That replying to work emails on the train IS working?

[managedmis]

Jury seems to be out on this one at work so thought I'd ask on her.

I commute 2 hours per day to get to work, an hour there and back. I have my work email on my phone and reply /send emails when I'm on the train. Note that my role is admin based, so always loads of emails to respond to etc.

I consider that this is work.

What do you think?

@Tilltheendoftheline
However, I think that what also needs to change is attitudes that working from home means you take the piss. I have worked for several companies that allow WFH or trialled it. Unfortunately, in all cases a large portion took the piss
Whilst I agree that there is always a certain contingent within any workforce that will see WFH as more annual leave, I think this problem could largely be solved by employers tightening performance metrics and defining clearly what is expected from their employees.

I have been astounded in the past by the lengths that some people will go to whilst at work to be completely unproductive. I have seen colleagues scouring the intranet looking up completely irrelevant information, spending far too long having chats about issues that have nothing to do with what they're actually working on and of course people sitting for hours in meetings/workshops contributing very little and spending most of the time tapping away on their phone or staring out of the window. Being present at work doesn't mean that you're working or being productive so the real question is how do we make sure that everybody is doing what they should be irrespective of how or where they do the work?

Some roles will obviously be more dependent on being in your place of work so for example it probably doesn't make sense for a receptionist or hairdresser to WFH. For other roles though such as OP, there is probably some work that could be completed remotely without any detriment to business operations such as answering emails. So for example if OP's employer felt that OP should be able to answer say 100 emails within a 40 hour week in conjunction with her other duties then assuming this was a realistic target, why couldn't she respond to some of these emails on the train? If she is less productive on the train than in the office then she may not be able to meet her targets without doing some additional time in the office or at home. Ultimately though it would provide employees such as OP with some much needed flexibility and provide her employer with a way to tangibly check that OP is doing what is expected and is being a productive member of staff even if some of her working hours are undertaken on a train.

OP isn't talking WFH though.

Well it's a quite noticeable undercurrent to me and given the gender pay gap I think we ignore this kind of unconscious bias at our peril.

I don't think it's a case of big important men Vs junior women.

I think it's a case of "people who have roles and contracts that allow for that type of working / people who travel for business beyond their normal place of work and therefore have an agreed working pattern" Vs "people who check their work emails on their commute and think that constitutes claiming for a shorter working day".

Plus, there's also nothing to say that those people who are properly working on their commute are classing it as their working day. I know many people who do hours beyond their contract because it's part of delivering their professional duties and some work out of office hours is a reasonable expectation (so what they do out of working hours is in addition to their core hours).

That's why it's so dangerous for people like the OP to try and find out if they can count their choice to email on their commute as as on to justify reducing hours when they're deliberately being vague about crucial detailsm

If we were being cynical it seems like they knew phrasing it with such vagueries would turn into a gender debate (which isn't relevant to their situation) or a flexible working/work from home/presenteeism debate (again not relevant for their situation).

I wish we could get away from bums on seats culture. I consider that I start work when I log onto my laptop at 7.30am. I arrive in the office at 8.15 have spent at least 30 minutes working. I work with a man who constantly goes on about how he works longer hours than me as he's in the office at 7.30 every day.

He is in the office at that time, but he's making breakfast, chatting with colleagues (not about work), and generally avoiding work.

I know which I'd rather, if I were the employer.

I also dislike the idea that high paid men in business class are clearly doing Very Important Work on the train and won't be called out on it while more junior women are "faffing about with their phones while staring out of the window" and taking the piss. If work can be done effectively on the train then in principle that work can be done by anyone.

This is just ridiculous. I am a director of a fairly large company and female. People sat in business class and working, are more than likely travelling for work. Not on their daily commute.

Just like when I drive to my office it's my commute. When I drive to our nottingham office, thats classed as working hours because I am travelling for work.

There a huge difference between your commute and travelling for work.

And even if some of those people, men and women, do do a long commute in business class everyday, and adding it to their commute time, that probably has been pre agreed because the company really wants them.

I am a well earning, parent (was a single parent till the beginning of this year) and get paid more than my male equivalents. Because the company wanted me and had to make it worth my while.

This isnt about the sex of the person working on the train. It's about the circumstances and differences. the main difference being the Ops employers expectations and wether they agree or not.

I wish we could get away from bums on seats culture.

depends on the job, depends on the staff.

In some work places, you can see productivity fall down drastically when the boss is not in. In other places, people are adult and get on with their work without clock watching.

Some staff needs to be in an office. If an entire team is supposed to answer phone calls, someone doing less hours is giving more work to the other. Doesn't work.

Sending work emails on your phone doesn't scream of a very productive time - technically I can do that from my hairdresser. Would you accept people to spend part of their working hours having a hair cut?

I work better from home, some people don't.

depends on the job, depends on the staff. Depends on the boss too - some just prefer to be able to see people working or they aren't happy that work is being done and this does not depend on the job or the staff!

Would you accept people to spend part of their working hours having a hair cut?

Yup. To be honest as long as the work was done, we weren’t interested where it was being done. But as I said earlier we were in an industry where productivity was easy to measure

Answering emails during your commute is the same as answering one as your grilling the chicken for dinner. It’s working but not work hours.

It's funny how we used to pay people double time for working outside their normal hours now we expect people to answer emails during their time off and not only do we not pay them extra, we don't think we should pay them at all!

