Am I allowed to be annoyed about this in a job advertisement

[Newpencilcase]

"Willingness to work flexible hours, with the knowledge that the role will require more than a 37 hour working week"

This basically means your ass is ours doesn't it?

I assuming they don't mean flexible in a good way!

Depends what the job is. Academic posts, lecturers etc. don't have a amximum number of hours, you stay until you're happy that the job is finished. At least you'd know that evenings / weekends were required for this job before you applied.

I think it's a very fair way to word it, to be honest. Loads of people work more than their 37 hours a week.

Why would it annoy you? It's clear and stating a fact.

Good that they are being upfront about it imo. Loads of jobs involve longer than contracted hours, either occasionally or all the time, so the fact that they are not pretending this is a role where you can get your coat on at 5pm is a good thing.

are you by any chance from teh public sector? opting out of the 37 hr week is completely standard in salaried private sector jobs.

No, not in public sector. I used to work really long hours but now work part time. However it was never spelt out so explicitly in the job description.

Seems a short hand for 'parents need not apply'

newpencil

i dont see how that woudl apply just to parents. anyone for any reason could be unable to commit to flexible working and lots of parents can commit to flexible working as they have fexible childcare or a partner who is SAH or family who can take dcs at short notice.

and i think it's prefectly fine (and good in fact) that th ad clearly states upfront what to expect so you dont waste anyone's time applying and then get a shock when you find out it's a bit more than you expected to do.

Obviously you are all right.

It's just not the job for me!

I kind of agree with you in a way, OP. Obviously, it's better to let people know that prior to applying BUT whilst in a lot of jobs you'd expect to work more hours than contracted for as and when it was needed, I think that to put it so bluntly in a job ad basically says: we'll only pay you for 37 hours but you'll need to work way more than that regularly. To me that reads like an organisation taking advantage of employees and not somewhere I'd like to work.

I don't think they're necessarily only paying for 37 hours stevie77, presumably people will only apply if they think the salary is right for the level of flexibility/long hours required. I took a job a few years ago (back when I was young and had more energy!) where they told me upfront I'd do 60 to 80 hours a week but the salary made it worthwhile. Much better for adverts to be honest about what the job is, than to have people start expecting steady hours and get a shock!

Yes, if they are being clear and upfront that the hours will be longer, then they are not paying for 37 hours, they are paying for 42, or however many, and it's for applicants to decide whether the salary is appropriate for the job and the hours required.

They are telling you they are understaffed! I wouldn't touch it with a bargepole.

Many years ago I was in a very prestigious job. I also worked very long hours. One day I worked out how much I actually earned per hour and it was less that what I had previously been earning in public sector. The HR Director was horrified when I told him.

At least they're honest and up-front. My contact says "you will be required to work the hours necessary to fulfil the responsibilities of your role. Your role does not qualify for overtime payment for any additional hours worked"

Once you get beyond very basic hourly paid jobs, I don't think that's unusual.