Meetings outside core hours

[Geezabreak82]

Over the past twenty years I've worked in a variety of organisations that operate a flexible working system with core hours. It tends to mean that I can do my contracted hours with flexibility between 7am and 7pm, but that I am expected to always work the core hours of 10-12 in the morning and 2-4 in the afternoon. Different places I've worked have differed on how strict they are on people stepping away from work during those core hours, but they have all had them in place.

Today I was trying to set up a meeting with a colleague who said she is only prepared to have work meetings during those core hours. She expects to have no work meetings before 10am, between 12-2 and after 4pm EVER! I'm totally prepared to be flexible on when we meet, work around her commitments and make sure the meeting doesn't eat into her lunch break, but I was really surprised to hear that she felt so strongly that meetings should never take place outside of our core hours. Since we are both contracted to do seven hours per day that means she expects to work three hours every day with no meetings. I've checked our staff policies and they provided no clarity on who is right in this situation so I am curious about the experiences of other people who have worked under a similar system do you think...

YABU - it's wrong to expect a colleague to agree to a meeting outside of our core hours, even if we will both be working at that time with no prior engagements

YANBU - as long as both sides are comfortable it's fine to hold a meeting outside of core hours

I think she's misunderstood the idea of core hours too. They don't mean you mustn't schedule things outside those hours but within your day.
I'd ask for clarification from management to be sent to everyone in the company.

There's two separate issues here. She shouldn't automatically refuse any meetings outside core hours unless she has an agreed work pattern, eg she has to leave at 4 pm for childcare pick up or similar.

But if she does that, she must naturally be available before 10 am or in the middle of the day to fit in with others' requirements.

However, I wager that no-one needs to be in so many meetings all or most days, that they don't have time to do other work and I'd definitely question the need for a large majority of the meetings for those who claim to 'spend all day on Zoom'.

Are all these meetings necessary, focussed on the task in hand and productive? Or is it just a lot of chatting, going round in circles, distributing information that could have been in an email etc?

that means she expects to work three hours every day with no meetings

That sounds entirely reasonable to me and like she's taking a structured approach to blocking out her calendar, possibly to help her work effectively.

I also agree with the pp who asked if all these meetings are necessary. I have a handful of colleagues and one manager who want to do everything in a zoom. It's frustrating as hell and totally unnecessary as most of these meetings could have been a quick email or teams exchange. It wastes my time and effort and throws my day out of sync for no benefit.

A couple are also a fan of a good old zoom bomb - no notice, just a call out of the blue where you join and there's 8 others in there and you're asked a question straight away. Awful.

That's crazy. I'd never be able to have a meeting with my Finnish colleagues if everyone insisted on sticking to core hours, as they'd never align!

While, as a starting point for scheduling meetings it could work, flexibility is required from everyone.

My first proper job came with core hours which meant we could be flexible as and when we wanted. So if a meeting is in the way it impinges on what is basically, a contractural right.

Just have the meetings in core hours and stop flapping about it. Or get a job in a company where you don't all have the flexibility. Surely that's her point?

The problem is I guess if you stuck one in at 7.30am and someone else decides to stick one in at 6.30pm then the system fails. If she has childcare arrangements to sort out and share with her DP then it makes sense that there is no last minute jiggling because someone adds a meeting in to her diary at short notice.

Perhaps it should be set up where meetings outside core hours are agreed at least a week before so the other end of the day can be blocked out

I'd like to point out to some posters that meetings are purely a formal expression of colleagues working together either in person or on Teams/Zoom rather than trying to figure things out via email.

I am a Project Manager and have learnt through bitter experience that much is lost in translation if you try and do many things via email. We do have a Teams chat where we fire through quick questions, but there is benefit in discussing things regularly together.

I agree too many meetings are ridiculous, but I hate this blanket attitude of Pah meetings, I prefer to sit and work on my own all the time, as many are very necessary to stop wasting time on doing the wrong thing.

I agree too many meetings are ridiculous, but I hate this blanket attitude of Pah meetings, I prefer to sit and work on my own all the time, as many are very necessary to stop wasting time on doing the wrong thing.

Depends on your job. When I was auditing and cross referencing spend with claim, I needed 3-4 hour blocks with no interruptions and if the best way of doing that was before core hours, or after, then I'm taking it. I also was performance managing and so meetings with fund holders would be between 10 and 12 and 2 and 4 to avoid them cancelling due to their lunch breaks.

We do have a Teams chat where we fire through quick questions, but there is benefit in discussing things regularly together.

we have regular team meetings because they are more effective sometimes. But PP is right, if you have made an exception to have one at 7:30 when you usually start at 9, and then someone expects you to have one on the same day at 6:30pm, you are not unreasonable to say "nope, suggest a different time" and that is why a company request that meetings are held within certain times isn't unreasonable. for one thing it saves a lot of to-ing and fro-ing finding a time when everyone is available.

This also disproportionately (having meetings outside working hours) people who work part-time (therefore disproportionately affects women who are more likely to work part-time than men).

Having said that. In my team we have people who don't work on Mondays, some who don't work on Fridays and some who finish at 3 every day. It is unreasonable of anyone to expect that no meetings will be held when those people can't attend, but it is reasonable to hope that people try to have meetings when the required people are available. Especially where those hours are contractual.

I agree too many meetings are ridiculous, but I hate this blanket attitude of Pah meetings, I prefer to sit and work on my own all the time, as many are very necessary to stop wasting time on doing the wrong thing

Depends on your job. When I was auditing and cross referencing spend with claim, I needed 3-4 hour blocks with no interruptions

Yes, same here. My role involves case management and cases can vary between 30 minutes and 4 or 5 hours to finalise. Some you can pick up and put down, many you really can't and need uninterrupted blocks of time to be able to be productive.

