AIBU to expect my staff to work overtime or more than just 9-5

[TeeterTotter]

I manage a large team of 20 staff and I have two members of my team who refuse to do anything beyond the core hours in their contract. In at a set time, out the door right on the dot like clockwork.

If these staff members were junior I wouldn't expect more of them but they are both on a managerial salary of £41-£44k per year --I think at this level there is a general expectation that you're generally more engaged and committed and that you'll work at home or stay late when needed. I also feel times have changed and in these dicey financial times people are giving more to their jobs than ever. In a perfect world no one would have extra work or overtime, but that's just not the way things are in 2012!

One of the staff members is a mom to 2 kids and she says it is impossible for her to stay late (due to childcare commitments) or to do work on weekends (she's too busy with the kids); the other is a single guy who has no appetite to do more than he's contracted to do.

I find this situation very irksome, especially because I have two kids but do a lot of late nights and work from home, which I think is expected at my level.

DP thinks I need to stop imposing my protestant work ethic on everyone I work with, but I feel these staff members aren't pulling their weight. I'm not a slavedriver but I expect more. Are I reasonable or are my views skewed? I would really welcome the opinion of others.

Ah cross posted with some other replies, thanks so much (am new to this so sorry if I'm gushing but its just great to get this feedback).

Littlebearpad, thats the only conclusion I can think of as what happens is as soon as I get one of the email questions I feel rude for not replying, therefore switching off is the only way as what I don't know about I don't know about! My dh said same thing its prob just when he thinks of stuff and doesn't need an immediate reply but some recent weekend ones (get a life!) didn't have that vibe at all and weren't at all urgent.

Roasted, if it is affecting you/your relationship you need to push back. It's unreasonable to expect an employee to answer emails 24/7 unless you are very senior (i.e. Board Director) in which case the company pretty much owns you! You need to set your own boundaries because it's fairly clear that a lot of managers are incapable of doing this on your behalf.

If it makes you feel better, then perhaps meet him halfway by responding to (his) emails once or twice over the weekend at a set time. If that's not enough for him then I think you need to start looking for a job with a decent manager.

I agree with your DH. Also 40k isn't a wonderful top salary.

You are obviously wanting to unreasonably eek every bit of blood and sweat out of your workers. Why should people work for free when they are contracted for set hours? There is a huge emphasis on work life balance these days for good reason. The workaholic culture isn't healthy.

"I also feel times have changed and in these dicey financial times people are giving more to their jobs than ever. In a perfect world no one would have extra work or overtime, but that's just not the way things are in 2012!"

OP, your statement above really irked me. Posters might have been nicer if you hadn't implied that it's OK for employers to expect more during a recession because staff are desperate to keep their jobs, and that anyone who doesn't agree with you is out of step with the times.

My work hours are 10 - 8, four days a week. I don't like being late, so generally in by 9.30 ish, and potter around doing things to prepare for the days business. It is not expected of me, but I have a lovely boss who will, once every couple of weeks say 'oh it's a bit quiet today, and the phones are dead, why don't you bugger off home a couple of hours early?' It's never expected, but it's a lovely bonus, being given few hours to yourself as a suprise !

OP - if you are expecting staff to give you a couple of hours willing a week, then consider awarding random afternoons off (keeping records yourself to keep it fair) it's only right.

The point you haven't addressed, as far as I can see, is whether these members of staff are completing the work required in the time available. If the job is done correctly, then they've earned their money.

If the nature of the business is such that employees are required to work extra hours, then their contracts have not been structured correctly. That's not the fault of your staff, it's the fault of the HR dept .

You say you're not a slavedriver but that you "expect more"- more what? More hours in work than you're willing to pay for? More hours in work than it takes to do the job? Why the hell should someone who has already completed their work efficiently miss their childcare deadline (or pay extra) because your "protestant work ethic" renders you unable to see any worth in anything other than presenteeism?

If you have an issue with the work produced by these members of staff, then go through your company's performance management or capability procedures. If their workload is too great to complete the work in the time available, then as the manager you should manage the distribution of work / staffing more effectively.

Your attitude that employees should allow their employment rights to be trampled all over because of the current economic situation is coming across as pretty heartless. Actually- are you one of CallMeDave's researchers?

Oh, yes, OP, so they're not coming to Britain, to go somewhere else. Let's just see how long that lasts. See how long.

'History, will teach us nothing.'

People aren't being mean.

In the case of the woman with children to pick up, what exactly do you expect her to do?

I leave at 5pm and barely get to nursery in time for pick up - I can not leave late on a regular basis. If I do it's only because my husband can go there instead (we normally travel together).

But I work bloody hard. I either get my work done in the day or I take it home when necessary. It annoys me that colleagues who potter about in the day stay late and then act the martyr, as if they're working late for the team and I'm not. I work much, much harder than they do and my output is much greater, but they are more visible and so it gets noticed more. Winds me up.

As a result I would now rather earn less and not be expected to take any work home. I can't escape the fact I have childcare to go back to. If you hire men and women of a certain age then some of them will have responsibilities as soon as work finishes for the day.

Those people who work all hours usually have a supportive partner or don't have families and have the luxury of being able to spread their working time out if they fancy it.

If no one in a company can get their job done within working hours, and they're all working reasonably hard in the day, then you don't have enough staff.

