To think employers are taking the piss? Extended working hours.

[FrostyNethers]

Looking for a new job in admin.

Many jobs are being advertised with working hours of 8am-5pm, 9am-6pm, 8.30am-5pm or even 8am-6pm!

Where are all the 9-5s which you used to see?

Its not like the pay is higher for these jobs, it’s actually low in the region of £20-25k.

I though we worked the longest hours in Europe already!

AIBU to think this is a piss take?

I don’t know why so many people put up with being taken advantage of. They almost sound proud of it.

The Protestant work ethic has a lot to answer for.

i utterly agree ,it feels like we have been really regressing in wages, terms and conditions and job security this century, probably because a lot of employers who couldn't get British workers to do the work always had a ready supply of other nationalities (both skilled and unskilled) happy to work for less ££ or poorer T's&C's - we've gradually become a low wage ,low skill economy rather than the govt & employers being willing to invest in education and skills training & treat their workers well.

I had an awful job which was 8.30-5, but it included an hours lunch. Which really no one took and you really weren’t expected to take, and you weren’t really expected to leave at 5. Horrible place.

Places take the piss. When you have to commute on top it takes your whole life away.

I work 8.30-4, Civil Service in Ireland. 35 hours a week, half hour unpaid lunch. 3 days WFH a week. I can take up to 2 hours lunch and start anytime between 8-10am, finish between 4-7pm. As long as I do 140 hours every 4 weeks it's flexible how I get there. I took a 10 grand pay drop when I joined from the private sector, and it's taken me 4 years and a promotion to get back to where I was before, but worth it in my eyes.

We’re 40 hours basic but all of the leadership team work more. I enjoy my job and we are well paid and have a huge amount of flexibility with working hours when required so it works for me. When I lost my dm I took 6 weeks off and I was paid in full (I didn’t think this was unusual but friends have told me it is not standard for bereavement). I also finish early/start late as my family requires without query or explanation (usually at least once a week, but this half term I’ve taken time out every day so far for various reasons). Because we put the hours in they are happy for us to take time when needed.

That being said it is quite tiring, particularly when you add in exercise and family time and I’m exhausted by Friday. But I need the flexibility right now and I know I wouldn’t get that anywhere else. It’s only the give and take makes it worthwhile, without that I’d be looking for a 9-5 too!

I’ve noticed this too. I used to work 35 hours a week which made it easier to do compressed hours. Now lots of places are 37.5 hours a week and one employer wanted me to work 9-6 and got annoyed when I took a lunch break. The bosses worked remotely but always phoned the office to speak to me at lunch time to check I was there.

I've worked 9 til 530 all my working life(22 yrs) at various firms. This is usually between 8 and 6 with significant flexibility but nowadays anything goes for a FT week of 37.5 hours

I work 8.30-4.30 or 9-5 depending on the day, and I am nearly always out of there on the dot. I get an (unpaid) 30 minute lunch break which I always take and two (paid) 15 minute breaks which I take if I have time.

My new job is 37 hours but people seem to work longer hours. I work 8 to 4:00pm with lunch, but I notice my team working until almost 6pm with a 9-10am start and feel bad for logging off so early which means I'm just online until 5:30ish but not working. Once my probation is over I'll establish my working hours as per my contract. I prefer an earlier start so I can get some of the day with my toddler.

I'm quite a high-ish earner (higher end of the 5 figures near 6), so I guess presenteeism factors into it, but I'm useless after 7 hours truth be told and the job that got the most of out of me, asked for the least out of me in terms of hours and was very flexible and completely remote

This is definitely something to bear in mind. £10.42 x 40 x 52 is £21673 per year.

So the NMW has caught up with a lot of workers, if this is your salary, if you work more hours, your hourly rate is under the NMW so your employer will ve breaking the law after April.

Time to either ask for a pay rise, work fewer hours, or look for another job especially if your job requires more than a typical NMW job, eg qualifications or experience.

My first office job nearly 20 years ago was 8am - 6pm and paid less than £20k
Now am on a 37.5 hours a week. I've never heard of a 9-5 apart from the song. It's not the 'norm' in any of the jobs I've been in.

