Well, for one, I’m currently on a one-day turn around to do something really similar to that right now. I’ve been brought here to fix a problem that it will probably take me an hour to fix, but I’m here all day. I should’ve brought a friend along.
I’m not sure what you’re referring to with ‘extra’ luggage for females. What extra luggage would a female automatically have?
Not in the company I work for. There are absolutely no provisions for anyone bringing tag-alongs for a free ride. None.
A mother travels on software business and she’s expected to leave the kids at home ?
A mother travels on medical business and she’s expected to leave the kids at home ?
A mother travels on accounting business and she’s expected to leave the kids at home ?
A mother travels on any business and she’s expected to leave the kids at home.
Welcome to the wonderful world of equality, where having a vagina does not mean you get to force everyone else to pay for sightseeing trips for your kids.
Since much of the business of my company involves employees who travel 100% of the time (48 weeks a year with 4 weeks vacation), many of whom work 60, 70, or 80 hours a week, I get a laugh out of your suggestion that the CEO is somehow doing something special if he works 80 hour weeks. He’s not.
And no, like the rest of us who have given up our personal lives during the week, so should he.
I don’t even know if the CEO of my company is married, let alone if he has kids.
I think it’s kinda like the whole per diem thing for her commute. The rules in Alaska and for politicians tend to be pretty flexible in regards to expense accounts. Sarah Palin didn’t seem to break any law, or violate any regulation. It seems to me she simply took advantage of some very flexible rules to pad her expense accounts. If she hadn’t portrayed herself as a “reformer”, “maverick”, or “fiscally responsible”, I’d have a lot less problem with it.
Much ado about nothing.
Much distressing about nonsense.
A sum of less than $25,000 and the gasping hasn’t stopped. Nor have any of the appalled gaspers mentioned Palin’s overall cut in travel expenses except to point out that it’s not OK to save in one area and “steal” in another. Oh, wait a minute; I don’t think it’s been decided if it was stealing or not.
Honestly, the diatribes by the liberals on this board sink to the level of the conservatives. Get a grip. Your boy is gonna win.
In the long run too much griping about this particular trivia item will come back to haunt Mr Obama when he’s president. He’s got a couple of kids that deserve to go with him, and he shouldn’t have to pay for it. Despite the harping of the polloi here, executives whose job it is to travel should be encouraged–and paid–for taking family. Somewhere along the line that’s gonna be embraced as a core liberal value, along the same line as lotsa time off to make babies with job protection when you return. What do you think one of the major barriers is that’s keeping women out of executive positions? (Hint: travel time keeps you from your family) Sheesh.
Now I don’t think this is a deal breaker issue or anything, but I thought lying and padding expense accounts is a universal wrong and that we all kind of agree it reflects badly on a person.
Tell that to the minimum wage mom who is working two jobs to support her kids and is missing their childhood. Just go and tell her she doesn’t understand Sarah Palin’s pain.
Or tell that to me. I’m not a government employee, but they are the ones that sign my check so for practical purposes I am. In the course of my four years of service on two continents, I will get exactly on paid ticket to go see my family. Once, in four years. Of course, I knew what I was getting into when I accepted the job. And I planned ahead and made sure there were the funds that my mother could come visit me. There is a reason why they call politicians “public servants.”
Oh sure, I’d love to see a day when workers—not just executives, by the way—who have to do a lot of job-related travel are allowed to take family members along with them at their employer’s expense.
I just don’t want to see any individual worker deciding unilaterally that as far as she’s concerned, that day has arrived, and never mind whether it violates her employer’s rules about expense accounts.
I doubt it. Personally, I think that executives will always have a lot more lavish perks than workers. After all, the executives get whatever compensation the board of directors feels inclined to vote them, and there’s a certain amount of cronyism that affects those decisions. The workers are limited to whatever concessions labor laws and unions can extract from management, which tend to be a lot less cushy.
I think that arrangement is basically acceptable, but I don’t extrapolate from it to conclude that whatever an executive wants to do on the company dime is automatically okay, whether or not it’s against the official rules. Just because executives are special, magnificent, important people doesn’t mean that they’re entitled to do absolutely anything they want.
Not taking a side on this yet, I’m just thinking about an angle that doesn’t appear to have been considered so far:
There was some talk a while back, which seems to have died down now amid charges of sexism, that Palin’s family, what with five kids and a newborn with special needs (and now a grandchild on the way), would either suffer because of the increased responsibility of the campaign and the position she was seeking, or that her job performance would suffer because of family distractions.
