re office cultures where people are expected to work beyond contracted hours

[user1485342611]

Just following on from the 100% attendance thread, AIBU to think there's nothing wrong with working the hours you're contracted to work and then going home and getting on with other things.

There just seems to be a growing attitude that anyone who leaves work at 5.30 every evening lacks ambition or commitment or drive or whatever, even if they're hitting their deadlines and doing the work they're supposed to do.

Obviously, there's times when you have to be flexible and hang on a bit later than usual to get something finished on time, or help a colleague out. But surely that should be the exception rather than the rule?

Whenever I see these threads there's always a couple of people saying 'yes, but if you're salaried, you're not being paid for your hours - you're being paid to do a job, in whatever time it takes' and I always think that is such bollocks.

If that were the case, then surely if you finish your work early you go home early, or piss around on facebook, or take a long lunch. But of course you don't, and of course you're expected to ask for more work to do if you're getting it all done too quickly because this flexibility invariably works in the favour of the employer.

I've worked in these places and while, yes, they were often willing to be OK with me popping out to go to the dentist, the 2 hours once a year were dwarfed by the additional 10 hours + every single week.

I also detest the fact that in a lot of the big commercial environments where this is rank these expectations spread from the high earners (and I get that if you're being paid six figures, you put the work in) to their PAs and admin and you get workers who really aren't paid that well.

I work in the third sector now and have flexi-time, so if I want to go to the doctor in work hours I can, but I make the time up later. Equally, if I work evenings and weekends (which I often do), then I get the time back. It is genuinely fair.

In my industry we work to our day. If we have to go over our day we book it and get paid the additional time worked. Obvisoly this creates a culture where the employer does not push you to work over your day unless completely necessary. And we can still say no anyway. But then we have strong unions in our industry and as a collective protect our rights. The unions and t&c' s have totally come under the thumb in most industries.

In all the industries I've worked in and know of, if you consistently pulled a 9-5 day when those around struggled or took an hour for lunch everyday, then you would be fired.

Its not right but those earning the big bucks are not home in time for bathtime and quite frankly it sucks.

It seems to me that in the high earning jobs my friends and colleagues do, they are doing 1.5 jobs not just 1.

lsaLund However, in addition, teachers must work "such reasonable additional hours as may be necessary to enable the effective discharge of the teacher’s professional duties".

That is a pretty standard term in any salaried contract? (certainly been in every work contract I've had since leaving uni)

yes, but if you're salaried, you're not being paid for your hours

That's the case in the USA, I believe. But in the UK and the rest of the EU you are paid to perform Contractual Hours. Of course, as others have pointed out, in many roles you could not do your job if you stuck to this and would be harshly judged if you did.

I've seen a change from when I started working to now in which long hours and working through lunch has become more and more expected. Does anyone else remember every Friday lunch going to the pub.

Notreallyme my working conditions sounds similar to yours. I am salaried and that is based on working 7.25 hours a day. If we do extra hours we can take the time back as TOIL.

I work in the public sector and when my excellent manager retired (she believed that if you couldn't do the job in your contracted hours then there was a bigger problem) we interviewed for her position. I remember the senior manager (who I get on very well with and who values my opinions) asked one of the candidates what her pet hate in a job was and she said clock watchers. In the debrief after the interview I told senior manager I couldn't possibly work for someone who held those views (I am a mother of two small DDs and have to commute to and from London always rushing around dropping one off at wrap around care and the other at nursery). Thankfully we are an organisation that promotes work/life balance and senior manager agreed with me. She didn't get the job.

We now have a manager who is totally the opposite and really relaxed. We always get the work done, help out colleagues when needed and have a happy working environment

Crinkle77 - yes - that's pretty similar to mine. I do tend to build up the flexi during busy periods, but take it back.

I tend to think that if you can't do your job in your contracted hours, that either means you're incompetent or badly managed. Probably the latter.

I'm not going to a be a career high flyer on six figures. Therefore I'm not willing to slog my guts out. I do my job effectively during working hours. I'm not doing work for free.

I've worked as an NHS medical secretary and the pay was really quite bad.

I've worked as a PA in the City - always took my lunch hour and left on time. I did have a Blackberry I checked on my commute to and from work.

I'm now a civil servant and we have flexi. On a Friday afternoon the office is dead! I don't have a blackberry now either.

I work part time in a shop - turn up at 9, go home at 2 - go grab a cuppa whenever it is quiet - bliss. Training paid, cover for others paid, annual leave paid if not taken. bliss...

Wages low and crappy, but work life balance FANTASTIC.

