After the fiasco with Metrolink last Thursday, and my trip to Riverside and back by car yesterday (in 100 - degree plus heat), I have given very serious consideration to the decision not to go to Riverside again, no matter what the lawyer wants. Both times I was physically exhausted when I got home…I am not a masochist. He may want me to go back, but…nothing doing. I can’t put myself through such abuse any more, at my age. Anyone agree? 
Um… why does a lawyer want you to go to Riverside?
A client who lives near the county seat wants to go to court there; asked the lawyer for assistance.
I don’t know what the reference here is. Riverside, California? (I don’t know of what Metrolink disaster you speak either. Was it another thread that I missed, or something in the news?) Anyway, I wouldn’t want to go there either; probably regardless of the weather. Tell this lawyer to buy, loan, or rent for you a car with air conditioning?
Or set your consulting fees, for road trips to Riverside, such that you can buy yourself a new car with A/C?
The “Metrolink disaster” is fully recounted in another IMHO thread; to sum it up, I had been misled by a conductor about making an important connection, so I was delayed, by the bus rides I had to take instead, and got home three hours later than I would have otherwise.
Thanks just the same, but: my own legal expertise is not so great that I am in a position to dictate as you suggest, to the lawyer; I don’t have that kind of chutzpah. The weather was not an issue last Thursday; it may just be the 120-mile round trips (I live in Gardena, in Los Angeles County) that put my system out of whack–I am 67.
Well, basically, if you find making 120-mile round trips more wearing than you feel able to deal with, then it is entirely rational not to pursue an occupation that requires you to make 120-mile round trips. On the other hand, it’s entirely rational to want to derive an income sufficient to feed, clothe and house you and any dependents you may have, which is presumably why you’re following the occupation in the first place.
You can try and renegotiate the terms of your current occupation so that you can continue in the position, but not have to make 120-mile trips. Or you can find another occupation. Failing those things, only you can decide whether you’d prefer to give up the 120-mile round trips, or give up the income.
nm
When did the lawyer spring it on you that he wanted you to take the Thursday trip to Riverside?
This is an excellent summary.
I’m 62 and regularly travel 180 mile round trips. I have put my trips to Las Vegas on hold for now (but those are 12,000 mile round trips. :eek:)
dougie_monty, I’m sorry you experienced some discomfort, but wouldn’t you avoid that by planning and using air-conditioning?
OP, maybe you could hook up with Boyo Jim and drive his ladies to their appointments instead.
You should also consider adding a brief recap of events to the beginning of each OP, so posters who aren’t regular readers of Make Room For Dougie: An Interactive Text Adventure will have some clue of what you’re talking about.
Considering the quality of the communication regularly practiced by the OP, I think it highly likely that the lawyer in question just wanted him to go out for coffee.
I had legal matters to attend to, in Riverside. That is all I will say about why I went, because of attorney-client confidence. I have handled similar matters in locales much closer to home. It’s the travel that affects me–and I can’t leave Monday’s hellish heat out of the equation. In fact I have decided to take the issue up with my doctor. (Also, on Sunday I smacked my bare right foot into a rocker on my Mom’s chair in the front room. Man, did it hurt. I don’t think this situation is conducive to travel, either.)
Have you asked your attorney if there any other options? (Meet closer, Skype, conference call etc). There might be a simple solution that doesn’t require a doctor’s note.
Now, I have heard of Skype…what is it, anyway?
The lawyer is your boss, yeah? So you’d be telling your boss that you refuse to perform a particular job duty, for reasons that are spurious. I say that because in your boss’s mind, what’s to say that today you decide 120 miles is too far; next week it’s 60, and the week after that no traveling more than 30 miles, based on your delicate constitution? Either you’re able to work and perform the duties that are expected of you, or he finds someone else who can read a timetable on their own. It’s not like you’re commuting 120 miles three days a week for the rest of your time at this job- there’s a finite number of trips in your future. I’d figure out if this is a hill you really want to die on.
In the light of this thread, the previous thread looks like an attempt to find an argument to make Metrolink the bad guys. But I doubt a boss really cares that a Metrolink conductor may or may not have misled an employee. If that happened, so what? Moving on, the employee needs to figure out how to get the job done. A disappointment last week isn’t relevant.
It’s relevant only if the complainant is going to rely on it as an excuse for why the job can’t be done. “It’s too hot, the drive is traumatic, the public transportation is confusing and takes too long” seems to be the driving reasons the OP plans to give. The Metrolink one is easiest for the boss to correct- he can’t do anything about the weather, or the traffic, but he can darn sure find someone who can navigate public transport without going into a meltdown.
Skype and Facetime are ways to video conference over a computer, iPad or other tablet, or even a smartphone.
Well, if he’s billing his hours (which include travel time), the lawyer maybe open to more efficient methods of getting the work done. Explaining to a client why a 30 minute meeting was billed for 4 hours is never fun.