Immediate Vault Immediate Access

Travel Risk Management for LGBTQ+ Employees

LGBTQ+ travelers can face unique challenges when traveling abroad—many countries do not legally recognize same-sex marriage and more than 70 countries consider consensual LGBTQ+ relationships a crime. If an employee travels on business to a country where their sexual orientation or expression of gender identity is criminalized, an extra layer of complexity is added to duty of care responsibilities. Corporate risk managers need to consider how to best protect employees in a way that doesn’t make them feel singled out, working with them to stay safe and respect local laws without compromising their own values. 

This process begins by providing up-to-date guidance on laws and cultural variations as part of an organization’s duty of care. Attitudes towards the LGBTQ+ community vary considerably around the world, and employers therefore need to shape their duty of care policies around a wide range of considerations, both legal and cultural.

Understand the Law

Risk managers need to ensure they have relevant and up-to-date information at hand to fully understand the traveler’s destination. There are nuances within each country’s legislation, and acceptance can vary dramatically even within different regions of the same country, also evolving over time. Employees need to be informed of the laws to which they will be subject at their destination before they travel. Duty of care procedures should incorporate pre-travel advice and awareness, educating employees on what to expect when on business travel as well as how to respond and whom to contact in an emergency.

Legislation may impact an employee’s behavior in a given destination and travel managers can provide advice on best practices. In the United Arab Emirates for example, transgender, gay and gender nonconforming people have been arrested for violating a law against men “disguised” as women. To the extent possible, it is best for travelers in these countries to remain in resort areas and for same-sex couples to refrain from holding hands, hugging or kissing in public.

Understand the Culture

In addition to local laws, social norms are another factor to consider for deciding whether a destination is safe. While many countries officially recognize homosexuality and allow gender confirmation measures, some communities within these “safe” countries still harbor prejudice against the LGBTQ+ community. In such environments, LGBTQ+ travelers who engage in open displays of affection with each other or appear gender nonconforming may be at risk of harassment and assault, and may also feel intimidated when reporting the incident to local police. There may be few or no local venues that provide a safe space for members of the LGBTQ+ community and the risk of hate crimes and police raids at such establishments cannot be ruled out. Travelers are advised to maintain a low profile in countries that lack full protection for the LGBTQ+ community and exercise caution about where and with whom to discuss related topics in public spaces.

Social media can also put travelers at risk. For example, while dating apps can help people connect with local members of the LGBTQ+ community when traveling or relocating for work, employees should be advised to exercise caution if they plan to use these in communities that are not LGBTQ-friendly. In Russia, where prejudice is widespread and a law against “gay propaganda” has been in effect since 2013, far-right activists and gang members have used dating apps to lure gay men to assault and extort them. Prior to travel, risk managers should advise employees to review privacy settings on social media platforms and reconsider the use of dating applications while abroad.

With some countries still refusing to accept—let alone recognize—the LGBTQ+ community, LGBTQ+ employees often feel compelled to take additional precautions that others would not have to even consider. However, corporate risk managers can help employees to stay safe while on business travel by being aware of the local laws and social norms of the destination before departure.

For other guidance on how to support LGBTQ+ employees and advance diversity, equity and inclusion programs, check out these additional pieces from Risk Management Magazine and the Risk Management Monitor:
Beyond Pride: Building Strong Diversity and Inclusion Programs
The LGBT Travel Risk Dilemma
The Benefits of Diversity & Inclusion Initiatives
Engaging Employees in Their Own Duty of Care
Developing a Strategy for Transgender Workers
The Case for Effective DE&I Training

Travel Company Thomas Cook Collapses, Stranding Customers Worldwide

The world’s oldest travel company, UK-based Thomas Cook—which operates hotels and resorts around the world as well as its own airlines—all but collapsed this week, cancelling all of the company’s bookings (including flights and holiday packages), and closing its retail locations. The shutdown left 600,000 customers stranded, and Reuters called the effort to get passengers home “the biggest ever peacetime repatriation,” with 64 flights bringing 14,700 back to the United Kingdom on Monday, and hundreds of thousands more are expected to be transported over the next two weeks. The collapse also leaves more than 20,000 employees out of work.

Thomas Cook was buried in debt, partially due to its reluctance to adapt quickly to online travel booking and worries about Brexit, and lenders stopped funding the company. The company had requested £900 million ($1.1 billion) from its creditors and the Chinese company Fosun, Thomas Cook’s largest shareholder, but the deal did not materialize. According to The Guardian, as the company slipped further into debt, payment card companies like American Express and Barclays also limited cash collections and payment services to mitigate harm from a collapse.

