Dear Helaine: My husband's job requires he attend a number of conferences and workshops in his field. It's usually two to four times a year. Not going to these meetings is not an option, as it would certainly affect his merit reviews and, potentially, his employment.

His employer will not provide credit cards to purchase airline tickets in advance. They expect my husband to pay for any expense and then will reimburse him after he returns. My husband submits his request for reimbursement the first working day after his return. However, his employer can take six to 10 weeks to process the reimbursement. Inquiries seem to extend the time between the request and actual reimbursement.

My husband is currently waiting on reimbursement for two trips taken at his boss's request between six and eight weeks ago that rang up $2,789 on our card. Obviously, we can't pay off these credit card charges every month, so we're paying interest on these expenses. His employer says they aren't responsible. What can we do to reduce the impact of business travel expenses on our personal finances? -- Unhappy Travels

Dear Unhappy Travels: This is a tough question. Even in the states where the law requires employees be reimbursed for expenses like the ones your husband is racking up, there is no language in the statutes about what a reasonable time frame for repayment actually is. That being said, it is generally customary for companies to pay employee expenses, once they are submitted, within the next pay cycle or 30 days.

So where does this leave your spouse? First, can your husband ask if his company could make the arrangements, so he doesn't accrue expenses for the big-ticket items like flights, conference registration, hotels and the like? If they won't do that, in the short run, I'd suggest your husband attempt to minimize his expenses: buy tickets as far in advance as possible to save money on flights, stay at a lower-cost hotel and so on.

But I've got a bigger piece of advice: I think your husband might also consider starting a search for a new job. At the very least, this behavior demonstrates a lack of consideration for employees, and if these sorts of delays are common, it might also speak to bigger corporate financial problems.

(To ask Helaine a question, email her at askhelaine@gmail.com.)

(EDITORS: For editorial questions, please contact Sue Roush at sroush@amuniversal.com)

Dear Helaine: I need some advice on where to save for my retirement. I am 47 years old, and my wife and I own our home and have no debt. Over the years, my various employers have been on a downward trend as far as matching contributions to a 401(k).

I am currently saving 10 percent of my income into the company-sponsored 401(k), with a 4 percent company match. We have received news that due to a pending merger, our new corporate overlords will no longer offer us any match at all. I was going to increase my own contributions by another 5 percent, but I am reluctant to rely on this company-sponsored 401(k) as an investment vehicle. Any advice on options I should explore outside of this 401(k)? -- Retirement Blues

Dear Blues: This is a question that sounds easy but is anything but. I'm going to ask you to weigh a couple of different factors. Then you need to make the decision, not me.

First, it is absolutely true that companies are not required to offer their employees a 401(k) at all, never mind a match on their contributions. No surprise, many will change reimbursement amounts. During the last recession, it was common to see major employers cut back or eliminate the match entirely. Many have since restored it, at least in part. Things change, in other words. Will you stay on top of this, or are you the sort to ignore the company plan once you are no longer part of it?

Second, the law permits you to put aside much more money in a 401(k) than an Individual Retirement Account. For 2018, a person under the age of 50 can set aside $18,500 in a 401(k) vs. $5,500 in an IRA. In the ideal world, of course, most of us would max both out, but few can afford to do that.

Finally, there are fees. Mutual funds are not free. Investment advice is not free, either. Ditto administering a corporate retirement plan. Those fees, of course, eat into your profits over time. As a general rule, large companies have the heft and expertise to make it more likely their employees are offered low-cost investment options in their 401(k)s. Small businesses -- not so much. Individuals? It depends how savvy you are.

There are extremely low-cost index fund offerings -- heck, sometimes even no-cost selections -- at brokerages like Fidelity and Vanguard. Are you the sort who will compare options between your 401(k) and a low-cost brokerage, and then follow through based on what you discover? Or will you fall prey to the financial adviser recommended by a friend or cousin, who might not have a legal duty to act in your best interests?

Again, only you can answer these questions. Good luck!

(To ask Helaine a question, email her at askhelaine@gmail.com.)

(EDITORS: For editorial questions, please contact Sue Roush at sroush@amuniversal.com)

Dear Helaine: Personal finance has been very straightforward for my husband and me so far. We simply cut our expenditures (such as eating out) whenever possible and have that money available for therapies for our twin children, who have both been diagnosed with autism. So when an acquaintance talked about a financial services company and the amount of money I could earn if I signed up, I was intrigued.

It's like an Amway for financial products. Its main product is universal life insurance. I did some research, and it looks like if you have an acumen for selling universal life insurance products and signing up others to do so, you might actually make a lot of money. But I am not sure people will actually benefit from the products I would be asked to sell. If that's the case, I could not sleep at night. What do you suggest? -- To Sell or Not to Sell

Dear Sell: Autism places a huge financial stress on families. But signing on with a multilevel marketing company -- which is what this is -- in hopes of increasing your household income is likely to make things worse, not better. The reason is how MLMs work. The major earnings come not from hawking the product, but from signing up other people to do so. A recruit will then forever pay a percentage of their earnings to their recruiter (as long as that person remains with the organization) and further up the line.

This is not exactly an easy task, and most don't do well at it. According to a report issued by the Federal Trade Commission in 2011, 99 percent of people who sign up with multilevel marketing companies will ultimately lose money. Another survey, this one from the website Magnify Money, found the typical recruit earned less than 70 cents an hour -- and that was before expenses were factored in.

And that's not all. Almost all MLMs suggest that you get your start by turning your friends and family into a customer base, as well as possible future recruits. This is the sort of behavior that's bound to strain your close relationships even when you love what you are selling.

That brings me to my second point. You are quite right to be wary of universal life insurance. For the uninitiated, that's life insurance that also offers an investment component. The problem? Term life insurance -- life insurance that offers protection for a set number of years -- is significantly less costly. The vast majority of people would be better off signing up for a term policy and investing their money in low-cost index funds.

Thanks to this combination -- the business model and the need to sell something you don't believe in -- you'll definitely sleep better at night if you give this opportunity a pass.

(To ask Helaine a question, email her at askhelaine@gmail.com.)

(EDITORS: For editorial questions, please contact Sue Roush at sroush@amuniversal.com)