Leaving work on time frowned upon. Mod warning post 1

screamer

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

That was the usual management bulletin trick of making you feel under a compliment for getting that to which you are actually entitled.:

At the ould entitlement rears it's head. So let's set it straight then your manager was not bullying you. You are allowed to take holidays 20 in the year statutory BUT your manager does not have to give you 3 week blocks of holiday. If for example they had others already on leave at the same time and granting you 3 weeks in a row would cause shortage of resources they are well within their rights to not approve it or offer you 3 other weeks. So long as you get your statutory 20 days off that's your entitlement. Configuration of those days is not your entitlement. Bullying ..... sheesh.

Coat22

C4Kid wrote: »

This morning one of the directors came out to me while sitting in my car before work and said people who do the 8-4:30 don't last long around here.

Were you actually sitting in your car waiting for 8:30 to come along before you went in? I'd have to say if I were the employer and saw someone sitting there waiting to clock on rather than rocking in and getting going (even if it was just getting a cup of tea) I'd have reservations about you.

Mrs OBumble

Russell Nutty Socialism wrote: »

My advice to People who say they dont want kids whether they are working at a basic wage or any wage, whatever the excuse you will regret it as you get older.

I read an article the other week, giving the perspective of a mother in the US, whose son turned into a mass-murderer. She said some similar things to a friend of mine whose son only killed one other guy in a car crash.

Lets just say there are worse things in life than not having children.




Back on topic, in a previous life I actually have worked with some incredibly committed special-education professionals who would dearly have loved to spend every hour of the day working. Mostly older women whose own children were grown up, who were delighted to spend their time making the world better for other people.

They were inspirational. But I had not problem accepting that they worked 80 hours/week to my 40.

Captain Flaps

It would be bullying if the manager forced this employee to take patchy days here or there whilst allowing other employees to block book, but in even the most accommodating company they're not going to let everyone take the same 2 week break.

wardides

I work in a similar place at the moment. It's widely known that many staff should try stay and leave after one of the Directors leave, at least once or twice a week. I find it absolutely insane. Grown men, meant to be top line management, in the biggest company within our industry, advising new & younger staff to stay until 6/6.30 just to give a good impression. Madness.

ixus

There are many points of view to this sort of thing. It depends on a persons attitude to a work/life balance, working for "the man", doing the bare minimum, drive to get ahead etc.

I've been on both sides of the "perception" thing.

I worked for a multi-national where you were expected to work beyond the 9-5. I used to do 7-5, leaving on the dot. Others used to arrive at 9 or just after and work until 6. Guess who was viewed as the harder worker? Perception is a powerful thing.

I work in a results based business now. You get out of it what you put in. If your results are strong and you want to reduce hours, thats ok. If your results are poor and you don't put in the hours to rectify, you won't be around long.

Decide what you want from a job and find one that fits your personality.

KlausFlouride

wardides wrote: »

I work in a similar place at the moment. It's widely known that many staff should try stay and leave after one of the Directors leave, at least once or twice a week. I find it absolutely insane. Grown men, meant to be top line management, in the biggest company within our industry, advising new & younger staff to stay until 6/6.30 just to give a good impression. Madness.

Certain people have a martyr complex about staying on late. I had one clown of a manager who would give you the evil eye if you left before he did. Would spend most of the day on his mobile to his family. He left, became obvious afterwards the guy had done **** all all day long.

ixus

wardides wrote: »

I work in a similar place at the moment. It's widely known that many staff should try stay and leave after one of the Directors leave, at least once or twice a week. I find it absolutely insane. Grown men, meant to be top line management, in the biggest company within our industry, advising new & younger staff to stay until 6/6.30 just to give a good impression. Madness.

It's not really. It is probably what they did to get to the top. They probably think they are giving sound advice to help someone at the start of their career. What they don't realise is that not everyone wants to be like them. Different strokes etc...

KomradeBishop

screamer wrote: »

Id rather have no legislated overtime than have what they have in the US. Zero certainty, pathetic holidays, awful maternity leave, and knowing you can be told to clear your desk out any day you're fired. Overtime is a nice extra on top but I think most people like to rely on the certainty that their wage gives them. I get your point about overtime but in the grand scheme of things the US is no yard stick for anywhere. I'd rather our laws any day.

