Disney asks Congress to butt out of business travel

[WDW1974]

You might be surprised how the wealthy elite look after each other in this country so to maintain their wealthy elite status.

What a shock! Really ... the elite act in their own best interests to preserve that status.

The only thing more shocking is that this thread hasn't been pulled considering the quick draw fingers here.

Oh ... and to anyone who believes that there isn't a huge abuse to business travel in this country, I'd love for you to have been at WDW last year where one of the major organizations that was taken over by the government in late 2008 had a huge blowout that included $86 per person breakfasts where so many of the guests were hung over from the huge booze filled party the prior night that most of the food went to CMs ... Disney (and all the other companies) knows that EXCESS has been the name of the game in business travel for years, and now that people are paying attention they're afraid the stigma of throwing away large sums of money at conventions and meetings is going to affect their business.

Is it? Likely ... and in some case it isn't right. But times are tough. And if companies are struggling (how many aren't) maybe shame will do them some good.

McDonald's was holding meetings at WDW (either BW or BC/YC ... can't recall this minute) a few weeks ago. Considering how well they have been faring as a company, I thought that was great. They also had a large meeting of proctologists at the same time (will avoid the obvious 12-year-old boy jokes that come to mind!)

There's nothing wrong with that, but if I had seen Wells Fargo or AIG or BoA or Northern Capital Trust etc ... meeting ... you bet I'd have a problem. When you're taking taxpayer money, you have no business spending it on what amounts to luxury retreats (no matter how you spin it).

~Pass the Pixie Dust~

 

[jakeman]

What a shock! Really ... the elite act in their own best interests to preserve that status.

The only thing more shocking is that this thread hasn't been pulled considering the quick draw fingers here.

Oh ... and to anyone who believes that there isn't a huge abuse to business travel in this country, I'd love for you to have been at WDW last year where one of the major organizations that was taken over by the government in late 2008 had a huge blowout that included $86 per person breakfasts where so many of the guests were hung over from the huge booze filled party the prior night that most of the food went to CMs ... Disney (and all the other companies) knows that EXCESS has been the name of the game in business travel for years, and now that people are paying attention they're afraid the stigma of throwing away large sums of money at conventions and meetings is going to affect their business.

Is it? Likely ... and in some case it isn't right. But times are tough. And if companies are struggling (how many aren't) maybe shame will do them some good.

McDonald's was holding meetings at WDW (either BW or BC/YC ... can't recall this minute) a few weeks ago. Considering how well they have been faring as a company, I thought that was great. They also had a large meeting of proctologists at the same time (will avoid the obvious 12-year-old boy jokes that come to mind!)

There's nothing wrong with that, but if I had seen Wells Fargo or AIG or BoA or Northern Capital Trust etc ... meeting ... you bet I'd have a problem. When you're taking taxpayer money, you have no business spending it on what amounts to luxury retreats (no matter how you spin it).

~Pass the Pixie Dust~

Yes and no.

There have been a few valid senerios in this thread alone regarding choosing the location of a business meeting, what is conducted there, etc.

I can tell you that I have been to "lavish" resorts and have only seen my room and the conference room because of the amount of work I was doing.

Are there more economical places that Walt Disney World to hold your meeting? Chances are yes and I would tentatively agree that any bailout companies could be more cost effective than spending at WDW.

On the other hand, when a company that has no reason to scale back their necessary travel start to do so, that when there is a problem. Apparently, that is what has been intimated to these travel companies that has them concerned.

I would venture to say that out of all the companies listed on the letter, Disney is probably one of the least affected by the decline in business travel.

I'm not sure why the bailout companies are still being brought in this thread. This letter isn't about them.

 

[WDW1974]

Are there more economical places that Walt Disney World to hold your meeting? Chances are yes and I would tentatively agree that any bailout companies could be more cost effective than spending at WDW.

On the other hand, when a company that has no reason to scale back their necessary travel start to do so, that when there is a problem. Apparently, that is what has been intimated to these travel companies that has them concerned.

