NY Times: Special rules for special talents.

I'm still waiting for someone to get hammered by the IRS for not declaring the points as untaxed income.

 

Then the IRS should hammer the FF programs as well.

 

Except that it isn't income. When you pay for the hotel room, you are paying for the points as well. When you buy four cans of soup and get the fifth one free, is that untaxed income?

 

So you're supposed to sleep in your car when you're on a road trip?

Yeah, that makes sense.

 

Alma,

While I don't agree with the extent to which you take it, you do have a point. It's amazing to me how many people think that the "problems" they experience are unique to the newspaper industry. I have a friend who is a sales rep for a decent-sized company who isn't allowed to spend more than $120 a night on a hotel room, and can't spend more than $30 a day on meals. He makes roughly the same amount I do. I don't know about the rest of you, but I travel infinitely better than he does.

That said, where I differ from Alma is that, in my opinion, a laissez faire attitude toward travel is a relatively inexpensive "perk" that - in an industry is talent-driven - can keep talent around. Let's say I spend 60 nights a year in a hotel, and I spend $160 a night rather than $120. And let's say I spend $50 a day on food rather than $30.

That's $1,200 extra dollars on food and $2,400 extra dollars on hotels than what my buddy is spending. By Alma's argument, that extra $3,600 is best pumped back into the company. Except I will be less productive, less inspired in my work, and, ultimately, less likely stick around for the long haul.

 

That meal allowance is a little Scroogy, but the hotel threshold is wholly dependant on where the guy has to operate. If he's stuck in the metropolitan Northeast . . . NFW.

 

Some good debate on this thread, and I certainly sympathize with the writers who travel a lot and are away from their families. That is one reason I am not a writer.

But I agree with what I think is Alma's larger point, that we all should be doing what we can to save the company money while people are losing their jobs. Maybe it's not this way at your shop, but there are definitely people who refuse to stay in a cheaper place because they won't get their points. I don't have a problem with perks, but if someone is costing the company more money to get them, that's a problem.

And daemon, that $3,600 can add up pretty quickly if everyone's doing it your way. And you really will be less "inspired" if you stay in a hotel that is $40 a night cheaper? Wow.

 

If I'm staying in a shitty part of town and the drive is taking twice as long and I'm not comfortable when I go back to the hotel at night?

Fuck yeah my chi is going to be a little off. You ever have a trip where nothing goes right and the plane is delayed and the hotel is shit? It affects your performance.

I'm not talking about drinking Evian instead of the generic brand. I'm talking about fundamental living arrangements. And if you are expected to travel - Good luck trying to convince anybody that the three hours you spent in the plane and the two hours you spent at the airport and the hour you spent renting a car and checking into the hotel constitute as time that you are "working" - then the least you can ask is to be comfortable.

Fortunately, my boss understands that. I shudder if he didn't.

 

I understand that to some degree, but I don't think anybody's suggesting you stay in the Fleabag Motel. The hang-up on these points (at least with several people in my shop) seems to be getting out of hand given the economic times. And we all should be doing what we can to save people's jobs. And yes, that includes not stealing paper clips or anything else. That's all I'm saying.

 

I hear ya, DD.

I guess I don't understand why the points are the culprit. You don't have to stay in a Marquis to get Marriott points. Just about every metro area with an airport has a Fairfield Inn you can book for 100 bucks, tops.

On the list of culprits for over-inflated expense accounts, I'd put Marriott points wayyyyyy down on the list.

 

Here's an even scarier proposition: Do you think your reader cares? Do you think your reader would even know?

Shit, Mike Lupica's still popular, and he watches half the games on TV.

Consider for a moment - and believe me, I know this is scary - that you didn't ever go on road trips, watched the games on TV - or, gasp, listened to them on the radio - and arranged some kind of interview with the coach and a player afterward. Now say you used an AP photo for art and took the opponent's quotes off their web site.

Your reader would be missing something. But would they know it? And what they're missing - would it matter?

See, I've come to believe - and a lot of people would shoot me for believing it - that the Internet and TV has made the "dateline" no longer sacred. Do you really need to be there? Is it more for your sake, or the reader's? Aren't there more interesting local stories that haven't been covered for years that are more valuable than a road trip for some 11-16 basketball team?

 

Just because the NYDN's higher-ups are cowed doesn't excuse Loopy.

But don't tell me that you won't miss a lot . . . a WHOLE lot . . . of telling details
due to not being on the scene, as a beat reporter should be.