Working way too much overtime, no lunches

LegacyUser

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Honestly OP legislation aside it's a suck it up IMHO especially at 21. Now's the time to put in the 10 and 12 hour days and get to were you can in your career. I did when I was that age.

Maybe I'm jaded that I'll have to do it again in my late 30s but that's what happens when you change careers.

Being blunt if you're not willing to do it, many will.

That reads like something from the 1980s. I am a Senior Manager myself with 7 internal staff and more off shore.

I have not and would not promote someone because they stay on working for free. If they cannot complete their work in the time provided, they are no good to me.

I rarely, if ever, work beyond 5pm and have been promoted three times in the last 4 years.

Plus, at 21 the last place I wanted to be was at work ;-)

testaccount123

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Indeed - Don't get me wrong. The mainlanders have a better work culture.

We have the same work culture.

People who are unable to manage their time or make sensible decisions around work life balance are just making it very difficult on themselves, ironically meaning that they'll be seen as worker drones and will actually have to work much, much harder to get anywhere.

_davidsmith_

Greed breeds greed, dont listen to the jaded guy whos now the boss and has the attitude of "i had to do it now so do you" these cycles will continue to repeat themselves until someone says no.

OP Work is work, be flat out but take your breaks, stay late if needs be but dont stay till your body is shutting down. If you are entirely success driven and status and paycheque are the only positives you have in your life, then by all means climb the corporate food chain like yer man did, but if you value your life outside of work and dont fancy heart attacking to the top then, do what you have to whilst balancing life outside.

Some people are capable of great things in small doses and others take more time about things, that guys attitude is all wrong even if i do agree with some of his points, certainly glad i dont work with him!

edit. Markanthony is who i was talking about

MarkAnthony

testaccount123 wrote: »

We have the same work culture.

People who are unable to manage their time or make sensible decisions around work life balance are just making it very difficult on themselves, ironically meaning that they'll be seen as worker drones and will actually have to work much, much harder to get anywhere.

We simply don't. There has been numerous pieces of research conducted on the subject.

As for a work life balance, this is exactly what the discussion is about. Striking the right balance for a given person and time in their career. I can't speak for all professions, but I've certainly no one in my circle of acquaintances that didn't go above an beyond what was required to progress, that's the nature of progression.

Perhaps it's different in some professions but I doubt it.

Mrs OBumble

Jim2007 wrote: »

Actually it's not! It's how the US/UK/IE work, but the rest of Europe does it differently - employers respect the work life balance. If our performance assessments working overtime on a regular basis is a very big negative and the manager will very swiftly receive a kick in the ass if he can't organised his team's workload within normal working hours.

Agreed.

But that is also why some American multi-nationals are now unwilling to hire in Continental Europe if they have any alternatives - like hiring a German/English speaker in Ireland, and using them to co-ordinate getting the work done in somewhere far cheaper.

davo10

mahoganygas wrote: »

He was thinking outside the box.

There seems to have been a paradigm shift in the tone of this thread, clearly there has been a lot done, but there is more to do on this topic.

MarkAnthony

davo10 wrote: »

There seems to have been a paradigm shift in the tone of this thread, clearly there has been a lot done, but there is more to do on this topic.

I had to apologise at work for being a bit too honest about something and used the word paradigm to show how corporate (and sarcastic) I could be. My manager corrected it to program and said I'd spelt something wrong. I was so happy! I have a great boss - I really do.

Tazz T

I'd be interested in knowing what industry this is. There are different expectations depending on the industry, but this sounds exceptional if you are always the last to leave. I wonder if there has been a high turnover of staff in that position before you.

Like others have said, you need to talk to your manager and express your concerns.

And no, it isn't worth it in the long run. You'll just spend your life chasing the next promotion and forgetting to live.

testaccount123

MarkAnthony wrote: »

I can't speak for all professions, but I've certainly no one in my circle of acquaintances that didn't go above an beyond what was required to progress, that's the nature of progression.

Perhaps it's different in some professions but I doubt it.

Theres a world of difference between 'going above and beyond' occasionally and doing what the OP is. The nature of progression is doing a job to a very high standard, not giving away your time for free. Its those who cant meet the high standards required to progress that I often find trying to compensate by working ridiculously long hours.

kupus

Welcome to the working world op.
Get back to me when you start 18 hr days six days a week, for no pay.

