Working extra hours unpaid - what to do?

SarEl

Mischa8 wrote: »

I am sort of wondering if it is partly an attitude problem on my friend's part ....

So now you are wondering this too? And isn't that what the posters you have been criticising have been pointing out? It would seem that you are applying double standards here. You spit at people who say this may be the case - then say it yourself.

jenhugs

My husband is a Project Management Accountant, his hours of work are either meant to be 8-4 or 9-5 dependent on day what cover he has etc. He actually goes into work every day for 8 and gets home at 5.30 or 6. Some days he even goes without his lunch because he is too busy. I guess when you get to a certain position it is expected of you.

Wellery82

A few things stand out from this to me -

1.) On what basis whatsoever is there any suggestion of racial or sexual discrimiation. You mention your friend was in trouble for being late - i am presuming that the same process has applied for all that are late?

2.) Your friend is not being forced to "work like a dog". She voluntaririly comes in early. If she wanted she could have a coffee for this time or read a paper. Furthermore it is half an hour early - i know the many people i work with, including myself, will do 20+ unpaid hours a week in the current climate, this isn't the right thing but it is often a reality. Being upset because of an extra half hour a morning does sound very petty to me, even more so when she has taken it on herself to do that

3.) Flexible working - Has she approached this option with management. If others have it and she is not allowed then has she been given a reason why, or is it something that is either not operated or she hasn't even asked for?

To be honest it sounds a very minor issue for her, that has no discrimination present at all on the face of it

keithdc

I think the OP is right- this is clear discrimination on the grounds of sex and race.

It is appalling that the employer expects her to be in on time, and has the nerve to bring this up in her appraisal. And, as for working longer hours, in the hope of career progression- outrageous!

As for the fact that the two male white employees get there on time because they live closer- this is further discrimination as clearly the employer is preventing female black employees from living nearby to the office.

I suggest she sues immediately- should be worth a couple of million!! :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

eschaton

Mischa8 wrote: »

I would like to make it clear that both she and I have discussed this and she is almost 99.9% certain it is not sex or race discrimination.

Pity you both hadn't discussed this before she was being discriminated against for race, sex or both.



p.s. when in a hole, best advice is to stop digging

Savvy_Sue

bestpud wrote: »

From the employers POV:

Say they allowed her to come in late whenever she is held up by the weather, or adverse traffic conditions, because she lives a distance from the site.

Then 'Joe', who lives round the corner, says he is late sometimes because his child was up all night... I mean, it's no more his fault, is it?

Then 'Fred' says he is late sometimes because he has to drop his partner/child elsewhere and gets caught in traffic despite living close to the site... Is that different from your friend?

Then 'Harry' looks on and thinks he will have an extra hour in bed as he's hungover, and it doesn't matter because they don't worry about the
odd late start...

Before you know it, everyone is strolling in when they feel like it.

Fact is, we all have issues that crop up, but we can't make a unilateral decision to ignore our work hours when these issue occur!!

No, but this is where a canny employee would get colleagues on side and make a formal, group suggestion to HR or the MD about a formal flexi-time system.

In my last job, everyone had flexi-time except staff covering certain services which had to open set hours. When cover was needed for those services, we worked out between us who would be there to open up / shut down etc.

Other than that, as long as you were there by 10 am, didn't leave before 4 pm, didn't take more than 12-2 for lunch, and got your hours worked over the course of a 4 week period, you could be 'late' or leave early as often as you liked. Dentist / optician / GP appointment? No problem. Sick child? time to make arrangements in the morning. Car won't start? time to get the bus and not be late.