The UK government also denied Thomas Cook a last-minute $310 million bailout, partially because, as UK business secretary Andrea Leadsom said, “Thomas Cook is sitting on trying to service £1.7 billion [$2.1 billion] of debt, and it would have been a waste of taxpayers’ money to be throwing good money after bad.” Reportedly, the Turkish government and some Spanish hotel businesses offered to front £200 million ($247 million) to save the company if the UK government would guarantee the investment. But the UK government rejected the deal, saying that the amount would not have sustained the company for more than two weeks.

Leadsom said that she also asked for an expedited investigation into the corporate collapse by the UK’s Insolvency Service—a branch of the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy that handles corporate liquidations and personal bankruptcy cases, including investigating companies’ bankruptcies for misconduct.  Others raised the issue of company higher-ups earning millions while the company sank, with Prime Minister Boris Johnson saying, “I have questions for one about whether it’s right that the directors, or whoever, the board, should pay themselves large sums when businesses can go down the tubes like that.” The UK’s Financial Reporting Council said that it may investigate Thomas Cook’s auditors, PwC and EY, in relation to the company’s collapse.

For stranded passengers, the UK government and other airlines are stepping in to ensure everyone can make it home. In 2017, when UK company Monarch Airlines went under, the government brought all passengers home, and it appears they will do the same in this case. Of the 600,000 stranded customers, 150,000 to 160,000 are British, and UK foreign secretary Dominic Raab told the BBC that the country will be arranging alternative flights for those travelers. Customers with tickets on Thomas Cook subsidiary airline Condor will be fine, as Condor will continue to function after a £380 million loan from the German government.

Others will be able to take seats on flights provided by a variety of airlines, including US-based provider Atlas Air, British Airways, Lufthansa, and possibly Malaysian Airlines, among others.

Regarding payment, things may get more complicated. According to the BBC, UK travelers who booked a package trip are covered by the Air Travel Organiser’s Licence (ATOL), an insurance program that will cover the cost of repatriating travelers. Those who just bought flights will reportedly have to appeal to their travel insurance or credit card companies for refunds. Hotels and resorts are also reportedly asking guests who booked through Thomas Cook to pay out of pocket for their stays, as the company’s payment is in question.

Understanding Insurance Coverage for Traveling Employees

BOSTONThe odds of dying in a terrorist attack: 1 in 9.3 million. The odds of getting sick while traveling: 1 in 2. But both should concern companies sending their employees around the world for business, panelists Kathleen Ellis of CNA International, Erin Wilk of Facebook and Andrew Miller of International SOS said at a RIMS 2019 panel titled “Is Insurance Enough When Employees Travel?”

The answer to this question, the panel agreed, was emphatically “no.” But, as Ellis and Wilk noted, insurance coverage is an important part of the equation for many of the biggest things that do go wrong. Even though the risk of catastrophic incident is minor compared to seemingly mundane travel concerns like weather and petty theft, companies should still prepare for the worst in advance.

This is true whether employees are going to common destinations within the United States traditionally thought of as safe or to less familiar places. It is also true, Wilk said, whether the employee is an experienced traveler (who can be over-confident) or a novice (who can over-prepare and miss warning signs around them).

The panelists repeatedly stressed that companies should approach travel risk with protecting employees as their priority. Not only do companies have a “duty of care” (a legal responsibility to mitigate the risks traveling employees face), but they also need to be cognizant of the “standard of care” and “duty of loyalty.” Standard of care is the industry standard for employees’ travel risk protection, and companies’ obligation to meet that standard. Duty of loyalty is the employees’ responsibility to abide by the safety measures the company has put in place. As recently discussed in Risk Management, this is largely on the employee, but the panel noted that employers also have a critical role to play in creating a culture that enables and encourages their people to take the necessary steps to protect themselves while traveling. As Wilk said, “Policy is a piece of paper. Employee practice is what actually matters.”

When it comes to insurance, companies should make sure they are covered, but not over-covered. For example, Miller discussed cases in which companies’ benefits, HR and legal department have all purchased travel coverage without communicating their purchases to the other departments. Businesses may also be unfamiliar with the coverage they have and pay to remediate travel problems themselves when their insurance policies would actually cover those issues.