_davidsmith_

kupus wrote: »

Welcome to the working world op.
Get back to me when you start 18 hr days six days a week, for no pay.

Some working world youre in pal

CelticRambler

Jim2007 wrote: »

Actually it's not! It's how the US/UK/IE work, but the rest of Europe does it differently - employers respect the work life balance.

Not in France, they don't. There's a load of stuff written into the Code de travail that has employers and employees in a state of permanent conflict. The big thing at the moment is employees being asked/expected to handle 'phone calls and emails "off the clock" when they've finished their official 35-hours and gone home/out/on holiday. The same for meetings being scheduled for lunch-time (two hours, unpaid) or after closing time (unpaid).

testaccount123

_davidsmith_ wrote: »

Some working world youre in pal

Its like a Monty Python sketch in here,

'Hard work, you dont know the meaning of the word! We used to work down t'mines 35 hours a day and WE had to pay for the privilege"

_davidsmith_

testaccount123 wrote: »

Its like a Monty Python sketch in here,

'Hard work, you dont know the meaning of the word! We used to work down t'mines 35 hours a day and WE had to pay for the privilege"

I just dont see the point in those posts, in all seriousness the OP probably knows he will get ahead doing what they want but its f*cking him up.

Idiots saying how much they work (no matter how ridiculous they seem) doesnt help

Noone gives a sh*t if you work 18 hours every day

Mrs OBumble

_davidsmith_ wrote: »

Some working world youre in pal

Ahh, I think it's called Parenting.


:rolleyes:

Triangla

OP - Firstly regarding lunch breaks.

You need to make time for lunch, not 10 mins - at least half an hour. Get away from your desk and get some food and fresh air if you can.

Nobody is going to tap you on the shoulder and hand you a McChicken sandwich.

Secondly, if you have too much to do is it because you are unable to complete it in a timely fashion due to lack of tools (training, proper software) or is it that it is just being piled on?

If it is because you don't have the tools, speak with someone. Be specific, if it takes you ages to do something you were shown once then ask to be shown again.

If work is being piled on, it's probably because you're just taking it and getting it done by working longer hours.

Make a list of all that you need to get done, prioritise by deadline and work through it. If something urgent is thrown your way you can mention your other top priority that will get knocked off.

You need to start clawing back your time, just pick a time, say 5:30 and leave. What you don't get done in your working day is there for you the next day. If there is too much due at the same time and you can't fit it in the time you have, speak with a supervisor/manager. That's what they're there for.

Remember, if you get hit by a bus tomorrow the place will go on without you and nobody will be aware of how busy you are unless you tell them.

_davidsmith_

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Ahh, I think it's called Parenting.


:rolleyes:

Only a parent 6 days a week?! jaysus i thought that was 24/7 either way, parenting being a job isnt the thread we are in now

jimd2

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Honestly OP legislation aside it's a suck it up IMHO especially at 21. Now's the time to put in the 10 and 12 hour days and get to were you can in your career. I did when I was that age.

Maybe I'm jaded that I'll have to do it again in my late 30s but that's what happens when you change careers.

Being blunt if you're not willing to do it, many will.

You just defeated your own argument here mate. What was the point in working all the hours in order to perhaps rise the corporate ladder and then jump ship to another profession?

I certainly agree that the early years in a career are more likely to require extended hours, I certainly did it but never did I compromise my lunch break except in absolutely exceptional circumstances.]

My advice is no different to most here but I would emphasize that you start taking your lunch break incorporating some fresh air every day. If you are in the office 4 hours at lunch time then take at least 45 minutes. Generally you should not be working the very long days more than 2 or 3 days a week.

Also, if your work is with a PC there are ergonomic and eyesight rules around that also.

Overall, it is usually good for building up experience, kudos etc by working long hours but nothing is guaranteed and you could end up leaving the place, change careers, go abroad etc and the long hours wont have been as beneficial as some here are making out.

Jim2007

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Agreed.

But that is also why some American multi-nationals are now unwilling to hire in Continental Europe if they have any alternatives - like hiring a German/English speaker in Ireland, and using them to co-ordinate getting the work done in somewhere far cheaper.