I don't understand why any employer insists on a formal 9-5 arrangement if it's not essential!

paulwf wrote: »

OP it may be that under the current system (i.e. set working hours) although it doesn't matter to her workload what time she gets in management may be enforcing it to set an example to others. She is in a fairly senior grade so if she came in late then others in more time critical jobs may pick up on that. At the moment it also makes life difficult for her manager if they assume she will be in a 9am and isn't, they may have 15-30 mins of wondering if she is sick that day, having to log a short working day, rearranging team briefings etc

All of that is true enough. However in the situation I described above, if you had a meeting booked before 10, you got there for it. If you were unwell, you phoned in as soon as you could, and certainly before any diary engagements.

paulwf wrote: »

That's not to say she can't request the system is changed so she gets flexitime. You have to bear in mind though that if one person gets it everyone will want it, and that soon creates an administrative nightmare.

Not necessarily: if only a few 'special' people have it, it can be a nightmare and that's when the 'discrimination' card may be played. If everyone has it, it works quite well!

Mischa8

Savvy_Sue wrote: »

No, but this is where a canny employee would get colleagues on side and make a formal, group suggestion to HR or the MD about a formal flexi-time system.

In my last job, everyone had flexi-time except staff covering certain services which had to open set hours. When cover was needed for those services, we worked out between us who would be there to open up / shut down etc.

Other than that, as long as you were there by 10 am, didn't leave before 4 pm, didn't take more than 12-2 for lunch, and got your hours worked over the course of a 4 week period, you could be 'late' or leave early as often as you liked. Dentist / optician / GP appointment? No problem. Sick child? time to make arrangements in the morning. Car won't start? time to get the bus and not be late.

I don't understand why any employer insists on a formal 9-5 arrangement if it's not essential!

All of that is true enough. However in the situation I described above, if you had a meeting booked before 10, you got there for it. If you were unwell, you phoned in as soon as you could, and certainly before any diary engagements.

Not necessarily: if only a few 'special' people have it, it can be a nightmare and that's when the 'discrimination' card may be played. If everyone has it, it works quite well!

Hi Savvy Sue,

I don't know if my friend has discussed this with her work - the flexi-time etc but all are very valid points. The times when she is late for work are strictly beyond her control nor does she mind that much working overtime.

I should have mentioned perhaps that my friend also has an elderly and sick mother who lives with my friend's autistic brother - my friend has recently rented out their bought flat and bought them a house near where she lives. There is only another sister living nearby who works for a London council but the sister works long hours too and isn't as forthcoming with offers of help to my friend.

So this is partly why my friend needs/wants time off. And AFAIK her company now have never said she can't have time off if she needs to accompany her mother to the hospital for an appointment etc.

I fail to see personally no matter how you work but ESPECIALLY if you audit and travel long distances the vast majority of the time, why a company can't be a bit lenient sometimes with flexi-time. But as has been proved here, maybe my friend has brought this up and it's been turned down or maybe she feels she will rock more boats at the company by asking for flexi-time or perhaps just perhaps as the vast majority seem to think here, she just DOESN'T work hard enough! Hardly...

I was a bit stupid to put 'work like a dog' I must agree.

and to be perfectly honest I wonder why I brought this up in the first place but never mind....

hermum

I'm unsure from your posts whether your friend has actually formally requested the option of flexi time.

Mischa8

SarEl wrote: »

So now you are wondering this too? And isn't that what the posters you have been criticising have been pointing out? It would seem that you are applying double standards here. You spit at people who say this may be the case - then say it yourself.

I am merely thinking out aloud or aren't I allowed to do this here?!

I take umbrage at most of your comments directed towards me here and in particular the tone, how am I 'spitting' at people for goodness sake?!

I am not applying double standards, merely after my OP taking other people's POV on board and then rethinking my answer/reply. That is what normal people do, I believe when getting other info/replies from a message board/forum.

And why should I have to put down 'every little thing' I think about before typing it out in this post?! Believe me there is no hidden meaning here.

Having said that I do take your replies on board, and thank you for your input employment wise. I have seen personally when you have offered helpful and polite advice to other people on this board and when you're doing it for free it is a very noble action.

Let's calm all this down shall we eh?

Mischa8

hermum wrote: »

I'm unsure from your posts whether your friend has actually formally requested the option of flexi time.

I am not sure either whether she asked for flexi time and was declined it. I will update here, if anyone is interested for the next time I see her.