to not have agreed to travel for this meeting?

[VelvetSpoon]

I have a meeting in a couple of weeks time with 2 colleagues. We all work in different offices, me and colleague 1 are within an hour of London, colleague 2 is 2 hours away.

Generally we arrange meetings in London.

Both colleagues have pre school age children. However they also have spouses, and parents/grandparents around. My DC are older (secondary school age) but I'm a lone parent with an unreliable Ex, and no living family.

It was suggested moving the meeting outside London today, to which I said no as it would mean me leaving home at 6am and not getting back til possibly 9pm. I have to leave before 8 every day for work as it is and am not normally home til between 6-7.

AIBU to have said no? I very rarely play the lone parent card and have done long days or indeed overnights before but am trying to limit this now as I really don't feel it benefits my DC...

Thing is, even if I travel to C2, C1 won't/ can't.

So either C1 has to phone in, or either I or C2 fill them in on the meeting subsequently.

I've not said I won't travel under any circs, just that I'm trying to keep it to non school time at present.

If I left at my usual time I wouldn't be there til after 11, and I'd need to leave by 3.

And of course more importantly colleague 1 wouldn't be there anyway.

YANBU. Unfortunately, many don't realize that as 1 person you are not actually 2 people. They can hardly recognize themselves of how much the other person/parent actually does, just the bits they don't do. Nor the increased 'person pool of help' that a 2 parent family brings. Never mind facts of course, it's all your doing Velvet.

Hmmm - looking ahead, I'd say chances are, that some of these smugly-judgy p/t parents will be in your position at some point soon.

Remember to openly flick through a holiday catalogue and NEVER offer to babysit when their shit flicks through the fan.

I totally get this and have no helpful advice, as I'm currently struggling with a new manager who keeps arranging meetings in London, which is around 2.5/3hrs away doors to door. My question for you all (and sorry to high jack OP) is that if you are employed mainly at one office - i.e. the one I work at and expected to work 9-5 based there, what is the legal/expected stand point in relation to start and finish time at the other office? Basically, new manager expects any days in London to begin at 9am and finish at 5pm (meaning I need to get 6am train in morning and don't get back until 8ish). This is an issue as I can't get childcare before 8am, so DH has to arrange to go into his work later (he starts at 7am) or I advise manager I can't make it into the L

Despicable carefully read through your Contract of Employment to see if this aspect of your work is covered. Sounds a shit situation to me, one where even though you are a 2-parent family, it ain't right.

(sorry DC2 just landed on me!) so I have to confirm that I cane make any meetings until 11.30ish at the earliest. Can I claim travelling time as part of working day?

I have a FWA which mean so do work 2.5 days at home each week, but is its infuriating as he requests these a London meetings on a very regular basis booking calls and external clients in either pre-the times I can make it in or on days where my FWA allows me to finish early or WFH. Also especially annoying as he's supposed to be in our office at least twice a week but is rarely down more than twice a month and turns up around 10am and leaves to catch 3/3.30pm train - double standards or what!!

Hmmm - looking ahead, I'd say chances are, that some of these smugly-judgy p/t parents will be in your position at some point soon

Yanbu. The company I work for you'd just join remotely, end of conversation. Interestingly its pretty family friendly and seemingly everyone has family commitments, even the directors (of varying genders) have wayward teenagers they seem to have to sort out. I didn't recognise the mn ' don't take the job if you have a life' mindset.

Thanks Float - I think that the contract states the company reserves the right to move employees to another office, but it doesn't mention anything about travelling to another office when you are based (or partially based) at a different office.

I had my FWA forcibly amended by said manager when he took over earlier this year, involving HR and many uncomfortable meetings, hence my reluctance to just ask HR - as I suspect I'm already on a shitlist somewhere!

Hmmm - looking ahead, I'd say chances are, that some of these smugly-judgy p/t parents will be in your position at some point soon.

Who exactly are you referring to?

yes FloatIsRechargedNow who? because I work and am a lone parent to 3 kids and feel the OP is being unreasonable

I leave for work at 7am and get back at 6pm - 1hr+ commute

I live in the real work - alone !

My DH worked a twelve hour night shift last night, he got home at 7am this morning. He left home at 11:30am this morning to back into work for another eight hours. And he isn't home yet. That's right he was at home for four and a half hours between shifts. I can promise you he isn't feeling too smug. I won't be feeling smug when I go into work for an early shift tomorrow morning either.

My usual commute is over an hour, I leave before 8 as mentioned above and return between 6 and 7, so it's not like I normally have a 5 minute journey to work or anything. I think tbh I'm already out of the house enough.

I appreciate it may not find favour with everyone (there are a number of my senior ppl in my workplace who consider any sort of FWA is a luxury. Working from home is frowned upon and only allowed by special dispensation!) but after a lot of years of working really hard I'm trying for a bit of a work life balance. I'd actually like to work 4 days a week but I can't afford the pay cut...and there's no chance of getting compressed hours agreed. I'm not even entirely sure they'd approve a request just to do 4 days a week!