I think it varies OP, loads of roles in my field will say something like 9-6 but ultimately my role is one where I'll work what it takes to get the job done. Some days I'm off before 5, some days I'm logged in at 7am (I rarely if ever work late) and work to 5.

Ultimately it comes down to pay and whether it's worth it in terms of working arrangements etc, I don't see a huge difference in 40 WFH or 35 in the office for example.

In practice working conditions have been badly eroded across the board in the U.K. I can remember when 9-5 with an hour off for lunch and 2 paid breaks was standard and the boomers thought they were badly wronged for having to work that. Now 8-5 with no break at all is quite normal, and the health services are having to work 12 hour shifts as standard. Zero hours contracts eroded the idea of sick pay and holiday pay.

Fools have tried to tell me in the past that we have never had more rights, but having things written down does not reality make.

My first job, when I was a teenager, in retail, in the 80s was definitely 9-5 with an hour for lunch and a 10 minute break in the afternoon as well. Same in NHS admin job. There’s definitely been a creeping up of hours.

Work in a uni, contract is 35.5hrs a week ft. Good benefits and work/life balance.

I don’t think it standard, or maybe it’s just the jobs I’ve had. I’ve always done 9-5 pretty much (with occasional changes for events that start or end different times).

I wouldn’t even apply for a job with these extended hours as part of the contracted hours.

Interesting, I wonder if there is a (grey) line where working longer days and over your contracted hours is just expected?

I find a lot of people saying they work their contracted hours and log off at 5pm (or whenever they finish) are on lower salaries, say £20-30k? And as someone mentioned above, are these ‘jobs’ as opposed to ‘careers’ (not saying one is better than the other just noting the difference)?

I’m generally expected work work a 45-50 hour week instead of the 37 hours I’m contracted to, although my manager is flexible and happy for me to take an afternoon off for an appointment now and again so that is a good thing. And I feel like a jobsworth by clocking off at 4pm even though I could because I’m paid over £50k- but maybe I’m still a mug.

Is there a level of seniority or salary where working over your contracted hours is just expected?

It may be a norm, but it's not a competitive work offering.

I cut working hours and increased pay at my office. Great effect on productivity, loyalty, retention... It was a no brainer.

I think it’s very profession specific - although I was nhs I had much more control over my hours in my profession than many nurses who frequently worked over their paid hours with no hope of ever taking it back plus barely time to eat /drink. There are certain careers where it’s culturally expected , I think law is one, hence why so many women struggle to stay in certain professions once they have kids.

Your mother's experience is exactly what has been going on in the workplace for the last 30 years or so. The deterioration of terms and conditions. People getting made redundant when it should only be the role that is redundant. Employers shouldn't be passing the work that still needs doing onto other people for no extra money. It's all so wrong. And as you say the young people coming in just don't know any different. They can accept it when they are young and energetic with no ties. But no-one can sustain that pace while the age of retirement gets further and further away.

It was happening when I first started work in the late 90s. People who had been there years had much better contracts. More leave, their FT hours were slightly less, at 35 hours. Pension much better.

It makes me absolutely MAD that very senior managers pat themselves on the back at having made "cost savings", and then they get a bonus for doing so. All they've done is push more work onto fewer people, who are earning less money! It's actually scandalous when you really stop to think clearly about it. But people who are approaching 50 are too scared to say anything for fear of being accused of being past it or lacking the energy and zest for the job that the youngsters can manage. You do see a lot of young people at work being taken advange of, as they want to impress and know no different. The ones who have been around a while are fed up of the bullshit corporate strategic nonsense: "initiative-itis", "cost-saving strategies", being told to "work smarter not harder" or "bring me solutions not problems". They keep schtum and just wait for retirement.

Public sector, 37 hour week, hybrid, 8.30-5 Monday to Thursday, 8.30-4 on Fridays. I can never work out if lunch hour is paid or not, but this feels like a sensible working week

t makes me absolutely MAD that very senior managers pat themselves on the back at having made "cost savings", and then they get a bonus for doing so. All they've done is push more work onto fewer people, who are earning less money!

Amen, and this is what upper management mean when they talk about “improving productivity”.

I have always worked in the public sector and it was always 35 hours a week and an hour for lunch. I would never apply for 37.5 hours a week.