I don't know about you, but it seems as though the three hour commute either way is a little bit of a stretch as a regular occurrence.
There should be some sort of rule. Something along the lines of - the travelling time for a meeting is only allowed to be equal or less than the overall time of the meeting - doesn't that seem fair?
If this rule was in place then perhaps people might try to arrange everybody they need onsite for one entire day worth of meetings, rather than one tiny meeting every week involving six hours of my life to attend. I'd much rather be hellishly bored for an entire day, than hellishly bored for a tiny bit every week forever.
Hellishly bored with BIG FAT ANKLES, BIG FAT FEET, AND BIG FAT LEGS due to water retention caused by the flight up to Auckland, and manifestly worsened by the flight back.
So, purely to save the company money I recommend this strategy to all and sundry.
Longer meetings, less travel, and slimmer legs. Who doesn't win out of this one?
Parsley tea and chocolate for you, my girl! Yes, meetings afar are a drag and one should be financially compensated for attending. Roll on holograms.
ReplyDeleteI can forgo the tea but chocolate? Does that really work? I could definitely put up with the swollen ankles if I get to eat chocolate on medical grounds.
Delete