You're presenting a false dichotomy - I did not argue for zero certainty, pathetic holidays, awful maternity leave, and being able to be fired without notice - and you know this.

Given how abysmal the US laws are regarding workers rights, the fact that even though their laws are still bad, they still legislate for mandatory overtime payments, shows how bad our laws are regarding overtime and unpaid work.

If the US is so bad and even they legislate to protect workers from unpaid overtime, it goes a long way to showing our own standards on unpaid overtime are in serious need of reform.

Sunny Disposition

ixus wrote: »

It's not really. It is probably what they did to get to the top. They probably think they are giving sound advice to help someone at the start of their career. What they don't realise is that not everyone wants to be like them. Different strokes etc...

I think he means that the fact it is good advice is crazy, that people are judged by not leaving instead of or as well as the quality of what they do.
It's true about some people feeling they are martyrs, a one in my place spends half the day gossiping and then boasts/complains that she needs to work late.
I think the treatment of the OP is v bad, I'd rate it as a passive aggressive type of bullying. If there's a problem with his work address it, but trying to subtly make him do unpaid overtime for an undefined purpose is ridiculous, far from manly behaviour.

KomradeBishop

All this talk of entitlement: Why the hell should employers feel entitled to free work out of their employee's? It takes bugger all effort to just pay workers for the extra hours they put in - the primary reason not to, is money. As I showed earlier as well, this costs the workforce overall, up to €90 million a week in stolen wages, amounting to over €4+ billion in stolen wages a year:
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/employees-losing-out-on-millions-by-working-for-free-30359278.html

Wanderer2010

ixus wrote: »

It's not really. It is probably what they did to get to the top. They probably think they are giving sound advice to help someone at the start of their career. What they don't realise is that not everyone wants to be like them. Different strokes etc...

But ARE there many managers out there who, having seen an employee in the office at half 6 and just before they leave, are actually IMPRESSED by that? Merely being at your desk at a certain time doesn't mean you are working hard, you could be on the internet for all the boss knows. It would be a naïve and stupid manager who equates long hours with hard work, given the fact to become a manager you have to work hard yourself..

davo10

KomradeBishop wrote: »

You're presenting a false dichotomy - I did not argue for zero certainty, pathetic holidays, awful maternity leave, and being able to be fired without notice - and you know this.

Given how abysmal the US laws are regarding workers rights, the fact that even though their laws are still bad, they still legislate for mandatory overtime payments, shows how bad our laws are regarding overtime and unpaid work.

If the US is so bad and even they legislate to protect workers from unpaid overtime, it goes a long way to showing our own standards on unpaid overtime are in serious need of reform.

No they didn't legislate for mandatory overtime payments. They legislated for certain sectors under certain conditions, it is by no means mandatory in any way shape or form.

And it is precisely because this is 2015 and not 2000 that Wikipedia should not be used as a way of backing up a particular viewpoint, Wikipedia is open source which means it can be edited by readers. If you want to lose an argument, use Wikipedia as your only source.

KomradeBishop

davo10 wrote: »

No they didn't legislate for mandatory overtime payments. They legislated for certain sectors under certain conditions, it is by no means mandatory in any way shape or form.

And it is precisely because this is 2015 and not 2000 that Wikipedia should not be used as a way of backing up a particular viewpoint, Wikipedia is open source which means it can be edited by readers. If you want to lose an argument, use Wikipedia as your only source.

You're being deliberately obtuse here - yes they did legislate for mandatory overtime payments, accounting for 40%+ of industry.

You aren't even disagreeing with the facts presented in the Wikipedia article - you're using the article yourself, to try and back up your argument - so it's obvious you're using that as a tactic to try and pour doubt on the argument overall.

You're deliberately trying to act 'slow' and discount easily-verified information, just to try and pour doubt - if you disagree with the facts presented in the Wikipedia article, about the Fair Labour Standards Act, then say so.

If you don't even disagree with the facts put forward in the Wikipedia article - which you don't appear to - then stop wasting time trying to obstruct a valid argument, with nonsense.

KomradeBishop

Also, the talk about trying to 'impress' employers, by putting extra work in: How about employers try to impress workers, by respecting them enough, to pay them for the overtime they put in?

