Employer Requiring Travel to "No Travel" Country

RoadHouseFan · Post by **RoadHouseFan** » Sat Dec 17, 2016 1:37 pm

Can a U.S. company force employees to travel to and perform work for extended periods in countries on the State Department's "no travel" list?

earlyout · Post by **earlyout** » Sat Dec 17, 2016 1:51 pm

I think most companies would give you the option of going or not going but I don't think it is against the law for them to tell you that's where you job is (unless you have a contract with your employer stating otherwise). What kind of protection/security does the company provide as part of this assignment? Have you asked for an alternate assignment? Are they trying to force you to resign?

If you really don't want to go, you can always quit.

cheese_breath · Post by **cheese_breath** » Sat Dec 17, 2016 1:57 pm

It can if it's the U.S. military.

Otherwise I suspect EO is correct.

dbr · Post by **dbr** » Sat Dec 17, 2016 2:15 pm

Considering that the business of some companies is specifically in no travel countries or even war zones, it would appear traveling to such places could certainly be a condition of employment. That could be anything from a news correspondent, to a civilian contractor to the military, to some kind of "black ops" consultant or contractor. Not only the military but the State Department and other agencies of the government could require posting to unsavory places. I suspect only the military holds people under such an obligation that refusal to travel could result in imprisonment rather than dismissal.

retiredjg · Post by **retiredjg** » Sat Dec 17, 2016 2:29 pm

Here's my guess.

If such travel was a condition of employment, they can make you do it or fire you for failure to perform duties.

If travel was a condition of employment but at that time the country was not on the "no travel" list, consult an employment attorney.

I wonder if some information might be found on the department of labor website?

whodidntante · Post by **whodidntante** » Sat Dec 17, 2016 2:46 pm

They can fire you because your nostrils are too flared. And you can leave because you don't like the parking lot.

TX_TURTLE · Post by **TX_TURTLE** » Sat Dec 17, 2016 3:36 pm

RoadHouseFan wrote:Can a U.S. company force employees to travel to and perform work for extended periods in countries on the State Department's "no travel" list?

Well, they can 'force' you in the sense they can make your life difficult or even fire you. IMHO there are two questions that need to be answered:
- Is the company compensating you for the additional risk? For instance, a civilian contractor operating near a war zone could expect to make quite a lot more than he/she would make in the US.
- Are you willing to take the risk?

If either one of the answers is no, you should start looking for another job.

cheese_breath · Post by **cheese_breath** » Sat Dec 17, 2016 3:41 pm

RoadHouseFan wrote:Can a U.S. company force employees to travel to and perform work for extended periods in countries on the State Department's "no travel" list?

Can you provide some more details on how much 'force' you're talking about? Have they said what will happen if you decline?

davegreen10 · Post by **davegreen10** » Sat Dec 17, 2016 3:55 pm

What is this no travel list you are referring to? I know the state department does travel alerts and warnings but I am unaware of a no travel list:
https://travel.state.gov/content/passpo ... nings.html
They tend to be very cautious.
I would be willing to visit several of the countries on this list if I felt comfortable after doing my own research.
Remember everything is relative. The Bahamas cautions their residents about visiting the U.S. due to "shootings of young black males by police officers."
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-p ... SKCN0ZQ0RM

dm200 · Post by **dm200** » Sat Dec 17, 2016 4:05 pm

Depending on all the details, one (to me) important factor is what and how any added security or safety might be available or provided by the employer or the places where the travel is being done.

RoadHouseFan · Post by **RoadHouseFan** » Sat Dec 17, 2016 5:22 pm

cheese_breath wrote:
RoadHouseFan wrote:Can a U.S. company force employees to travel to and perform work for extended periods in countries on the State Department's "no travel" list?
Can you provide some more details on how much 'force' you're talking about? Have they said what will happen if you decline?

Currently, the organization is looking for volunteers. So far, there aren't any.

Clover5 · Post by **Clover5** » Sat Dec 17, 2016 5:32 pm

Other than the middle-east countries and some North African ones you would be fine visiting the rest of the list, IMHO.