And I believe that is valid ... to a point. As a Floridian, I want to see companies come and have their conventions, meetings, seminars and retreats here. However, that's only if my tax money hasn't gone to that company to help keep them in business.

My take on the letter is that perception may be clouding reality in some cases and all the companies (including Disney) wanted to put a little pressure on the government to basically 'lay off the guilt trip on travel' ... I, frankly, don't feel it was smart but the companies are hurting. At the same time, many officials will take this the wrong way and they'll wind up saying more instead of letting it die.

I would venture to say that out of all the companies listed on the letter, Disney is probably one of the least affected by the decline in business travel.

I dunno about that at all ... O-Town is the No. 2 market for conventions in the country (trailing only Vegas) and Disney has a huge convention business. And Anaheim isn't small-time either. Now will the overall affect be worse on a company like Hilton? I have no idea ...

I'm not sure why the bailout companies are still being brought in this thread. This letter isn't about them.

Because many of them haven't been behaving well at all ... and because I know some held meetings at WDW in 2008 when their companies were falling apart and had no business going anywhere at all, let alone huge six and seven figure tabs at lavish resorts.

It's that perception/reality that is working against all the folks who wrote that letter to begin with.

~Pass the Pixie Dust~

 

[jakeman]

And I believe that is valid ... to a point. As a Floridian, I want to see companies come and have their conventions, meetings, seminars and retreats here. However, that's only if my tax money hasn't gone to that company to help keep them in business.

I agree. Companies that have recieved government money should only have expendetures at this point that help "right the ship".

My take on the letter is that perception may be clouding reality in some cases and all the companies (including Disney) wanted to put a little pressure on the government to basically 'lay off the guilt trip on travel' ... I, frankly, don't feel it was smart but the companies are hurting. At the same time, many officials will take this the wrong way and they'll wind up saying more instead of letting it die.

Tactically, I agree as well. The government is on a moral pedistal right now, since they have somewhat successfully painted "corporation" as a monster. I also want to make it clear that this extends to the previous administration as well. I am enjoying this and don't want to see it get locked because parties are brought into the mix.

I dunno about that at all ... O-Town is the No. 2 market for conventions in the country (trailing only Vegas) and Disney has a huge convention business. And Anaheim isn't small-time either. Now will the overall affect be worse on a company like Hilton? I have no idea ...

Where most of the people here (like you, no offense) see huge conventions, I see overnight stays and travel to local offices or contracted sites. Others in my industry (drug developement) travel about 3 days a week but only go to huge conference or meetings once a year. I would think that the day to day business travel nets most of the companies on the list much more than conventions. While Disney's concern might be convention travel, I'm not sure that would be the primary focus of the others.

I think we are in agreement on the crux of the issue and also agree on both the intent and the wisdom of the letter. My difference come from my experience of traveling 3 days a week all over the country. There aren't that many Disney hotels compared to Sheratons and Hampton Inns.

 

[ClemsonTigger]

You might be surprised how the wealthy elite look after each other in this country so to maintain their wealthy elite status.

Are you kidding? This country? The wealthy and aristocracy have been doing that throughout the world since the beginning of civilized society...

...and short of establishing a fully socialistic state, that will continue.

 

[Phonedave]

Savings are over-rated, do the economy a favor and spend that dang money! It'll be called the Dave/Devoy stimulus package!

Dave just finished up the details on a 4 night Disney Cruise + a 7 night WDW stay for the end of August for Dave and his kids.

Dave is doing his part to stimulate the economy

-dave

 

[Phonedave]

You might be surprised how the wealthy elite look after each other in this country so to maintain their wealthy elite status.

Yes, and they are all members of the Illuminati, Bildebergers, Freemasons, and Nights Templar

-dave

 

[Hummer1676]

Actually, the U.S. Constitution, in Article 1, grants Congress the authority to regulate business. So it has every right to reprimand and regulate business travel. And you are very obviously taking President Obama's quote out of context. It was a response to Wells Fargo's conference at a swanky Las Vegas Hotel after receiving $25 billion is taxpayer-funded relief. If they needed a bailout, then what are they doing going to Vegas. I'm sure there were just as nice, less expensive alternatives. It had nothing to do with personal travel.