The overall air of a lot of the debate here, is encouraging workers to be deferential to their employers, discarding their own self-respect in the process.
This is then usually backed up by pointing out the imbalanced power relations between workers and employers: Unemployment is high enough, that workers can be fired and replaced fairly easily - greatly reducing the bargaining position of workers, and allowing easier mistreatment of them.

People shouldn't stand for that at all - it's a very easy problem to rectify, through political lobbying, and enacting laws like in the US, that mandate overtime payments (while still allowing for alternatives, like time in lieu etc.).

wardides

ixus wrote: »

It's not really. It is probably what they did to get to the top. They probably think they are giving sound advice to help someone at the start of their career. What they don't realise is that not everyone wants to be like them. Different strokes etc...

Not different strokes at all. I earn a salary, not an hourly rate. I base my performance off results & projects I'm able to get over the line. Working 8-6 everyday doesn't mean you will get ahead of someone who does 9-5. I come in at 8:30 everyday, organise my day & get through it. For example one of the employees in question was rushing around trying to print & bind a hard copy of a presentation he was due to give at 12.30. He was doing this at 12.20.

Someone who leaves at 5:15 shouldn't be viewed as being less hard working than someone who leaves at 6.30. It's moronic.

KlausFlouride

wardides wrote: »

Someone who leaves at 5:15 shouldn't be viewed as being less hard working than someone who leaves at 6.30. It's moronic.

Precisely, some companies have a "culture" of presenteeism, which is possibly the case where the original poster has joined. There doesn't seem to be much point for a new hire to do extra hours, because frankly, they won't know enough yet to contribute anything useful. Places that "encourage" working extra hours for appearances sake are to be avoided, as it's likely a symptom of wider problems in the business

ixus

wardides wrote: »

Not different strokes at all. I earn a salary, not an hourly rate. I base my performance off results & projects I'm able to get over the line. Working 8-6 everyday doesn't mean you will get ahead of someone who does 9-5. I come in at 8:30 everyday, organise my day & get through it. For example one of the employees in question was rushing around trying to print & bind a hard copy of a presentation he was due to give at 12.30. He was doing this at 12.20.

Someone who leaves at 5:15 shouldn't be viewed as being less hard working than someone who leaves at 6.30. It's moronic.

Read my previous post on perception. We are on the same wavelength. What i meant on different strokes, is that a manager or director is most likely trying to get a junior to do what they did as they view that as the right way because it worked for them. They don't necessarily understand how different personalities tick just because they are managers. As in they don't understand different strokes.

wardides

ixus wrote: »

Read my previous post on perception. We are on the same wavelength. What i meant on different strokes, is that a manager or director is most likely trying to get a junior to do what they did as they view that as the right way because it worked for them. They don't necessarily understand how different personalities tick just because they are managers. As in they don't understand different strokes.

100% agree. I personally just don't understand the thought process. If anything it has alienated myself and another colleague to the point that we've only joined the company several months ago and look to leave. It's only a small matter, but to feel like you're not trusted that you can manage your work and produce top performances and results within a normal working week is a tad annoying.

Alf Veedersane

The last company my wife worked at, she was told by a manager that leaving at 5.30 every day created a bad impression/perception...that you should be seen to be there until 6 at least.

More often than not herself and other colleagues would be wasting their time sitting at their desks because they had done a day's work and there was no point starting something new that you'd only get half an hour into.

It probably the first sign of a certain culture in that place. She wound up hating it there to the point where she'd rather not have a job than work there. Even thought that the career wasn't right for her, with the atmosphere and the culture fostered in the place.

A few years later she's still in that career but in a company where you're trusted and your value is based on what you do rather than how long you're at your desk.

Tl;dr staying late for the sake of staying late is absolute horsesh*t

brevity

A lot of absolutes in this thread. Just because someone leaves early doesn't mean they are a slacker and because some stays late doesn't mean they cannot do their job.

Sometimes the need to work extra hours is needed in order to bring a project over the line or if people are out sick. The problem is when it becomes the norm or you aren't getting time in lieu/overtime, then perhaps it's time to look elsewhere.