Linklaters Germany has just offered some lawyers £80k instead of £120k a year if they choose to work a strict 40 hour week for work life balance reasons, rather than the much longer hours they work for the higher pay. I think you also lose the chance of seniority too

it sounds a really bad deal to me. Always pick the longer hours and leave your husbands to deal with children and clean the house! Worked for me.

Im glad i work for the Civil Service. We have flexi working. Some days i do 10.30 hours, other days i do 5 hours.

At my current job we can start between 9.30-12.30 and leave between 6.30-8.00. My new job is start between 7.00-9.30 and finish 3.30-6.30.

Its great and makes everyone much happier. You know if you do an extra 1.5 hour every day that in 1 week you have made a day to take off.

Ill never understand why a workplace offers 1h lunch then complains about it being used. Just offer 30mins!

I really disliked the presenterism culture of private practice (solicitor). Some times something is that urgent and you have to just suck it up to get it done but I worked with so many people who regularly faffed about until 3pm then made a big deal of working until 8 or 9pm.

I now work in house and again occasionally something is just that urgent etc but generally the office is practically empty by 5.30pm and senior management will walk around and encourage people to go home or check if they need assistance.

Yellowcups You are so right about people who earning the big bucks not being home for bath time. It also sucks that those same people are continually targeted to pay more tax and don't get Child Benefit.

Napqueen because employers effectively get 30mins time for nothing - or it's perceived that way.

I worked with so many people who regularly faffed about until 3pm then made a big deal of working until 8 or 9pm

This is extreeeemely common in most industries. Actually it's quite natural that some people feel more productive earlier/later in the day than others. What's illogical is making those who work best from 3pm to 9pm go to work at 9am in the morning!

The NHS is propped up by people who never get to leave work on time. There's a strong culture of staying late to finish lots of jobs, and both unspoken and explicit policies of not employing enough staff for departments (keeping posts empty for long periods of time saves a lot of money on salaries), yet expecting existing staff to cope with the by no means diminishing workloads.

If my DH leaves work before 6.30 or 7, he considers that an early finish. He's only supposed to stay until 5 unless on call. He has also given up many evenings doing additional clinics to help reduce waiting list times. Has he had any of the extra pay that he is supposed to have been given? Has he ever. We are waiting for a good three months now since he put in his claim.

Junior doctors often complete their rotations without having signed contracts, and there are not many where I worked who could confidently tell you what their actual salary is or should be. Sometimes the banding of the job was a mystery until the first payslip came (if it got delivered to the correct doctors room).

Just as well most junior doctors aren't in it for the money. It's pretty thankless. And J Hunt hasn't improved matters. I genuinely can't see myself going back to work in the NHS as a doctor in the foreseeable future (have 3 kids at home and a fourth on the way so took time out to stay with them while they were small).

I worked in one of the big accountancy firms in a department with such a toxic culture of presenteeism in the 90's that, not only were you expected to never leave for at least an hour-plus after the end of the day, it was also unofficially expected that you would regularly show up (unpaid) on Saturday morning too. Not because anything major was going on requiring extra work, just as a matter of course.

I have never been so miserable at work in my entire life.

My last boss asked me to show my commitment by staying late but at the time he wasn't giving me enough work to keep my day occupied never mind an evening. He lost my commitment treating me like that.

My current job, career office role, I do my hours and go home unless I'm not getting things done. This is viewed in a good light there oddly and keeps me committed in a market where I now have my choice. A colleague spends all day faffing and works probably on average an extra two to three hours a day to get his work done, he'll tell you he's overworked, he's just inefficient. Although he thinks his martyr act is viewed well its not and when he threatened to quit he didn't get the protestations he wanted so soon sgut up.

I deliberately sought out a company that didn't have a culture of presenteesism and happily took a £10k paycut to work there. Worth every penny. I get in at 8.30 and leave at 4.30 pretty much every day, and work from home when I need to. It's becoming easier to find places like my work, I think, if that's what you prioritise when job-hunting. They just don't pay the big bucks! But for DH and I, work-life balance is more important. We moved out of London to find roles like this and although we miss the city, we're still very happy that we did.

In my industry, you won't get far with a 9-5 mentality. I usually work 7:30-6 when I'm in the office but am able to balance things as needed when I work from home. Work from home is tough though - I usually do my full working day plus evenings when kids gone to bed. Sometimes I'll do urgent work on the weekends to but that's rare.

In my London job I was in the office at 8 and rarely left before 7, and was expected to answer emails over the weekend and in the evening. That kind of commitment was expected from almost everyone at every level. Toxic.

I am a lawyer, but not in a big city firm. I don't get paid mega bucks so I don't expect to do unpaid overtime. I have a CV which would enable me to get paid £££ in a big commercial firm, but took a decision a few years ago that life was too short to spend 14 hours a day in front of a screen.