BTDT · Post by **BTDT** » Sat Dec 17, 2016 5:34 pm

US companies cannot force you to travel anywhere you don't want to because you always have the option to quit....your call

Watty · Post by **Watty** » Sat Dec 17, 2016 5:35 pm

True "no travel" countries would be places like North Korea and Cuba(but less so now). Requiring you to travel there would likely be against the law unless it was above board and you could get special visas which is unlikely. I would suspect that you are referring to other dangerous countries that have travel warnings.

If you don't have an employment contract then you most likely are considered to be an "employee at will" who can be let go for pretty much any reason as long as discrimination is not involved. If you are male and you are selected to go when there are females that are available, but would be at higher risk, then that could be considered discrimination.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/ ... 30022.html

You would need to check your state laws to see if you would still be eligible for unemployment insurance if you are let go for refusing to go to an unsafe location. I suspect that you could win that but you might need to appeal.

If you decide to go then in addition to your day to day safety you should also look into what emergency medical care is available.

If you have normal life insurance then it might not be valid in some areas so the company should provide alternate insurance.

It does not get a lot of press but kidnapping and ransoming employees is a significant problem in some areas so be sure to look into that risk. One of the problems is that when a company pays a ransom they will keep it private to not encouraging more kidnappings.

If you go then you should have a clear agreement that your return travel expenses will be paid if you quit while you are there.

It is a long shot but you should check to see if your employer has an employee handbook with their policies in it that might cover this situation.

daveatca · Post by **daveatca** » Sat Dec 17, 2016 5:36 pm

Clover5 wrote:Other than the middle-east countries and some North African ones you would be fine visiting the rest of the list, IMHO.

Not Venezeula!
There is a reason it was just added.
https://dolartoday.com

RoadHouseFan · Post by **RoadHouseFan** » Sat Dec 17, 2016 5:44 pm

Watty wrote:True "no travel" countries would be places like North Korea and Cuba(but less so now). Requiring you to travel there would likely be against the law unless it was above board and you could get special visas which is unlikely. I would suspect that you are referring to other dangerous countries that have travel warnings.

If you don't have an employment contract then you most likely are considered to be an "employee at will" who can be let go for pretty much any reason as long as discrimination is not involved. If you are male and you are selected to go when there are females that are available, but would be at higher risk, then that could be considered discrimination.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/ ... 30022.html

You would need to check your state laws to see if you would still be eligible for unemployment insurance if you are let go for refusing to go to an unsafe location. I suspect that you could win that but you might need to appeal.

If you decide to go then in addition to your day to day safety you should also look into what emergency medical care is available.

If you have normal life insurance then it might not be valid in some areas so the company should provide alternate insurance.

It does not get a lot of press but kidnapping and ransoming employees is a significant problem in some areas so be sure to look into that risk. One of the problems is that when a company pays a ransom they will keep it private to not encouraging more kidnappings.

If you go then you should have a clear agreement that your return travel expenses will be paid if you quit while you are there.

It is a long shot but you should check to see if your employer has an employee handbook with their policies in it that might cover this situation.

Thanks for the info!

Calsaver · Post by **Calsaver** » Sat Dec 17, 2016 6:12 pm

RoadHouseFan wrote:
cheese_breath wrote:
RoadHouseFan wrote:Can a U.S. company force employees to travel to and perform work for extended periods in countries on the State Department's "no travel" list?
Can you provide some more details on how much 'force' you're talking about? Have they said what will happen if you decline?
Currently, the organization is looking for volunteers. So far, there aren't any.

I'm in! Well, I guess I'm interested anyway. I'm interested in doing more expat work. May I ask what kind of work?

BW1985 · Post by **BW1985** » Sat Dec 17, 2016 6:15 pm

Clover5 wrote:Other than the middle-east countries and some North African ones you would be fine visiting the rest of the list, IMHO.

There's no way I would go to any country listed on the warning list.

dolphintraveler · Post by **dolphintraveler** » Sat Dec 17, 2016 6:55 pm

When we were traveling for personal reasons, we found the US State Department put warnings about a lot of the countries we wanted to visit. We then read on the British and Australia government sites. They can vary. For example, Indonesia was listed with numerous warnings by the US at the time. The British said, avoid just one island. The Australian site said avoid these parts of that one island. Australia was the closest country with likely the greatest number of travelers and likely paid the closest attention. We went, and skipped the island in question and enjoyed multiple diverse other islands.

