Post by goldengirlz on Oct 18, 2019 10:52:21 GMT -5
Ugh, I hate when companies micromanage.
How much is he working now? There are many industries where there’s a de facto expectation of 45 hours+ — but the fact that it’s in the handbook feels ickier somehow.
I think a 40 hour week is less and less common in mid to top salary workers. Squeezing more from less people is a standard profitability play. If you can do it with 9 people vs. paying 10 you'll earn more. Salary workers don't get PTO or pay adjustments when this happens. They also don't get docked an hour's pay if they happen to work 7 hours one day.
My company sets hourly goals for folks to earn raises and bonuses and several people have targets above 40 per week on average. It is one of the reasons I don't want to be promoted because there is a clear expectation that you'll work more hours and I am not in a position to work more than the 45 or so I work now.
Typically there is a balancing point where working conditions cause a drop off in quality and/or lead to attrition which is where employers want to be.
Post by litskispeciality on Oct 18, 2019 11:02:39 GMT -5
This is the *fun* of being salaried, you just work and work and get no OT/comp/PTO for it. He can certainly try to track hours and work with his supervisor to try and negotiate some compensation, but he'll most likely be told you're salary, you work until the job is done. Some bosses are better than others and allow you to flex a bit off the record to get the time "back" but that's between employee and manager. I just left a job that didn't give af about how much time I put in and so far it's helping my sanity, but I know I'm lucky.
At my employer and I believe many others, salaried employees are expected to work as much as needed to get the job done... so the issue is really how much one employee is expected to achieve rather than hours, perhaps?
Salary is a scary word. If you are considered exempt they can pretty much do whatever they want with your work load and hours and there isn't much you can do. I am salaried and in my old department the Exec Dir was quite clear that if you can do your job in 40 hours a week you don't have enough work to do. She actually kept a spreadsheet of who left on time every day as she considered it leaving early and it would affect your merit increase at the end of the year. I am now in a different department and the exempt standards are very different. You only work late during crunch time or if you need to for a deadline or something. Otherwise it's expected that you will be gone at 5:00. When I was union-hourly I was in yet another department and not one salaried employee worked 40. They came in after us and left before us daily. It differs but the bottom line is that salary means you get your paycheck and it doesn't matter how many hours you worked.
How much is he working now? There are many industries where there’s a de facto expectation of 45 hours+ — but the fact that it’s in the handbook feels ickier somehow.
He's always worked at least 40. Most of the time 40 but working more when necessary to meet deadlines. And sometimes he'd complain about that, and I'd tell him that's the nature of being salaried - you work when you need to. However, I am lucky in that I work for someone who understands that "you work when you need to" goes both ways - meaning that if there's nothing going on, he'll tell us to go home an hour or two early. DH's work will never do that. For example, for a couple of weeks he was working 70+ hours a week and then the next week, after his team had met their deadline and didn't have anything urgent on their plates anymore, they still had to be there 40 hours. I would think the company would have let them at least leave a couple of hours early on a Friday or something.
Would this include lunch time? I’m technically 8-5, which is 45 hours. To me, this is a reasonable schedule. I usually take a few minutes for lunch to grab food and eat at my desk. Sometimes I take an hour if needed. I’ve not heard of a real 40 hour week in a long time - like 9-5. However, if they expect 10 hour days (includes one hour for lunch each day), that seems more unreasonable to me. That being said, I work on weekends for a couple of hours here and there and could easily tack on 5 hours to a week - is that an option?
I had a job for quite a long time that put this in their handbook towards the end of my time there. I hated that it said you needed to work a MINIMUM of 40 hours a week.
My first salaried role was like this (10 years ago) I was making ~$40,000 in a HCOL area and expected to work 50-55 hours per week, with no adjustments to PTO or comp time. We were also expected to check email while on PTO. Unfortunately it’s legal. I quit shortly after they announced the new expectations, and now have a job with much better work life balance. I hope your H’s employer is more reasonable than mine was!
Would this include lunch time? I’m technically 8-5, which is 45 hours. To me, this is a reasonable schedule. I usually take a few minutes for lunch to grab food and eat at my desk. Sometimes I take an hour if needed. I’ve not heard of a real 40 hour week in a long time - like 9-5. However, if they expect 10 hour days (includes one hour for lunch each day), that seems more unreasonable to me. That being said, I work on weekends for a couple of hours here and there and could easily tack on 5 hours to a week - is that an option?
It's 45-48 hours of work time.
Your point about working from home is a good one. I'll suggest that to him!
We’ve had staffing issues (and very vocal staff complaints about inability to use PTO because of being understaffed, among other things) and one of the options on the table to address it is to eliminate PTO, personal and/or holiday time, because that by default increases staffing. Personally I think it’s utter bullshit that will only exacerbate things, but wtf do I know. I’d also rather have my (salary) hour expectations increased than have that happen.
I’m salaried. I work “8-4:30” but have been told on many occasions the expectation for managers at my level is a minimum of 5 10 hour days/week, and WFH as needed if additional things arise. There are plenty of times I work 5 10s or more, but if I can run out the door at 4:30 occasionally you can bet your ass I do it (although sometimes that means coming back later, being available by phone, working remotely later, etc).
How much is he working now? There are many industries where there’s a de facto expectation of 45 hours+ — but the fact that it’s in the handbook feels ickier somehow.
He's always worked at least 40. Most of the time 40 but working more when necessary to meet deadlines. And sometimes he'd complain about that, and I'd tell him that's the nature of being salaried - you work when you need to. However, I am lucky in that I work for someone who understands that "you work when you need to" goes both ways - meaning that if there's nothing going on, he'll tell us to go home an hour or two early. DH's work will never do that. For example, for a couple of weeks he was working 70+ hours a week and then the next week, after his team had met their deadline and didn't have anything urgent on their plates anymore, they still had to be there 40 hours. I would think the company would have let them at least leave a couple of hours early on a Friday or something.
Yeah, that’s a good point. I know it’s easier said than done but it might be worth keeping an eye on job ads to see what else it out there.
The wording of "as necessary" or "until the job is done" doesn't bother me - that's the unwritten rule of salaried jobs!
But the fact that they've established specific hours and actually put them in the handbook ... yeah, I wouldn't be happy with that either. If there's an issue with people not getting their job done, then they need to deal directly with those employees. To make a blanket statement in their handbook like this seems, to be, to be the non-confrontational way to deal w/ an issue that they simply don't want to deal with head on.
You're acting like he's working an hourly job - if he works 70 hours one week he should get time off next week, etc. In a workplace that cares about work life balance, maybe. Legally, they don't need to do that.
I feel for him - it's hard when a workplace changes policy on a whim like this. Unfortunately, this is common and more normal than you'd think.