PaddyWilliams

I work 11 hours a day, every day. I get paid overtime for it, otherwise I would not work the hours I do. Why does it seem acceptable to do overtime for free? Soon enough, those people would end up in a situation like mine, except they would not get the overtime, it would be expected of them. When people have to cover my work while I'm on holiday, they get the overtime also, but they complain like hell about the extra work they have to do and the hours they have to put in.

But I do that 48 weeks a year, so I damn well think I've earned that over time. And no, I do not have a 'sense of entitlement' as some on here are trying to say, but for the work I do and the hassle I put up with, could anyone argue that I am not entitled to the overtime?

And to top that, I have plenty of managers who never work a full day but expect employees to work every hour God gave them!

C4Kid

I'm the OP of this thread and I must say I never expected such a response to my post. First off I'm still working with said company thus far.

I would like to give some more info on the situation, I say 8-4:30 but realistically I'm in at 7-50/55 and leave normally about 4:40/45. I don't work strictly 8-4:30.

I am still shadowing another employee at this stage. I often turn up at 7:40 but might be the first or second person to arrive with most arriving shortly after, hence why I tend to wait in the car. I can't do much on my own atm so I'm not keen on sitting in an empty office alone waiting for everyone else with nothing to really get on with.

The wages are not much higher then the minimum wage which is what sparked my question. If it was a high paying position fair enough, it comes with tertiary but I could make similar money in other positions where one can start and leave relatively on time with out a problem. I must add I continue to apply for other work atm. The pay might not be the highest although I can live with that , looking for extra on top imo is a bit much all thing considered...

Stheno

C4Kid wrote: »

I'm the OP of this thread and I must say I never expected such a response to my post. First off I'm still working with said company thus far.

I would like to give some more info on the situation, I say 8-4:30 but realistically I'm in at 8-50/55 and leave normally about 4:40/45. I don't work strictly 8-4:30.

I am still shadowing another employee at this stage. I often turn up at 8:40 but might be the first or second person to arrive with most arriving shortly after, hence why I tend to wait in the car. I can't do much on my own atm so I'm not keen on sitting in an empty office alone waiting for everyone else with nothing to really get on with.

The wages are not much higher then the minimum wage which is what sparked my question. If it was a high paying position fair enough I have no issue but I could make similar money in other positions where one can start and leave on time with out a problem. I must add I continue to apply for other work atm. The pay might not be the highest although I can live with that , looking for extra on top imo is a bit much all thing considered...

Have you made a mistake with your times? Did you mean to say you normally arrive at 7:50/55 for an 8am start?

C4Kid

Stheno wrote: »

Have you made a mistake with your times? Did you mean to say you normally arrive at 7:50/55 for an 8am start?

My bad... Sorted now!

Stheno

C4Kid wrote: »

I'm the OP of this thread and I must say I never expected such a response to my post. First off I'm still working with said company thus far.

I would like to give some more info on the situation, I say 8-4:30 but realistically I'm in at 7-50/55 and leave normally about 4:40/45. I don't work strictly 8-4:30.

I am still shadowing another employee at this stage. I often turn up at 7:40 but might be the first or second person to arrive with most arriving shortly after, hence why I tend to wait in the car. I can't do much on my own atm so I'm not keen on sitting in an empty office alone waiting for everyone else with nothing to really get on with.

The wages are not much higher then the minimum wage which is what sparked my question. If it was a high paying position fair enough, it comes with tertiary but I could make similar money in other positions where one can start and leave relatively on time with out a problem. I must add I continue to apply for other work atm. The pay might not be the highest although I can live with that , looking for extra on top imo is a bit much all thing considered...

Rather than sitting in your car, why not go in, get a cup of coffee/tea if there is a kitchen and get set up for the day?

Sitting in your car until start time does give a bit of an impression of a clockwatcher!

C4Kid

Stheno wrote: »

Rather than sitting in your car, why not go in, get a cup of coffee/tea if there is a kitchen and get set up for the day?

Sitting in your car until start time does give a bit of an impression of a clockwatcher!

Yes, I would tend to agree with you. I suppose that was always what I did and since it had never been mentioned before I was not really aware how badly it looked. However saying that I am usually not the only one.