There are some pieces you are missing here. They gave Wachovia the money, which was bought out by Wells Fargo. Wells Fargo has been planning thier trip for sometime. The press highlighted the trip and made it sound like they were using the funds from bailout; which wasn't the case. It was gross negligence on the Press for not doing thier homework. The worst part about it, they had to pay cancelation fees anyway as they were not within thier cancelation timeframe, so they paid for it anyway.

What a debacle! As someone who works and lives in Vegas, it appals me that people are arguing about places companies go. How would you like it if someone was telling you that your job is unneeded and wasteful. Sorry, but every visitor to the Vegas area, is helping me pay my bills.

 

[jmvd20]

Dave just finished up the details on a 4 night Disney Cruise + a 7 night WDW stay for the end of August for Dave and his kids.

Dave is doing his part to stimulate the economy

-dave

Now there's a true sense of patriotic duty!

 

[Phonedave]

Oh ... and to anyone who believes that there isn't a huge abuse to business travel in this country, I'd love for you to have been at WDW last year where one of the major organizations that was taken over by the government in late 2008 had a huge blowout that included $86 per person breakfasts where so many of the guests were hung over from the huge booze filled party the prior night that most of the food went to CMs ... Disney (and all the other companies) knows that EXCESS has been the name of the game in business travel for years, and now that people are paying attention they're afraid the stigma of throwing away large sums of money at conventions and meetings is going to affect their business.

I wonder how much of that was paid for by the company and how much was paid for by vendors / potential vendors.

We happen to have some VERY strict rules about what we can accept from vendors (and its not much, things like pens are OK). It is basicly to keep everything above board. I have been offered a host of "perks" by potential vendors/contractos. Box seats, golf outings, dinners, etc. I turn them all down, because I happen to like my job. However in many situations that is how business is done.

There may have been signs at that $85 a head breakfast that said "sponsored by Vendor X" and then there is a breakfast talk from the Vendor X rep. I have seen it many times with other companies.

-dave

 

[fosse76]

There are some pieces you are missing here. They gave Wachovia the money, which was bought out by Wells Fargo. Wells Fargo has been planning thier trip for sometime. The press highlighted the trip and made it sound like they were using the funds from bailout; which wasn't the case.

It doesn't matter. They have $25 billion of the taxpayer money. If they can afford the trip to Vegas then they don't need the bailout money. They should give it back. It wasn't a necessary trip. They have it every year as a "bonus" to top sellers. They claimed it was being paid for with profits. Well if they have profits they shouldn't need bailout money to begin with.

It was gross negligence on the Press for not doing thier homework. The worst part about it, they had to pay cancelation fees anyway as they were not within thier cancelation timeframe, so they paid for it anyway.

They did do their homework. This is from the Associated Press: "Company spokeswoman Julia Tunis Bernard said Wells Fargo doesn't distinguish between bailout money and other revenue. What the newspaper ad meant, she said, is that the bank didn't need the bailout money to pay its routine operating expenses — including employee trips like the one to Las Vegas." So instead of applying the money to mitigate damages from the economy, they were still going ahead with a very unecessary trip...while taking taxpayer money. What if I decided to take a loan from my friends to pay off some essential bills and then booked a trip to Disneyworld and paid for it using money in my savings account? Shouldn't I have used the money in my savings account to pay my bills first? Wouldn't that be the more responsible thing to do?

What a debacle! As someone who works and lives in Vegas, it appals me that people are arguing about places companies go. How would you like it if someone was telling you that your job is unneeded and wasteful. Sorry, but every visitor to the Vegas area, is helping me pay my bills.

That's unfortunate, but that's the way life is. I guess I would have to get a job that doesn't rely on tourism. Vegas exists as a tourist destination, and in the real world of business is unecessary. Orlando is the same way. Those are the top two because of their appeal to tourists, not businesses. Chicago was the number one convention city for decades until the 90s, when Vegas and Orlando expanded their convention offerings. Businesses that have "real" business to conduct (as opposed to using business travel as an excuse for "play") don't need to go to Orlando or Vegas.

