The third value on that list is efficiency. Is staying at the Ritz-Carlton an efficient use of company resources?
It's the problem with these policies. They're written open-ended, but there is really a "right" answer and it's whatever the boss decides. Good boss? Maybe they stick up for you. Bad boss? You're going to regret that decision.
Imagine for a second that company is not reimbursing you for travel expenses, would you go for medium priced hotel or for 5* hotel with your own money for company business trip (not your leisure vacation)?
answer becomes obvious if you look at issue this way
That makes travel allowance a part of your paycheck, and all expected travel expense is loaded upfront in your salary.
then it becomes up to you - whether you go to luxury hotel for a business trip, or a medium range. Company becomes indifferent to your choices, and it becomes your choice how much to spend.
what would you choose this time?
same for business class tickets
The only situation in which it'd actually be obviously excessive is when the choice would be considered truly opulent and wildly expensive given all of the circumstances.
A 3 star to a 4 or 5 star is probably not so clear if all options are available.
If I was tasked with going somewhere on behalf of a company that I don't control, then I'd pick a place that would likely start at a cost of around $3-400 USD per night with no exceptional circumstances prevailing. All hotels basically suck, that range would let me not be concerned about where I'm staying, and do well the next day if I needed to.
Amazingly corporations decided budgeting it out would save them money. Even a 500/night hotel cap is better than the difference going in the employees pocket from the corporation vantage point.
Why are so many people so intent on assuming malicious intent on behalf of individuals and positive intent on behalf of organizations. Corporations have exactly one mandate: make as much money as possible. You are a line item, a cost. They will always squeeze you because it is the nature of the organization.
Yes. I would and have. Your personal means and current state in life shouldn't be part of company policy.
Policies like this are simply terrible for everyone. Those who would spend trip over some unspoken convention and upset others without knowing. Those who would not spend are left with a worse experience for no reason. No one has a clue about what is or isn't allowed, so everyone suffers.
It's nonsense.
They are looking for sensible people, not people who try to weasel every single definition and sentence. This applies to all communication, being able to understand others and read between the lines, and not try to one-up people by interpreting their words literally.
When the policy is "use common sense", that means "you don't have to go to a motel, you can expense breakfast, you can use the laundry if you're staying for a week or more".
Of course, people's perspectives vary. That's why you can talk and communicate to understand better. "Hey, I need to take a week long business trip, can I expense laundry?" It's not difficult.
> Bad boss?
If so, an open policy is the least of your problems.
In many cities (London, Dublin, etc) the price difference between shit tier and excellent hotels is marginal, and the excellent ones tend to be better located, leading to less travel/lost time.
The same can be applied to flights: taking the faster, business class ticket, direct flight with a flag carrier airline is often more economical in terms of "lost time" than using the budget airlines.