Work related travel, feel deceived and not happy

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120114581#Comment_120114581

If travel is something that they maybe consider key to the role, they should definitely have mentioned it in the job spec. Failure to mention this would definitely go against the company if it came to unfair dismissal proceedings.

Having said that, I'd imagine that the OP doesn't particularly want things to get that far. Everyone loses in that scenario.

Flinty997

Nothing like being locked in compound, in an apartment at night, with free roaming guard dogs to feel "safe".

snotboogie

Is travel in general a big issue to you or is it simply the fact that it is to a dangerous country that requires constant protection? Are all of the future trips to dangerous countries? If travel in general is a dealbreaker you should be bringing it up before you accept any role imo. I can completely understand you being well within your rights to question travel where you need constant armed protection, questioning trips to London or New York or Singapore is going to be a lot more difficult.

If you are talking about regular business travel you will see a lot of comment on online forums and reddit about travel being redundant and how everything can be done perfectly over zoom. This sentiment is not necessarily shared in industry. Explaining to a VP how he doesn't best understand how business should be done and that you know a better way a month into your role will probably go down like a lead balloon.

Gusser09

OP the best way to tackle this is to have a chat with your manager. Ask him about the travel and why it wasn't in the job specification which they advertised. In my view if they mentioned other locations it's a bit sneaky when they turn around and say the other location is in bangkok or somewhere. That's just not good enough.

Tell them that you can't travel internationally due to other commitments and that you can't do overnights.

Good staff are really hard to find these days and there is a reason why they went with you. You can be guaranteed that they interview a lot of other people too.

I wouldn't be sticking around if they don't offer a good enough explanation as to why they didn't specify this. At the moment the cards are in your hands. In a years time they might not be though.

Hand in your notice if you're not happy but work you're arse off during the 4 weeks or whatever it is. Let them see what they would be missing out on.

Have a look online and see if you can find a previous advertisement for the role and see if travel was included in the spec. There is a very good reason why they have left it out. Nobody of any quality who possesses experience is willing to take those international travel roles anymore. They in my opinion are a race to the bottom. I see it in relatives who are miserable with the weeks on end in hotels and the likes.

Dav010

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120114662#Comment_120114662

You are now making up your own storyline.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120114799#Comment_120114799

Would it not be somewhere in the small print of the signed contract? That would be the first place I’d look. Maybe the document is pages long but a scan for such words as “location”, “travel”, “international”, etc might yield something.

Flinty997

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120114831#Comment_120114831

No we used to send people to to a location where this happened. No warning beforehand. They discovered it the first night.

In that company I ended in another part of the world, Caribbean on my own. Often ended up in not great areas by accident as I had no local guide. The company made the trips so much hassle, I avoided them there after.

NewClareman

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120114006#Comment_120114006

This!

@OP you come across as feeling hard done by and looking for posts that support your point of view. You need to step back a bit and see whether you want a future with this company. Taking a confrontational or negative attitude at this early stage will get you nowhere. At best you will be sidelined but much more likely you will be "managed out". Far better to start looking for a new job now, before you damage your reputation.

Ignore the posts suggesting you cannot be let go, you most certainly can. All it takes is an effective HR unit, to advise your manager on the appropriate procedures.

Figel Narage

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120115013#Comment_120115013

Had multiple looks on the contract and job spec, no mention of travel

Etc

This might not be an issue OP, travel budgets have been slashed in my company for the last 2 years and I’ve heard similar from friends in other multinationals. Training and travel are always the first to be slashed so it may not happen !

Figel Narage

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120115176#Comment_120115176

Ofcourse I feel annoyed I've been deceived and anyone who doesn't think that i havent been deceived.........I don't know what world they live in.

I don't want to be confrontational with my manager or employer and when this is brought up i wont aim to be confrontational but I have a feeling they won't bend so I'll have to leave.

I can't understate how deceitful this is to not mention this at all in the recruitment process, as I've stated, there's been a number of things that I'm not happy with since joining and I don't want to stay with the company long term based on my first week (could change after time).

