New Gen Z work trip trend that would make Boomer's heads explode
It started with quiet quitting and bare minimum Mondays, before moving onto coffee badging and acting your wage.
Now, the youngest working generation are taking things a step further. Rather than just focusing on work-life balance, they are now looking for ways their work can benefit them during their personal time.
They are capitalising on perks like fully paid work trips by having their partner, a friend or even a family member tag along.
It seems the younger generations have less reservations about mixing business and leisure, with the new trend fittingly dubbed 'bleisure' or 'blended travel'.
And they aren't shy about sharing it either, with a rise in young people sharing their bleisure travel online.
'POV you take your bestie on all your work trips,' one TikToker wrote on a video.
'You hire me, you hire her.'
Another showed a clip of her and her mum walking hand-in-hand, writing 'Normalise taking your mum on work trips.'
Another video read: 'When your bf brings you on a work trip to NYC but he has to work all day while you enjoy the fancy hotel and explore the city.'
While having a plus one tag along on a work trip isn't inherently problematic, it is the way some people are going about it that is causing controversy.
A YouGov survey of 12,000 people commissioned by the Crowne Plaza hotel chain revealed that 74 per cent of employees would invite a family member or friend on a work trip, according to Business Insider.
Shockingly, one in five admitted they had already done so and didn't tell their employer.
It is the secrecy aspect that is the real issue with this new trend, according to recruitment specialist and author of Earning Power, Roxanne Calder.
'It's not the act of bringing someone that signals immaturity; it's doing it without transparency,' she told news.com.au.
'If your job funds the hotel room, there's a basic social contract in place.'
Ms Calder said breaching this contract raises ethical questions and is not a good look professionally.
'Not telling your boss isn't clever; it's a failure to understand the power of trust in professional environments. And maybe the fact it is conducted in secrecy signals you might also sense it might boarder on being unprofessional,' she said.
The act of bringing a plus one on a work trip isn't a new thing in and of itself, with Ms Calder saying what's new is the 'lack of shame about it'.
Previous generations may have still done it, but it was done quietly and possibly with some guilt or awareness that they were bending the rules.
'Only in a generation raised to believe that every moment of their lives deserves to be shared, and preferably reimbursed, would this be considered a trend,' Ms Calder said.
'That shift isn't just cultural, it's psychological. Gen Z is the first generation raised to optimise experience as much as achievement.
'They don't view a career as a ladder, but as a landscape. And in that landscape, if you're travelling for work, why shouldn't joy come too?'
HR specialist and founder of Corporate Dojo, Karen Gately, agreed that there has been a definite shift, with young professionals being more open about blending work and personal life.
While the behaviour itself isn't unique to any generation, Gen Z are more comfortable challenging traditional boundaries.
However, Ms Gately warned sneaking your bestie onto a work trip isn't without its risks, saying it could very easily lead to a breach of trust between you and your boss.
'If your employer finds out you've concealed this, it can damage your professional reputation and relationship with your boss,' she told news.com.au.
A plus one could also prove to be a distraction from the main reason for the trip, which is to work.
'Even unintentionally, splitting your focus between work and personal time can impact your effectiveness,' she said.
'If you're disciplined enough to be focused on work when you're meant to be working, it can be OK. But if having your partner or friend with you is likely to distract you from achieving the outcomes you need to, it's not a good idea.'
There are also insurance implications that need to be considered, with Ms Gately pointing out if your travel companion is injured or causes an issue it could complicate liability and insurance coverage.
While for many, this trend may just be seen as a fun way of getting the most of your work life, Ms Calder said it also speaks to something larger.
While the rise of hybrid and remote work has allowed employees previously unheard of flexibility, it also means workers are now more accessible than ever.
Most people have access to work emails on their phones, making it easy to slip into the habit of responding out of hours.
Is there a small 10 minute task that needs to be done over the weekend? Well you might as well log on at home and get it out of the way.
Ms Calder said it is this type of overlap into people's personal lives that is driving young people to ask: 'If work shows up in my personal life uninvited, can my personal life show up in my work life by design?'
'Employers who treat this purely as a compliance issue will miss the point. And employees who treat it as a loophole to exploit miss the longer game: trust, maturity, and self-awareness will always outperform hustle masked as rebellion,' she said.
In the end, the recruitment expert said it is not about whether we should ban or endorse blended travel.
