To think that some jobs should be paid ‘X’ amount to do the job, not the amount of hours..

[Bloodybrambles]

I’ve been trawling the internet looking for a part-time role. We’re in a privileged position that we can survive on one salary so I am being quite fussy to ensure I maintain a good work/life balance especially with having DD(1).

I’ve been looking at a few roles, similar to what I did when I first finished uni (at the same salary too!) and I can’t help but think ‘this really wouldn’t take 38 hours a week to reach these targets’.

I know there’s always the argument of ‘any other duties’ but the amount of people who just appear busy/procrastinate/not particularly efficient. There’s always some natural lulls in the work load, and that’s the point I’d quite like to be able to pick DD early/not appear to be busy just because I’m employed for 38 hours a week.

For starters, I’m a lot more organised than I was at 22 and I have a lot more experience in the field. I’ve developed strategies and processes to make me more efficient. It may have took 38 hours a week back then as I was finding my feet, learning the programmes and a lot of trial and error.

I know a few tradies, and they get paid a day rate, once they finish their job, they leave site. I know people skive while working from home but I’ve always been too paranoid to step too far away from my computer incase I get busted.

One hand I could apply for these jobs then persuade them that I could exceed all the targets/fulfil the tasks of a junior but ask for less hours. On the other hand it feels unfair that I’d be sacrificing part of the salary but the same productivity (or even greater!) of a full-timer.

Basically, I’m saying ‘AIBU’ if you need X,Y & Z doing and wanting to pay £24,000 a year, why does it matter if it takes me 38 hours or 28 hours. If something unexpected crops up, I carry a device that allows me to be contacted/access emails.

You are not wrong. Get a job like that which can be done solely from home and then it won't feel a waste to be physically in the office with nothing to do. Hate presenteeism

Is that basically a Salaried role?

It would be hard to measure how long it takes someone to do something though. Young junior vs established employee

Maybe I’ve never had the confidence to say ‘Right, I’m just keeping busy with things for the sake of it so I’m off. Might as well make it a long weekend as I can’t move forward until the Blah meeting on Monday’.

For sure. That's the idea behind salaried roles, but in practice they want butts in seats so you have to spend hours clicking around looking busy. We are much more productive than we were a generation or two ago, but instead of being given more free time back they demand ever increasing profits. It's never enough.

What you are talking about was piece work, in factories you got paid for the amount of items you processed.

Sales also works like this, they don't care about your hours so long as your results are successful

Is 38 hours classed as part time though?

I notice people talk on mumsnet a lot like this about jobs I just don’t get/ identify with it at all.

namely:

-“this really wouldn’t take 38 hours a week to meet these targets” - how do you know what the targets are, or indeed the work load like, from a job advert?!
— “I’m much more experienced and have established strategies to increase my efficiency”- what does this mean in an entry level £24k a year job similar to what you did at uni? I don’t get it those jobs are usually volume based, you finish you get more. What strategies can help with this?!
— how do you know you would be performing tasks to the quality or volume an unknown employer wants?!

is it a language thing? Do all these ideas relate to jobs I have no experience of? Because I haven’t worked un junior roles for many years but I don’t relate to anything you write in terms of what I see in the variety of companies I’ve worked for

If the crux of the problem is that it’s a job you’d like but you don’t want FT hours, have you thought about asking them to consider a job share?

When I went back to work after having dd I got an admin job at a nearby NHS hospital. Eventually it turned out to be just typing doctors letters. It was painfully, painfully boring. I often thought just bloody set me a target and I'll do it in a couple of hours and go home, or pay me per letter, but instead I had to drag it out over 8 hours in an office bored out of my brain and developing an RSI. It was soul destroying I don't know how anyone does it.

A family member manages a team of people doing this and they’re basically a mix of lazy and not able to function in a normal workplace because they have all sorts of problems that bleed into their work and would see them sacked in any other environment.

it’s basically a job creation exercise

I wouldn't want to see this become the norm.

Firstly, because a lot of people, if given that freedom, would probably seek to cut corners/do the bare minimum to tick boxes, so quality would suffer in many cases. And employers would have to spend more on quality assurance to balance things out.

Secondly, some employers would take advantage by setting wildly unrealistic targets and blaming staff for not being more efficient if they can't deliver. This already happens in some salaried roles in any case, but it would get worse.

I don't police the hours worked for my staff at all, but it is helpful to have a nominal number of contractual hours that they are expected to work in case they raise concerns regarding workload or I have concerns about their output etc. It helps to set shared expectations around what the role involves.

If you want the flexibility to pick up your dd from school, ask for that, and set out how you will get the work done around it.

Agreed @MrsBennetsPoorNerves . But also in salaried roles you’re not paid to reach targets or complete volume. You’re paid for your time- such as 38 hours of your week. Your targets and quality are related to your performance in that 38 hours

A lot of people who need work are not a type beasts, they are slow and like to take their time about things and have snack breaks and chat to colleagues and sit and make personal phone calls and scroll the internet for possible new leather boots and daydream possibly get away from people they might be around at h9me or lonely lives etc.

Agreed- I struggle to imagine a job like this. Wish OP would explain the sort of work she means.

Depends. I used to work in a salaried role where I was paid to do whatever hours were needed to get the job done. The organisation worked on the basis of a nominal working week of 37 hours, but the contract was actually very clear that we were expected to do more if the job required. And it usually did!!

That’s my point really- the majority of contracts will say you are expected to work whatever hours are required to get the job done, or more at busy times, and the majority of employment contracts will say job descriptions are only a guide and you can be asked to perform reasonable tasks outside of your JD.

the company pay for your time and availability to work, not your volume output. As above, it’s not piece work in a factory

I’d the quality of the work to drop in this scenario, it’s just an incentive to cut corners.

I dont think I have ever had a job where you had a set amount of work and then if that was done you had nothing to do!!! every job I have had, if you finish your set tasks there are always more things to do!!

We have to track our time spent on any client project work by the minute as this get billed back to the client. Any non billable time we have plenty of other things to do such as industry research, training, new business, file organisation and admin, etc etc

Just ask if they will accept PT and flexible working. Better still take your skills and become a contractor and get paid better and work less.

True. Maybe self-employment would be the best fit for you, OP?

Isn't what you are talking about here, the difference between being an employee (where an organisation pays you for your time) and a contractor who is paid to 'do a job'? From a employment law perspective there is a big difference. If you are an employee then then the organisation can give you extra jobs to fill the time they pay you for.

Exactly. I am paid for my time, not what I produce. I can never say my work is finished as there is always stuff to do, albeit sometimes there are really busy periods and quieter times

I am not a high flyer etc. and cannot conceive of getting to ‘the end’ of my work.

I have areas of responsibility and various deliverables. There’s always more to do.

I always used to chuckle when people told me they'd done their work with the expectation that they could swan off early.

Never struggled to find them something to do! And this was at a company that was very good with giving free time back to staff.