However, I'm not going to do anything drastic for the moment, gonna work hard and keep my head down (keep an eye out for other jobs as well) and when the issue comes to a head, make my position clear but offer a solution to make up for the lack of travel.

Just want to make clear, I've never been an issue for any employer I've worked for, never been fired or spoken to by my previous managers or HR, always done a good job and not been hassle for anyone so this isn't a common theme for me in my previous jobs (I.e. causing problems). I've mentioned this multiple times, anyone I know who had to travel for work, even if only once a year was made aware in the recruitment stage and also had it spelled out in their contracts. This is standard practice and for my current employer not to do this is unprofessional.

Flinty997

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120115323#Comment_120115323

Might be the case if a place is trying to stay in the black. Almost everyone I know who used to travel but stopped during COVID is back travelling, perhaps at a slightly reduced frequency, but back travelling anyway.

Count Dracula

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120114138#Comment_120114138

Sorry, only getting around to replying to you now. It has been a long, long day.

Red eye to Brussels for SMT at 9 am. I spent most of the meeting caressing their futile, dull, blunt inventive notions whilst simultaneously realising that if they don't get it together by Easter I may be forced to make some changes? They don't know that yet. I will probably fire the IT guy first, they are the easiest to replace in the current market. It's hilarious , they think they are so important, a hard rain is coming. I actually have held my IT director in serious contempt for months now, I won't fire him , but I will probably make him fire 2-3 of his subs, I don't need to for financical reasons, I am doing it to annoy the chunt and to soften his cough on budget increases, he is an upstart. I am already aware that he attempted to patent one of my calibrations for a new 4th gen modular. Long term he really needs to start looking around.

I took the tunnel to London and arrived here at around 5. I met with Samantha who collected me from Kings Cross and drove me straight to my apartment. She is fantastic and worth every last penny. It's really sad I have recently come to learn that her boyfriend is a raging closet homosexual who has taken to lurid pickups with strangers after dark at the Bandstand in Regents park... you know I always thought there was something incessantly creepy about the dweeb? It's funny because I only arranged to have him followed after he was smart with me at a social I paid for in the conference room of the Walkie Talkie last Easter. I was hoping to just get some text book shight on him like visiting a hooker or continuing his affair with that absolute tramp who lives in Greenwich.... but cruising is actually a step too far beyond my plan. I simply could not let Sammy know about it, she really likes him and it would really hurt her to find out that her fiánce is actually sucking random cock in Regents Park for hours at night, he told her he was doing food runs for a Homeless Charity. Total Asshole.

How was your Day?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120117279#Comment_120117279

did you spend your day thinking of this or did it just flow naturally?

You should write short stories.

Count Dracula

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120114280#Comment_120114280

Thanks for the heads up Andy. You are such a charm. I must run it by Legal. Great Stuff.

CD.

Flinty997

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120117298#Comment_120117298

...

Cyrus

This thread is making my head hurt, regardless of what you thought you were getting yourself into what you now have is a role in an international organisation, you say the pay and opportunities are good so I’m assuming reasonably senior and they expect a relatively modest amount of travel.

You either a) get on with it, see how it goes, see how much travel actually transpired and decide whether you can live with or not, maybe the pay and opportunities compensate for it or b) leave and get a job somewhere else, that’s it.

the company is unlikely to change how they operate because someone doesn’t like travelling for work for some reason.

Former Former Former

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120115345#Comment_120115345

I can't understate how deceitful this is to not mention this at all in the recruitment process

It's a big claim to call it deceitful. You're accusing your new employer of tricking you into having to travel against your will.

Assuming you're mid-level or more, it absolutely is standard practice in multinationals. They should have spelled it out, yes, but if it's such a red line for you, then you should have got clarity too. It's a stretch to call them liars when you didn't do any diligence yourself. I have young kids and in every job interview I've done in the last ten years, I've asked about travel. To not do so was naive in the extreme.

Tbh, I'm struggling to see a happy ending for you in this job.

Flinty997

Its very weird not to mention it anywhere, especially considering the destination.

