to think that the world would be a much nicer place if no one worked overtime, through lunch breaks or took work home with them?

[AKMD]

I was in a meeting yesterday and found myself in a 'who-has-it-the-hardest' match with a colleague in another department talking about how we work all hours, take work home, stay late, come in on annual leave, never have a lunch break blah blah blah. Very sad, I know AIBU to think that if everyone stopped doing things like this then we could practically solve the no-jobs issue overnight and all be a lot healthier, happier and generally better than we are now?

is it not all about flexibility? If I am flexible with my employer then my employer will be flexible with me.
If you work to rule, expect to be managed in the same way.

Whilst I think it's up to an individual what they do above and beyond I dislike the fact that in some organisations it becomes an unwritten rule because of that. If I'm routinely expected to work an extra hour every day I want to know before I take the job.

never have, never will

work is for work time, home is for home time

i dont even check emails at home let alone do work

I'm not really talking about my specific company, just the issue in general of people working really long hours to cover work that could and probably should be done by an extra employee but... My employer BTW is a big multinational but scrapes along doing the bare statutory minimum HR-wise. Oh, I lie, they offer a salary-sacrific scheme for childcare vouchers on top of their statutory obligations There is certainly no give-take relationship illusion.

Time off makes for more productive employees - I'd say Mr-No-Holiday-Here is probably very burnt out and unproductive!!

notrightnow I didn't call you stupid, but I do maintain that you are deluded if you fail to recognised the inequality of the relationship between employer and employee that develops of a result of employees continually failing to question the expection that they will provide services above and beyond those that are required within the terms of their contract.

the furryone -

A famous project management quote is that "9 women cannot produce a baby in 1 month"

My working overtime does not equal fewer jobs - I am doing stuff that only I can do.

As I said - I am not exploited. I work hard and have been rewarded by promotions and lifestyle changing payrises. I know not everyone who works unpaid overtime gets rewarded in this way - but I had not worked above and beyond I would not be where I am in my career.

Its an individual choice.

Oh how I wish they could [9 months pregnant and feeling fat and grumpy emoticon]

As I said you got lucky in that your employer is fair and has rewarded you accordingly for your effort, but what about the employee who works just as hard as you but then just as it's all coming together to move on up and seek the reward you would expect a new boss starts who disregards pretty much every single thing that said employee did before they started work? Or the employees who continually work above and beyond only to find they get made redundant when a firms profits drop to a level where they could still easily afford to employ them but that make their shareholders a little bit grumpy?

Also, as you describe it if it really is only you who can do the work then the contract for the role should be structured accordingly and reward for extra work given at the time rather than the "promise" of progression and future reward IYSWIM.

I know that I'm fighting against what is currently the done thing and the status quo by having the opinions that I do on this but the normalisation of unpaid overtime is a bit of a bugbear of mine.

thefurryone - you are also fighting a battle against a changing global and technical world.

I have been MN while on a conference call with people from the US, Europe and Australia (the Australians are working late )

Most of my contacts are not in the UK. This means that I work erratic hours from home - and can fit this in around my children. As long as I deliver on time - no one cares when I do my work.

If anyone were to get a job from the admin that I can't keep up with - chances are they will be based in India

I don't see that in the same way. Working 'odd' hours can be beneficial to employee and employer. As you say you can work from home and fit this around your childcare, your employer gets someone who can do the work at the time it needs doing. It's not the same as putting in 12 hour days because it's the culture for no gain. And where does it stop, your colleague gets the promotion because she's prepared to work 14 hour days for no extra pay. It's a race to the bottom.

Yeah, all those bankers and city lawyers working 90 hr weeks even though their contracts state 40 hours- they're getting exploited by their employers and only getting paid £500k a year.......oh no, wait a minute, we hate bankers on this forum, so that's okay that they're getting exploited.

Ok, I jest, but in certain roles, when you sign on the line, you know that it's not the "40 hours a week" bit you're signing but the bit that says " and other hours to the extent that these are required in fulfillment of my duties." Everyone knows the score.

But I put in the 12 hours a day in the past - and am now in a position where I can work from home and fit it around my kids (and still do around 25% more than my contracted hours)

I agree with the poster that said that if you work to rule your employer will to.

If you show flexibility you are more likely to get flexibility back.

I just don't get what's flexible about working 25% more as a regular occurrence unless you also work 25% less.

Give and take is one thing, but from my perspective a lot of the time the employee gives and the employer takes.

I sometimes work more than my allotted hours but I end up getting that time back somewhere or other more or less and i take calls on my lunchbreak sometimes. But overtime is not something I want to do everyday and if it's 'expected' then that should be clear. I'd rather be paid twenty grand for a normal working week than 27k in a job where 12 hour days are expected.

