Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Business travel

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    The Bishop Basher
    Registered Users Posts: 4,279 ✭✭✭The Bishop Basher


    EagererBeaver wrote: »
    But running about the place demanding that his 9 hours or whatever of travel time counts as working time and he's thus entitled to overtime or time in lieu, or both is just absolute nonsense

    Exactly.. there should be flexibility and good will on both sides. If there isn’t you really need to find another job.


  • Options
    #33
    runawaybishop
    Registered Users Posts: 9,507 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    Rennaws wrote: »
    Exactly.. there should be flexibility and good will on both sides. If there isn’t you really need to find another job.

    He is claiming the employer has no responsibilities legally, that is not correct


  • Options
    #34
    The Bishop Basher
    Registered Users Posts: 4,279 ✭✭✭The Bishop Basher


    runawaybishop wrote: »
    He is claiming the employer has no responsibilities legally, that is not correct

    I agree that they are responsible for our safety and well being while traveling. We get well briefed on that and have plenty of supports in place should anything go wrong.

    But talking about hours worked, clocking in, clocking off, in lieu entitlements etc is just going to rub an employer up the wrong way.

    It’s fine for a super market or post office but not when you need the kind flexibility required for traveling with work.


  • Options
    #35
    EagererBeaver
    Registered Users Posts: 6,432 ✭✭✭EagererBeaver


    runawaybishop wrote: »
    Rennaws wrote: »
    Exactly.. there should be flexibility and good will on both sides. If there isn’t you really need to find another job.

    He is claiming the employer has no responsibilities legally, that is not correct

    Did I? Where exactly? Feel free to point it out.


  • Options
    #36
    tomwaits48
    Registered Users Posts: 861 ✭✭✭tomwaits48


    I do this all the time. It's expected at a senior level.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    runawaybishop
    Registered Users Posts: 9,507 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    Rennaws wrote: »
    I agree that they are responsible for our safety and well being while traveling. We get well briefed on that and have plenty of supports in place should anything go wrong.

    But talking about hours worked, clocking in, clocking off, in lieu entitlements etc is just going to rub an employer up the wrong way.

    It’s fine for a super market or post office but not when you need the kind flexibility required for traveling with work.

    I disagree, both morally and legally I would never expect my employees to spend their own time travelling for the business.

    If the ops employer pushes back and expects him in the next day (which seems to be what is being indicated) and gives no remuneration then he should know if this is allowed.


  • Options
    #38
    runawaybishop
    Registered Users Posts: 9,507 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    EagererBeaver wrote: »
    Did I? Where exactly? Feel free to point it out.

    Every post where you think travel time is off the clock.


  • Options
    #39
    EagererBeaver
    Registered Users Posts: 6,432 ✭✭✭EagererBeaver


    runawaybishop wrote: »
    EagererBeaver wrote: »
    Did I? Where exactly? Feel free to point it out.

    Every post where you think travel time is off the clock.

    You're yet to point to any legal source that confirms your assertion yet you think his working day will start when he wakes up in the morning?


  • Options
    #40
    runawaybishop
    Registered Users Posts: 9,507 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    EagererBeaver wrote: »
    You're yet to point to any legal source that confirms your assertion yet you think his working day will start when he wakes up in the morning?

    Actually I referred you to 2 specific cases.

    It's covered under the working time act. Interpretation of 'working time'


  • Options
    #41
    EagererBeaver
    Registered Users Posts: 6,432 ✭✭✭EagererBeaver


    runawaybishop wrote: »
    EagererBeaver wrote: »
    You're yet to point to any legal source that confirms your assertion yet you think his working day will start when he wakes up in the morning?

    Actually I referred you to 2 specific cases.

    It's covered under the working time act. Interpretation of 'working time'

    Neither of which were correct.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    runawaybishop
    Registered Users Posts: 9,507 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    EagererBeaver wrote: »
    Neither of which were correct.

    You mantained that travel was not working time, it is working time under both cases I referred to, and the op is covered under one for them.

    Go read the act and stop giving incorrect advice.


  • Options
    #43
    EagererBeaver
    Registered Users Posts: 6,432 ✭✭✭EagererBeaver


    runawaybishop wrote: »
    EagererBeaver wrote: »
    Neither of which were correct.

    You mantained that travel was not working time, it is working time under both cases I referred to, and the op is covered under one for them.

    Go read the act and stop giving incorrect advice.

    No it's not, it's considered working time, as I pointed out, for those who do not have a fixed work location. The OP (presumably and almost certainly) does.

    The fact that he would traveling to a different office or a 3rd party location is irrelevant


  • Options
    #44
    runawaybishop
    Registered Users Posts: 9,507 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    EagererBeaver wrote: »
    No it's not, it's considered working time, as I pointed out, for those who do not have a fixed work location. The OP (presumably and almost certainly) does.

    The fact that he would traveling to a different office or a 3rd party location is irrelevant

    Wrong. There are two scenarios, fixed and non fixed. When you have a fixed office travel outside your commute is working time. When you are not fixed all travel for the company is working time as it's at the direction of the employer.


  • Options
    #45
    EagererBeaver
    Registered Users Posts: 6,432 ✭✭✭EagererBeaver


    runawaybishop wrote: »
    EagererBeaver wrote: »
    No it's not, it's considered working time, as I pointed out, for those who do not have a fixed work location. The OP (presumably and almost certainly) does.

    The fact that he would traveling to a different office or a 3rd party location is irrelevant

    Wrong. There are two scenarios, fixed and non fixed. When you have a fixed office travel outside your commute is working time. When you are not fixed all travel for the company is working time as it's at the direction of the employer.

