Annoyed with colleagues comment

[Cluelessfirstimer]

Been at my job for 10 years. We went fully remote during covid. I relocated. Not a million miles away from the office, but a good 2 hr commute and a pretty hefty train fare.

Anyway 2 years ago they changed from fully remote to 2/3 days in the office a week. 2 days for certain roles and 3 days for more collaborative roles. Its not a strict rule, if you have plumbers or appointments in a week they dont mind if you dont hit that. Its not particularly checked.

I had a chat with my boss and said I wouldnt be able to do this. They agreed that given my role (think like a dev type role. I have very little collaboration) and the fact they really needed me, and I moved during the time they were remote this wouldnt apply to me.

I go into the office about 2 times a month. Sometimes less sometimes a little bit more. Whenever I am needed for an in person meeting im there.

Anyway sorry a lot of waffle! As I was leaving Friday a colleague commented "oh there goes 'Sally' finishing her hobby job" I turned and said what and they said "oh nothing just your special treatment" or something like that.

I was livid but was running out the door. I have been doing this for the last few years and the person who said this lives a 11 minute walk from the office and as far as I know hasnt asked about flexibility needs or wants it.

Should I say something Tuesday? Leave it? I can take a joke but the tone really bothered me.

I don't know why people keep referring to it as 'special treatment'. The OP's company offered to change her contract because they wanted to retain her and she accepted. I'm sure they'd do the same for any other employee if they wanted to, and, any employee can ask for a change in their contract, but it doesn't mean it has to be given.

It’s because most people don’t like to think too much about how different contracts can be between colleagues - even those who are effectively doing the same job.

It’s one of the reasons that companies discourage people discussing their wages with each other.

I also think there are a lot of teachers, civil servants and NHS workers one these boards where contract conditions tend to be more uniform - so different treatment seems to appear ‘special’.

But in private business - as long as they are compliant with the law - contracts can differ wildly with individuals able to negotiate benefits to their own ability. When your employer wants to keep you, you can ask for more money, more vacation time (paid and unpaid), flexible working, moving expenses, training courses etc.

This isn't special treatment - this is someone who has applied for flexible working and been granted it by their manager because the business can support it. The other person has a legal right to apply for the same, and if their role, their manager and the business need can support it then they may get it. If they don't get it then their employer should allow an employee the option to appeal as part of a reasonable procedure

Anyone who complains about this being special treatment or unfair doesn't understand the flexible working request process.

that person was rude. I’d not mention this time but any repeat or similar definitely.
It’s fine to have different arrangements.

However if everyone including people doing similar roles as you (including those more senior or junior) have to go in it will be seen as special treatment.

It isn’t a fair view but you have negotiated it and they also don’t know whether it was a disability reasonable adjustment.

I think calling people 'bitter' because they dislike that it's one rule for you and one rule for all the other employees is a bit much.

Its a pretty reasonable thing to be annoyed by which I would have expected you to have known when you requested it.

If I were you I would accept not all people may think that well of me as a result of being at home almost entirely. However, I would weigh that up against the benefits of the arrangement for you and crack on. If people make jibes I would just explain to them it's in your contract and works well as much of your role is confidential etc. The notice period is quite relevant to.

Ultimately they will likely still think a bit less of you but you really can't change that.

If it wasn’t that OP it’d be something else. I changed my hours to part time and one cunt mentioned every single day that I was going home at half 12. Seriously got nothing better to do x

This!

This. Wish you’d worked at my place. The fuss my flexi working caused to all the nosy parkers was off the scale. They could’ve have requested the same and it would’ve been granted. Spiteful bastards

They seem to think you are just getting extra holiday time and forget you only get part time pay for part time hours.

One of my colleagues who often had a friendly dig at my part time working has recently gone part time himself. He says its the best thing he's done and wouldn't ever go back to full time.

That’s exactly it. They think you’re “getting one over” on them. I took a pay cut to go part time. That was my business. The bit that blew their minds though was the fact that I was still entitled to the same number of annual leave days. That’s because I still worked the same number of days, just less hours. Morons.

It’s fine to be special, in fact it’s nice to be special. There will always be sucked lemon faces though, unfortunately not everyone is generous of nature. I’d ignore the ‘ hobby job’ until I Next saw them, at which point I’d say, oh .. you think all this work is my hobby! Ha ha. Actually my hobby is cake baking, I love knitting too! If only I could make a salary doing my actual hobbies, eh?! Hey ho, onward and upward! Have a great day, I’m schlepping back to the station, hope to get a seat on the train.. honestly the price of train tickets these days is horrendous! Byeee!

I'm obviously a moron too, because no part timer is entitled to the same number of a/l days as a full timer, the a/l entitlement is pro rata

Either that or I have misunderstood what you meant there!

It's always the same isn't it - some people would rather have a moan that actually do something proactive like filling in a form.

Our leave was based on the days worked, not the hours. My pay was adjusted accordingly because I did fewer hours.

They mean that they get to take pro rata leave but as they work PT five days a week their time off works out as five days away from the office - they are still just getting paid for their PT hours though.

They aren’t being given five full days off when they take a week off.

So if you were working over 5 days M-F, but during those days you worked p/t (e.g. 9-2 rather than 9-5) you would still get the same number of a/l days (or hours) that those working 9-5 would get, you just got less pay?

@SirChenjins Yes. That was their policy

Wow - that's quite unusual for p/t staff to receive the same number of a/l hours as full time staff. Normally both pay and annual leave hours are pro rata for p/t staff.

But it's not the same number of hours. It's the same number of days.

So person A is full time at 40 hours a week - works five days a week, 8 hours a day. Gets five weeks annual leave working out at 25 days (200 hours)

Person B is part time at 20 hours a week - works five days a week, 4 hours a day.
Gets pro rata annual leave working out at 100 hours. But as they only work 4 hour days - that still works out at 25 days.

Does that make sense? You don't make the part-time worker use their 100 hours to take 8 hour days off.

So they get half the hours but for their schedule it still gives them the same number of days off. They aren't getting paid for full days - they are still just getting paid for four hour days.

The minimum statutory paid leave is pro rata not per days but on hours. ACAS An employer can go beyond that but I don’t know whether a FT worker could challenge as being treated worse

She is getting hol pro-rated, because her days are shorter. It would work the same at at my company - hol based on days not hours. But the full time still get more hours of holiday because their days are longer

That's not what @Whosthetabbynow said though - which is why I questioned it. I'm well aware how p/t leave works having worked p/t and have people in my team who work p/t, but she said it was their policy for full time and part time staff to get the same a/l. It was just the p/t salary that was reduced.

Those who were in the office 5 days a week got the same leave entitlement. Less pay for less hours. Those who did their part time based on days of attendance ie 3 full days in the office got less days annual leave.

Five days doing shorterhours= less pay + full leave entitlement
Three days= less money plus less leave.
I never understood how they worked it all out and to be fair I don’t think management fully understood but that was the process (police staff)