Help - I really would appreciate some advice here.
Background: I'm an interim manager and have been been working on a contract basis since going back to work early this year. At my first contract I was paid an hourly rate and at the company I'm working for now I was paid an hourly rate to start with and then, after some negotiation (see here ) agreed to a contract direct with the company until some time next year. I am paid an annual salary pro rated and my contract states 35 hours per week (I know, not much but the whole co ethos seems to be 9am - 5pm, amazingly).
Over the next couple of months I will be doing quite a bit of UK travelling. Because of this I emailed my manager yesterday to ask what the deal was re payment for this. It's likely I'll be spending 2/3 days/week out of the office for the next 2 months, plus overnight prob 1 night/week. I'm not terribly happy about it but I do need to do it to get the job done so I have kind of accepted it. The reply I got was that no overtime was payable and that I may get time off in lieu but that my boss would 'appreciate some flexibility since my (ie. his) hours are 40)'. I don't give a toss what his contracted hours are, quite frankly, he's a) permanent b) senior to me! and c) MY contracted hours are 35.
I've been incensed today at the thought that I may be expected to just 'be flexible' and work longer hours as a result of being away, not to mention spending nights away from my family without being paid for it. I can arrange my hours while away to an extent to make sure I leave London by, say, 3pm to get me home for 6pm, which is normal time but there will very likely be occasions when I can't do this and arrive home, after 2 hours on the motorway, at 8pm. Of course, had I still been hourly I could have charged for all but the usual hour to work travelling time. I'm wondering whether I did the right thing going direct I suppose. They have made a cost saving as a result of this as they've paid a one off recruitment fee, rather than an hourly rate to an agency. My view is that I'm not permanent and they shouldn't expect a permanent person's flexibility - they should expect to pay me for my time, just as they would have had to had I carried on as I was.
I like and respect my boss and will be having a reasonable, calm conversation tomorrow, where I put my view and see what he says. I want him to confirm that even if I'm not paid, that time off in lieu will be forthcoming. Am I being unreasonable? I have worked out that I have been staying a bit late (only a bit but still) and coming in earlier than many for the month I've been employed direct and I will be bringing this up as an example of my current flexibility. All and any views welcome. TIA