Being a small business it gets noticed unlike large firms which is also somewhat new to me..

Stheno

C4Kid wrote: »

Yes, I would tend to agree with you. I suppose that was always what I did and since it had never been mentioned before I was not really aware how badly it looked. However saying that I am usually not the only one.

Being a small business it gets noticed unlike large firms which is also somewhat new to me..

Yeah small businesses are like a nosey neighbour!

Eire Go Brach

During my yearly review. My boss after given me a rise. Gave me the waffle about doing more and this and that etc.
Then says. "The lads(designers) always stay on after half five. You and D always leave bang on half five. Use practically run out the door."
I turned around and said. "Il have a word with the designers" ha ha. My Boss just laughed. Had a good relationship with him.

Log9

Quite an odd one actually:

A friend of mine's working for a similarly cultured company and she's recently had a baby. She was told that 'people like you are always putting your children ahead of your career, it's no wonder you never get promoted' when she went home 20 mins after official 'closing time'.

She was also told to get the bus to / from home as she'd have more time to read material from work on the way. That isn't actually practical as she doesn't live on a bus route, but the boss has suggested she gets her husband to drive her to the bus stop or gets a taxi there and then spends the journey reading extra material.

Anyway, the net result is that she's quit the job.

PaddyWilliams

Log9 wrote: »

Quite an odd one actually:

A friend of mine's working for a similarly cultured company and she's recently had a baby. She was told that 'people like you are always putting your children ahead of your career, it's no wonder you never get promoted' when she went home 20 mins after official 'closing time'.

She was also told to get the bus to / from home as she'd have more time to read material from work on the way. That isn't actually practical as she doesn't live on a bus route, but the boss has suggested she gets her husband to drive her to the bus stop or gets a taxi there and then spends the journey reading extra material.

Anyway, the net result is that she's quit the job.

Wow, that just defies sense. Glad she quit

Nika Bolokov

Hi OP,

I can see why he would be annoyed if you simply down tools at 4:30 if your colleagues are very busy or you are not finished something.

However if its a case that you are being asked to do more than you can do within your normal working hours every day for no recompense or your staying for the sake of appearances than that is a different story.

I have worked in Germany, Belgium and other parts of Europe and the idea that you stay in work late for appearances or work for free regularly is very much an American idea.

Becoming an 'Office Warrior' and staying until 9 every day but basically doing nothing, tiring yourself out, becoming miserable and unproductive is very much a stupid aspect of American working culture along with not wanting to take some of your ten days annual leave.

If your working your profitable for them and by getting you to work for free their taking advantage. Getting a pat on the head for being a team player whilst they milk your efforts and give you nothing is a Victorian concept that leads to profits rising and wages stagnating which is not positive for industrial relations in general.

omahaid

Is it really an American thing though? I've worked as an engineer for three American multinationals in Ireland over the last decade. One operated a clock in - clock out system and as a result almost no-one worked more than the core hours. The other two were very flexible as regards working hours but expected you to be as well e.g. I had a conference call last Wednesday night at 8pm to 930pm but on the flip side my youngest had a concert yesterday so I didn't arrive into work until 10:30am.

All my co-workers have similar work patterns and the American companies seem very happy with this. My total working hours per week wouldn't usually be more than the 39 in my contract.

skallywag

omahaid wrote: »

Is it really an American thing though?

Not at all. Many companies, whether they be American or not, will expect someone who is salaried to make extra effort when it is needed.

omahaid

skallywag wrote: »

Not at all. Many companies, whether they be American or not, will expect someone who is salaried to make extra effort when it is needed.

You're missing my point. I was referring to

Nika Bolokov wrote: »

Becoming an 'Office Warrior' and staying until 9 every day but basically doing nothing, tiring yourself out, becoming miserable and unproductive is very much a stupid aspect of American working culture along with not wanting to take some of your ten days annual leave..

My point is that the three American multinationals I worked for didn't expect you to be an office warrior however they did expect you the make extra effort when it is needed. On the flip side if it is quiet no-one is bothered if you come in late or go home early. What matters is that you perform. So staying late just for the sake of it is not a feature of American working culture (at least in my experience).

catbear

skallywag wrote: »

Not at all. Many companies, whether they be American or not, will expect someone who is salaried to make extra effort when it is needed.