 

[jakeman]

It doesn't matter. They have $25 billion of the taxpayer money. If they can afford the trip to Vegas then they don't need the bailout money. They should give it back. It wasn't a necessary trip. They have it every year as a "bonus" to top sellers. They claimed it was being paid for with profits. Well if they have profits they shouldn't need bailout money to begin with.

My understanding from your statement is that Wells Fargo asborbed a company that took bailout money, not that they took money outright. It is a siginficant difference.

They did do their homework. This is from the Associated Press: "Company spokeswoman Julia Tunis Bernard said Wells Fargo doesn't distinguish between bailout money and other revenue. What the newspaper ad meant, she said, is that the bank didn't need the bailout money to pay its routine operating expenses — including employee trips like the one to Las Vegas." So instead of applying the money to mitigate damages from the economy, they were still going ahead with a very unecessary trip...while taking taxpayer money. What if I decided to take a loan from my friends to pay off some essential bills and then booked a trip to Disneyworld and paid for it using money in my savings account? Shouldn't I have used the money in my savings account to pay my bills first? Wouldn't that be the more responsible thing to do?

A more apt analogy would be that you took on your friend's mortage while they lived with you and you decided to proceed with a Disney trip that you had reservations for. That's makes it a little less clear cut.

That's unfortunate, but that's the way life is. I guess I would have to get a job that doesn't rely on tourism. Vegas exists as a tourist destination, and in the real world of business is unecessary. Orlando is the same way. Those are the top two because of their appeal to tourists, not businesses. Chicago was the number one convention city for decades until the 90s, when Vegas and Orlando expanded their convention offerings. Businesses that have "real" business to conduct (as opposed to using business travel as an excuse for "play") don't need to go to Orlando or Vegas.

While that might apply to some, it is definately not all business travel that flows in and out of the convention centers in Orlando and Vegas. In most cases it comes down to price. If it is cheaper to hold a meeting in Orlando as apposed to a "working" city like Chicago then you can bet most companies will go ahead with Orlando. I think some folks would be surprised how little "fun" is considered when making decisions on meeting places.

 

[fosse76]

My understanding from your statement is that Wells Fargo asborbed a company that took bailout money, not that they took money outright. It is a siginficant difference.

No, it didn't. Wachovia never recieved bailout funds. From CBS News:

"First, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson quietly issued a document revising the tax code, giving enormous benefits to some banks that buy other banks. For Wells Fargo, it could be worth up to $25 billion.

"Then, Congress passed the giant bailout that would provide $25 billion in direct funds to Wells Fargo.

"The very same day the bailout passed, Wells Fargo announced the surprise turnaround to investors: It would buy Wachovia after all."

A more apt analogy would be that you took on your friend's mortage while they lived with you and you decided to proceed with a Disney trip that you had reservations for. That's makes it a little less clear cut.

Nope. As stated above, Wachovia did not recieve bailout money...it went directly to Wells Fargo. As a side note, it is intimated that Wells Fargo purchased Wachovia in hopes it would receive a large amount of the bailout funds.

While that might apply to some, it is definately not all business travel that flows in and out of the convention centers in Orlando and Vegas. In most cases it comes down to price.

But we're talking about business travel.

If it is cheaper to hold a meeting in Orlando as apposed to a "working" city like Chicago then you can bet most companies will go ahead with Orlando. I think some folks would be surprised how little "fun" is considered when making decisions on meeting places.

Vegas and Orlando are chosen because of the "fun" factor...the country's two biggest financial cities, Chicago and New York, come in third and fourth, respectively. While each has more "groen-up" entertainment (theater, museums, fine dining), they aren't known for leisure. Vegas's and Orlando's entertainment options are eventually what knocked Chicago out of being first with conventions. So you can guarantee that if a convention or business retreat occurs in Vegas or Orlando, the entertainment options were the top priority.

