Work related travel, feel deceived and not happy

I certainly agree with you OP, if regular travel is required then this most definitely should have been pointed out during the interview. It can be argued of course that you could have asked during the interview phase, and fair enough, take it as a lesson learned I guess. The onus was definitely on your employer to make this known.

Now, as to how you now go forward, I would certainly not advise passing probation, sticking your heels in, and then hoping you will be safe since it is more difficult for them to get rid of you. They will most certainly be able to can you without too much effort.

This facet of Irish law apparently doesn't apply to the OP, for super secret reasons that he can't tell us about.

Strange that the OP did travel before, knew that he hated it, knew that it was possible in his industry, yet despite it being such a red line issue for him he still didn't think it worth his time to ask the question himself in the interview.

Not that it matters anyway, because the OP has zero interest in hearing anything that doesn't agree with his feelings of hard done by.

I wouldnt be taking the moral high ground when your advice is to try pass probation and refuse to go anywhere. What kind of nonsense is that, it is no ones best interest. Do you really think that because its not explicitly stated in the contract that a couple of trips abroad is unreasonable. Nonsense.

It's far more plausible than an international bank tricking prospective employees into accepting a job under false pretences and then hoping it'll all work out, or that an international bank doesn't have any mention of travel in their hiring documentation. If/when the OP broaches this subject with his/her line manager, I'll bet they will have a very different perspective to the OP.

From the first post "...country with a very high homicide rate..."

Do you think it's likely that the OP has been deceived wilfully?

Nope, just speaking from my own experience it really, really seems like a big omission from all three of the initial job spec, the interview process and whatever HR documentation (contract, handbook etc) that the OP would have got.

The OP has also stated that he/she has been "deceived" - i.e. intentionally misled - on a number of other issues as well, after only a week of employment? The travel is the only one we've been given any details of.

I have absolutely no idea where the truth lies but it seems bizarre that an international bank would be running such a sh1tshow, so yes, I am at least open to the possibility that the OP's take is not 100% complete, unbiased and accurate, or that he/she is simply mistaken.

TBH it's the OP's flat-out refusal to accept even the possibility that this was an innocent oversight that has my radar up.

And any employee who talks about "making it harder to get rid of me" is a disastrous hire.

Well thats what you did. Discounted the OP story in favour of your own.

I would agree that there's enough red flags from this employer that I'd be looking for the door.

If the company is happy to do what it takes, they can hardly complain when the employee mirrors that and does what suits them. Two sides of the same coin.

I'm not discounting it, just seems like a really unfortunate confluence of events, and the OP is throwing up enough flags to make me believe that there may well be two sides to this story.

USA

Obviously

If the OP's skills are in demand then the OP should be easily able to find a job elsewhere where they can ensure during the interview process that they wont be required to travel internationally. As the OP has already stated international travel is the issue, the fact that they feel the country is unsafe is extra information.

It should be in the contract or an appendix or policy. Read and re-read those OP, just in case you missed it. Travel is not the same as working in another location. For this march request, be clear and say you cannot accommodate the travel request.

My own contract has it in black and white, and every contract I issue also has it. I always bring it up in the interview if travel is even a possibility.

Not everyone can accommodate travel. We are all grown ups here, and plenty of us have other commitments outside work. Not just family responsibilities, also health issues, sports or arts commitments.

Recruitment is a costly process, and it is plainly stupid to not share a travel expectation up front. The hiring process will be an expensive failure and you have to do it all over again.

Then as you suggest which country is irrelevant as is asking for it.

OP doesn't want to travel....

And pearl-clutching about the perils the OP may be subjected to by being asked to visit this place is also unwarranted.

I see Aongus is back

Oh I don't doubt it happens. Plenty of immature organisations and stupid HR people.

I was just leaning the old cliche... Don't ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence.

I see Aongus is back

Quite a stagging level of ineptitude to forget to mention ...anywhere in the process or paperwork... International travel to spicy locations.

you have sat on interview panels where you have seen HR and the employer being deceptive, given your condemnation of the employers here based on the OP's version of events, one would assume you have taken your own co-workers to task when you have witnessed the same thing.

Yes I understood.

I asked to what end. What would be the purpose of pointing out the deception to people that are being deliberately deceptive.

What would be the purpose? gosh i don't know, maybe to prevent the deception from happening?

You are complicit otherwise.

Well then the issue is much greater than the travel so.

Why do you want to stick it out if you feel they have conducted themselves badly above and beyond the travel issue?

A few pages back you were talking about leaving because of these other dishonest issues, here you are prepared to overlook it.

I don't think anyone can advise you really here when you are conflicting in yourself.