Working beyond contracted hours

[StevieBee]

Countdown said:

StevieBee said:

. You cannot be sacked for not working over your allowed hours for nothing and being passed over for promotion on the basis of the same is also a no no.

I'm pretty sure they can promote based on billable hours. In other words if you're working 9-5 and the person next to you is working 7-7 they are well within their rights to promote the other person rather than you. They want to motivate, reward, and retain those people who generate the most money for the organisation. Surely it's both obvious and fair?

Depends entirely upon the individual and the circumstances - and the contract of employment,.

If the 9-5 chap is doing as much work, well, as the 7-7 chap is then the 9-5 chap is going to be the better bet and more commercially beneficial to the organisation.

[Robertj21a]

RizzoTheRat said:

Integroo said:

Yes possibly. A 2PQE junior lawyer at a Magic Circle firm probably earns £90-120k a year including bonus. A 2PQE junior lawyer at a top-tier US firm probably earns £120-175k. They probably work anywhere between 2000 and 3000 hours a year. (What does the average person work - 1440 if you go by a 40 hour week 48 weeks a year?).

If you take a mid-point of 2500, then their hourly rate is anywhere between £36 and £70 an hour at 26-28. Plus living costs of having to be based in London.

You don't do it only for the money though.

3000 hours is over 9.5 hours per day 6 days a week with no holiday. I get that they're doing it to reach a point where they can earn big money for more sensible hours, but how many reach that point without burning out?

My 38 hour week works out 1626 hours per year, so your mid-pointers are doing half as many hours again. Not my idea of a work life balance, but I guess as you say a lot are doing it because they enjoy it not just for the money.

Surely, this is the point that many on here are missing ?

In some roles there can be tremendous job satisfaction, a real sense of achievement. If you can couple that with being in a good position, that has excellent rewards in years to come, then why wouldn't you be prepared to put in the extra hours ?. It's only when the long hours become a routine lifestyle that you have to question whether the rewards are still quite so attractive.

[StevieBee]

Alex Z said:

StevieBee said:

. You cannot be sacked for not working over your allowed hours for nothing and being passed over for promotion on the basis of the same is also a no no.

Heh, that’s a very naive point of view. Bad employers absolutely can and do discriminate against people that won’t work extra for nothing. Whether that’s not giving shifts to people on zero hours contracts right up to bullying people out or inventing totally fraudulent redundancies for experienced and senior workers.

Key here is 'bad employers'. And yes, bad employers will discriminate on this basis and many others besides.

The point is that unless there's a stipulation in the contract, you can't fire or even discriminate against someone for them doing exactly what they have been contracted to do. Bad employers will of course find ways to circumvent this so the trick is to avoid working for them in the first place. Good employers out-number the bad by orders of magnitude.

[KAgantua]

C0ffin D0dger said:

Think it really depends on what your benefits / salary are, the role your in and the type of company you work for.

I do a few extra hours a week in my role but my pay puts my in the top 95% of earners in this country. I don't have to, not sure anyone would bat an eyelid if I did start sticking to 9-5pm and for a while a few years back I did have to do just that on the days my wife was working as I had to do the nursery run mornings and evenings.

I work for a big multinational so very much a small cog in a big wheel hence nobody higher up the ladder is really going to notice my efforts. If I was working for a small start up and getting a decent stock option I'd likely be working my wotsits off to help it succeed provided the work was interesting and challenging. I known a few friends make a lot of money working for these sort of companies as they either float on the stock market or get bought out by a much bigger firm. Probably something for the younger folk though, not sure it would work for me now with a family.

That said we've had a few over the years who work all hours but are generally pretty rubbish at their job, guess they think working long hours can somehow make up for ineptitude. I'd take someone who is good at their job and only does the 9-5 over the latter provided they don't mind stepping up on the odd occasions it's needed.

So minimum wage then?

[Countdown]

StevieBee said:

Countdown said:

StevieBee said:

. You cannot be sacked for not working over your allowed hours for nothing and being passed over for promotion on the basis of the same is also a no no.

I'm pretty sure they can promote based on billable hours. In other words if you're working 9-5 and the person next to you is working 7-7 they are well within their rights to promote the other person rather than you. They want to motivate, reward, and retain those people who generate the most money for the organisation. Surely it's both obvious and fair?

Depends entirely upon the individual and the circumstances - and the contract of employment,.

If the 9-5 chap is doing as much work, well, as the 7-7 chap is then the 9-5 chap is going to be the better bet and more commercially beneficial to the organisation.

All other things being equal, "Commercially beneficial" = billable hours. So the person doing 7-7 is going to be more valuable than the person doing 9-5.