Key insurance options include:

  • Foreign voluntary workers compensation, which covers workers traveling on business in a way similar to traditional workers’ comp, paying for disease, or repatriation or evacuation
  • Business travel accidental death and dismemberment coverage, which works like life insurance and covers both work-related and non-work-related incidents, and is an option for covering employees’ spouses and dependents
  • Kidnap and ransom coverage, which provides pre-trip support, crisis management services during an incident, and reimburses for ransoms paid for kidnapping extortion, wrongful detention and hijacking
  • Expatriate medical, which is an option for employees who are traveling long-term, and
  • Defense base act coverage, which handles government contractors overseas at embassies and military bases

The panelists also emphasized that travel risk not only endangers employees’ well-being, but also the company’s bottom line. If an employee gets sick while traveling for business, for example, the company’s investment in the trip can be wasted. Additionally, traveling employees who feel unsafe or unprepared for the risks they are facing feel less loyal to their company, and can also be distracted, potentially derailing the important business they are traveling to conduct. The panel urged that pre-trip training and a thorough understanding of the company’s existing coverage are the best ways to mitigate these risks and help employees succeed when traveling for work.

NTSB’s Most Wanted Improvements Reflect Major Transportation Disasters of 2018

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) unveiled its 2019-2020 Most Wanted List of Transportation Safety Improvements today. The 10-item list is associated with 267 open NTSB safety recommendations that mark critical changes needed in the next two years to reduce transportation accidents, injuries and fatalities, and longstanding safety issues that threaten businesses, professionals and the traveling public.

The list, which is now available online, was unveiled at the NTSB’s press conference in Washington, D.C.:

  • Eliminate Distractions.
  • End Alcohol and Other Drug Alcohol Impairment.
  • Ensure the Safe Shipment of Hazardous Materials
  • Fully Implement Positive Train Control (PTC)
  • Implement a comprehensive strategy to reduce speeding-related crashes
  • Improve the Safety of Part 135 Aircraft Flight Operations
  • Increase Implementation of Collision Avoidance Systems in All New Highway Vehicles
  • Reduce Fatigue-Related Accidents
  • Strengthen Occupant Protection
  • Require Medical Fitness – Screen for and Treat Obstructive Sleep Apnea

“We do not simply come up with these recommendations based on a whim,” NTSB chairman Robert Sumwalt said during his opening remarks. “It’s a data-driven approach based on the results of our investigation and the tragic and senseless deaths we investigate. The NTSB’s most wanted list is written in blood.”

Sumwalt said driving while distracted – from cars to trains – had risen to be one of the most prevalent transportation risks facing American roads, railways, businesses and the general population. Texting-while-driving, he said, can increase the likelihood of a crash between four and 20 times. Sumwalt said the NTSB has called for an outright ban on all mobile devices when operating a vehicle because of the distraction to a driver’s cognitive ability and has urged policymakers to regulate the use of devices like Bluetooth and hands-free phones the same as standard mobile device use.

He also said that nearly 37,000 fatalities were reported on roadways in 2017, the most recent year of data available.

The inclusion of distracted driving dovetails with a study released in January by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), which highlighted the marked increase in drivers using phones in risky ways. based on an observational survey of drivers in four Northern Virginia communities drivers were 57 percent more likely to be observed manipulating their phones, like when texting or using for purposes other than phone calls.

Based on findings that fatal crash risk is 66 percent higher when manipulating a phone, IIHS researchers estimated that about 800 crash deaths in the United States in 2017 could be attributed to drivers texting or using phones for things other than talking.

PTC also received special focus during the NTSB panel discussion and press conference. Board member Jennifer Homendy said the most recent data is from the third quarter of 2018 and that, “we are closer to installation but there’s a big difference between installation and operational. We’re a ways away from that, unfortunately. The risk is the same 50 years ago as it was a year ago,” she said, referencing the PTC-preventable crash she investigated exactly one year ago in Cayce, South Carolina.

After Congress passed the PTC Enforcement and Implementation Act of 2015 it also authorized the FAST Act, which allocated $199 million in PTC grant funding and specifically prioritized PTC installation projects for Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing funding. The Association of American Railroads estimates that freight railroads will spend $10.6 billion implementing PTC, with additional hundreds of millions each year to maintain. The American Public Transportation Association has estimated that the commuter and passenger railroads will need to spend nearly $3.6 billion on PTC.

As previously reported, several major transportation providers, such as AMTRAK and the Long Island Railroad have missed critical deadlines for installing PTC.

“In 1961 President Kennedy set a goal to put a man on the moon by the end of the decade and in July 1969 Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin did that,” Homendy said. “In 1969, NTSB investigated its first PTC-preventable accident. In one decade we put a man on the moon but in five decades we haven’t implemented PTC.”