AIBU not to want to work 60 hours a week?

[DanceWithAStranger]

I really like my job and find it interesting. It's quite a senior role so carries a fair amount of responsibility: I'm decently paid but not nearly as much as I could get in the private sector. I have a professional qualification and want to stay working in my field.

The downside is that I'm working long hours most of the time, and barely seeing DH and DS during the week. I'm seriously beginning to worry about how I'm going to cope with working like this for another 10 years, never mind the 30 I've got till I retire (if I ever do). But every role I've looked at that doesn't assume willingness to work crazy hours is either so dull I could do it in my sleep, or paid so little that we couldn't live on the pay.

The worst of it is that friends in other organisations have it even worse: at least I get enough sleep (when I'm not lying awake worrying about work). Some of them are getting by on 5 hours a night.

AIBU to want an interesting job with some autonomy that still leaves me a bit of time for a life? I don't even want to be part time, just to work 35-40 hours a week instead of 55-60!

It's an interesting dilemma. In theory I think 38 or 40 hours counts as full time? (not actually sure of the number). In practice I don't think anybody actually works that little. The world is now all work, work, work and in some ways it's very sad. I love my job so I don't mind the long hours but I can appreciate how relentless it must seem if you don't.

Binnky well yes it is currently the reality of a senior role, but why should it be? Why shouldn't people want to have both a job with responsibilities and a life outside of work?

Most of these companies are basically just using flattery and a bit of extra cash as a means of exploiting the goodwill of their employees so that they can get away with not employing enough staff and saving money, and there seems to be loads of people who just fall for it. Being in a situation where they are given more work than can be done in their working hours makes them think they are important, and who doesn't love having their ego massaged.

The reality of this situation is that loads of talent is then wasted in the economy simply because some very good people (often women) just don't want this to be the reality of their lives.

Some people do just work their hours. DH is an design engineering contractor, & as he's paid a set rate for a 8.5 hour day, that's what he works. He is paid a fairly good salary (fairly well into higher-rate tax band). Last week a meeting overran by a couple of hours & they told him to just finish earlier the following day. He does no work outside of the office at all, no phone calls and no e-mails. On the odd occasion that he's on-call he gets paid a small allowance just for being on-call, and if he actually has to answer his phone he automatically gets his full day-rate. If they want him to work more hours then they pay him extra.

On the negative side, he gets no sick-pay, no annual leave & no pension. And his contract is up for renewal every 3-6 months. But, he absolutely loves his job, it pays well, & keeps work-life & home-life completely separate.

OTOH, I work in an NHS lab, earn about £10.5k a year working 3 days a week, and frequently end up starting early or finishing late. The trouble with healthcare is you get guilt-tripped into staying - sick patients are waiting anxiously for their results; waiting to find out if they have cancer, or whether their treatment has worked...so you work through lunch & stay late just to get the bare minimum done. Not helped by our current recruitment freeze either!

YANBU and you know it. You're a senior professional and it is not uncommon to have a standard clause in your contract which basically states that you are expected to do the hours necessary to get the job done. I had a similar clause in all my roles in the private sector.

Generally, it usually means that you are well compensated in return and for the most part, people put in extra hours to finish their task due to diligence. In RL, it may not be life or death but customers/colleagues may be peeved off if you didn't get things done by a certain time.

I suffered a little 'burn out' when I worked as a consultant for a global IT company. Late twenties/early thirties, pre-kids, I regularly billed 60+ hrs pw including projects abroad and weekend/BH working. I went to plenty of places where I only saw the hotel and the office plus the car journey in between. Towards the end, I remember doing 16hr days along with the rest of my team (US based). I duly got promoted fairly quickly with hefty payrises - 10% - 15% a time but I got fed up with not even having the time to spend it! I jumped ship to a smaller company where I billed on average 50hrs+ pw.

In the private sector, working to rule will not get you promoted and in many cases, quite the opposite. I think that you need to look for another job and yes, this may not be easy but your post shrieks a little of wanting your cake and eating it too. You do sound dissatisfied and I think you need to actively make a change in your life. My friend spent a decade doing a job because she was too afraid of change - life is too short!

I am in a similar boat (technically 30hr job, but in reality 40-50), self-employed but not really ok ok, I am a GP.

I don't know what the answer is, but I do think they way we work is damaging; not just to us as individuals but also to society, be that because of mistakes we invariably make or because the whole structure of what families used to do together falls apart.

I think this is a problem in a lot of high-powered, high responsibility, high satisfaction jobs (which at least are often well paid), but also for people on low wages who have to work all hours to make ends meet.

I really hope that there is going to be a societal change as this is not sustainable IMO.

Yanbu.
Having given birth go my 2nd child I have made the very difficult decision to leave my beloved, fantastic, rewarding, stimulating, exciting job/career that I have done for the last 22 years.

For that very reason.

I am unable/unwilling to dedicate excessive hours to it any longer.
That means I cannot dedicate 110% to it as I have always done.

So I am about to hand in my notice and start a new chapter at 30 hours a week.

It's been a real wrench, but I can't afford the £750 per month childcare, and I won't do it half heartedly.

Myron, you say that you suffered 'burn-out' from the hours you worked, but then you say that the OP wants to have her cake and eat it. I don't think it's unreasonable at all to want the company to stick to a reasonable number of hours. It should not be possible to opt out of the working time directive - it was created for a reason. Companies should be forced to operate on the basis that no one will do more than 48 hours a week. 9.5 hrs a week is still 8am - 6.30pm, allowing half an hour for lunch. Add commuting on top of that and it becomes close to 12 hours a day that you're not spending at home with your family.

