Unreasonable working travel request 18hours

elsien

AskAsk said:

where i work, people often travel this far at least once a week.  they don't get hotel stay but they can claim travel expense and they often use the train as it is faster.  you will probably find that if you got the train, it wouldn't take you 6 hours.

i think they should pay you travel expense but if it is not a regular occurence and just a one off then i don't think it is a huge problem.

i myself have had to travel 5 hours or more to meetings at short notice and i only get travel expense re-imbursed.

Even as a one off, a 6 hour day with 12 hours of driving just isn’t safe. I’m guessing your meetings don’t last for 6 hours?

In the OPs position I’d be comparing the cost/length of a train journey at short notice plus time back to the cost of a hotel and then seeing how their budget stacks up. 

AskAsk

elsien said:

AskAsk said:

where i work, people often travel this far at least once a week.  they don't get hotel stay but they can claim travel expense and they often use the train as it is faster.  you will probably find that if you got the train, it wouldn't take you 6 hours.

i think they should pay you travel expense but if it is not a regular occurence and just a one off then i don't think it is a huge problem.

i myself have had to travel 5 hours or more to meetings at short notice and i only get travel expense re-imbursed.

Even as a one off, a 6 hour day with 12 hours of driving just isn’t safe. I’m guessing your meetings don’t last for 6 hours?

In the OPs position I’d be comparing the cost/length of a train journey at short notice plus time back to the cost of a hotel and then seeing how their budget stacks up. 

the one i was thinking of was about 4 - 5 hours.  the OP doesn't have to drive as he could get the train then a taxi from the nearest train station and get re-imbursement for travel.

the only time i got hotel stay was when the meetings extended over more than one day.

CKhalvashi

I would have done this 10 years ago, but never now. I wouldn't have expected my team to do it though.

They really need to find the budget, as looking quickly at our travel policy book we don't have anything to cover this but we would offer it anyway. If you were working for me, I'd possibly offer to taxi/fly you (in general we don't reimburse for flights under 1000km where a reasonable alternative exists under our environmental policy, but depending on other factors this likely would be a convenience issue), but definitely would prefer the train (or even a long distance bus) to be used to driving on safety grounds.

YBR

The industry I work in restricts shifts to 12 hours Door-to-Door, and we must also have 12 hours between shifts - which is something you haven't mentioned but presumably they also expect you to work "normal" hours the previous and subsequent days? Too many of our staff have been injured or killed on the roads in the last 5 years so I'd say no.

In terms of pushing back, there's a fatigue calculator we use, HSE I think, that might be helpful.

TELLIT01

AskAsk said:

elsien said:

AskAsk said:

where i work, people often travel this far at least once a week.  they don't get hotel stay but they can claim travel expense and they often use the train as it is faster.  you will probably find that if you got the train, it wouldn't take you 6 hours.

i think they should pay you travel expense but if it is not a regular occurence and just a one off then i don't think it is a huge problem.

i myself have had to travel 5 hours or more to meetings at short notice and i only get travel expense re-imbursed.

Even as a one off, a 6 hour day with 12 hours of driving just isn’t safe. I’m guessing your meetings don’t last for 6 hours?

In the OPs position I’d be comparing the cost/length of a train journey at short notice plus time back to the cost of a hotel and then seeing how their budget stacks up. 

the one i was thinking of was about 4 - 5 hours.  the OP doesn't have to drive as he could get the train then a taxi from the nearest train station and get re-imbursement for travel.

the only time i got hotel stay was when the meetings extended over more than one day.

The OP hasn't said either where he lives or where he has to travel to so how can you possibly know that there is a train service which would get him to where he needs to be, at the time he needs to be there?

Ms_Chocaholic

What type of job do you do - would you be safe to work after 6 hours travelling (possibly longer depending on traffic) if you work with heavy machinery for example.  If an office job, can you not what you have to do remotely.

I maybe wouldn't refuse outright but I'd ask to take the train rather than drive, at least you can get a bit of shut eye on the train.

Marvel1

I just put in to and from for a 6hr drive where I live.

Train wise:

7 hours 45 mins to get there 2 or 3 changes

Coming back: Change over rolls onto the next day

AskAsk

TELLIT01 said:

AskAsk said:

elsien said:

AskAsk said:

where i work, people often travel this far at least once a week.  they don't get hotel stay but they can claim travel expense and they often use the train as it is faster.  you will probably find that if you got the train, it wouldn't take you 6 hours.

i think they should pay you travel expense but if it is not a regular occurence and just a one off then i don't think it is a huge problem.

i myself have had to travel 5 hours or more to meetings at short notice and i only get travel expense re-imbursed.

Even as a one off, a 6 hour day with 12 hours of driving just isn’t safe. I’m guessing your meetings don’t last for 6 hours?

In the OPs position I’d be comparing the cost/length of a train journey at short notice plus time back to the cost of a hotel and then seeing how their budget stacks up. 

the one i was thinking of was about 4 - 5 hours.  the OP doesn't have to drive as he could get the train then a taxi from the nearest train station and get re-imbursement for travel.

the only time i got hotel stay was when the meetings extended over more than one day.

The OP hasn't said either where he lives or where he has to travel to so how can you possibly know that there is a train service which would get him to where he needs to be, at the time he needs to be there?

the train may not get him door to door but there is a busy train network in the UK so it will get him near then he could get a taxi at either end or drive to the nearest train station from his home and park the car there then get the train for the onward journey.  there will be means of public transport anywhere in the UK even if it means you have to do some of the journey by taxi.

getmore4less

AskAsk said:

TELLIT01 said:

AskAsk said:

elsien said:

AskAsk said:

where i work, people often travel this far at least once a week.  they don't get hotel stay but they can claim travel expense and they often use the train as it is faster.  you will probably find that if you got the train, it wouldn't take you 6 hours.

i think they should pay you travel expense but if it is not a regular occurence and just a one off then i don't think it is a huge problem.

i myself have had to travel 5 hours or more to meetings at short notice and i only get travel expense re-imbursed.

Even as a one off, a 6 hour day with 12 hours of driving just isn’t safe. I’m guessing your meetings don’t last for 6 hours?

In the OPs position I’d be comparing the cost/length of a train journey at short notice plus time back to the cost of a hotel and then seeing how their budget stacks up. 

the one i was thinking of was about 4 - 5 hours.  the OP doesn't have to drive as he could get the train then a taxi from the nearest train station and get re-imbursement for travel.

the only time i got hotel stay was when the meetings extended over more than one day.

The OP hasn't said either where he lives or where he has to travel to so how can you possibly know that there is a train service which would get him to where he needs to be, at the time he needs to be there?

the train may not get him door to door but there is a busy train network in the UK so it will get him near then he could get a taxi at either end or drive to the nearest train station from his home and park the car there then get the train for the onward journey.  there will be means of public transport anywhere in the UK even if it means you have to do some of the journey by taxi.

The train network is useless for a lot of people for short and long trips unless you live close to one of the routes and want to get to a place not far from a stop on that route.

Try  Swindon to Glasgow to be there before midday a ~6hr drive.

Jillanddy

Assuming there is a train that can solve the driving time issue, I am slightly perturbed by people assuming that that makes it ok or safe for someone to be doing 18 hour days just because they may have done that themselves. The fact that other people have unreasonable employers with unreasonable expectations doesn't make it ok. If we apply that kind of logic to all employment, then most of the laws of the country should be scrapped. Which will no doubt delight some employers. An 18 hour day is unacceptable, and can easily be avoided. So it should be. Then perhaps the employer will remember in future to properly cost their service and not put people into these situations in the first place.