The price factors are generally based on which employees are attending. You can be sure if its executives, then it will be in a swanky resort where fun comes first. If it's the rank and file employees, it will be a Days Inn in the suburbs.

The fun factor will be based on who is attending as well. I had a work retreat several years ago in LA. We stayed at a resort that was designed specifically for Business retreats. There were a few leisure activities...golf course, horseback riding, cocktail reception...but there wasn't much else we could do without renting a car. The executives had their retreat the next year in the Virgin Islands.

Let's say an executive at a company makes $5 million dollars a year. They need to lay off workers, so they lay off 142 workers. That one executive's salary is the equivalent to those 142 people (if the average salary is $35,000/year). Then the Company takes bailout money. Then they go on a $5 million retreat. That's not what I call wise decision making. Those laid off 142 workers will affect the economy much more significantly than if they had fired the executive instead or cut his salary.

 

[jakeman]

No, it didn't. Wachovia never recieved bailout funds. From CBS News:

"First, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson quietly issued a document revising the tax code, giving enormous benefits to some banks that buy other banks. For Wells Fargo, it could be worth up to $25 billion.

"Then, Congress passed the giant bailout that would provide $25 billion in direct funds to Wells Fargo.

"The very same day the bailout passed, Wells Fargo announced the surprise turnaround to investors: It would buy Wachovia after all."

Nope. As stated above, Wachovia did not recieve bailout money...it went directly to Wells Fargo. As a side note, it is intimated that Wells Fargo purchased Wachovia in hopes it would receive a large amount of the bailout funds.

That's fine. I didn't know the details so I was only inferring from what you said. Your analogy seems more accurate.

Vegas and Orlando are chosen because of the "fun" factor...the country's two biggest financial cities, Chicago and New York, come in third and fourth, respectively. While each has more "groen-up" entertainment (theater, museums, fine dining), they aren't known for leisure. Vegas's and Orlando's entertainment options are eventually what knocked Chicago out of being first with conventions. So you can guarantee that if a convention or business retreat occurs in Vegas or Orlando, the entertainment options were the top priority.

The price factors are generally based on which employees are attending. You can be sure if its executives, then it will be in a swanky resort where fun comes first. If it's the rank and file employees, it will be a Days Inn in the suburbs.

The fun factor will be based on who is attending as well. I had a work retreat several years ago in LA. We stayed at a resort that was designed specifically for Business retreats. There were a few leisure activities...golf course, horseback riding, cocktail reception...but there wasn't much else we could do without renting a car. The executives had their retreat the next year in the Virgin Islands.

Let's say an executive at a company makes $5 million dollars a year. They need to lay off workers, so they lay off 142 workers. That one executive's salary is the equivalent to those 142 people (if the average salary is $35,000/year). Then the Company takes bailout money. Then they go on a $5 million retreat. That's not what I call wise decision making. Those laid off 142 workers will affect the economy much more significantly than if they had fired the executive instead or cut his salary.

We can say yes and no back and forth all day. However, there are different types of business travel, just like there are different types of conventions and meeting. To paint all meetings that take place in certain locations with a broad brush is a disservice not only to the location, but to business travel in general.

There are legitimate reasons for holding conferences and meeting in certain locations. What the companies in the letter are concerned about is that routine business travel is being subverted by rhetoric from Congress.

For example, I travel 3-4 days a week for my job. If the government "scared" my company into reducing travel, I would not be as effective in my job. I go to Orlando and other places that can be considered "fun", but I'm there to work.

You could look at my itnerary from last month and see that I flew into Orlando stayed at Disney for two days and then drove up the coast of Florida. If you just took that, and didn't report anything else, it would seem that I was abusing travel. In reality, I was working 8 hour days and econmically driving from site to site up the coast before flying home.

My company might cut that trip out because of the way it looks. That would force me to either not travel, which would be impossible, as I can't do a majority of my job from an officer, or re-route the trip into all day trips or with other less effecient parts of my schedule.

The same can be said for these conferences and meetings. I'm not defending meetings that are for fun and have no purpose from companies that have been giving a bailout. I am saying I can see the concern when justifiable business travel is limited because of fear of government reprisals.