I agree with PacificDogwood that it is damaging to individuals and to society.

I work a 36 hour week. That's full time in the public sector. Sure, you don't earn big bucks, but we earn enough. My BIL is an investment banker earning £££, but he works 13/14 hour days, is away from home multiple times a week and is generally shattered all the time. He has 2 kids aged 7 and 4, whom he can only see at the weekend. It's no sort of life. Despite the big salary he's probably less happy than DH and I, and he and his wife and kids certainly spend a lot less time together.

he and his wife and kids certainly spend a lot less time together

That's the only way some marriage survive

TooExtra I was your BIL in similar area (though corporate lawyer) it nearly finished me off as a young professional with no children the thought of doing that sort of work with children is so sad - you are essentially not there for their childhood.

I don't work really but my dh does and it was fine when they paid him and hourly wage as overtime was paid for so not so bad but then they put him on salary promising better hours (more family time by starting earlier but finishing earlier) he quite often finishes after the kids have already gone to bed now but gets no extra pay and is told he must work the job not the hours. We are worse off in money and in time since he got this "better" contract.

Before he was on around £8/9 ph now his on 21k salary. Working often 7am-7pm, his meant to work 7am-4:30pm but that he can leave early if the job is done but the jobs never done as it's too much work for one person. His been in before at 4am till 7pm and has had his manager tell him

"My wife understands I work she looks after the kids, it's the way it goes. You live to work"

If private sector is better paid, why don't you do that? It's not like the hours will be any worse? They'll probably be better.

If you are public sector and your manager and team are in a similar position, what are the actual consequences of the work getting done in a longer timeframe? Will someone die/be at risk/not be housed?

Has your manager actually asked for additional resources? There are often people who simply accept a rubbish situation, throw up their hands and accept that "there's no budget". Until you all take a step back or go off ill, nothing will change.

I have a next door neighbour who was working similar hours to you, OP. On the rare occasions that I saw her she looked absolutely exhausted. She ended up having such a serious breakdown that she is unlikely to ever work again.

I think that there must always be a point at which it becomes damaging if you can't work effectively because of tiredness.

OP, what's wrong with doing a dull job if it pays the bills and means that you get to spend more time with your family? What's the point of earning a fantastic salary if you never have time to spend it?

mouldyironingboard but why should the OP have to settle for a dull job, wanting to work a standard working week and use your skills and talent shouldn't be asking for that much out of life surely.

It's like we've all been brainwashed.

oscarwilde, trust me, it's possible for the hours to be very much worse in the private sector. At least as things are I can more or less ring-fence weekends.

I'm not sure why wanting to use my abilities without working hours that will eventually make me ill is wanting to have my cake and eat it. I don't want a fantastic salary, I don't want to be a director of a FTSE-100 company, I just want interesting and fulfilling work and enough money to pay all the bills and have a few nice extras.

I perfectly see that you can't be senior and insist on leaving at 5 on the dot regardless of what's happening around you: you have to be willing to be flexible and fight fires when they break out. But that doesn't have to mean working crisis hours all the time.

OP I think you can only work 60 hours pw on a sustained basis if you are particularly driven and absolutely love what you do. My DH always has but he couldn't have if I hadn't been prepared to facilitate it or if I wanted that sort of career too. He loves it; many don't. Somewhere I think you must find a compromise.

Also, I'm in a fairly new job where the volume is ludicrous and people were working 12 hours days. I refused; I made a case; some cuts were made above me vis a vis not very productive people. My team has absorbed some of their duties for which they were grossly overpaid and we have two more administrators. Sometimes you just have to take the bull by the horns.

It was high risk I will admit and did involve me having a difficult meeting where I said I would resign unless changes were made because this wasn't what I signed up to.

You need to consider your net hourly rate - if you do twice as many hours then your nominal hourly rate halves. Then consider that you are paying high rate tax and your net hourly rate plummets even further. You could be earning more on a checkout at Tesco.

How much money is "enough", OP?

There are jobs that allow you to earn a decent wage without working silly hours, but I guess it depends on how much you need to pay the bills.

I don't want to out myself by saying what sector I'm in, but I very rarely work more than 40 hours per week, have a generous holiday entitlement, flexible hours and a good pension. I earn more than enough to pay our modest mortgage and other bills, to save a good proportion of my salary and to cover treats etc. However, we don't live in London, so our expenses are much lower than for others.

Society is set up for the benefit of business, not people. I thought this reading a thread yesterday where the OP was shattered through sleep deprivation with her baby and functioning at work on 3hrs sleep. I think this on threads where people complain they don't get sick pay - something I consider inhumane and hugely damaging to health. No quarter is given for people's lives because work is placed above all other priorities. And it's all generating money for someone else who is getting obscenely rich through exploiting everyone else's fear and desperation. I'm in the public sector where it isn't about generating money and look how scathing people are about us - so many times I read that we shouldn't have the 'luxury' of basic things like a fair pension, sick pay, decent holiday allowance etc because the private sector doesn't provide these and they can't because they must create maximum profits - it's always placed above people's wellbeing. Then others say no on should have children if they can't afford them and I despair that we live in a society where childbearing - a primal, instinctive urge vastly more important than lining the pockets of big corporations - could be restricted to the well-off and poor people should simply dedicate their whole lives to work. We all need something else to live for!

Have gone v off-topic but OP, yes of course you should be able to have a decent work -life balance and an interesting well paid job - no way is that having your cake and eating it!