    This simply isn't true unless you supposedly have a fixed office location but are in reality travelling all the time. The OP has clearly stated he has to travel a few times a year. He has a fixed office location and therefore doesn't get paid for his traveling time on those few occasions he has to travel. End of story.

    You'll not find a court in Europe who would uphold this fantasy you're trying to spin.


  • Options
    #46
    runawaybishop
    Registered Users Posts: 9,507 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    EagererBeaver wrote: »
    This simply isn't true unless you supposedly have a fixed office location but are in reality travelling all the time. The OP has clearly stated he has to travel a few times a year. He has a fixed office location and therefore doesn't get paid for his traveling time on those few occasions he has to travel. End of story.

    You'll not find a court in Europe who would uphold this fantasy you're trying to spin.

    You are wrong, I have linked to the act. Feel free to show evidence that travelling at the direction of the employer is on your own time.


  • Options
    #47
    ArrBee
    Registered Users Posts: 821 ✭✭✭ArrBee


    OP....

    Are you able to commute to the office 1st, then travel to the airport on company time, claim mileage etc? and do the reverse on the way back.:)
    Then there would be no argument about whether you were travelling on company time. lol


    To answer your original question, yes. it is unreasonable for an employer to expect what you described without OT or TOIL.
    I'd say that they should provide you the option of either staying over or TOIL. A good employer would let you choose which.


  • Options
    #48
    EagererBeaver
    Registered Users Posts: 6,432 ✭✭✭EagererBeaver


    runawaybishop wrote: »
    EagererBeaver wrote: »
    This simply isn't true unless you supposedly have a fixed office location but are in reality travelling all the time. The OP has clearly stated he has to travel a few times a year. He has a fixed office location and therefore doesn't get paid for his traveling time on those few occasions he has to travel. End of story.

    You'll not find a court in Europe who would uphold this fantasy you're trying to spin.

    You are wrong, I have linked to the act. Feel free to show evidence that travelling at the direction of the employer is on your own time.

    Which doesn't say what you're claiming it does.


  • Options
    #49
    The Bishop Basher
    Registered Users Posts: 4,279 ✭✭✭The Bishop Basher


    runawaybishop wrote: »
    I disagree, both morally and legally I would never expect my employees to spend their own time travelling for the business.

    If the ops employer pushes back and expects him in the next day (which seems to be what is being indicated) and gives no remuneration then he should know if this is allowed.

    We must work in different sectors so. It's never been any different anywhere i've worked and I wouldn't want it to be either.

    We aren't in unions because we don't need to be. There's give and take and everyone is happy with that.

    If anyone has an issue they can leave but they generally don't, and those that do often come back.


  • Options
    #50
    BailMeOut
    Registered Users Posts: 2,986 ✭✭✭BailMeOut


    Op, do you like doing these trips? Do you enjoy getting away from the office and flying off to different places for work? As some pointed out you may well be in your rights to demand all sorts of stuff however your boss may think twice about asking you again. Not saying that's right but that's what will most likely happen.

    I still travel a good amount with work although not as much as I used to when I was younger and early mornings and very late nights have been the norm. I still travel a to USA 4-5 times a year which is 18-20 hours each way door to door and will be at USA office first thing next morning which sucks as I am completely shattered and even more shattered coming home however I do always enjoy the perks of being trusted by my boss and employer to do these trips.

    Just be mindful of what you ask for as one of your colleagues maybe more than delighted to go in your place.

    PS: I'd always choose to fly home late rather than staying in a depressing hotel by myself. Get in, get the job done and get home again and take the next morning or day off in your own home to rest if you can.


  • Options
    #51
    runawaybishop
    Registered Users Posts: 9,507 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    EagererBeaver wrote: »
    Which doesn't say what you're claiming it does.

    Don't worry about it so, keep travelling for free on your own time and I'll keep getting toil.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    EagererBeaver
    Registered Users Posts: 6,432 ✭✭✭EagererBeaver


    runawaybishop wrote: »
    EagererBeaver wrote: »
    Which doesn't say what you're claiming it does.

    Don't worry about it so, keep travelling for free on your own time and I'll keep getting toil.

    Keep driving that Luas. I'm sure you love it.


  • Options
    #53
    m5ex9oqjawdg2i
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,221 ✭✭✭✭m5ex9oqjawdg2i


    EagererBeaver wrote: »
    And opinions like this are why people get fed up with Luas and Dublin Bus drivers.

    What has this got to do with Dublin Bus or the Luas drivers??? :confused:

    Your statements are wrong, which has been explained to you by different posters yet you will not cease spouting your opinion, which is worth nothing when it comes to law.

    Contracts do not supersede law.


  • Options
    #54
    EagererBeaver
    Registered Users Posts: 6,432 ✭✭✭EagererBeaver


    Kendall Juicy Rifle wrote: »
    EagererBeaver wrote: »
    And opinions like this are why people get fed up with Luas and Dublin Bus drivers.

    What has this got to do with Dublin Bus or the Luas drivers??? :confused:

    Your statements are wrong, which has been explained to you by different posters yet you will not cease spouting your opinion, which is worth nothing when it comes to law.

    Contracts do not supersede law.

    My statements aren't wrong.

    Nobody has explained anything. All they've done is howled about pieces of legislation they either haven't read, don't understand or both.

    The number of lads who would get laughed out of court in this thread is hilarious.


  • Options
    #55
    Riskymove
    Registered Users Posts: 10,888 ✭✭✭✭Riskymove


    Many employers pay travel expenses in the form of mileage and or subsistence expenses to employees to cover business journeys

    In my experience I have never received the next day off just because I got home late night before


Advertisement