If you're happy to work long days because the financial reward is worth it then fine, but why not have the expectations explicitly stated.

"If you're happy to work long days because the financial reward is worth it then fine, but why not have the expectations explicitly stated."

But they usually are. As insert1x50p says, it's in the contract.

Look, I was trying not to say this, but it's inevitable. This is the difference between professionalism and not. Professional jobs require you to work until the job is done. Non-professional jobs don't. You make your choice.

thefurryone, I do think you're swimming against the tide. It is all about give and take. Perhaps I have been unusually lucky but I have always had good relationships with my employer (large and small organisations). It's not a war. How can anyone be happy if they constantly feel that someone else is exploiting them? If you truly feel like that you need to work for yourself.* I really resent this accusation that I (and others in my position) are deluded. I know exactly what I'm getting. I get a rewarding job that I enjoy and the knowledge that my work will cut me some slack when I need it; they get a really hardworking employee who will get the job done. I don't see the problem there.

*and really learn the meaning of working all hours!!!

argh! rogue underlining! sorry ...

Explicitly stated in the contract? Ime the line normally goes something along the lines of "additional working may be required commensurate with the post"

Http:www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/feb/25/unpaid-overtime-free-labour-flexible

notrightnow - you expressed it so much better than I did!

My work has just increased our workload, cut our staff members and frozen our pay. We all now have to work extra hours at home for less money.Are we being exploited? Yep.

But my employer is a local authority. Budgets have been slashed. We could refuse to do the extra work, but the system would grind to a halt. As we supervise offenders, the public would be at risk. So we don't because we care about our job being done well. DH is in education. The same applies, he needs to be prepared for his classes.

The only solution is for everyone to pay a lot more taxes so we can employ enough teachers, nurses, doctors, social workers etc to do the actual workload within working hours. But no one seems keen on that.

It's funny how countries with shorter working hours, e.g. Holland/Germany are generally more productive.

To those who say they work to get the job done, how far do you extend that? 50 hour week, 60, 80, 100? You must have your own personal tipping point. Taking a job is a contract, I'll do x for y amount of money. I can't understand why it's so unreasonable to want to have x defined in some measure before signing that contract.

Good for you that you have employers that give as well as take but understand that not everywhere is like this, and a culture of working long hours over and above is not positive even though it may have had positive outcomes for you.

tyler - yes I understand that not everyones employers give as well as take.

But also understand (and this is not directed at you but others who have taken your position in this discussion) that:

• putting in more hours does not mean that we are inefficient
• hanging around doing nothing in particular
• being martys
• being exploited

It may be because:

• we get satisfaction from our jobs
• we can see the career path ahead
• dont see our working lives as battle with our bosses / a zero sum game

notrightnow I know I'm swimming against the tide but someone has to and I'm not going to apologise for being of the opinion that people deserve to be rewarded fairly and adequately for the provision of labour, in any circumstances. Just because something is seen as normal doesn't make it right.

I don't have a problem with anyone working all the hours they want to in the week but think that if employers want them to do this then they should be prepared to pay them accordingly and people accepting that they should work x% above their standard working week every week because of a line in their contract that says "and other hours to the extent that these are required in fulfillment of my duties." creates a situation where the balance of power between employer and employee becomes skewed to the extent that it becomes incredibly easy for employers to exploit their workforce. Flexibility in the workplace is great, but I do think that in many cases the balance is tipped too far towards employer taking and employee giving.

Accepting this status quo does not just have consequences for the person carrying out the extra duties but for the workforce as a whole. What happens if circumstances change and you can no longer provide those free hours to your employer? Is it ok for someone who is incredibly talented and able but can "only" work a standard 35-40 hour week but no more to be looked over for promotion opportunities because they are unable to provide their employer with more time free of charge?

Being a professional doesn't mean you are somehow above being taken for a ride by an employer, and thinking that it does is a little naive. Professionals may be better renumerated but often there is still a partnership making a lot of money on the back of all those extra hours that you put in.

"You have a contract with your employer and you chose to give more than your side of the contract allowing your employer to make extra profit for which they don't have to pay you."

That would require my contract to have set working hours. It doesn't. It has guidelines but is clear that I may be required to do more, so the long hours I work are part of the deal I made with my employer. In essence, I get to work on amazing projects, have real responsibility and avoid boredom. In return I sometimes have to do 60 to 90 hour weeks. I knew this when I signed up and I'm happy with it.

Nice one ripeberry.

I shall remember how stupid I am when I can't finish on time/get a break due to delivering a baby or dealing with an emergency.