Had I been asked to go for my company to some place I agreed was unsafe and could not be felt to feel safe, I'd likely quickly be looking to work elsewhere.

Spirit Rider · Post by **Spirit Rider** » Sat Dec 17, 2016 7:02 pm

I had a previous employer insist I go to Quetta, Pakistan in 2001. I told them NFW (and it wasn't "Not For Work"). I ended up quitting two months later.

AlohaJoe · Post by **AlohaJoe** » Sat Dec 17, 2016 10:12 pm

davegreen10 wrote:What is this no travel list you are referring to? I know the state department does travel alerts and warnings but I am unaware of a no travel list:
https://travel.state.gov/content/passpo ... nings.html
They tend to be very cautious.

Also, the vast majority of the travel warnings say things like this:

Tens of thousands of U.S. citizens safely visit Colombia each year for tourism, business, university studies, and volunteer work. [...] However, violence linked to narco-trafficking continues to affect some rural and urban areas. [...]

There have been no reports of U.S. citizens targeted specifically for their nationality. While the U.S. Embassy has no information regarding specific and credible threats [...]

The same could be said about Baltimore

Oliver · Post by **Oliver** » Sat Dec 17, 2016 10:31 pm

I would check the travel warnings from other countries. I have noticed that the USA sometimes indicates problems in a broad geographical area. Other countries sometimes provide better info on where the real danger is located. I have found the advisories from Australia, France and the UK useful. ( I believe I checked a number of other advisories)

CyberBob · Post by **CyberBob** » Sat Dec 17, 2016 10:56 pm

RoadHouseFan wrote:Currently, the organization is looking for volunteers. So far, there aren't any.

That is a great summation of how I was able to retire at 42: I always volunteered.

The results over the years were fabulous for me. I never worried about job security, as I got to be relied upon so much that layoffs never came anywhere near me. And eventually, since I became so vital, money always came my way.

While others were busy making excuses why they couldn't go, I was busy visiting 131 countries on the company dime!

The bad countries, by the way, are not the ones you see on the evening news, so don't let that cloud your decision.

Hayden · Post by **Hayden** » Sat Dec 17, 2016 11:43 pm

BW1985 wrote:
Clover5 wrote:Other than the middle-east countries and some North African ones you would be fine visiting the rest of the list, IMHO.
There's no way I would go to any country listed on the warning list.

Mexico is on the list, and I'm getting ready to head there. I think one needs to read the details for each country.

celia · Post by **celia** » Sun Dec 18, 2016 12:35 am

CyberBob wrote:While others were busy making excuses why they couldn't go, I was busy visiting 131 countries on the company dime!
The bad countries, by the way, are not the ones you see on the evening news, so don't let that cloud your decision.

Woaaah! 131 countries in under 20 years!

Sounds like you were always on the run ...

OP, Do they provide housing for your family?
Do you have travel insurance?

happyisland · Post by **happyisland** » Sun Dec 18, 2016 7:50 am

Hayden wrote:
BW1985 wrote:
Clover5 wrote:Other than the middle-east countries and some North African ones you would be fine visiting the rest of the list, IMHO.
There's no way I would go to any country listed on the warning list.
Mexico is on the list, and I'm getting ready to head there. I think one needs to read the details for each country.

So is "Europe", which really shows how broad this US State Department list is. Why don't they just write "Planet Earth" and call it a day?

RoadHouseFan · Post by **RoadHouseFan** » Sun Dec 18, 2016 8:41 am

celia wrote:
CyberBob wrote:While others were busy making excuses why they couldn't go, I was busy visiting 131 countries on the company dime!
The bad countries, by the way, are not the ones you see on the evening news, so don't let that cloud your decision.
Woaaah! 131 countries in under 20 years!

Sounds like you were always on the run ...

OP, Do they provide housing for your family?
Do you have travel insurance?

Family housing would probably not be provided. The organization plans for the designated individuals to provide onsite support in this country for several weeks, return home, and repeat as needed.

cherijoh · Post by **cherijoh** » Sun Dec 18, 2016 8:52 am

RoadHouseFan wrote:
cheese_breath wrote:
RoadHouseFan wrote:Can a U.S. company force employees to travel to and perform work for extended periods in countries on the State Department's "no travel" list?
Can you provide some more details on how much 'force' you're talking about? Have they said what will happen if you decline?
Currently, the organization is looking for volunteers. So far, there aren't any.