Can't agree there. We have 15 Fortune 500 companies headquartered here and another 122 US companies have their European HQ here. Companies like Nestle, Novartis, Zurich Insurance, Roche, Credit Suisse, UBS, ABB, Adecco, CHUB, Dow and so on.

You don't come to Switzerland if you want cheap - I once asked the owner of textile machinery factory how he managed to compete with the low cost alternatives... he said he usually invited the client's top people to Switzerland and then took them out for a day trip by train/boat/bus always taking great care to point out how efficient everything was and how you could plan train journeys with a 5 min break to change trains etc... then at the end of the day he poses the question: Now who do you want to build your machines? the people who can do all this or the ???? (who ever the competitor is) He said he usually gets the contract.

Jim2007

CelticRambler wrote: »

Not in France, they don't. There's a load of stuff written into the Code de travail that has employers and employees in a state of permanent conflict. The big thing at the moment is employees being asked/expected to handle 'phone calls and emails "off the clock" when they've finished their official 35-hours and gone home/out/on holiday. The same for meetings being scheduled for lunch-time (two hours, unpaid) or after closing time (unpaid).

All the same I think they are doing pretty well when all is said and done.

MarkAnthony

jimd2 wrote: »

You just defeated your own argument here mate. What was the point in working all the hours in order to perhaps rise the corporate ladder and then jump ship to another profession?

I certainly agree that the early years in a career are more likely to require extended hours, I certainly did it but never did I compromise my lunch break except in absolutely exceptional circumstances.]

My advice is no different to most here but I would emphasize that you start taking your lunch break incorporating some fresh air every day. If you are in the office 4 hours at lunch time then take at least 45 minutes. Generally you should not be working the very long days more than 2 or 3 days a week.

Also, if your work is with a PC there are ergonomic and eyesight rules around that also.

Overall, it is usually good for building up experience, kudos etc by working long hours but nothing is guaranteed and you could end up leaving the place, change careers, go abroad etc and the long hours wont have been as beneficial as some here are making out.

Not really pal, mate. I got to a point in my mid-twenties where I didn't need to earn more money, saved, cut back on some of the extra work I was doing which had helped me make a name for myself and stopped moving at the drop of a hat. I then decided to take a three year break and go back to college full-time, because I fancied something different.

What I was doing before could have progressed to a six figure salary but wasn't very challenging. It gets to a point where money isn't everything, but when you start put it usually is.

Wanderer2010

I think the most important thing to take from this thread is that companies can go on and thrive with or without you and at the end of the day you are nothing but an easily replaceable number. When I look back on my life I certainly will never think that I should have put in more 14 hour days at the office, instead I will be happy for the time I had away from work. OP if things don't improve just move on life is far too short to be a company man.

_davidsmith_

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Not really pal, mate. I got to a point in my mid-twenties where I didn't need to earn more money, saved, cut back on some of the extra work I was doing which had helped me make a name for myself and stopped moving at the drop of a hat. I then decided to take a three year break and go back to college full-time, because I fancied something different.

What I was doing before could have progressed to a six figure salary but wasn't very challenging. It gets to a point where money isn't everything, but when you start put it usually is.[/quote

This guy is definitely either a 12 year old kid on his laptop or some low level clerk with dilutions of grandeur.
And if it's true and you feel the need to talk about it on the internet then you and your potential "six figure salary" that was not challenging (laughable) should prob not be handing advice out to other people.

gavoreilly

Just take half an hour for lunch every day (you need some fresh air and a break from your workstation) and complain feeling ill to anybody who tries to pull you up on it. You might fear that will call you a lightweight, but anyone that you are reporting to won't (and there the only ones you need to worry about). If they think that they are doing anything to damage your health, they will be very quick to change their tune. There is also no way they could get rid of you. They wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

kippy

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Honestly OP legislation aside it's a suck it up IMHO especially at 21. Now's the time to put in the 10 and 12 hour days and get to were you can in your career. I did when I was that age.

Maybe I'm jaded that I'll have to do it again in my late 30s but that's what happens when you change careers.

Being blunt if you're not willing to do it, many will.