I was with a company that started that lark, it rang alarm bells for me. I left them and not long after they went bust. There's no reason for unpaid hours for permanent or contract employees. it's bull****.

NUTLEY BOY

screamer wrote: »

At the ould entitlement rears it's head. So let's set it straight then your manager was not bullying you. You are allowed to take holidays 20 in the year statutory BUT your manager does not have to give you 3 week blocks of holiday. If for example they had others already on leave at the same time and granting you 3 weeks in a row would cause shortage of resources they are well within their rights to not approve it or offer you 3 other weeks. So long as you get your statutory 20 days off that's your entitlement. Configuration of those days is not your entitlement. Bullying ..... sheesh.

I was there, you weren't.

The entitlements were actually available under internal company rules at that time.

The broader point that I was making was that there was an actual entitlement (excellent I must say in retrospect !) but that a manager thought that it would be fun to put me under a compliment to get it. The individual in question was actually a notorious bully within the company and the behaviour that I described was typical of him personally and of his type and of the way that he dealt with people..

GreeBo

catbear wrote: »

I was with a company that started that lark, it rang alarm bells for me. I left them and not long after they went bust. There's no reason for unpaid hours for permanent or contract employees. it's bull****.

Most salaried employees dont work to hours.

If you are on an hourly rate then dont work regular unpaid overtime.
If you are on a yearly salary then dont work regular overtime if you are also not getting something for it.

I often work late and its unpaid, however my bosses dont watch what time I come in at or go to lunch at.
We treat each other like adults and so everyone wins.

Unpaid overtime entirely depends on your position and the expectations on both sides.

KlausFlouride

omahaid wrote: »

Is it really an American thing though?

It's a big thing in Japan also, you don't leave until your boss goes home. Crony of mine worked in Japan, pretended he didn't understand the 'rule' and fecked off at 5.

catbear

GreeBo wrote: »

Most salaried employees dont work to hours.

If you are on an hourly rate then dont work regular unpaid overtime.
If you are on a yearly salary then dont work regular overtime if you are also not getting something for it.

I often work late and its unpaid, however my bosses dont watch what time I come in at or go to lunch at.
We treat each other like adults and so everyone wins.

Unpaid overtime entirely depends on your position and the expectations on both sides.

I've shuffled hours before but the expectation of regular unpaid hours without recompense says more about the short term motivation of a company.
Unpaid overtime is never worth it. Calling it anything else fooling only those that want to be fooled. Unpaid hours is actually a disincentive to strive.

KomradeBishop

GreeBo wrote: »

Most salaried employees dont work to hours.

If you are on an hourly rate then dont work regular unpaid overtime.
If you are on a yearly salary then dont work regular overtime if you are also not getting something for it.

I often work late and its unpaid, however my bosses dont watch what time I come in at or go to lunch at.
We treat each other like adults and so everyone wins.

Unpaid overtime entirely depends on your position and the expectations on both sides.

What justification is there for that though? For not paying someone when working overtime...

It seems incredibly easy to just pay someone for overtime hours, so I really don't see a valid reason why it doesn't happen in a circumstance like that. The main reason I can see, would be to save the company money, at the expense of the worker.

catbear

Overtime happens because there's extra work. If a company isn't managing its budget correctly and depending on the employee to cover their ass then there has to be some recognition of that.

Putting the employers shortcomings on the employee is disrespectful and breeds resentment and disinterest. The work ends up suffering and the business's downward spiral continues.

Mrs OBumble

KomradeBishop wrote: »

What justification is there for that though? For not paying someone when working overtime...

Because when they're paying someone a high salary, an employer has a right to expect a degree of maturity and professionalism, and also personal time management.

When the salary is lower, then it comes down to whether working for the company in the particular role includes any other benefits, especially experience gained that is beneficial in getting other better paid jobs.

skallywag

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Because when they're paying someone a high salary, an employer has a right to expect a degree of maturity and professionalism, and also personal time management.

I agree completely.

In general I find that those who don't mind working required overtime tend to be well paid and let free to manage their time & tasks as they wish.