What incentives were they offering? They might need to sweeten the pot to get a volunteer.

I never had an ex-pat assignment, although I traveled for short stints overseas (1 - 3.5 weeks) at least a half dozen times for my former employer. I was supposed to go to Colombia during a period when the FARC was particularly active and that trip was cancelled. I ended up visiting a few years later when activity had calmed down some (although there were still issues with kidnapping for ransom).

For ex-pat assignments in Europe and Asia, my former employer offered a company apartment, supplementary salary, paid travel for home visits several times a year, assistance in renting out your house stateside, and a guarantee of a position at the end of the ex-pat assignment. I think there were always sufficient volunteers. However, I don't think they offered assignments anywhere that was typically on the warning list (Middle east, Pakistan, etc.)

EDITED to Add: I just saw your final post. Are they offering any supplemental salary for this assignment? What are the accommodations like when you are doing the onsite support?

RoadHouseFan · Post by **RoadHouseFan** » Sun Dec 18, 2016 9:16 am

cherijoh wrote:
RoadHouseFan wrote:
cheese_breath wrote:
RoadHouseFan wrote:Can a U.S. company force employees to travel to and perform work for extended periods in countries on the State Department's "no travel" list?
Can you provide some more details on how much 'force' you're talking about? Have they said what will happen if you decline?
Currently, the organization is looking for volunteers. So far, there aren't any.
What incentives were they offering? They might need to sweeten the pot to get a volunteer.

I never had an ex-pat assignment, although I traveled for short stints overseas (1 - 3.5 weeks) at least a half dozen times for my former employer. I was supposed to go to Colombia during a period when the FARC was particularly active and that trip was cancelled. I ended up visiting a few years later when activity had calmed down some (although there were still issues with kidnapping for ransom).

For ex-pat assignments in Europe and Asia, my former employer offered a company apartment, supplementary salary, paid travel for home visits several times a year, assistance in renting out your house stateside, and a guarantee of a position at the end of the ex-pat assignment. I think there were always sufficient volunteers. However, I don't think they offered assignments anywhere that was typically on the warning list (Middle east, Pakistan, etc.)

EDITED to Add: I just saw your final post. Are they offering any supplemental salary for this assignment? What are the accommodations like when you are doing the onsite support?

The organization hasn't provided details about any incentives at this point. The location of the work site would most likely be a government research and development site.

Nate79 · Post by **Nate79** » Sun Dec 18, 2016 11:19 am

What country is it?

TravelGeek · Post by **TravelGeek** » Sun Dec 18, 2016 2:18 pm

happyisland wrote:
Hayden wrote:
BW1985 wrote:
There's no way I would go to any country listed on the warning list.
Mexico is on the list, and I'm getting ready to head there. I think one needs to read the details for each country.
So is "Europe", which really shows how broad this US State Department list is. Why don't they just write "Planet Earth" and call it a day?

Europe is actually a travel alert, not a warning. There is a difference; see the top of the page.

https://travel.state.gov/content/passpo ... nings.html

Regarding the OP's question; it would very much depend on your position, the country, and the expected activities in the country. I know state department employees who have been sent for assignments to all kinds of dangerous places. They were aware of that when they accepted the position, of course. My private sector employer has offices all over the world and do-not-travel lists for especially dangerous places (fear of getting sued if something bad happens, I would guess).

RoadHouseFan · Post by **RoadHouseFan** » Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:14 pm

TravelGeek wrote:
happyisland wrote:
Hayden wrote:
BW1985 wrote:
There's no way I would go to any country listed on the warning list.
Mexico is on the list, and I'm getting ready to head there. I think one needs to read the details for each country.
So is "Europe", which really shows how broad this US State Department list is. Why don't they just write "Planet Earth" and call it a day?
Europe is actually a travel alert, not a warning. There is a difference; see the top of the page.

https://travel.state.gov/content/passpo ... nings.html

Regarding the OP's question; it would very much depend on your position, the country, and the expected activities in the country. I know state department employees who have been sent for assignments to all kinds of dangerous places. They were aware of that when they accepted the position, of course. My private sector employer has offices all over the world and do-not-travel lists for especially dangerous places (fear of getting sued if something bad happens, I would guess).

