Help me understand if this is something I should be challenging at work pls

[Snufflebabe05]

I started a new role 3 months ago. My manager told me she was moving a new role (internally) the day I started, so her boss was my boss for a couple of weeks, and then a short term contractor was brought in and will be here until end of April.

3 managers in as many months.

Including my manager, there’s 5 of us in the team. I’m the only one with children. I work 3 days a week, and work at least an extra hour each day. I sort of see it as the ‘give’ so if I need to run off to school because of a forgotten lunch box, I have enough ‘credit’, so to speak. It’s a senior-ish role, although I have no direct reports.

The other team members work ridiculous hours. Late every night and very often over the weekend. It’s because the workload is too high and no one says anything.

I was given some tasks last week and when I worked through the time needed to do it vs the deadline, I challenged back and said we’d need a realistic discussion about capacity. My manager listened but still said everything was a priority etc etc. so I pushed back again. Yesterday in a team meeting he said “Im going to do project A for you as a favour, to allow you to focus on project B and C.” That’s fine by me, but why is it a favour?

We were talking after another meeting where he was giving me some mostly negative feedback. He is paid a day rate, and works the same 3 days as me. On his day off last week, he picked up emails about something that was linked to me and was clearly pissed off about it. I listened, and at the end he said “if it makes you feel any better, I was working on Sunday on a paper.” I hadn’t mentioned anything about working extra hours etc. it was clear that he thinks I should be logging on in my non-working time.

Last week, the business did what I think was a business continuity test. My manager was asked to get in touch with all of his team, at 7.30pm at night. (I work for a Bank BTW, and tend to work 8-5). My work phone was switched off so I didn’t pick up the message to the following day. I think he was also annoyed that I wasn’t available. For context, the Bank has my personal number should they need it, but my manager doesn’t at this point .

So - am I being too sensitive here re working hours? Or is there an undercurrent of something bigger going on re discrimination?

There is no discrimination - other people are just willing to work ridiculous hours for little or no reward.

Keep doing what you're doing. Work your hours. Challenge unrealistic workloads.

To a certain extent a bit of overtime is expected once you get to a certain salary, my in my head cut off point for that is once you get to higher rate tax band ( pro rata in your case).

However it's very bad practice to have staff working all hours as a matter of course unless there is a specific event of emergency, and you are totally entitled to switch off your phone outside office hours.

I'd also be reluctant to be taking my working hours advice from a contractor who is probably on a much higher day rate than you ( different to a permanent manager earning more).

Is there anyone else approachable in the team you can talk to?Sounds like they're all at breaking point.

I don't think it's discrimination but it raises red flags for me about it being a healthy work environment. I've worked with people like them who are online / checking emails 24/7 and to be fair, our company has clamped down on it a lot in recent years. I think everyone accepts that they need to work extra hours now and again to get jobs done but being constantly "on call" is not acceptable.

It sounds like you may work for the same institution as I do. If so I'd reach out to one of the networks , get yourself a mentor so you can prep for conversations and red lines.
Also looks like him working reduced days and having the same days off as you, isn't working. As the more senior member of staff, it is on him to do something about that, not you.

I just got offered a job where you were expected to be available by WhatsApp 24/7 unless you were on annual leave. On your personal phone, discussing sensitive (but anonymised) service-user information. I refused. It's just not how I use my phone, I make an effort to leave it downstairs overnight or leave it at home if I go out sometimes. I explained that boundaries are important to me, and whilst I'm happy to be rota-ed for on-call I am not at work 24/7. The manager was seriously unimpressed and the interview ended a bit tersely.

All that effort with the application form and interview to find that out. I don't think IWBU.

It’s not discrimination but it sounds like a horrible working environment with no care given for work/life balance.

As a part time worker you are, by definition, expected to be on call unpaid more than full time members of staff. Because there is more of the week you are unpaid for. I would push back as much as I could. You work to live, not live to work.

I work in a bank, in some roles (including mine), there is a culture of working very long hours. I'm fine with this, I'm well paid and have the flexibility to manage my own time provided the work is done. So if I want to go and watch a school rugby match for an hour at 3pm, I go. The flip side is that if we are working on big projects with tight deadlines, we will all work well into the night and weekends. I was back at my (WFH) desk last year the day after I had my appendix removed because I was working on a critical deal.

If this is the culture at your bank, you won't change it single handedly and you might want to think if it's the right fit for you. I'm not saying it's right, but some areas of banking have been like this since time began. I knew this when I signed up to it 20+ years ago so don't really know any different and on balance, the pros far outweigh the cons. I really don't think it's a discrimination thing, it's a culture thing.