I know it sounds pedantic but I occasionally get people complaining that so-and-so gets the opportunity to do XYZ, or is seconded to various projects, or gets to go on various trips. Like it or not, if people work harder than their colleague then chances are they will get preferential treatment.

[djc206]

Countdown said:

All other things being equal, "Commercially beneficial" = billable hours. So the person doing 7-7 is going to be more valuable than the person doing 9-5.

I know it sounds pedantic but I occasionally get people complaining that so-and-so gets the opportunity to do XYZ, or is seconded to various projects, or gets to go on various trips. Like it or not, if people work harder than their colleague then chances are they will get preferential treatment.

Only in a role that works on billable hours.

Why do you think the hours of pilots, air traffic controllers and lorry drivers are limited? It’s because concentration and performance are proven to decline after a certain time. Working longer doesn’t mean working better, presence in itself is not evidence of hard or good work.

[StevieBee]

djc206 said:

Countdown said:

All other things being equal, "Commercially beneficial" = billable hours. So the person doing 7-7 is going to be more valuable than the person doing 9-5.

I know it sounds pedantic but I occasionally get people complaining that so-and-so gets the opportunity to do XYZ, or is seconded to various projects, or gets to go on various trips. Like it or not, if people work harder than their colleague then chances are they will get preferential treatment.

Only in a role that works on billable hours.

Why do you think the hours of pilots, air traffic controllers and lorry drivers are limited? It’s because concentration and performance are proven to decline after a certain time. Working longer doesn’t mean working better, presence in itself is not evidence of hard or good work.

It is entirely appropriate to limit the working hours for the roles you mention for the reasons given.

At the other end of the scale, there are many jobs that can be performed regardless of capacity of the concentration of those doing the work. Performance may drop off a bit but productivity is maintained to an acceptable level and it's here that we see bad employers stretch limits and take the piss.

In the middle we have the grey areas and to tweak your thinking, try to think like the boss.

You've put your house and savings in the line to start the business. It may be bowling along nicely but the risks of failure are ever present and the consequences of failure go way way beyond simply loosing your job. If cashflow is tight, you have to pay staff before you pay yourself which means some months you go without getting paid at all. You may have a nice car, live in a nice home and take nice holidays but then you spent years and years driving a shed, never taking a day off, living on peanuts in a two-up-two down. And it's unlikely you'll have any savings or a pension but drive the business forward in the hope that one day you can sell up and reap the rewards.

To help you along the way, you employ people. In return, you provide them gainful employment, treat them right. They treat you right. Business goes well and you have a position to fill. Two of the staff might be suitable to step up a rung or two and you have to choose. Both are capable, possess comparable skills, have the same level of experience.

One is a 9 to 5er. Hour for lunch every day. Forensically assess their payslip every month to make sure every penny earned is properly accounted for.

The other's in at 8.30 each day - sticks the urn on, fires up the computers and is off an running by 8.50. Grabs a bit of lunch at his desk for half an hour, checks their Facebook, has a look at Pistonheads and is then back on it. Wanders in to see to you everyday at 5.10, checks that everything's good - asks if there's anything else that needs doing. May even ping you an email at 8.00pm from home about something they'd thought of.

Now, as the boss....which one would you lean towards?

[Du1point8]

djc206 said:

Countdown said:

All other things being equal, "Commercially beneficial" = billable hours. So the person doing 7-7 is going to be more valuable than the person doing 9-5.

I know it sounds pedantic but I occasionally get people complaining that so-and-so gets the opportunity to do XYZ, or is seconded to various projects, or gets to go on various trips. Like it or not, if people work harder than their colleague then chances are they will get preferential treatment.

Only in a role that works on billable hours.

Why do you think the hours of pilots, air traffic controllers and lorry drivers are limited? It’s because concentration and performance are proven to decline after a certain time. Working longer doesn’t mean working better, presence in itself is not evidence of hard or good work.

you are naming jobs which are physical and you can only do X hours and be useful... doing office related work like lawyers/PM/IT you can really work longer and still be able to do it without someone dying from a lack of concentration, as all work is checked over by another to eliminate mistakes, not something you can do as ATC and have someone check a split second decision to allow a plane to land at X when it should have been Y without the chance of loss of life.

[-C-]

StevieBee said:

Now, as the boss....which one would you lean towards?

Easy. The one who's better at their job. You've tried to isolate that aspect of the person & in reality, you just don't have people of identical ability.

The rest, although nice, is pointless fluff in reality.