The candidates to travel and perform the onsite work are all low-level worker bees.

TomatoTomahto · Post by **TomatoTomahto** » Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:28 pm

@RoadHouseFan, you had previously indicated that you have no interest in traveling, much less going out of the country. While I wouldn't suggest going to North Korea, there are many interesting places in the world, and you could go on someone else's nickel. Volunteer! It sounds limited in scope, and you never know

nisiprius · Post by **nisiprius** » Sun Dec 18, 2016 4:45 pm

whodidntante wrote:They can fire you because your nostrils are too flared. And you can leave because you don't like the parking lot.

And whenever someone says something like that, e.g. several firms at hiring said something like that but in very reasonable-sounding HR-speak, I'm always reminded of Anatole France, "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."

BW1985 · Post by **BW1985** » Mon Dec 19, 2016 10:57 am

happyisland wrote:
Hayden wrote:
BW1985 wrote:
Clover5 wrote:Other than the middle-east countries and some North African ones you would be fine visiting the rest of the list, IMHO.
There's no way I would go to any country listed on the warning list.
Mexico is on the list, and I'm getting ready to head there. I think one needs to read the details for each country.
So is "Europe", which really shows how broad this US State Department list is. Why don't they just write "Planet Earth" and call it a day?

It's not actually, it's an alert not a warning.

Watty · Post by **Watty** » Mon Dec 19, 2016 1:20 pm

nisiprius wrote:
whodidntante wrote:They can fire you because your nostrils are too flared. And you can leave because you don't like the parking lot.
And whenever someone says something like that, e.g. several firms at hiring said something like that but in very reasonable-sounding HR-speak, I'm always reminded of Anatole France, "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."

Some companies have a 60 or 90 day probationary period for new employees when they can in theory easily let new employees go and even claim they were never technically employees and not have to pay unemployment insurance. (I am not sure of the all the details of how that works and it may vary by state. )

I know of a situation where a new employee started and was doing well in an IT job but the job was not like it was described on the job interview. The company had apparently oversold the job just to fill the position.

Just before the probationary period was up the new employee asked someone from HR to meet him in his managers office. The employee explained to the manager and HR person that they company had failed the probationary period and that they would be leaving.

He then pointed out the text in the employment agreement where it basically said that he was not really an employee until the probationary period was over so he would take legal action if they ever said anything about him having been a bad employee or even an employee that quit after such a short time period.

He asked them to mail him any money that he was due then he walked out and left. (He already had another job lined up)

The manager and HR person were pretty well dumbstruck since nothing like that had ever happened before since that was a bit different than someone quitting without giving any notice.

I was not privy to all that went on but it was pretty clear that that during the probationary period the employee could end the job with few repercussions just like the employer could.

alfaspider · Post by **alfaspider** » Mon Dec 19, 2016 2:22 pm

BW1985 wrote:
Clover5 wrote:Other than the middle-east countries and some North African ones you would be fine visiting the rest of the list, IMHO.
There's no way I would go to any country listed on the warning list.

Really, you'd never go to Mexico? Not even Cancun?

ved · Post by **ved** » Mon Dec 19, 2016 3:51 pm

Watty wrote: Some companies have a 60 or 90 day probationary period for new employees when they can in theory easily let new employees go and even claim they were never technically employees and not have to pay unemployment insurance. (I am not sure of the all the details of how that works and it may vary by state. )

I know of a situation where a new employee started and was doing well in an IT job but the job was not like it was described on the job interview. The company had apparently oversold the job just to fill the position.

Just before the probationary period was up the new employee asked someone from HR to meet him in his managers office. The employee explained to the manager and HR person that they company had failed the probationary period and that they would be leaving.

He then pointed out the text in the employment agreement where it basically said that he was not really an employee until the probationary period was over so he would take legal action if they ever said anything about him having been a bad employee or even an employee that quit after such a short time period.

He asked them to mail him any money that he was due then he walked out and left. (He already had another job lined up)

The manager and HR person were pretty well dumbstruck since nothing like that had ever happened before since that was a bit different than someone quitting without giving any notice.

