
The Tyranny of Silly Expense Control Rules  - pitdesi
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/09/the-tyranny-of-silly-expense-control-rules/244490/
======
DanBC
This gets a bit off-topic, sorry.

The British Broadcasting Company started a rule about "no biscuits for
meetings of only internal BBC staff". That saved them over £200,000. I don't
know what that was in USD in 2001, but it's a reasonable amount. __I also
don't know how much good-will they lost amongst staff. __

(<http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2001/jul/25/broadcasting.bbc>)

> _According to a report compiled by the BBC's "revenue, procurement and
> services" department, the BBC spends £3m a year on catering hospitality, of
> which £350,000 goes on free tea and coffee for staff - not counting
> refreshments provided for meetings._

> _A further £210,000 is spent annually on biscuits for meetings of BBC
> executives and middle managers, with half of the snacks consumed at BBC
> Television Centre in west London. About £500,000 goes on complimentary
> lunches, meals and buffets for employees; £80,000 on alcohol and £100,000 on
> "miscellaneous staff events"._

Remember that the BBC is funded by a "tax" / licence fee that people must pay
if they install or use a TV to receive broadcast signals. "TV" in that
sentence includes computers / smart phones capable of receiving live streaming
Internet. "Broadcast signals" in that sentence does not just include BBC. A
person might never watch anything by the BBC, they still need to pay the tax.

~~~
tomjen3
That is what I hated about the article. No companies shouldn't be doing this
to their staff. It is bad for business.

But that the same time I _want_ the government to be forced to undergo not
just this level of scruteny but a far harsher one. Why? Because I am forced to
pay for it so they damn better work hard for it.

~~~
quanticle
It's a question of benefits vs. costs. Yeah, retailers could eliminate
shoplifting if they really wanted to. But, to do so, they'd have to turn their
stores into prisons, with full cavity searches at the exits. This is obviously
bad for business, so most retailers accept a certain level of shoplifting and
aggressively prosecute the shoplifters they do catch.

The problem is that with government, there is no mechanism for assessing
whether the costs of a regulation are outweighed by its benefits. What good
does banning biscuits at company meetings do? Yes, you've saved 200 thousand
odd pounds sterling, but what has it cost you?

More importantly, what's the accumulated costs of all of these little
regulations. Individually, they don't sound like much, but if you get enough
of them, they really start to drag on productivity. What's worse, the impact
of these regulations tends to be non-linear. Something as little as "no more
free pop at all hands meetings" can lead to an exodus of talent if it happens
to be the last straw, as it were.

EDIT: Joel Spolsky had a very nice column on this, but I can't find it at the
moment.

~~~
DanBC
Not only is there a loss of morale but you need to employ people to do the
scrutinising, and then set up systems to gather evidence. Preventing someone
over-claiming on biscuits and gasoline / petrol milage just added lots to cost
and made people unhappy.

See also (again in the UK) the many people entitled to some benefits who do
not claim those. I believe (but have no evidence) that part of the reason is
the vigorous scrutiny that people go through. This doesn't stop criminal gangs
from making large sums of money from benefit fraud.

~~~
nobody314159
That's why many companies have flat expenses rates for executives.

The day rate is $XXX in Europe, $YYY in USA and $ZZZ in Japan, there are
tables of relative cost available. If you want to stay in a cheaper hotel/with
friends/use your airmiles you keep the money, if you want to spend extra and
stay in a nicer hotel - eat at fancier restaurants - fine you pay the extra
yourself.

------
Sukotto
As a general rule, people get punished if something they're responsible for
lets something bad happen. They almost never get rewarded for removing
unnecessary rules and regulations caused by overreactions to those bad things
happening.

Examples of this abound.

------
tripzilch
So he shredded and did not reclaim $1500 in expenses because it would took an
hour of his time to do so? (assuming it would take as much as it would
"Heather")

Am I understanding this correct? _He threw away_ $1500 because he couldn't be
bothered to turn in the receipts?

Am I the only one that can't quite bring up a lot of sympathy for such a
situation? "The tyranny" ... come _on_. Not if you're in a position to "make
the rational decision" to throw away $1500.

~~~
mirkules
Remember, this is Arrington. Either the $1500 was exaggerated or he's being
sensationalist. Likely, both.

However, my personal experience with bureaucracies like these has led me to
collecting these little red-tape gems and writing a book.

------
patio11
Sometimes I wonder whether e.g. schools are absolutely petty about buying
replacement pencils in the hope that this reduces the only cost which matters
for schools which, for political reasons, they have nearly no control over:
employee salary and benefits.

Thirty seven weeks to get a $12 receipt reimbursed might eventually cause
someone to quit, saving you millions.

~~~
jbooth
Occam's razor here.

Schools have been getting crunched for cash every year for the last 10 or so,
and every couple years a new local politician is elected with promises to
"eliminate waste", after the last guy declined to run again in disgust at how
little he could do (can't change the revenue level or union contract, all he
can do is try to account for stupid pencils). New guy wants to do something,
though, so the end result of that is penny-wise and pound-foolish policies. No
need for a grand conspiracy.

------
mentat
It seems that the larger the company, the harder the expense report is to fill
out. Given the amount of time people spend filling out expense reports you
would think that companies would want them to be easier, but I suspect that if
expense reports were easier then people wouldn't just eat $1500. Making the
expense reporting process hard directly benefits the company at a highly
distributed cost to employees. What would be great is to see some of the
internal emails or meeting minutes where this is actually decided.

------
brown9-2
How much personal time would the process have to waste of yours in order for
you to forfeit being reimbursed for $1500?

------
bm98
<http://www.google.com/search?q=%22now+find+the+umbrella%22>