Edited by -C- on Wednesday 7th November 09:56

[johnwilliams77]

-C- said:

Easy. The one who's better at their job. You've tried to isolate that aspect of the person & in reality, you just don't have people of identical ability.

The rest, although nice, is pointless fluff in reality.

Edited by -C- on Wednesday 7th November 09:56

This. I don't want 'pointless fluff' emails and I don't want e-mails that could wait until the next day.

[Countdown]

-C- said:

StevieBee said:

Now, as the boss....which one would you lean towards?

Easy. The one who's better at their job. You've tried to isolate that aspect of the person & in reality, you just don't have people of identical ability.

The rest, although nice, is pointless fluff in reality.

Edited by -C- on Wednesday 7th November 09:56

You don’t have people of equal ability. However (IME) it’s far more likely that the person doing 7-7 is better at their job than the person doing 9-5. The fact that they are physically in the office for more hours means that they are highly likely to be getting more work done (yes I know the guy doing 9-5 might be providing “better quality work”, Hypothetically that might be true, I’ve never found it to be true in practice and it’s usually wishful thinking by those that don’t want to work longer hours)

A person doing longer hours will be doing more work, they will be involved in more projects, they will be getting more experience but, more important than that, they are showing the right attitude and commitment.

[johnwilliams77]

Countdown said:

You don’t have people of equal ability. However (IME) it’s far more likely that the person doing 7-7 is better at their job than the person doing 9-5. The fact that they are physically in the office for more hours means that they are highly likely to be getting more work done (yes I know the guy doing 9-5 might be providing “better quality work”, Hypothetically that might be true, I’ve never found it to be true in practice and it’s usually wishful thinking by those that don’t want to work longer hours)

A person doing longer hours will be doing more work, they will be involved in more projects, they will be getting more experience but, more important than that, they are showing the right attitude and commitment.

They are also giving themselves very little time to eat/participate in any hobbies/keep fit.

[StevieBee]

-C- said:

StevieBee said:

Now, as the boss....which one would you lean towards?

Easy. The one who's better at their job. You've tried to isolate that aspect of the person & in reality, you just don't have people of identical ability.

The rest, although nice, is pointless fluff in reality.

Edited by -C- on Wednesday 7th November 09:56

If you read my example again, I mention that both have equal competency and skill.

[johnwilliams77]

StevieBee said:

If you read my example again, I mention that both have equal competency and skill.

Do any of them have tits? Tits are important.

[GT03ROB]

johnwilliams77 said:

StevieBee said:

If you read my example again, I mention that both have equal competency and skill.

Do any of them have tits? Tits are important.

Only if they are not moobs

[GT03ROB]

StevieBee said:

-C- said:

StevieBee said:

Now, as the boss....which one would you lean towards?

Easy. The one who's better at their job. You've tried to isolate that aspect of the person & in reality, you just don't have people of identical ability.

The rest, although nice, is pointless fluff in reality.

Edited by -C- on Wednesday 7th November 09:56

If you read my example again, I mention that both have equal competency and skill.

The one that applies that competency & skill in the most appropriate way for my business.

[-C-]

Countdown said:

You don’t have people of equal ability. However (IME) it’s far more likely that the person doing 7-7 is better at their job than the person doing 9-5. The fact that they are physically in the office for more hours means that they are highly likely to be getting more work done (yes I know the guy doing 9-5 might be providing “better quality work”, Hypothetically that might be true, I’ve never found it to be true in practice and it’s usually wishful thinking by those that don’t want to work longer hours)

A person doing longer hours will be doing more work, they will be involved in more projects, they will be getting more experience but, more important than that, they are showing the right attitude and commitment.

And this is genuinely, IMO part of the problem. The belief/perception that that person doing a 12hr day is 'better' than the person doing an 8hr day.

If a person, (or a team) is having to consistently do 4+ hours of overtime a day, to me (as a manager of a big team) I am failing my staff, to provide them with the adequate resource to carry out the workload required by the business.

In everyday circumstances, there is literally no need to do anything over & above what you are contracted to do. Yes, there can be emergencies & exceptions, but by definition they are just that.

It is a comical symptom of 'corporate life'. dressed up as a bit of flexibility in the team (literally doing 50% again, every single day) , but it's ok, I need to leave 30 minutes early one day next week for something at the kids school/doctors appt/whatever.

I've been there & done it myself, working for a big global insurance company in London. 12 hour days the norm, people sleeping under their desks, because that's what you did if you wanted to get noticed. In my last year, when I decided enough was enough, I throttled right back on my workload, but 'played the game' in respect of tactical visibility in the office, timings of events, emails etc. That was the year the offer came in, due to my work ethic, I was offered the promotion, the big pay rise, but it came at a price I wasn't prepared to pay. The vast majority are playing the game & their managers are too stupid to see it, because they are too busy playing their own game.