I was not privy to all that went on but it was pretty clear that that during the probationary period the employee could end the job with few repercussions just like the employer could.

Technically if they got paid by the company, then they were employed.
Regardless, why the drama? Couldn't he have just said that he had another offer, and appreciate them giving him an opportunity, but the other offer is more suited to his needs and career growth?
That way. you are not burning any bridges.

And no future employer will fault you for leaving in a few months (unless you make a habit of it). In fact, he could not even list it on his resume.

RoadHouseFan · Post by **RoadHouseFan** » Mon Dec 19, 2016 6:36 pm

RoadHouseFan wrote:
TravelGeek wrote:
happyisland wrote:
Hayden wrote:
BW1985 wrote:
There's no way I would go to any country listed on the warning list.
Mexico is on the list, and I'm getting ready to head there. I think one needs to read the details for each country.
So is "Europe", which really shows how broad this US State Department list is. Why don't they just write "Planet Earth" and call it a day?
Europe is actually a travel alert, not a warning. There is a difference; see the top of the page.

https://travel.state.gov/content/passpo ... nings.html

Regarding the OP's question; it would very much depend on your position, the country, and the expected activities in the country. I know state department employees who have been sent for assignments to all kinds of dangerous places. They were aware of that when they accepted the position, of course. My private sector employer has offices all over the world and do-not-travel lists for especially dangerous places (fear of getting sued if something bad happens, I would guess).
The candidates to travel and perform the onsite work are all low-level worker bees.

None of the candidates were hired specifically for this project nor were they consulted regarding the onsite work prior to the project's commencement.

Clover5 · Post by **Clover5** » Mon Dec 19, 2016 7:03 pm

Hayden wrote:
BW1985 wrote:
Clover5 wrote:Other than the middle-east countries and some North African ones you would be fine visiting the rest of the list, IMHO.
There's no way I would go to any country listed on the warning list.
Mexico is on the list, and I'm getting ready to head there. I think one needs to read the details for each country.

I live part time in Central Mexico, as safe as any place I've lived in in the US. Never been robbed, left keys in the door to find them hours later. Left car door unlocked on the street and nothing touched. Taken taxis all over Mexico City, buses everywhere without incident. Think my car was broken into three times in Adams Morgan, DC.

Point is these alerts and warnings are general sounding until you read the details. You will find many areas of these country's are perfectly safe. A couple recent trips were to Hong Kong and Thailand during a warning. Except for having to step over barricades in Bangkok to go shopping it was all good

RoadHouseFan · Post by **RoadHouseFan** » Mon Dec 19, 2016 9:21 pm

Clover5 wrote:
Hayden wrote:
BW1985 wrote:
Clover5 wrote:Other than the middle-east countries and some North African ones you would be fine visiting the rest of the list, IMHO.
There's no way I would go to any country listed on the warning list.
Mexico is on the list, and I'm getting ready to head there. I think one needs to read the details for each country.
I live part time in Central Mexico, as safe as any place I've lived in in the US. Never been robbed, left keys in the door to find them hours later. Left car door unlocked on the street and nothing touched. Taken taxis all over Mexico City, buses everywhere without incident. Think my car was broken into three times in Adams Morgan, DC.

Point is these alerts and warnings are general sounding until you read the details. You will find many areas of these country's are perfectly safe. A couple recent trips were to Hong Kong and Thailand during a warning. Except for having to step over barricades in Bangkok to go shopping it was all good

It would be a non-issue if the destination was Mexico, Europe, etc.

stan1 · Post by **stan1** » Mon Dec 19, 2016 10:38 pm

I've been to several places on the warning list for work (including Saudi Arabia, Cameroon, Ukraine, Turkey) plus a few more that aren't on the list but probably could be. The trips have been memorable highlights of my career that I've learned a lot from.

I would not hesitate to go back to parts of each of these countries but I would want my employer to take security and safety seriously. They should be vetting hotels and drivers and have contingency plans for evacuation and emergencies not just turning you loose on your own as they would if you were travelling to a city in the US or Western Europe. As others have pointed out a lot of the US warnings are for regions not the entire country.

