A vicious circle, Part II

I have to say that a Nigerian colleague does not agree with me on the issue of per diems.

She says that the idea behind them is that no-one should be inconvenienced by something that their employer is asking them to do. Fair enough.

She says you are entitled to these per diems, because these out-of-town trips are not part of your normal job. Ok.

I point out that, realistically, we can’t think that people actually spend all of their per diems when they’re on these trips – we know that at least some of it is pocketed. She agrees – they try to cut costs so they won’t spend all of that money. But, I say, those savings go straight into the individual’s pocket – what about organisations cutting their costs? What about when that employer is the government – what about judicious use of public funds?

Of course, the highest per diems are paid to the most senior employees – so we’re back to the hierarchy issue. It is unthinkable, for example, to expect a Director – someone so high in the hierarchy – to go to Abuja for a meeting and stay anywhere less than the Hilton or the Sheraton. So therefore, his (people working at this level in Nigeria are almost exclusively male) per diem payment must be sufficient to cover that. This amounts to almost a month’s salary for a one night business trip; and seven times what many school teachers earn in a month. Now, of course, a Director will rarely stay in the Hilton when he goes to Abuja for a meeting. More often than not, he will stay with friends or family (extended families mean that most people know someone in the capital). So – in the usual absence of the need to retire the funds or provide receipts – that money is then his to do with what he chooses.