I vowed from that day i'd never be one of those people again & if I ever got into a position where I managed staff I wouldn't be one of those managers. I don't doubt it's dampened my career in some respects, but I turn up at 8.30, I go home at 4.30, along with all my team & I enjoy my evenings not doing, or thinking about work.

I struggle to think of a worse lifestyle to the one I used to live. My colleagues who stuck at it, who are now stuck in that world until they retire (or die) look 10+ years older than me. All they do is commute, work or sleep.

Edited by -C- on Wednesday 7th November 10:44

[ToothbrushMan]

if the job has the work to soak up additional hours of my time then why rely on those who might work those hours for free? The work is there, the company is getting paid for that work, so within that pay ought to be set aside an amount of money for the associated additional employment costs surely?

I am not talking about those people who live to work but those who work to live and I have nothing against helping out during peak times or to cover emergencies thats only fair - Hiring workers on a typical 9 - 5 office based salaried contract who then find themselves having to put in 50 - 60 hours a week just to stand still (not because they dont work smarter either but because of the lack of headcount and/or sheer volumes of work coming in to handle it) and multiplying that by X number of other employees doing exactly the same which is a large organisation can amount to thousands of hours a year - simply skews the true performance of the company. It thinks ON PAPER its doing ok yet if you was to drill down into the hours being put in for no extra pay you would quickly see the issues. You are creating a false overview of the financials. Maybe its time to close the doors if youre advertising jobs with xyz salaries yet surviving on the pretence that workers can do the work you give them between the hours of 9 and 5. Maybe its a case of the CEO or MD etc not taking quite so much cash out of the business if there is clearly the volume of work available from which you can pay you staff extra (or as we used to call it overtime rates)................

Nobody wants staff to go through burn out either. the hidden danger that bosses dont like to talk about so long as the works being done.

I used to work with a guy who must have been on about 50k a year and he was always sticking in 70 hours a week. His contract would be 35 hours.
He never got a bonus and at pay rise time he got his contracted 2% like the rest of us. He is still stuck in that same position - his efforts havent sent his career racing to the top. Yet he is literally doing the work of 2 people saving approx. 40 maybe even his 50k but less existing benefits yet they dont pay him overtime or bung him a few hundred quid as a thank you. Take take take. Big global company too with year on year profits and from this example you see why too.

Edited by ToothbrushMan on Wednesday 7th November 10:50

[Tyre Smoke]

As a boss, I find that some people want to work their contracted hours some want to work more. Because we are a transport company, we cannot and do not work fixed 9-5 and this is made clear for potential employees. However, if they only want to work their contracted 35 hours then where possible we will try to keep to that. It might mean working 36/37 but that is over a week, so perhaps only 15 minutes here and there.
The point is, I think everyone needs to be a bit flexible these days. The belligerent 'I'm only work my contracted hours' will only serve to put everyone's backs up. From the manager who has to get others to work over/change shifts because of Mr/Mrs Intractable to the co-workers who have to accommodate said employee. So in reality, anyone who consistently sits at their desk at 0900 and gets up at 1700 every day is likely to be the most unpopular person in the building and the works 'knob'.
Whatever your opinion, in my experience and as an employer, the worker who will have the 'can do' and 'it's not a problem' approach will progress much further much faster. The risk is a bad employer will exploit that and lean on that employee too much.

[super7]

There is a difference to putting in the hours to get experience and to learn the job, ie the Junior Laywers, where they are cramming as much experience into the career as possible, and the employee who overworks in his stable job because it looks good to do work for free!!!

As an IT person, when I first started my Systems Engineering job as a trainee, I put in all the hours I could. I was single, lived on my own, had a canteen and a gym onsite and basically immersed myself into learning the subject. worked extra (free) hours during the week, did on-call and overtime at weekends which was paid. I went from a trainee to a senior systems engineer in five years.

I then left and went contracting. Since then, 22years ago, I get paid for every hour I do. I do overtime and I do on-call but I get paid for it. When these Junior layers are fully qualified they will get paid for every hour of it.

Anyone who is blindly doing over their contracted hours for free needs there head tested. If your doing it because 'it makes your job safe', then you need to move on and find another employer who is willing to pay for your experience. The only person who is benefitting is the owner of the business or shareholders. Why should they get it all?

In saying that, flexibility is also important, on both the employers side and the employee. If a large piece of work comes in with a target, you do it, but you should get compensated either finanially or in lieu. You shouldn't be expected to do it for free.