@ToBeShared who is being expected to work outside their hours?

who is being expected to work outside their hours?

Lots of people are expected to be always "on" - being expected to answer an email while you're grilling chicken!

We need to move away from seeing work time as only when in the office. Modern technology makes work accessible at any time. If you choose to do emails during your commute then that is working. If you work at home you can now access the exact same systems and do the same job as you can in the office. Unless your boss specifically tells you not to work on the train etc then it's work. I have a screen guard on my laptop so emails/the screen cannot be overlooked by nosy passengers

who is being expected to work outside their hours?

not everybody has "hours" to be done. Some of us have to justify their figures and results, but would be laugh at if showing a countdown of their hours.

Some people are also expected to see past "working hours", but that's what commissions and bonuses are for. Anyone trying to do a 9 to 6 around me won't last, it's doesn't work like that, but you're paid accordingly. What you see as extra hours is part of the package.

It doesn't mean you don't get over-time when applicable. It depends on the role, on the level and the pay package 🤷

When the IT department is working over the weekend to do... some upgrade or other (no idea... ), they are paid over-time. When someone spends a couple of hours dealing with a client requirement, that's not over-time.

If you choose to do emails during your commute then that is working.

no.

if you discuss and your company agrees, that might be. You don't decide on your own

Lots of people are expected to be always "on" - being expected to answer an email while you're grilling chicken!

Who said they were expected to answer an email while grilling chicken.

Someone gave that as an example. The OP chooses to work on her commute. Nowhere did she say it was expected.

It's funny how we used to pay people double time for working outside their normal hours now we expect people to answer emails during their time off and not only do we not pay them extra, we don't think we should pay them at all!

Choosing to check emails on your phone or devices out of working time is either a reasonable part of you job (some professions some additional has always been the norm) or it's directed overtime and should be logged and recorded as such.

Modern technology is great. It offers the opportunity for more flexible working patterns. It also allows for people who choose to do work out of work to then complain about it or try to use it to avoid working their actual hours.

Many teachers will be lesson planning today and marking. They are typically contracted to work 32 hours a week. They aren't going into work tomorrow saying they should have Friday off as they've done 8 hours on the weekend.

Equally, when I hear colleagues replying to parents by email at 10pm because they have notifications through to their phone I roll my eyes. Nobody has directed them to do that. They're not more deserving of a reduction in hours than the people who reply in the working day.

@LolaSmiles i agree with your post. in my (public sector) organisation answering emails at night, doing excessively long hours and significantly outside core hours is stigmatised. We are frequently told by management not to do stupid hours (a) because it isn't healthy and (b) because we are not direct to, or expected to work punishing hours. It isn't required and it has had the effect of not giving license to people to use it as a badge of honour. It can come across as someone either trying to make a point about how hard working they are, or that they aren't in control of their time management. And answering emails on annual leave is a no-no!

It reduces stress levels because people are given achievable deadlines and not thrashed to within an inch of their lives for not doing 3 people's jobs at breakneck speed! Been there, done that, never again!

@daisychain01 And answering emails on annual leave is a no-no! Not true on all parts of the civil service - I got excited when dh left the private sector to join the civil service - I thought finally some normal hours but it was not the case and those who worked 9-5 did not get promoted and I can think of a couple of holidays where he needed to handle a decision that came out of Government - annual leave would have been a poor excuse for not having the correct response to outside agencies.

Indeed, @ToBeShared I can't speak for the whole of the Civil Service, let's face it, Government is a huge employer. If there was a decision coming from Government that your DH needed to address, then that wouldn't be frowned on at all, quite the reverse.

It's when the person can't let go, responding to less that critical work that could easily have waited until they were back on duty.

@managedmis OP I agree it is ‘working’, however, if you are counting that in hours worked for a time sheet I would say that is very iffy as there’s no requirement for you to be doing your emails on the train and if for some reason you weren’t able to (phone died, personal phone call, no signal) then you would equally be entitled to read, listen to a podcast, snooze etc! I think travel to your normal place of work should not be considered actual hours worked.

I think the problem with this thread is people are projecting their own work culture and everywhere is different. Dh while in the private sector eventually decided to reclaim hours after he had worked 60 hours in a week - it didn't matter where he had worked those hours - they were worked and they took him away from doing something he chose to do - even reading a book on the train.
I have heard loads of crap from his past employers about give and take when it came to hours worked - work overtime loads of overtime to get a project finished on time and then you can have loads of time off in lieu but everyone knew this was frowned upon - no one took time off.

@daisychain01 When Dh got promoted in the civil service to the point where he had his own PA - the guy who had the job before dh had tried to get her sacked - she was on written warnings because he wanted her at her desk 9-5 and she was a single mum who had to drop her son off to school. Dh refused to sack her, and they learned to work around the problem, (she did a bit of work outside the office) - this was not because she was an amazing PA but she was good enough and dh believes in flexibility and being human - that approach has served him well.

I think the problem with this thread is people are projecting their own work culture and everywhere is different
Partially, but what strikes me the most is how many people have been able to say "this has been my experience but it depends on so many factors" (conveniently all factors the OP hasnt or won't mention in a bid to get the response she wants, which suggests that whatever may work in a range of examples on here the OP knows they're trying to swing an easier life).