Is it fair for employer to make me do 5 days worth of work in 4 days?

[AnnaP99]

Hello - I've never posted on Mumsnet before so hope this is the right place, etc.

I'm wondering if anyone has personal experience / advice to offer - I'm due back at work in two months' time, when my baby girl will be 10 months old.

I requested to go back 4 days a week instead of 5, and they said this was fine. I assumed this meant they would reallocate 20% of my work, but apparently I will just "become better organised" and do the same amount of work.

So I'm expected to cope with the same workload, in less time, for less money and less holiday entitlement.

Is this right / normal?!

Thanks,
Anna

OP - as your manager I would have been expecting you to put forward a case of how this could work, not looking to me to sort it out for you. And expecting your colleagues to pick up the extra, presumably for no extra pay.

Can you not go back with a workable solution? How do you think it could work in reality?

I went down to 4 days - 30 hours. It's killing me as I stilldo 5 day days worth of work. None of my duties have been allocated elsewhere but I'm on 80% of the holidays and pay.

I have a colleague in the same position, also doing 4 days. She's stressed to hell too.

It's impossible but not allowed to apply to go back fulltime.

It does depend on the job to some extent but it sounds like you'd be better off asking for compressed working instead of 4-days a week. If your workload isn't going down then your pay shouldn't go down either. Somebody previously makes a good point that by only dropping one day it's not really possible to employ someone else just to do that 1-days worth so you need to propose a workable plan and propose it, not expect them to come up with something that is more favourable to you.

Would it be possible to stay full-time but work-from-home/telecommute one day a week - obviously only possible if there is at least 20% of your job that you can do with just you sitting at a computer not needing any other physical resources from the office. I do this one day a week and manage to spread about 6 hours of productive useful work through my 18ish waking hours on that day, making up the other 2 by working slightly longer the 4 days I'm in the office.

"And expecting your colleagues to pick up the extra, presumably for no extra pay."

Well, not necessarily. After all, there's now a saving on OP's pay that could be used...

To be honest, I would not want to work for or with Reginald - sounds like an appalling attitude, very inflexible and rigid.

FFS, it's really quite common, and I actually have some of the best hours out of most of my mates. If something needs to be done, it gets done... That's just the way it is. Why is this so difficult to understand?!

Well, the thing is, they dont have to offer you a part-time job, if there are business reasons against it. So they are saying that they can only manage if the work is done more efficiently.

I might call their bluff and say that I am sceptical that it can be done on 20% less time, so on reflection I will return to my previous job, ie, full-time.

"If something needs to be done, it gets done... That's just the way it is."

Plenty of jobs are on an "hours needed to get the job done" basis (and plenty aren't). To start from the premise that the OP should consistently do the same amount of work in fewer hours is the other way round.

I think it's really hard to go back to the same job on a reduced contract - people see you back & expect the same level of output as before. So in your case I'd go for compressed hours - 5 days work & pay done in 4, if you can. And if you can get a new or officially redesigned role, then go for 4 in 4.

Also be realistic - who on a full time contract only ever does 9-5 M-F?!

I do 4 days & get paid 80% - yes, friends & my team 'joke' that I'm actually doing 5 in 4 but really, who actually does only 5 when they're paid for 5?! I think it's 6 in 5 v 5 in 4..and being on a 4 day week allows me to protect the Fridays a much as possible.

I am fully aware that I'm expected to generate the same output as the previous incumbent who was full time - my view is I'm better at it (don't underestimate how much more efficient a mummy is!!) and I'm doing a job I enjoy for money I think is worthwhile. Yes, my employer may be getting a good deal on me - but when I need to work from home after a rough night, or stay home for breakfast because hubby has an early meeting I have no qualms about doing it.

Can you do it though, would you be able to do the work in four days? I think that would be the point for me. If you can then I'd be wondering why previously it had taken you 5 days.

Reginald, listen to yourself: "I don't know the legality of what employers are required to go along with, but speaking as a manager " (bold added)

"My personal thoughts is that you should either go fully part-time, with all the cuts included in that (including job responsibility)"

Read this: www.gov.uk/part-time-worker-rights

You appear to be advocating behaviour that does not comply with those legal rights. You say you are a manager. You should know this stuff. It's part of your job to know this stuff. It's part of your job to also be seen to know this stuff and to be able to communicate about it, and if you're presenting yourself as a manager (who should know this stuff, FFS) in a debate, you should expect to be damn well called on that.

I still don't get this. The employee submits a form to the hr suggesting four days. There is a question multiple I think of how will the role and tasks be completed in reduced time. That means everything. From the basic to the complicated.
How will phones be answered in your absence? Email responses etc Client coverage? Travel? Admin? Projects?

The firm generally (I guess) works on a 'no' until the form 'proves' x can be done. If the answer is I won't pick up my phone, Jill will. It's not an answer. It's not jills, jims or anyone else responsibility. I've seen forms refused or returned for more ideas just because of this level of nitpick.

I thoroughly agree to do 5 in 4 isn't fair. It sadly looks like that's what you suggested though. I'm unsure how to get you out without losing your necessary flexibility. Not least as it then suggests to said numpty manager this role can't be done, which is probably wrong and unfortunate for others, when a bit of thought could have made it work.

Reg you may wish to work a fifty hour week but the standard working day isn't ten hours.