RoadHouseFan · Post by **RoadHouseFan** » Tue Dec 20, 2016 9:49 am

stan1 wrote:I've been to several places on the warning list for work (including Saudi Arabia, Cameroon, Ukraine, Turkey) plus a few more that aren't on the list but probably could be. The trips have been memorable highlights of my career that I've learned a lot from.

I would not hesitate to go back to parts of each of these countries but I would want my employer to take security and safety seriously. They should be vetting hotels and drivers and have contingency plans for evacuation and emergencies not just turning you loose on your own as they would if you were travelling to a city in the US or Western Europe. As others have pointed out a lot of the US warnings are for regions not the entire country.

Thanks for the info!

Aptenodytes · Post by **Aptenodytes** » Tue Dec 20, 2016 10:38 pm

davegreen10 wrote:What is this no travel list you are referring to? I know the state department does travel alerts and warnings but I am unaware of a no travel list:
https://travel.state.gov/content/passpo ... nings.html
They tend to be very cautious.
I would be willing to visit several of the countries on this list if I felt comfortable after doing my own research.
Remember everything is relative. The Bahamas cautions their residents about visiting the U.S. due to "shootings of young black males by police officers."
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-p ... SKCN0ZQ0RM

That isn't a no-travel list, but it contains a no-travel list within it. You have to click on each link and see what they say. Libya is an example of a no-travel country. Most of the countries on the list are not no-travel.

Post by **LadyGeek** » Wed Dec 21, 2016 10:32 pm

This thread is now in the Personal Finance (Not Investing) forum (employment issue).

FIREchief · Post by **FIREchief** » Wed Dec 21, 2016 10:42 pm

RoadHouseFan wrote:Can a U.S. company force employees to travel to and perform work for extended periods in countries on the State Department's "no travel" list?

Short answer: Yes, unless you have a medical condition that would prevent you from doing this. Go see your doctor. Tell him/her that whenever you are away from your own bed/recliner/house/etc. for more than a week; you get physically and emotionally stressed and your back hurts like heck. For decades at Megacorp, this would have been an absolutely true statement for me and likely many others out there. Ask them for a note that indicates "My patient should not be subjected to extended travel due to a medical condition." Give this to your HR rep if/when necessary. You won't have to answer any questions and you won't have any problems.

dfwjoel · Post by **dfwjoel** » Wed Dec 21, 2016 11:48 pm

BW1985 wrote:
Clover5 wrote:Other than the middle-east countries and some North African ones you would be fine visiting the rest of the list, IMHO.
There's no way I would go to any country listed on the warning list.

You'll miss many wonderful countries not visiting the ones on that list. On the warning list, I've been to the Philippines, Mexico, Ethiopia (just got back and it was fantastic!), DRC (went gorilla trekking - bucket list material!), Turkey, Pakistan, Yemen (before the current trouble, though), Laos (just went in July), Eritrea, Honduras, and Colombia (Bogota was so cosmopolitan). These are some of the best countries I've visited and would hate to have missed them because of some overly cautious report.

boglephreak · Post by **boglephreak** » Thu Dec 22, 2016 3:57 am

employers cant force you to do anything. forcing someone to travel to a place to do work is called slavery.

they can make it a condition of employment though (absent a contractual agreement or law to the contrary) and fire you if you dont meet the conditions of employment (again subject to contractual agreements or law). i am not aware of any laws that forbid travel to certain countries except those for which we have an embargo (think U.S. forbidding travel to cuba). consider, however, that there may be compensation laws that favor you for some countries (e.g., hazard pay).

BW1985 · Post by **BW1985** » Thu Dec 22, 2016 9:51 am

dfwjoel wrote:
BW1985 wrote:
Clover5 wrote:Other than the middle-east countries and some North African ones you would be fine visiting the rest of the list, IMHO.
There's no way I would go to any country listed on the warning list.
You'll miss many wonderful countries not visiting the ones on that list. On the warning list, I've been to the Philippines, Mexico, Ethiopia (just got back and it was fantastic!), DRC (went gorilla trekking - bucket list material!), Turkey, Pakistan, Yemen (before the current trouble, though), Laos (just went in July), Eritrea, Honduras, and Colombia (Bogota was so cosmopolitan). These are some of the best countries I've visited and would hate to have missed them because of some overly cautious report.

I'm okay with that. Prefer to err on the side of caution and there are plenty of other places to travel to.