So far in this thread, I have seen no one address that concern without falling back on the red herring that is the bailout situation.

 

[Phonedave]

Vegas and Orlando are chosen because of the "fun" factor...the country's two biggest financial cities, Chicago and New York, come in third and fourth, respectively. While each has more "groen-up" entertainment (theater, museums, fine dining), they aren't known for leisure. Vegas's and Orlando's entertainment options are eventually what knocked Chicago out of being first with conventions. So you can guarantee that if a convention or business retreat occurs in Vegas or Orlando, the entertainment options were the top priority.

Not quite

I live right next to "grown-up" New York. About 4 years ago, I had a team meeting for my then team of 7 in Newark NJ. Now, remember I am local to Newark. I did not incur hotel or airfare.

Later that year I had another team meeting, in Tampa. Even with all of us now flying and using a hotel, it was still cheaper overall to be in Tampa.

I don't know what sort of meetings you are used to attending, but when I travel to meetings it is an 8:00 AM start time, 5:00 PM end. Most of the time dinner is with other co-workers, and then back to the hotel room for 3 hours of e-mails to catch up on some of the "normal" work I missed while in meetings all day. For all I care, the meeting could be held in the middle of the desert with nothing around. As long as its a decent hotel (Sheraton, Hilton, etc) and there is a decent place to eat (no Red Lobster or Sizzler please) then I am fine.

I had an employee spend two nights in Manhattan for a training session recently. Almost $500, and thats at our corporate rate. At those rates, my expense budget cant take too many "cheap" meetings in NYC,

-dave

 

[WDW1974]

I wonder how much of that was paid for by the company and how much was paid for by vendors / potential vendors.

We happen to have some VERY strict rules about what we can accept from vendors (and its not much, things like pens are OK). It is basicly to keep everything above board. I have been offered a host of "perks" by potential vendors/contractos. Box seats, golf outings, dinners, etc. I turn them all down, because I happen to like my job. However in many situations that is how business is done.

There may have been signs at that $85 a head breakfast that said "sponsored by Vendor X" and then there is a breakfast talk from the Vendor X rep. I have seen it many times with other companies.

-dave

From what I was told (someone intimately involved with the shindig) the breakfast was paid for and put on by the company in question. No vendors were involved.

And from what I was told even though the price was absurd (again, there's business travel where someone is on the road spending a night at the airport Hilton or a meeting with food at the Tulsa Marriott or Hyatt Regency Chicago... and then there's a blowout bash at WDW or in Vegas ... and rational people can tell the difference) over 90% of the members didn't show up for it. All that money and all that food and they couldn't even be bothered.

So, Hilton might be worried about losing all those nights all over the planet ... but Disney is worried about losing all those huge business whorefests where money flows like it came from a fountain. Talk to anyone who works in convention services at WDW ... they don't really ever do small and inexpensive. Lavish and over the top are more the order of the day.

~Pass the Pixie Dust~

 

[WDW1974]

That's fine. I didn't know the details so I was only inferring from what you said. Your analogy seems more accurate.
We can say yes and no back and forth all day. However, there are different types of business travel, just like there are different types of conventions and meeting. To paint all meetings that take place in certain locations with a broad brush is a disservice not only to the location, but to business travel in general.

There are legitimate reasons for holding conferences and meeting in certain locations. What the companies in the letter are concerned about is that routine business travel is being subverted by rhetoric from Congress.

For example, I travel 3-4 days a week for my job. If the government "scared" my company into reducing travel, I would not be as effective in my job. I go to Orlando and other places that can be considered "fun", but I'm there to work.

You could look at my itnerary from last month and see that I flew into Orlando stayed at Disney for two days and then drove up the coast of Florida. If you just took that, and didn't report anything else, it would seem that I was abusing travel. In reality, I was working 8 hour days and econmically driving from site to site up the coast before flying home.

My company might cut that trip out because of the way it looks. That would force me to either not travel, which would be impossible, as I can't do a majority of my job from an officer, or re-route the trip into all day trips or with other less effecient parts of my schedule.