I don't earn anywhere near 40k and have a relatively senior job, but I still don't think it's enough money to automatically expect staff to stay late.

op you're not a v good manager if you get huff and strop off when disagreed with
is this what youre like in work?
you asked question and no likey answer

YABU. When I was working, 40 hours, 5 days a week our manager used to expect people to work overtime. This was easy for single people who only had themselves to think about. They were the ones who were favoured. You sound like a horrible manager.

I'd say YANBU with the clarifications OP has offered.

You aren't alone, but I'd venture to say if they are meeting their workload and targets YABU. DH said his boss, when conducting an efficiency review, tacitly expected 50 hour weeks from everyone.

This simply isn't possible for everyone. I sympathise though - when deciding the rewards though consider if those people working longer are translating it into good output. If not their longer hours mean sod all. I generally question people who work very long hours anyway - are they in fact just inefficient?

OP, your statement above really irked me. Posters might have been nicer if you hadn't implied that it's OK for employers to expect more during a recession because staff are desperate to keep their jobs, and that anyone who doesn't agree with you is out of step with the times.

It isn't unreasonable though, it's just practical. In both public and private sector, times are hard and people have lost their jobs. In the public sector that means fewer people trying to deliver the same level of service. In sections of the private sector, it means more competition and fewer people around to deliver the contracts when they're won. If some employees won't put in a few extra hours to deliver in this situation, other people have to cover for them. Is that fair? Until I left last year, I put in a lot of extra hours as I thought as the manager I got the money to put in extra effort, but I also needed my team to do extra hours sometimes. They did, because they fully understood that the budget wouldn't cover more staff and we still had to deliver the work. Because everyone was willing to do it, it impacted on people's home lives as little as possible. People could go and see their children in the nativity play because others were happy to cover any emergency work, knowing that others would do it for them. That's what team work should be.

Nowt to do with the recession. Just a different kind of working.

Salaried jobs you are expected to get a certain amount of work done.

Pay per hour jobs you are expected to be there fore those hours.

It's not "overtime".

If they are clockwatching then it makes me feel that they may not be working as hard as they could be during the hours that they are there, they are trying to get to the end of a shift, not to achieve a goal.

I think this study is worth a read. It is from 1998, but it takes a long time to change attitudes when so many businesses are shortsighted in their leadership and care more for the short term output of staff than the long term benefits of not expecting staff to regularly work long hours.

Bogeyface is talking nonsense. As a director I would expect managers and supervisors to inspire staff and show varying degrees of "leadership". Day to day employees may see very little of the CEO, and need the managers to "translate" the leadership and inspiration to their departments and their staff. It is part of management.

I agree Quintessential.

But there is a middle ground between "regularly working long hours" and "never working a minute past 5".

I agree that if people in responsible positions are working exactly to the letter of their contract and no more it could be a sign that they are unhappy with how they are being treated (as some said earlier)

Or it could be a sign that they have to be at the daycare in time.

I think its about showing willing. Yes some people have to collect children every day and are restricted to times. Fine. I doubt anyone would actually want them to be late for collecting their child, or for anything else important. I had a train to catch yesterday and was booted out of work by a colleague as I was cutting it fine.

It's about showing willing and looking for solutions rather than just saying "not possible, sorry". So, an hour from home. Or, cant work tonight, but can come in a bit early in the morning. Or can work late on Friday.

Not all the time. Not about presenteeism. About not constant clock watching, a sense of responsinikity for own work and a willingness to be flexible where possible.

Thanks for the link Quintessential.

I dislike the attitude held by some employers (seemingly including yourself OP) that you're only entitled to a decent salary if you're willing to regularly work nights and weekends, especially "in these dicey financial times". It's no way to live. People have families and other interests. If you can't get the work covered then employ more staff.

SHRIEK - yes, that's fair enough, if people are on a decent salary anyway.

"hire more staff" is very simplistic. Many simply can't afford to. The other option isbto go bust and then all staff are out of a job.

SHRIEK - so pay them less. Yes it's simplistic but it's not acceptable IMO to expect staff to regularly work weekends and evenings. It is the company's responsibility to find a solution.

"pay them less" rarely goes down well, and depending on size of company etc can be a long drawn out process.
Yes it's the company's responsibility to find a solution. Opinion appears to be divided as to whether the people working there also have a responsibility to be part of the solution or not.

Just as in relationships, I think you will find that there has to be a certain subtle give and take in the employer employee relationship. Not just the employer taking and the employee giving all the time.

In my first "serious" job, the official working hours were 9-17. I hardly ever left work before 8pm. It was not possible. There were program updates taking place any time between 6-7pm, we had to stay around until after the updates, to see if what we had programmed (Internet sector) in or scheduled were successful. If not, we had to fix it, and it could take any time between 20 minutes to an hour. If many team members had fixes to do, it would take a while. We therefore regularly had 11-12 hour working days. Pretty much every day of the week.

Even staying till 11pm, after working 14 hours, was it possible to be a couple of minutes late.

No overtime was paid. No time off in lieu. I still remember the anger, disappointment, and not to mention the resentment I felt when coming to work 9.15 one morning, I had overslept, I did not get home till midnight the night before. I was told. "You start work 9am sharp. I do not want to see anybody swan in at 9.15. Not even working late is an excuse. We all work late on occasion".

It was a shit place to work. Later they rearranged the program updates to take place 1pm and 5 pm, and this meant that it was actually possible to leave on time. But for a workplace to rely on staff to be at work 9 am sharp, and stay 3 hours late daily because the procedures they have in place would make you negligent if you leave on time, is just not on.