NY Times: Special rules for special talents.

http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/mixed-media/2009/01/19/maureen-dowd-expense-account-queen

Friday NY Times issues new rules for expense accounts.
Tuesday, Maureen Dowd details her few days at a high-end spa in Miami with a Times food critic - which was expensed.

Special rules for special talents.

 

That was certainly the case for, um, Jayson Blair.

 

You remember the "Jordan rules", of course.

Re Jason Blair, the "Raines rules" were in effect.

 

Too bad - and here's why: Dowd could've written that piece without actually getting the treatment.

Disappointing. But it's a chunk of why newspapers are tough spots. You guys all go on and on about fucking Marriott points and covering sporting event X on the road. Columnists have trips to the Master's written into thei contracts, newspapers are sending four reporters to an event when two working their asses off - which is what most people do in life - would suffice. You could stay in the cheapest hotel in the city. You could cut back on the kinds of meals you have. Hell, the NYT could say - everybody pays for their own goddamn meals from now on. I daresay people would stop buying meals.

 

Jimmy Johnson approves.

 

Alma, all of that used to be true, but I don't know many papers that still waste resources like that. We don't, and we're not a small shop.

The Marriott points argument is fair, but I look at it like this: I'm not paid what I'm worth, I'm not paid for all the overtime I work, and those points are a tiny perk.

 

My question: why doesn't Marriott create a modified corporate rewards system where some points go to the employee and some go to the employer? Give incentive for both sides to use a Marriott.

 

This shouldn't surprise anyone who's been an adult for more than 10 minutes.

 

We already have a thread about Tim Geithner

 

I thought the same thing. We're having a bit of a crackdown on travel here, as at most shops, and the writers aren't happy with it. Can't really say I blame them after they've been doing it for so long. But why should they get the full points if they're not ultimately paying for the room? I understand the small perks argument, but it just seems odd.

 

Playthrough,

I don't doubt that you are right - companies would cycle through points quickly to get a free room for the sales conference in Des Moines. But it gives companies a major incentive to always use Marriott. If it was done right, I bet you would see companies putting out edicts that all non-Marriott reservations need supervisor approval. All of the paid hotel stays it would take to earn those free nights are stays that Marriott would be getting that competitors would not, even if the competitors were better on price/location relative to the event.

In tough economic times, the companies would love this. And once they get in the habit of always using Marriott hotels, inertia kicks in. Pretty soon it would be easy to start tweaking the system and be able to get away with it.