'It is about having an honest conversation about boundaries, trust, and what professionalism means in a world where the personal and professional are increasingly entangled,' she said.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

ABC News
2 hours ago
- ABC News
Trump and Putin will meet this weekend in Alaska — here's what we know
The White House has released new details of the upcoming Alaskan summit between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin. The lead-up to the talks has seen Russia make gains on the battleground in Ukraine, while Volodymyr Zelenskyy has ruled out any deal that involves giving up land. Here's what we know. The summit will be held on Friday, Alaska time, at Elmendorf Air Force Base in Anchorage. Anchorage is Alaska's largest city, although its population is less than 300,000. At time of writing, the exact meeting time had not yet been revealed. The location is seen as being geographically significant as Alaska was part of the Russian Empire until 1867, when the United States purchased it for $US7.2 million, which is about $254 million in today's Australian dollars. Alaska is also the closest US state to Russia. The two superpowers are separated by the Bering Strait, a narrow sea crossing which is just 82 kilometres wide at its narrowest point. The White House says the talks will be one-on-one between Trump and Putin, meaning there is no room at the table for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. "Only one party that's involved in this war is going to be present," said White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt. Putin said last week he wasn't against meeting Zelenskyy, but said "certain conditions need to be created" for that to happen, and that they were "still a long way off". The White House appears to be trying to dampen down expectations of a quick ceasefire deal, stating the Anchorage talks will be "a listening exercise for the president''. "This is for the president to go and to get, again, a more firm and better understanding of how we can hopefully bring this war to an end," Leavitt told reporters. Russia has previously demanded that Kyiv hand over the Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia regions, which were illegally annexed by Moscow in 2022 at the start of the three-and-a-half-year war. Last weekend Zelenskyy said: "Ukrainians will not give their land to the occupier." However Trump has said "there'll be some land swapping going on … for the good of Ukraine. Good stuff, not bad stuff. Also, some bad stuff for both". This will be Putin's first trip to the US since 2015, when he travelled to New York to speak at the UN General Assembly. Putin and Trump met multiple times during Trump's first presidency, while the Russian leader also met with then-US president Joe Biden in 2021. Although the International Criminal Court issued a warrant for Putin's arrest over alleged war crimes in Ukraine in 2023, the US is not a member of the court and is under no obligation to arrest him. In 2019, during his first presidency, Trump travelled to the Korean Peninsula to meet North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, becoming the first US leader to step into the communist-controlled North Korea. Russian troops have been gaining ground in Ukraine's east, with Ukraine throwing extra troops into heavy fighting around the coal-mining town of Dobropillia in the Donetsk region. Kremlin officials have demanded Ukraine cede "strategically vital" territory in Donetsk as part of a ceasefire agreement, according to Washington-based think-tank the Institute for the Study of War (ISW). Surrendering the rest of Donetsk, according to ISW, would force Ukraine to abandon its "fortress belt" of multiple major cities and settlements running along a 50-kilometre stretch of highway. "Ukraine has spent the last 11 years pouring time, money, and effort into reinforcing the fortress belt and establishing significant defence … infrastructure in and around these cities," the ISW said. "Russian forces are currently still attempting to envelop the fortress belt from the south-west and are engaged in an effort to seize it that would likely take several years to complete." Russia has also launched Russian summer camps and programs designed to send Ukrainian children across the border as part of a "Russification" campaign. Details of exactly when the talks will take place have not been released. Alaska's time zone is 18 hours behind eastern Australia, meaning talks on Friday US time would be happening on Saturday morning AEST. ABC/wires

ABC News
4 hours ago
- ABC News
What the PM thinks about a four day work week
Are you keen for a four-day work week to become the new normal? That's the pitch from the Australian Council of Trade Unions, who want it firmly on the table at next week's National Economic Reform Roundtable. Meanwhile, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer are at pains to stress they're perfectly aligned on the summit's goals - but are they really seeing eye to eye? Patricia Karvelas and Raf Epstein break it all down on Politics Now. Got a burning question? Got a burning political query? Send a short voice recording to PK and Fran for Question Time at thepartyroom@

ABC News
4 hours ago
- ABC News
Donald Trump's National Guard troop deployment tests limits of 150yo law