The same can be said for these conferences and meetings. I'm not defending meetings that are for fun and have no purpose from companies that have been giving a bailout. I am saying I can see the concern when justifiable business travel is limited because of fear of government reprisals.

So far in this thread, I have seen no one address that concern without falling back on the red herring that is the bailout situation.

I have said that is a legit concern ... but the reason why people are scrutinizing business travel so closely is because of the excess (the ancient Romans would be proud) that has been associated with it.

I hope it doesn't affect people with legit travel needs, although I do think some of of the worry is more emotional than rational.

But if it does the blame shouldn't be placed at the government's feet, but at Big Business's ... all one has to do is spend time at WDW or in Las Vegas resorts to understand there's a huge amount of partying going on ... and guess what? I think that's perfectly cool ... so long as your company isn't losing millions (or billions) and taking handouts from taxpayers while they lose homes and jobs.

Instead of complaining to Congress, perhaps that letter should have been sent (or at least CC'd) to the folks at all those companies and their CEOs who have been having a great time at our expense.

~Pass the Pixie Dust~

 

[jakeman]

I hope it doesn't affect people with legit travel needs, although I do think some of of the worry is more emotional than rational.

I think the whole issue of business travel right now is emotional not rational. We have all seen by this point government officals blasting corporation and corporations responding with very legitimate rationales that are, in some case, quite literally shouted down. Some of these are justified, some are not. It's the ones that aren't that are concerning.

But if it does the blame shouldn't be placed at the government's feet, but at Big Business's ... all one has to do is spend time at WDW or in Las Vegas resorts to understand there's a huge amount of partying going on ... and guess what? I think that's perfectly cool ... so long as your company isn't losing millions (or billions) and taking handouts from taxpayers while they lose homes and jobs.

Yes and no. There is no absolutes in this case. Everyone from the abusive companies to the grandstanding senators on the evening news shoulder some of this blame. I do agree regarding any company that has not taken taxpayer money.

 

[hokielutz]

No, it didn't. Wachovia never recieved bailout funds. From CBS News:

"First, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson quietly issued a document revising the tax code, giving enormous benefits to some banks that buy other banks. For Wells Fargo, it could be worth up to $25 billion.

"Then, Congress passed the giant bailout that would provide $25 billion in direct funds to Wells Fargo.

"The very same day the bailout passed, Wells Fargo announced the surprise turnaround to investors: It would buy Wachovia after all."

.

Sounds more like Paulson coerced Wells Fargo to take the bail-out.... which in turn was payment for absorbing another bank.

 

[hokielutz]

I have said that is a legit concern ... but the reason why people are scrutinizing business travel so closely is because of the excess (the ancient Romans would be proud) that has been associated with it.

I hope it doesn't affect people with legit travel needs, although I do think some of of the worry is more emotional than rational.

But if it does the blame shouldn't be placed at the government's feet, but at Big Business's ... all one has to do is spend time at WDW or in Las Vegas resorts to understand there's a huge amount of partying going on ... and guess what? I think that's perfectly cool ... so long as your company isn't losing millions (or billions) and taking handouts from taxpayers while they lose homes and jobs.

Instead of complaining to Congress, perhaps that letter should have been sent (or at least CC'd) to the folks at all those companies and their CEOs who have been having a great time at our expense.

~Pass the Pixie Dust~

From your last statement, you seem to be completely missing the point of the letter that is signed by several resort companies.
The point is the resorts are seeing fear trickle into the mindsets of their customers because of the public browbeating Congress and Obama have put on for companies that signed up for bail-out money, but continued on to their expensive retreats and trips. It was intended to ask them to tone down the rhetoric that is possibly or may actually be scaring businesses, who are not in serious trouble, from following through with their conferences and business travel plans.... because they are afraid to be called out publicly by government officials. This letter was not just from Disney, but most of the other large hotel companies and its intent is to prevent a souring ripple effect from Congress's grandstanding to hurt business for Hilton, Wyndham, Marriott, Disney, etc.