I understand them stress testing their business continuity plan, but part of the plan should be "how do we notify those classed as essential outside of working hours". If they need you to be "on call" then that should be something written up in your contract or job description and for emergencies like business continuity.

They cant just think to themselves "I want to be able to ring an employee about their work at any given hour on any given day of the week".

This is bad working environment and a bad manager.

Do you hours hours and keep challenging unrealistic workloads. I would also look for a new job as this is not the right culture/environment for you.

I am a fairly senior manager and would not behave the way your manager does.

@Janek ''As a part time worker you are, by definition, expected to be on call unpaid more than full time members of staff.'' Nonsense. If a company employs a part-time worker it should be because a particular role can be done part-time/within these contracted hours, not because they decided they want to save money by paying someone part-time only but still expect them to be available whenever they fancy it...that is just poor practice.

I agree with you! I meant in this situation. If they expect their workers to be on call at all times, then those that get paid for fewer hours have more unpaid on call hours.

The business continuity plan should have a number on which you can be contacted out of hours and that's why it's tested - so that these issues can be identified, but apart from that carry on as you are.

I can't see any discrimination.

As a part-timer, you need to be very careful about (not) working extra hours, particularly in a situation where you are part of a team that has more work than it can handle.

If you work a five-day week, there is a physical time limit on how many extra hours you can put in over the week. If you only work three days a week, then you have two extra days in which you can work overtime.

I have a friend who, in a very senior role, cut her hours back to three days a week because of work stress and poor life-work balance. The company took the opportunity to push extra work on her, and she ended up working a 50-hour week for three days' pay. (She resigned eventually.)

I'm with @ElectraBlue - this is a bad working environment for you and it might be better to think abut moving on. It might improve if you eventually get a decent manager who understands your requirement to limit your commitment to the company in order to preserve a life/work balance.

As regards the business continuity test - it served its purpose in exposing holes in the company's process in this respect. This shouldn't reflect badly on you if you had been informed of the existing process and followed it; and, if it is the case that you knew and followed the process, you should push back strongly on any suggestion that you were at fault.

The business continuity plan should incorporate the fact that those not on call will not have their work phones on, and there should be a process for it.

This is a toxic work environment that expects employees to work over and above for no additional pay. It's slowly becoming the norm for people to be stressed and close to burn out - but what for ? The work industry has become more and more challenging but still , staff are expected to do more and more until people end up off sick which then just has a wider impact on the organisation overall. I don't get it - as an employee you need to look after yourself first and foremost and your organisation should support that. Not pile on work until your exhausted - also hate people that compare workloads . Task A might have taken 3 days whereas task B and C might have taken hours . But still people don't recognise the work that's involved - just how many tasks have been completed !

@Janek

As a part time worker you are, by definition, expected to be on call unpaid more than full time members of staff. Because there is more of the week you are unpaid for. I would push back as much as I could. You work to live, not live to work.

Where did you get your definition from?

Is this a professional role in a bank head office or at an investment bank? I ask because there are banks and there are banks, and expectations might differ depending on what type of bank this is. What you seem to be describing is an environment where long hours are common/expected, whereas you are insisting on working a “standard” day and missing deadlines as a result. You might be reasonable, you might not - context is everything. If this is a City bank the expectation is that everyone pulls their weight and puts in the hours on the days they work, which it sounds like you may not be doing. No one at a senior level works 9-5 in that environment.

Where did you get your definition from?

What bit don't you understand. By definition, a part time person is not working full time. Therefore, there is more of the week that is unpaid for a part time worker

This sounds like my working environment. I've endured it for 8 years now but it's toxic.
The others are full time, no kids, earn 2.5 my average salary and have teams, yet we are expected to carry the same level of responsibility. I have no cover.
It's pushed me to the edge and am off sick now. I need to get out.

@Ubiquery

Where did you get your definition from?

What bit don't you understand. By definition, a part time person is not working full time. Therefore, there is more of the week that is unpaid for a part time worker

That's not what you said it was, by definition. You said a part time worker is expected to be on call more, by definition...

That's not what you said it was, by definition. You said a part time worker is expected to be on call more, by definition.

It wasn't me, and you appear to have rearranged the sentence so that the emphasis is slightly different and may be indicative of the source of your confusion. Because a part time worker is employed for fewer hours of the week, they have more hours of the week for which to be on-call. Their full time colleagues are more likely to be at work and therefore have fewer hours in which to be on-call.
If this still isn't quite clear, I don't think there's anything more I can say to help you understand

@Ubiquery you're right, it wasn't you. The sentence I was challenging was As a part time worker you are, by definition, expected to be on call unpaid more than full time members of staff.

I haven't rearranged anything.