Thats silly. Any eejit can 'work' 12 or 14 hour days.
Any company basing promotions and career advancement on amount of hours worked is gonna have big issues with this at some point.

lukesmom

Are you seriously not taking a break at all? No food??? No job/money in the world is worth that.

MarkAnthony

kippy wrote: »

Thats silly. Any eejit can 'work' 12 or 14 hour days.
Any company basing promotions and career advancement on amount of hours worked is gonna have big issues with this at some point.

You've added two hours in one quote.

But honestly - you think the guy who works 8 hours a day, clocks off bang on time and says see ya then there is work to be done is going to have the same promotion prospects as the guy who comes in 30 minutes early, and goes home and hour late - when the work demands it - and volunteers to do additional work which helps him develop and progress?

I'm willing to admit you need to be canny about it, but at 21 you learn to be canny by putting in the hours. If you can short cut that process for the OP, more power to the both of you.

EDIT: In reply to the other post a six figure salary in a large super market, area manager role (inc allowances) or the dream job for most retailers - running a department store - is very achievable for even oiks like me without (at that time) formal qualifications. It's also not that challenging mentally at least. Some employers do put you through the ringer on hours to be fair. Hers's the 61K Aldi offer as a starting salary.

Other in demand sectors such as IT command high salaries and some would consider them easy - not me personally. Then there is the semi-state/civil service which can be very good in terms of work life balance, very well paid and again in some cases not particularly challenging. I do wonder how many of you saying a c.40 hour week is all you need to put in are in in demand professions in large corporate structures? Again different professions require different standards, I can only go on what know. I don't a single PQ solicitor that only puts in 40 hours. They do insist on lunches though!

As I've said and people chose not to quote, not worth your health, if you're not happy move on and the culture in mainland Europe is much better.

kippy

MarkAnthony wrote: »

You've added two hours in one quote.

But honestly - you think the guy who works 8 hours a day, clocks off bang on time and says see ya then there is work to be done is going to have the same promotion prospects as the guy who comes in 30 minutes early, and goes home and hour late - when the work demands it - and volunteers to do additional work which helps him develop and progress?

I'm willing to admit you need to be canny about it, but at 21 you learn to be canny by putting in the hours. If you can short cut that process for the OP, more power to the both of you.

It was a general comment about working "long" days to highlight the futility of it.

You have to be exceptionally canny about it.
It depends on where you work and indeed what you work at but yeah, the guy who is able to analyse his work and become more efficient at processing it is generally going to be more desired and looked more favorably upon than the guy who does the hours "because the work is there".
There are probably only certain areas that it applies to (I am in IT for example) but I've often seen very competent people work long hours doing jobs that, were they more efficient about it, would take a lot less.
Jump in someone like me who analyses the processes, procedures and methods of doing that work (and indeed why it that work is there in the first place) and you end up with an organisation that needs less man hours and staff in general to get the job done.
Companies aren't looking for people to work longer hours, they are looking for people to work smarter hours.

Granted if you are in a manual labour or non professional role it can be hard to eek out efficiencies.

Ultimately you will get zero thanks in most organisations for putting in the time and indeed usually end up getting taken for granted.


EDIT:

I see now, you are a solicitor. Yer in the same boat as accountants.
Ye loose major parts of yer late teens and twenties to put in the time to get yer qualifications etc I know plenty of these people.
Granted ye might reap the rewards later in life financially, but you'll never get those hours back in yer early life.
I have nothing but sympathy for those two professions and those just starting out in them. Blinded by the corporate requirements.

MarkAnthony

Quite, and I think people have warned the OP of that and put forward the possibility it's newbie inefficiency. I certainly think that's a large part of it evidence by he's the last one their other than the MD.

As I say I can only speak for the roles I've had. As a lowly clerk I have to put in my hours . As an assistant and store manager I had to prove I could do the next job up while doing my own, that's just the way it works. Should have stayed and finished that computer science degree!

TimeToShine

I was sympathetic until I saw the edit above which says that you're working for a law firm.

Law with the big firms means 10-12 hour days for the next few years. You should have known this when you started. The bigger firms will be paying you upwards of €37k at 21 but you will be expected to work 9-9. In short, your life will disappear.

If this is your dream job, then it is safe to say it's probably with one of the bigger firms. In that case, I'm afraid there is absolutely nothing you can do.