Can someone calculate this for me pls? Part time hybrid working

[PulledPineapple]

I work 3 days per week, 7 hours per day. We’ve been told part time workers will have to go back into the office 50% of their working time and full time workers have to go back in 40% of their time.

I’m trying to work out how many hours more I’ll be in the office if I go there 50% of the time rather than 40% of the time.

I’ve done a calculation but it seems a lot and I don’t trust myself!

Thanks

I would say that if you work 3 days a week, they will expect at least 2 days in the office so 14 hrs per week.

Sorry, I should say, the annual difference in hours in the office between 40% of the time in the office and 50% of the time in the office. Thanks

I’m assuming 7 hours a day is a full day?

If so
Part time you will need to be in the office 10.5 hours.
If you worked 5 days - so 35 hours you would need to be in the office 14 hours

Yes I’d think that means 2 days per week too.

Full time = 5 days
40% of 5 days = 2 days per week in the office.

You work 3 days
50% of 3 days = 1.5 days per week in the office.

Could you alternate 1 day in week A / 2 days in week B?

50%pt would be 10.5 hours (ie. 1 1/2 days but in practice probably 2 days)
40%ft would be 14 hours (2 full days)

Speak to them - they may want one day one week, 2 days the next

@piglet81

Full time = 5 days 40% of 5 days = 2 days per week in the office.

You work 3 days
50% of 3 days = 1.5 days per week in the office.

Could you alternate 1 day in week A / 2 days in week B?

This is exactly what I was going to post!

50% of the time is 10.5 hours
40% of the time is 8.4 hours

So just over 2 hours difference.

Just realised you mean both calculation on your part time hours!
Annually
50% 546 hours
40% 436.8 hours

Above of 2 days one week, 1 next might work depending on role
Annually the difference is 3.5x52 ie. 182 hours( not taking account of leave)

If you work 21 hours then 10% is 2 hours 6 minutes. So that’s how much more a week you’re wanted in. So if you worked 52 weeks 109 hours. It wouldn’t be that much though because of annual leave etc.

That’s if I’ve understood your question properly.

Not taking into account annual leave or public holidays.

So assuming you have 156 working days a year. (3 x 52)
At 40% time in the office you would spend 62.4 days in the office

At 50% time in the office you would spend 78 days in the office.

So the difference is 15.6 days. Although actually less than that if you did include holidays

This isn’t what you’re asking, but in this scenario, I’d ask to up my hours to 4 days a week. If I’m going to be commuting in 2 days a week (1.5 days) might as well get paid for the extra day’s work…

Thanks all.

@Tombero yes, that’s the calculation I came up with (slightly reduced as worked out on 47 working weeks to take leave into account). It’s a lot of hours!

They’ve asked me to do 1 day one week and 2 the next.

I’m feeling a bit miffed at the moment because if full timers had to do 50% it would mean 2 days one week and 3 the next, but they’re just doing a set 2 days per week, no extra days.

There are extra travel and child care costs for me because of they way it’s been worked out which full timers won’t be affected by so just wondering if I’m justified in feeling fed up about it.

@NoSquirrels I was thinking that, if I’m paying for child care anyway (you can’t sign up for childcare on a one week on, one week off basis) I might as well work on the extra day!

Seems like an equalities issue. Why are part timers being treated unfairly?
Also more likely to disproportionately affect women as they are more likely to be in part time roles. I'd be pissed off too.

[quote PulledPineapple]@NoSquirrels I was thinking that, if I’m paying for child care anyway (you can’t sign up for childcare on a one week on, one week off basis) I might as well work on the extra day![/quote]
Absolutely. And your FT colleagues would be saying the same if they use childcare and had to go in on the 3/2 system week on/week off.

It’s dumb!

Most companies in my industry are operating on a flat amount of in-office days required so if you’re FT 2 days a week in, if you’re PT 2 days a week in. Tough if you only work 2 days, I suppose, but it’s fair.

Isn’t your childcare in place whether you are remote or in the office? So if you worked Mon-Wed, you would have childcare all 3 days but your commuting would be (for example):
Week A: Mon/Tue office, Wed home
Week B: Mon office, Tue/Wed home
Repeat

I agree however that it’s unfair to have different terms for PT and FT.

@MissisBoote thanks, I’m thinking of raising it in respect of unfair treatment of part time workers and indirect sex discrimination.

@NoSquirrels it’s bonkers because as a percentage of a part timer worker’s salary the cost of doing the same amount of time in the office as a full timer has a much bigger impact.

You might have different childcare arrangements depending on work pattern though, @Blueroses99. For example, before covid my son went to an after-school club that was open until 6.30 so I could get there just about in time if I finished work at 5.30. Now he goes to ASC at his actual school, which is better and cheaper but finishes at 5.30. Fine as long as one of us is WFH on any given day since we live round the corner from school, but trickier if DH and I both have to be in the office on the same day as one of us would need to change our working hours.

@Blueroses99 I’m lucky that DC are old enough and well behaved enough that they can quietly see to themselves in another room during the hour between them getting back from school and me finishing work, however on the days I’m in the office I have to pay for breakfast and after school club as they’re too young to completely fend for themselves.

Including my extra travel expenses the additional annual cost is over £1000. Full timers won’t be subject to this.

Three days a fortnight.

Isn't it possibly discriminatory though? Part timers have to spend more of their salary on travel costs.

It’s true that cost for PT workers of being in a greater amount of their working time is higher, but I think companies are selling hybrid working as a perk of being FT rather than a perk of working for the company as a whole. I think a minimum number of office days (rather than a percentage) is fine - 2 days allows the chance to get meetings sorted on ‘popular’ in office days for teams, or whatever.

If you’re challenging I’d do it on costs (commute etc) not childcare - as a PP says they can just come back on saying childcare should be arranged on all working days which is an easy pat answer. On my WFH days I don’t need childcare so much as logistics - school run, lifts to activities etc - which I can manage with flex on WFH days and still do 7 hours. But it’s not an argument my employer needs to give a shit about. So I’d stick to inequality and commute costs.

Sorry missed your later posts. Agree it does appear to be a clear case of indirect sex discrimination.