OP can you go back three days a week. There isn't the same expectation then about how much of your previous role you do. I think many people who do four days do end up doing five days in four.

Minnie that may be how your flexible working request forms look but there was no such detail on the form I had to fill in.

When I went part time after dd for a short while. I was expected do a months work in two weeks. I was client facing in projects and none of my work was reallocated. I got 75% of my FT salary.

I do think its pretty normal. Not acceptable but normal.

What slightlyglitterstained said.

If you manage people, you have responsibilities. One of these is to know the basics of employment law and it's current application.

Reg . I agree this is completely normal and expected in some industries. All my colleagues work a good 2-3 hours each night, one after she puts her 3 year old to bed. She is dedicated to her job and will go far. Now, because of her sheer determination and dedication she is being mentored and trained as a PM, her salary will double in the next 3 years. You make your choices. ...

We have a delivery deadline and so do what needs to be done to achieve that target. End of.

Minnie refusing a flexible working request on the basis that the applicant has suggested that her work will be picked up by colleagues (without presumably any reference to them) is not a level of "nitpick" as you suggest! It's pretty fundamental that the work is done and deadlines are met and totally unfair to just expect those who are around full-time to absorb any shortfall, unless it is discussed and agreed as feasible all round.

Thanks African... Was starting to think I was some work-crazed monster

My responsibility is to ensure that the job that needs to be done, gets done. "End of."

Glitter, I don't need to read that because we don't have any part-time employees, so it doesn't really apply to me. In everyone's contract, it says, quite clearly, that your contracted hours are 8:30-5:30, however, when the job requires, you may be asked to work extended hours, and in these cases, overtime will not be paid. It's quite clear what's expected of you from the beginning, so it's not as if people don't know what they're signing up for. If an employee feels they are being asked to work unfair hours, then that's an issue for HR, not for me. We're not always working 10-hour days, and we quite often have downtime in-between projects, but when it's needed, it's really, really needed, and we expect everyone to contribute to get stuff done. We don't ask people to put in 10-hour days for the hell of it. Of course there are exceptions, if you need to leave early for a doctors appt, etc., and I would never verbally ask someone to make up their time, but it is almost always done, either by working at home later that night, or by coming in early/staying later the next day. If it isn't, that is recognised and grumbled about by all of the other team members.

If one of my employees asked to cut their already busy 5-day work week to 4-days, it would logically follow that either someone is going to have to make up that work that isn't going to be done by her cutting a day, so that would pass the workload onto others, who are equally as busy, or that she would be working extra hours in those four days to make up for that fifth day. I don't know what the OP's work is like, so don't know if that applies in her situation, but I simply stated what the reaction would be should that happen in my workplace.

I don't want to work 10-hour days, but I do want the salary that goes along with it, so that's a trade-off that I, and all of my other co-workers and team members, choose to make.

Reginald....you sound lovely....

No one would be making up the ops extra work. They would be able to pay someone to do that star day with the savings made from her salary

You sound exactly like me DHs employers. Small minded and tight. Part time working is allowed by law....

I also thought you were allowed to attend medical appointments by law without having to make up the extra time. How nice, if you're ill, to have to work a bit longer....

I understand that part-time working is allowed legally... I'm just saying we don't have any.

I am just baffled that working hard, and expecting the same hard work from my employees, is somehow frowned upon here?! For the millionth time, it's not me that is demanding that everyone work until their fingers bleed... It's the nature of the industry, people understand that going in, and I work just as hard and as long as the rest of my team.

Yes, I'm sure, by law, you are allowed... I did say that I wouldn't ever ask anyone to make up their hours, but it's normally done anyway. Not ideal, obviously, but that's just what needs to be done. And again, I do it when I have to leave early as well!

I work hard, I work very hard in my job, I'm a conscientious, totally reliable and motivated.

However, my employers encourage part time and flexible working, they don't expect people to work 10 hour days, or put in unpaid overtime. They expect people to be able to manage themselves. Because of this flexible hands off approach, I work myself to the nth degree for them.

As soon as they expect it, I would walk. Dh works for a family owned company. They expect blood. Why? He doesn't benefit from their profits. Why do employers think people live to work rather than work to live

Orange Not implying that you weren't a hard-worker at all, but because of the projects we do, we have to be able to know, with 100% certainty, that people will commit to doing what needs to be done. We can't just rely on hoping that everyone has a good work ethic. Despite our hours, a lot of people in my job are actually quite lazy (including me!), and are just in it for the money, so if it wasn't "expected" by management, things wouldn't get done.

If I had my choice, I'd just win the lottery and sit on my arse for the rest of my life. I don't enjoy working until 2 AM some nights. But I want a good salary, so I do the work that goes along with it.

Our projects are often sold in a much shorter time frame than it actually takes to complete them... That's not my fault, I'm not the one promising things to clients. But it is my responsibility to ensure that the client's needs are met, and to do that, we have to "require" that people put in the hours to do the project. Again, not me being a slave driver, it's just the way things are.

For example, we just finished a project a few weeks ago, so it's all been quite quiet for us recently. Sales are quite busy right now preparing a bid, so they're the ones working the long hours now. Once we (hopefully) win the bid, they get to relax, and then our long hours start again...

(which is why I have the time to be on mumsnet!)