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

@PulledPineapple @piglet81 Ah fair enough. Mine’s much younger so I was thinking of nursery.

The problem that you would have is if they say 40% across the board that’s 2 days for a full time worker and 1day 1 hour 20 minutes for a part time worker. You’d still have same commuting costs and given that childcare is usually required whenever you are working there’s no material detriment to you.

To be honest I think you’re just going to come over awkward.

Damn these awkward women wanting to be treated equally, why don't they just smile be grateful they've got a job

@RestingPandaFace I can see where you’re coming from but this is the reason employers get away with unfairness, nobody challenges them for fear of coming across as ‘awkward’.

I know some companies are doing the 1 day/2 days alternating for pt workers then crediting the extra hours worked in the office as an extra WFH day later on. This wouldn’t solve the child care cost issue but at least it would be fair. Or they could just ask ft workers to do 50% as well.

You won't save on commuting or childcare costs if you go in 40% as opposed to 50% of the time though.

50% would be 1.5 days (10.5 hours)
40% would be 1 day and 1.4 hours (8.4 hours)

You'd still need to pay for 2 days worth of commuting and the part day would not make a difference to childcare costs unless you had a by-the-hour childminder.

I'm assuming here the company actually want people in 40/50% of every week, not for them to work out the total hours over the year and go in for (say) the whole of March and not at all in June.

Have you queried it yet OP? You can raise it without going straight to raising a complaint about it, iyswim.
It's odd they've been so open about the different expectations.

Redsky it could make a difference for childcare for anyone with a primary aged dc, meaning they only need either before or after school care that day (after being the expensive one).

Are you being disadvantaged though. If essentially everyone full or pt is present two days a week the cost of commuting, child care etc is the same. Perhaps not as a % of earnings but that is often the case in pt. You could do the 1/2 day in office each week and only need breakfast club or asc that day, but that would rely on you travelling during your lunch break. Do you have a counter proposal?

@Mistressiggi yes I’ve raised it with my line manager but they’ve come back with a reiteration of the policy wording and that that’s just the way it is (not her exact words).

I feel like I can’t let it go though, it doesn’t sit right with me at all.

Do you have a Union, OP? That would be the next step.
If not, people on here often say to speak to ACAS? The EHRC used to have a phone helpline too; I don't know if they still do.

@LIZS the only things I can propose are either to be credited with the extra wfh time once enough surplus office working time has been accrued or to ask that ft workers also have to do 50%. This doesn’t really solve the costs issue but it does solve the fairness issue.

Unfortunately my commute is 1.5 hrs so wouldn’t be able to get home in my lunch break.

[quote PulledPineapple]@RestingPandaFace I can see where you’re coming from but this is the reason employers get away with unfairness, nobody challenges them for fear of coming across as ‘awkward’.

I know some companies are doing the 1 day/2 days alternating for pt workers then crediting the extra hours worked in the office as an extra WFH day later on. This wouldn’t solve the child care cost issue but at least it would be fair. Or they could just ask ft workers to do 50% as well.[/quote]
In this case there is no unfairness though because you would have the same costs whether it was 40 or 50%.

@Mistressiggi yes, I spoke to ACAS yesterday and they agreed about the indirect sex discrimination and unfair treatment of part time workers. I’ve just called EHRC and the guy I spoke to didn’t seem to know much about indirect sex discrimination.

Unfortunately not in a union.

@RestingPandaFace there is unfairness re: travel costs because at a certain point in the year I would have worked 40% of my annual working hours in the office but would have to continue to come into the office to work the other 10%, paying travel costs for the privilege.

I suspect that the trouble is that if there is a resolution, it won’t be in the favour of PT employees. Your company will simply say it’s 50% in-office hours across the board. Or 40% in-office hours across the board. Neither of which will help you.

That’s why I’d ask to go to 4 days.

[quote PulledPineapple]@RestingPandaFace there is unfairness re: travel costs because at a certain point in the year I would have worked 40% of my annual working hours in the office but would have to continue to come into the office to work the other 10%, paying travel costs for the privilege.[/quote]
Surely you would only count week/fortnight to be 50% not over the whole year. Unless you worked all three in the office (ie. for six months) until you had met the annual 50% then were wfh for remainder. Might work for you if you did enough to wfh in school holidays for example. Is the hybrid proposal permanent?

Well it would depend on how the policy is worded. But it's not unreasonable to assume that the hours could be counted across more than a two week or four week period.

In this case if OP did 40% in the office it could be calculated over a ten week period: she'd be expected to work 30 days, of which 12 office based. Over the same period the policy as it is now would expect her to be in the office for 15 days - accruing three more days costs (both financial and time costs) than if part timers and full timers were treated equally.

@titchy thanks for working that out, that’s exactly what I meant.

@titchy has given you one option another is to do it annually.

52.2 weeks less 5.6 weeks holiday including BH (adjust accordingly) = 46.6 weeks
46.6 x 3 days = 139.8 days x 50% = 69.9 (70) where as x 40% = 55.92 (56). So over a year 14 more days.

@GinPalace2 thanks for calculating that, it’s really helpful.

Dropping to 2 days would be another option, rather than increasing to 4.

Does your policy say anything about how long it's averaged over? Ours is 40% average over 4 weeks for example. My PT and FT staff are all expected in 40% though (that does mean some of them do 2 days one week, then 1 day the next but at least it's fair).