I don't think I understand the benefit of this particular core hour system, it's one you hear a lot - as an outsider, it feels like it gives the illusion of flexibility whilst actually still just being extremely rigid. Does it benefit people? (This is a genuine question, I am interested!)

Thanks for all the responses. It's good to hear that the majority of people seem to agree with me. I tend to agree that bigger meetings and recurring meetings should happen during core hours, but I just need 30 minutes to talk through some areas where our work crosses over to make sure that we are on the same page and not working at cross purposes. If we can meet at 9.30, or 4pm or at some point between 12-2 there are various time slots that would be suitable this week. Otherwise I can't find time in the diary when we are both free until the middle of April (we are both off for a different week at the start of April which doesn't help). Thanks for the tips on how to handle the situation too.

I am also really respectful of people's need for flexible working while we are wfh - I never schedule anything before 9.15 to help accommodate school runs, I avoid scheduling back to back meetings, I would never ask to meet in the middle of the day if it means other would not have time for a lunch break. On that basis I really don't feel it's unreasonable to ask for a bit of flexibility outside of core hours too.

@Favourodds

I don't think I understand the benefit of this particular core hour system, it's one you hear a lot - as an outsider, it feels like it gives the illusion of flexibility whilst actually still just being extremely rigid. Does it benefit people? (This is a genuine question, I am interested!)

The point as I understand it is to make sure there is time when you can get people together for meetings and collaboration. My current employer used to be really rigid about it and expected people to seek permission from their line manager before logging out during core hours even if it was for 20 minutes to pop to the chemist for example. We have been more relaxed since covid, but I wonder if this women's attitude comes from our employers rigidity in the past.

I never schedule anything before 9.15 to help accommodate school runs,

4pm seems to run into this though?

@Brefugee

I never schedule anything before 9.15 to help accommodate school runs,

4pm seems to run into this though?

Yeah, school finishes right in the middle of the afternoon 'core hours'. Many people at my work who have kids have some form of wraparound childcare so that they are not doing school pick-up in the afternoon so it's not as big an issue as the drop-off in the morning. I do have a few colleagues who take 30 mins - an hour on a regular basis to do pick ups and that time is blocked out in the diary as unavailable for meetings. Pre-covid that wouldn't have been possible, but as I said we're much more flexible now. I don't know if there's a case for changing core hours to 10-2 or 9.30-2.30 to better accommodate parents of school aged kids, but I don't know how that would go down with non-parents, and it also makes lunch breaks more complicated.

tbh as a working parent i always accepted that sometimes lunch "breaks" would be spent working and sandwich at desk later. I also had a very unhelpful and family unfriendly workplace when my DCs were small so since then I've made sure that anywhere i work doesn't just talk-the-talk when it comes to work-life balance. (for everyone, not just parents).

And i suppose it depends on so many things: are you trying to make a career or is it a job to pay bills is a big one for me. It is fine not to want to progress so turning down meetings probably won't affect you. But if you (general you) want to make a career you do have to compromise sometimes. I used to work it out with my DH how many times he could cover (shiftworker) me being late, how many times he could take them to school so i could do early starts etc etc, and it was a struggle but i did get promotions and things where other people didn't.

But i do have to say, i am much much more aware of what our team is asking of people if we insist on a 7:30 am meeting, or a 8pm meeting.

I can't vote because your YABU and YANBU are not opposites. "As long as both sides are comfortable" - well clearly one side isn't comfortable. So do you mean YABU = all meetings should be held in core hours and YANBU = meetings can be scheduled outside core hours even if that doesn't suit one party?

I think she's being unreasonable. She could certainly have a preference for meetings in those times, and I can see it could be better for time management. But for just two people I think it's a good idea to try and remain flexible on all sides.

Unreasonable response, sorry you work with such a colleague.

Our staff policy does specify that meetings should be within core hours. For one-on-ones, I'd schedule outside that with the other persons agreement, e.g. I have a team member who works 10-7 as I do, so often meet at 5 or 6. My boss always (and I really do mean always) schedules our meetings for 9 or 9.30, without a heads-up, meaning I have to reorganize my day completely, only for him to move the meeting to another day at the last minute. Nine a.m. is in his normal working hours, not mine. He's not scheduling them at 6 p.m., i.e. during my working hours and outside his. So it depends a lot how you approach it.

Also, I have a job that needs high concentration for an hour-plus (a spare half an hour is pretty useless to me). Job role is going to make a difference in who is unreasonable.

I think you are both right (getting splinters here from the fence!)

Yes she works a 7 hour day so should have meetings outside core hours.

BUT it is reasonable to expect a period of 3 hours a day (at least) to actually get on with work, rather than simply talking about it on Zoom/with people.

People have too many meetings.

My boss always (and I really do mean always) schedules our meetings for 9 or 9.30, without a heads-up, meaning I have to reorganize my day completely, only for him to move the meeting to another day at the last minute

yes I have this frequently as well. I have no idea why my time is worth so little compared with everyone else he bumps me for...if I have something in my diary I tell someone I have something in my diary and we find another time but I seem to be the only one who thinks that way. It is particularly annoying if you work from home and go into the office especially for a meeting and it only gets cancelled at the last minute when you are on the train or on arrival in the office.

@yellowsuninthesky

I think you are both right (getting splinters here from the fence!)

Yes she works a 7 hour day so should have meetings outside core hours.

BUT it is reasonable to expect a period of 3 hours a day (at least) to actually get on with work, rather than simply talking about it on Zoom/with people.

People have too many meetings.

Oh I agree that people have too many meetings!