And yes, before anyone asks, I have thought of getting another job, but there's not much out there at present.

Your company needs to get with the modern world. Webcams cost almost nothing and can be used over a standard internet connection. All this faffing around and face to face meetings is ridiculous.

Personal circumstances should not come in to it. Everyone should be treated equally. If you absolutely need to meet face to face, then surely it's not hard to find a coffee shop halfway between everyone, or you can hire serviced office spaces for meetings.

Do you actually need to meet at all? What on earth needs a 6 hour meeting? This all sounds very inefficient. You are wasting time and money on the travelling. As several people have suggested, Skype or similar is the way to go and would enable your other colleague to be involved too. But really, why do you need 6 hours? One to two hours face to face with the rest done by email and phone would be much more efficient.

It's a planning/strategy meeting, there is a lot to discuss and some quite complicated issues involved.

We don't have Skype, or any other form of video conferencing, it's not used in the business and as said, face to face meetings are encouraged from director level downwards. I'm a long way down from director level and it certainly wouldn't do my career any good to insist on phone meetings only - or that it should be on a system we don't have! There really isn't any appetite to change a practice which those in charge think works well.

Have you thought of making a business case, based on the outlay to get even 1 laptop which can support Skype / Webex or whatever, vs the cost of travel?

Skype is free, Webex trial is free, a licence need not cost much - probably less per month than you'll spend on that one trip. Food for thought.

We use Webex to 'meet' with clients around the world and have used Skype to interview people across the globe.

Not suggesting you never travel again, just that the company could offer it as an option.

There wouldn't be any point tbh - like I say from the most senior level down, there's really no interest in providing facilities for video conferencing - meetings are by phone, or in person. It wouldn't change.

I've already been through issues like working from home and dialling into a phone meeting (went down like a lead balloon) so suspect I can predict how this would pan out.

You don't need any facilities other than your laptop. Skype is free. You don't need to 'have' it, it's just there waiting for you to use it.

How old are your children OP? Regarding this: 'If I left at my usual time I wouldn't be there til after 11, and I'd need to leave by 3' could your dc arrange to go home with a friend on this one occasion?

We don't have laptops. Presumably we'd also need dongles or some sort of wireless internet connection, again we don't have that in our office.

My DC are in their teens. They are able to look after themselves in the evening (they have to, as they are home from school just after 3, and I don't return until 6/7 normally) but I'd rather not have to leave them on their own til 8pm or later to spend the time at a work meeting. DC2 doesn't really have any friends nearby to go to, so that wouldn't be an option.

I have left them before til late, but I don't really like doing it, and am making an effort not to.

Plus as I've said, I could make all this effort, inconvenience myself and my DC, and colleague 1 still won't go to the meeting, so it's just 2 of us anyway!

If you have phones you can have a three-way call - not perfect but it works. If your business will provide speaker-phones it will pay for itself in saved mileage or train fares in no time at all.

OP Be careful what you wish for. Your children will soon be of an age at which neither you nor anybody else will suggest that they need care morning or evening. If you now argue that domestic circumstances should be considered sooner or later, and not that much later, that argument will bite you on the bum when colleagues say that as you have no dependents you should always be the one to make the journey and have the long day.

I think it depends how much you are paid and what's in your contract. If you're on 40% tax rate then there's generally an expectation that you will work "professional" hours which unfortunately includes some travelling.

It also depends how safe your position is and how much you think your company values you.

In your situation I'd go for the compromise which is happy to travel to London for a full length meeting, but if you need to travel to the further location then you'll need to start at say 10.30 and finish at 3.30 or whatever it is that makes journey workable with your home requirements. I wouldn't be apologetic about this and nor would I start talking about childcare unless pushed. If you're there in person for 4-5 hrs and it's a focused meeting then that should be long enough and if not then finish up by teleconference.

We do have regular phone meetings, at least once per week, but we are still expected to meet up face to face either monthly or every other month.

Other people argue domestic circumstances all the time! I've worked FT all my children's lives and this is the first time I've actually thought fuck it, why am I always the one being accommodating, and putting in the extra effort. I've decided to put myself, and my DC first. I'm actually surprised people think I'm BU for doing that.

TBH I'm not worried about the longer term, my plan is to semi retire in 10 years max (I'll keep working in some capacity, but in just a job, rather than the career I have now).

Yes, I pay 40% tax.

I am happy to do 'some' travelling. I'm just not prepared to do it in school term.

The best I could offer in term time would be to arrive at 11am and leave by 3. It would still be a longer day than normal (and I don't get any additional recompense or time off for that).

However, colleague 1 still wouldn't be there. So frankly I don't see much point in me making that effort as she won't/ can't.

I am happy to do 'some' travelling. I'm just not prepared to do it in school term.

If you start stipulating that, don't be suprised if colleague who travels the furthest all the time starts refusing to do so I would

I have said it already.

But at least I am still doing travelling (and like I said upthread, am still prepared to do overnights, or travel further/for longer, just in school hols), unlike colleague 1 who doesn't travel anywhere.