So now we find out that she hauls her kids around wherever she goes. Doesn’t this add some credibility to the notion that her family is a distraction and that her job performance may suffer accordingly? Why isn’t the Toddmonster picking up the slack here?
According to financial disclosure records, the accessorizing began in early September and included bills from Saks Fifth Avenue in St. Louis and* New York **for a combined $49,425.74…*…
:eek::eek::eek: NEW YORK???:eek::eek::eek:
I guess they don’t sell clothes fit for Republicans in the pro-American parts of the country…
But would you agree that if Gov. Palin retroactively amended her expense reports so that her children’s flights would qualify, that would be wrong?
There are two issues here
if the employer’s (state’s) rules on expense accounts and reimbursement permit SP to get the state to pay the kids’ expenses when SP’s kids come with her under any circumstances.
But that’s the easy one. The more important one is whether in this case, SP is entitled to or is trying to fudge her way into getting reimbursement.
if, in order for those expenses to be reimbursed, there has to be some state-business reason to bring them.
2b) that there are all three kinds of trips: those that are not state business, those that are state business for SP and the kids, and those that are official business for SP but not for the kids. (for the third, say travelling to mediate a labor dispute… I can’t think of any reason the kids ought to be there)
I think you and I agree that 1) and 2) are probably both true. If 1) were false, this would be easy.
2) is, to me obvious. I don’t think PALIN can get the state to pay for travel if she’s not on state business. Everything I’ve read suggests this is true, and is true for the kids.
then, we have the issue:
If, on the trips in question, SP was entitled to reimbursement for her kids (i.e. which 2b) category we’re in).
I hope we both agree that if the trip is such that SP should get reimbursed but her kids shouldn’t, it would be fraud for her to claim for both.
Further, if, as seems to be the case, palin is retroactively changing her expense statements (again, sounds like forgery/false statements, though IANAL), to make trips appear to be ones that her kids travel would be reimbursable under 2b) when they didn’t originally, that would be fraud. Can we both agree that would be wrong?
(All of this, of course, would be determined by alaska state law–as opposed, say, to the issue of whether reimbursements for SP or the kids’ travel would be income for the purposes of federal taxes. (on that issue, taxprof blog seems to think that Gov. palin is in the wrong–but it’s another issue))
I don’t have a problem with Sarah Palin–or any other politician for that matter–adding family members to a flight on, say, a state plane where adding a few more people isn’t going to change the cost to the taxpayer one way or another. But when she flies commercial, then she has to pay for the extras, just like everybody else does. When I travel for my job, if my spouse wants to come along, we have to pay for his ticket. And saying that her kids were on “official business”??? While the First Family may be a lovely family, they didn’t get elected to the job, she did. I can kind of squint my eyes and see that there may be some official function where Todd’s presence as First Dude would be needed, but even that’s a long shot.
To be fair to her, I think that this was an unintended consequence of selling the jet that perhaps she should have considered beforehand. She may be a natural in front of an audience, but she doesn’t seem to be a natural at this politics game.
Wasn’t there a big deal was made about Todd Palin being a stay-at-home-dad at the time Palin popped into the national spotlight? Why then, if that was true, are people arguing that of course she, as a mother, must take her kids along on trips for state business and of course the state should pay for it?
I’m also curious as to whether anyone has consider that perhaps child labor laws are being broken by the kids being expected to perform official duties for the state of Alaska at functions. Not a big deal even if they actually did do so, but it ought to be considered since it was Palin herself who suggested that her kids played that role.
Yes, I thought that you were applying this standard only to mothers. Glad to see it’s not the case.
I was going to respond at greater length but most of my points have already been made. I don’t have a problem with Ms. Palin bringing her children along. I think it would be swell if most companies would pay for parents to bring their kids along on business trips. If the state of Alaska wants to pay for children of state employees to travel with their parents on business trips it’s fine by me. What I have a problem with is that, in Alaska, it seems like bringing children along is not supposed to be paid for by the state, and that Ms. Palin did it anyway, expecting that, as governor, she could get away with it. If someone could point me to a case where Ms. Palin has defended the rights of other state-employed working parents to have kids travel at government expense, then I would be less quick to condemn her. I would still think that, if you don’t like the way a law or policy is written, as an elected official, it is incumbent upon you to change the law, not ignore it or try to circumvent it.
But that being said, this is a minor matter and I would not view it as a decisive issue in the US Presidential election (I am not participating in this thread with the intent of using this as a reason to justify my vote in November.) I would be saying the same thing if Ms. Palin were not the vice-presidential candidate. Of course, if she weren’t, then her expenses would not be examined so closely and none of this would have come to light.