They also tend to work with decent companies who certainly will never have someone senior come out with a 'stay late or else' type statement.

mohawk

Worked in a American multinational previously that once gave us a presentation based on all of us employees giving 20 mins a day extra to the company.

skallywag

I've no issue work overtime myself when required on a project, etc, but putting out a message that it is expected everyday is just taking the piss.

KomradeBishop

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Because when they're paying someone a high salary, an employer has a right to expect a degree of maturity and professionalism, and also personal time management.

When the salary is lower, then it comes down to whether working for the company in the particular role includes any other benefits, especially experience gained that is beneficial in getting other better paid jobs.

What? It's got nothing to do with "maturity and professionalism, and also personal time management" on the behalf of the worker - that's ridiculous blaming of the worker - it's got to do with a lack of "maturity and professionalism, and also [] time management" on behalf of the employer.

If someone is doing work for you, you pay them money for it - you don't show such a huge lack of respect for them and unprofessionalism, that you expect them to work for free.

A lower salary doesn't justify unpaid overtime either - that makes it even worse actually, as when the lower the salary, the greater the risk that the workers effectively get paid below minimum wage due to unpaid overtime.

Ridiculous unprofessionalism and sense of entitlement on behalf of employers, in expecting unpaid work, not workers.

seamus

No, I wouldn't say it's a US multinational thing. A lot of professions are rife with it. In accountancy and law for example, trainees are encouraged to put in extra hours without recording them because it keeps the company's overtime bill down, but also reduces the hours billed to the clients.

Ultimately it's down to what the employee wants to get out of the company rather than the other way around. If the employee believes that unpaid overtime is their ticket to greater rewards down the line, then they will work away. On the other hand if someone doesn't care about that, they're not going to do it.

And companies have to recognise this. You can't demand unpaid overtime and expect that everyone will row in. You need to provide something tangible for those extra hours worked. This applies whether or not the person is being paid €20k or €200k.

The difference in the latter case is that their overtime will almost always translate into something for them, directly or otherwise. Whether that's a large performance bonus or recognition in your industry, being a high earner means you're also high-profile. So your extra work will always be noticed.

Low earners are not high-profile. Unpaid overtime yields basically nothing for them, especially when it's expected of them. And any company who does it can expect to be considered a workhouse by the most talented employees who will fly the coop, leaving the unpaid overtime to the bootlickers and the less talented. Less tangible rewards are fine - free good meals, regular party sessions, decent performance bonusses. But there has to be rewards. If you start asking employees to give more effort and provide nothing in return, the best will leave and your company's performance will decrease. And then you'll ask for more free overtime, in a downward spiral of employee churn.

There was an article somewhere recently where a female CEO was bemoaning her staff's dedication. She claimed that she worked every hour of the day, lived and breathed her business, and was disheartened, even annoyed to see employees arriving at 9am and leaving at 5pm when she'd be working at least an extra hour either side of that, as well as handling emails at home. "Why aren't my employees as passionate about my business as I am?" was her question.

And someone nailed the answer very concisely - because every single hour she puts into her business translates to money in her pocket. But it doesn't for her staff. Every extra hour they put in translates to money in her pocket, and not in theirs.

RainyDay

seamus wrote: »

And someone nailed the answer very concisely - because every single hour she puts into her business translates to money in her pocket. But it doesn't for her staff. Every extra hour they put in translates to money in her pocket, and not in theirs.

I'm sure that's part of it, but I don't think that's the full answer.

It's also partly because her staff have other priorities. Money isn't everything. Some people want to spend more time with their family or their hobby or whatever, regardless of what extra money is on the table.

beauf

C4Kid wrote: »

...I'm just wondering is this common place, should I just suck it up or as its only a trial keep applying for other jobs...

Yes its common, especially in certain industries. However lots of places don't do it too. Depends which way you prefer working. Suck it up and find something that suits you better.

Working extra hours is usually a management style or culture. Sometimes its needed sometimes it isn't. It up to you to decide if its worth it.

Staying an extra 30~60mins everyday isn't the same thing as working 2.5~5 extra hours on a Saturday. So why not just let people come in and do it on a Saturday then? Also if these extra hours are important for the company. I would want them officially recorded and noted. I would want some metrics on productivity. Because I might have improved my work process so I can do the same work in half the time as someone else.