Having to travel a lot is a known disadvantage of having one of these jobs. The ability to accrue miles or do in-lieu travel is touted as an offsetting factor for this. It’s literally mentioned as a part of the compensation package at places like job fairs or in interviews. In my past consulting job (and on places like r/consulting), people would literally calculate the dollar value of the miles/status you can accrue and would use it to compare compensation packages.
Losing this “perk” is more akin to having commission pay be a big part of your compensation, but then being told you’ll no longer get commission. It’s a material difference to what you expect to be paid.
While the ability to accrue miles for miles traveled wasn't removed, I'll bet that that's the only thing 'offered' in the employment documents (typically the handbook).
I'd challenge anyone to find an employee handbook that specifically references expense reimbursement in this context. Indeed, ours has always said "corporate cards should be used whenever possible". This was just changing to more forceful language.
Back when I was in consulting, I used to think of it as a perk (as did many of my peers). Once the travel started to wear on my personal life, I ran the numbers and discovered the miles and points I was earning equated to only around $200-300 per month in cash equivalent value.
It's really surprising to me how intensely some people will pursue relatively worthless airline miles. I suppose if you're going to be traveling anyway, you might as well pick them up. But if you have the choice, it's not really worth the trade-off.
Yeah, I hate traveling for work, and if I could pick I wouldn't do it. Worse, I hate keeping track of every receipt and expensing every little thing post work travel.
This is exactly why I'm often confused about cuts to these kinds of programs from companies. The downside of people frustrated with the cut cannot be worth it from a monetary perspective. Even if you reduced how many raises you were going to give out, I think people would care less than "I no longer get upgraded for flying"
They aren't comparing their situation to others within the company, but rather to individuals at other companies for whom this perk is widely available.
> Is this a good deal for the American consumer? [...] Certainly the system is bad for Americans who don’t have points-earning cards. They pay higher prices on ordinary goods and services but don’t get the points, effectively subsidizing the perks of card users, who tend to be wealthier already.
"Earning enough points to take my family on a free vacation each year is compensation for the time I'm gone"... "My wife and I get upgraded most trips we take because of this benefit"...
Actual tone-deaf quotes at a time when we were laying people off (not to mention that corporate cards had been around for a while and had been 'encouraged'. And most other managers had already mandated their use.
It's a perk. But when it's a perk only some people get, or get more of, you can't expect too much sympathy from everyone else when it's taken away.