Maybe its a Russian Bank.

Figel Narage

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120117327#Comment_120117327

I appreciate the feedback but please read my previous responses in the thread as ive addressed some points you made already, I'm not senior and my level didn't used to travel until very recently they decided to change that. Obviously if I'm senior I would expect some ad hoc travel or tasks to present themselves.

The company isn't changing things just for me as they didn't used to make people on my level travel until very recently! I've stated this a few times already

Cyrus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120117573#Comment_120117573

Well now they do and they aren’t going to change that for one person, if this what a redline issue for you you should have clarified in the recruitment process , in any event my advice remains the same, either see how it is or leave, if you expect to have to travel a little when you progress to a more senior role you may as well get used to it.

Figel Narage

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120117419#Comment_120117419

No offence but you're coming off as very pro employer based on your response.

This was 100% deceitful and if you think it wasn't then there's no point in continuing to post in this thread to be perfectly honest.

This is the last time I'll state this, I'm not senior, I'm not mid level, im an analyst and they didnt make people at my level travel until very recently. Anyone who I know who had to travel for a job were told at the very beginning! That's standard, It's expected the employer has the decency to make you aware before applying for the role as not everyone can or wants to travel, this is totally the employers fault and if they were honest I wouldn't be in this situation.

Dav010

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120117573#Comment_120117573

But your contract allows for the travel. Business practices change, and banking being global, it’s hardly a surprise that some travel may be involved. I’m struggling to see why you feel deceived, whatever you do, and whatever your banks need is for you to travel, there must be a reason why they feel it will benefit them. So either discuss it with them, or time to put your CV back out there. Probably best for you to state at interview that you will not travel even if your new employer deems it necessary, it’ll save you both time and expense.

In relation to your assumption that once you pass probation, it is more difficult to terminate employment, it isn’t that difficult. Under 12 months of service you don’t have the benefit of the UDA and refusal to abide by the terms of your contract relating to working at another location may well give them a reason to cut their losses before the 12 months of service has been reached.

Figel Narage

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120117599#Comment_120117599

Why would I if travel isn't mentioned in the job spec? Any job I've ever gotten, even in international financial services firms didn't specify travel and I didn't have to travel in these roles. Again, anyone I know who had to travel for work, they were told in advance, that is standard practice, if its not mentioned in the job spec or interviews then why would it be brought up? It's quite a big thing to omit and is very irresponsible of the employer whether you like to admit it or not

Figel Narage

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120117604#Comment_120117604

Well it's a bit vague, it doesn't specifically state travel is expected which from people i know who travelled is stated in their contract, in my case its just stated you may have to work at different locations.

I feel deceived as travel wasn't mentioned and they are expecting me to travel now.

Regarding probation thanks for the insight, I don't fully agree but that's fine, thanks again

Dav010

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120117711#Comment_120117711

Exclusions: Section 2 (1) (a).

https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1977/act/10/section/2/enacted/en/html

Figel Narage

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120117737#Comment_120117737

Thanks for sending that on. I'm aware of the above and the reason I'm saying it's harder for them to get rid of me post probation is due to other circumstances which circumvent that which I can't go into on here for anonymity sake

Dav010

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120117799#Comment_120117799

Every employee has a contract of employment, it’s a legal requirement, even if you think yours is special, the fact that you don’t have the protection of the UDA does favour the employer, and with what you have posted in relation to location in your contract of employment, along with foreign travel hardly being unusual in the banking sector, you would have to consider how strong your case would be in the event of being dismissed. So far you are light on details about what you do, why you have to go, where you have to go and why you think it is unnecessary, so all we can do is speculate.

Cyrus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120117637#Comment_120117637

It didn’t come up precisely because it’s not a big deal, the only person it appears to be a big deal to is you. As I’ve said luckily enough no one is forcing you to stay so if it’s that big of a deal just leave !

Nody

Mod:

@Count Dracula there's a requirement to be helpful to the OP; you're not. Either post relevant information for this thread or don't bother to post at all. This is the one and only warning on the subject.