US President Donald Trump is pushing the bounds of military activity on American soil, but a 150-year-old law could spell trouble for his plans. On Monday, Mr Trump said he was deploying the National Guard and taking over Washington, DC's police department to reduce crime in the nation's capital. As hundreds of National Guard troops filed into Washington, DC on Tuesday, a judge thousands of miles away in California was hearing arguments about whether such an act violated federal law. The three-day, no-jury trial is considering whether the Trump administration violated the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act when it mobilised the National Guard during protests against immigration raids in Los Angeles in June. Experts say in both the California and Washington cases, there are clear limitations to the law's enforcement. Here's what to know. Protests erupted in Los Angeles on June 7 when Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers arrested people at multiple locations, including workplaces, hardware stores and bus stops. Despite objections from California Governor Gavin Newsom and city leaders, the Trump administration federalised the California National Guard and sent members into the city. The Department of Defense ordered the deployment of about 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines to Los Angeles. The guard members accompanied federal immigration officers on raids throughout Los Angeles and at two marijuana farm sites in Ventura County. Marines stood guard around a federal building in downtown Los Angeles, which includes a detention centre that was holding some of those arrested. Most of the troops have since left, but 250 National Guard members remain on duty, according to the latest figures provided by the Pentagon. California is asking the court to order the Trump administration to return control of the remaining National Guard troops to the state. It's a section of the military that can be used as reserves for the army and air force. Each state has its own unit, which answers to the relevant state governor and the president. Its members have been used to assist with crowd control in the past, but presidents have rarely deployed them without the relevant governor's approval. Before Mr Trump in June, President Lyndon B Johnson was the last to do so in 1965. Judge Charles Breyer says the central question is whether the Trump administration may have violated the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act. That federal law generally prevents the military from participating in domestic law enforcement. It also prevents the military from investigating local crimes, overriding local law enforcement or compelling certain behaviour. The law typically doesn't apply to the National Guard because members report to their relevant governor rather than the federal government. But because the Trump administration took control of the Guard members, the Posse Comitatus Act came into play, according to the Brennan Center for Justice. The state of California says the federal government violated Posse Comitatus when it deployed National Guard soldiers and US Marines to conduct law enforcement actions normally conducted by police. At the time of the ICE protests, Mr Trump pointed to a provision called Title 10 that allows the president to call the National Guard into federal service when the country "is invaded", or when "there is a rebellion or danger of rebellion against the authority of the Government". But Judge Breyer found the protests fell "far short of 'rebellion'". He also previously found the Trump administration had violated the US Constitution's 10th Amendment, which defines power between federal and state governments. The Trump administration immediately appealed, arguing that courts can't second-guess the president's decisions. It secured a temporary halt, allowing control of the California National Guard to stay in federal hands as the lawsuit unfolds. During the trial's first day, a handful of witnesses were called for testimony. Deputy Commanding General for the National Guard Major General Scott Sherman said the military can protect federal property and federal agents in their mission carrying out federal operations. He said they could take certain law enforcement actions, such as setting up a security perimeter outside of federal facilities, if a commander on the ground felt unsafe. Ernesto Santacruz Jr, the Los Angeles field office director for ICE, argued in court documents the troops were needed because local law enforcement was slow to respond when a crowd gathered outside the federal building to protest the June 7 immigration arrests. "The presence of the National Guard and Marines has played an essential role in protecting federal property and personnel from the violent mobs," he said. Beyond the legal exemptions to the Posse Comitatus Act, there is a question around how the law can actually be enforced, Brennan Center for Justice's Liberty and National Security Program counsel Joseph Nunn said. Because the Posse Comitatus Act is a criminal statute, the US Department of Justice is responsible for prosecution in criminal court, Mr Nunn said. "It's premised on the executive branch policing itself," he said. That makes it unclear whether a state government such as California has a right to sue in a civil court in the first place. Georgetown University Law Center professor of law Steve Vladeck said the ruling in the California case would likely be a narrow interpretation based on the circumstances of the Guard's deployment in Los Angeles. But he said a precedent could still dictate how the administration used the Guard in California and other states. On Monday, Mr Trump announced he was deploying the National Guard across Washington, DC, and has suggested he may do the same in Chicago. But a court ruling against the Trump administration's use of the National Guard in California could put a pin in those plans. Mr Trump said he was deploying the National Guard and taking over Washington's police department to reduce crime. The president has warned of a takeover since a former Department of Government Efficiency employee Edward Coristine, better known by his online alias Big Balls, was allegedly assaulted during an attempted carjacking last week. Washington falls under federal control, meaning Congress has ultimate jurisdiction over the city. The president is also already in charge of the National Guard in Washington and can legally deploy troops for 30 days without congressional approval, as well as take control of the city's police department for 30 days if he determines there is an emergency. However, Washington Mayor Muriel Bowser says the crime rate in the nation's capital is already falling after a spike in 2023. ABC/AP