If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Working part-time to be with baby, yet needing to travel to client site
I'm back at work after 12 weeks of maternity leave, and am currently
working 20 hours a week, from home, for this first month back - 4 hours a day, mornings only. I will be ramping that up to full-time as of next month, if all goes well with my baby care arrangements. I've just been told I need to travel for a client meeting to a different state, which will mean taking a flight in the early afternoon on Monday and returning at 11 pm on Tuesday. Now, I'm taking a 50% paycut and forfeiting all my benefits this month in order to be able to stay with my kids more. So, how should I count the hours I spend on this trip, as part of this week's 20 hours that I get paid for? When I work full-time, it goes without saying that some of the time I will have to travel to client sites, and some of those hours will be on my own time. But now I'm at 50%, I don't know what's fair. Any suggestions appreciated. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Working part-time to be with baby, yet needing to travel to client site
Lady Penelope Creighton-Ward wrote:
I've just been told I need to travel for a client meeting to a different state, which will mean taking a flight in the early afternoon on Monday and returning at 11 pm on Tuesday. Regardless of working full time or part time, I would count this as 2 full work days: 16 hours. Pologirl |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Working part-time to be with baby, yet needing to travel to clientsite
Lady Penelope Creighton-Ward wrote:
I'm back at work after 12 weeks of maternity leave, and am currently working 20 hours a week, from home, for this first month back - 4 hours a day, mornings only. I will be ramping that up to full-time as of next month, if all goes well with my baby care arrangements. I've just been told I need to travel for a client meeting to a different state, which will mean taking a flight in the early afternoon on Monday and returning at 11 pm on Tuesday. If you were working full time, this would be about 30% of your full work week (1/2 a day - the afternoon) and all the next day (Tuesday). I know the hours are more than 12 hours. So, I think counting the trip as less than 12 hours is unfair to you. That's assuming that if you were working full time, you would still be working in the morning. Otherwise, it's two days or 16 hours. Now, I'm taking a 50% paycut and forfeiting all my benefits this month in order to be able to stay with my kids more. So, how should I count the hours I spend on this trip, as part of this week's 20 hours that I get paid for? So I think counting the trip as 12 to 16 hours is fair both ways. So depending on the situation, I would suggest to your boss that you should work one more morning that week or get paid for 24 or 28 hours if you work more than one morning. In the big scheme of things, whether or not you get paid for the additional 4 hours is not that big a deal. But money is good and it is a sacrifice for you travel with such a little baby at home. And they want to keep you happy. Obviously, this also depends on the dynamics of the working relationship between you and the boss. When I work full-time, it goes without saying that some of the time I will have to travel to client sites, and some of those hours will be on my own time. But now I'm at 50%, I don't know what's fair. Any suggestions appreciated. Good luck, Jeff |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Working part-time to be with baby, yet needing to travel to client site
On Jun 15, 11:25 am, Jeff wrote:
Lady Penelope Creighton-Ward wrote: I'm back at work after 12 weeks of maternity leave, and am currently working 20 hours a week, from home, for this first month back - 4 hours a day, mornings only. I will be ramping that up to full-time as of next month, if all goes well with my baby care arrangements. I've just been told I need to travel for a client meeting to a different state, which will mean taking a flight in the early afternoon on Monday and returning at 11 pm on Tuesday. If you were working full time, this would be about 30% of your full work week (1/2 a day - the afternoon) and all the next day (Tuesday). I know the hours are more than 12 hours. So, I think counting the trip as less than 12 hours is unfair to you. That's assuming that if you were working full time, you would still be working in the morning. Otherwise, it's two days or 16 hours. Now, I'm taking a 50% paycut and forfeiting all my benefits this month in order to be able to stay with my kids more. So, how should I count the hours I spend on this trip, as part of this week's 20 hours that I get paid for? So I think counting the trip as 12 to 16 hours is fair both ways. So depending on the situation, I would suggest to your boss that you should work one more morning that week or get paid for 24 or 28 hours if you work more than one morning. In the big scheme of things, whether or not you get paid for the additional 4 hours is not that big a deal. But money is good and it is a sacrifice for you travel with such a little baby at home. And they want to keep you happy. Obviously, this also depends on the dynamics of the working relationship between you and the boss. When I work full-time, it goes without saying that some of the time I will have to travel to client sites, and some of those hours will be on my own time. But now I'm at 50%, I don't know what's fair. Any suggestions appreciated. Good luck, Jeff Oh, I meant to say that actual 'work' would only happen on Tuesday, 9-5, in the meetings. I will prepare for the meeting the night before while on the flight. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Working part-time to be with baby, yet needing to travel to clientsite
Lady Penelope Creighton-Ward wrote:
On Jun 15, 11:25 am, Jeff wrote: Lady Penelope Creighton-Ward wrote: I'm back at work after 12 weeks of maternity leave, and am currently working 20 hours a week, from home, for this first month back - 4 hours a day, mornings only. I will be ramping that up to full-time as of next month, if all goes well with my baby care arrangements. I've just been told I need to travel for a client meeting to a different state, which will mean taking a flight in the early afternoon on Monday and returning at 11 pm on Tuesday. If you were working full time, this would be about 30% of your full work week (1/2 a day - the afternoon) and all the next day (Tuesday). I know the hours are more than 12 hours. So, I think counting the trip as less than 12 hours is unfair to you. That's assuming that if you were working full time, you would still be working in the morning. Otherwise, it's two days or 16 hours. Now, I'm taking a 50% paycut and forfeiting all my benefits this month in order to be able to stay with my kids more. So, how should I count the hours I spend on this trip, as part of this week's 20 hours that I get paid for? So I think counting the trip as 12 to 16 hours is fair both ways. So depending on the situation, I would suggest to your boss that you should work one more morning that week or get paid for 24 or 28 hours if you work more than one morning. In the big scheme of things, whether or not you get paid for the additional 4 hours is not that big a deal. But money is good and it is a sacrifice for you travel with such a little baby at home. And they want to keep you happy. Obviously, this also depends on the dynamics of the working relationship between you and the boss. When I work full-time, it goes without saying that some of the time I will have to travel to client sites, and some of those hours will be on my own time. But now I'm at 50%, I don't know what's fair. Any suggestions appreciated. Good luck, Jeff Oh, I meant to say that actual 'work' would only happen on Tuesday, 9-5, in the meetings. I will prepare for the meeting the night before while on the flight. The company is requiring you to be someplace. That's work. Plus, you're working on the plane. Jeff |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Working part-time to be with baby, yet needing to travel to client site
"Jeff" wrote in message news:P8zci.18$jb5.7@trndny09... The company is requiring you to be someplace. That's work. Plus, you're working on the plane. Your company also should have policies that clearly delineate how travel time to a work site away from your normally assigned location is treated as well as how reimbursement for the related expenses are handled. This may differ for salaried [f/t] and hourly [p/t] individuals. If you have a contract check it. If not, prepare a reasonable request [16 hours work, full reimbursement for all expenses related to travel, housing and eating during that time as well as at least one phone call home paid for] and discuss it with your supervisor before finalizing your travel plans. They can dictate whatever they want after you've completed the assignment but you are in a position to negotiate before hand. -Aula |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Working part-time to be with baby, yet needing to travel to clientsite
Aula wrote:
"Jeff" wrote in message news:P8zci.18$jb5.7@trndny09... The company is requiring you to be someplace. That's work. Plus, you're working on the plane. Your company also should have policies that clearly delineate how travel time to a work site away from your normally assigned location is treated as well as how reimbursement for the related expenses are handled. This may differ for salaried [f/t] and hourly [p/t] individuals. I think the problem is that she's effectively salaried part time, but doing something that is normally a part of her normally full-time job. I think the most salient question is whether there's some significant problem if she only works one other morning that week. If they need her to work more than one other morning, then can they figure out how to pay her for the additional time? Best wishes, Ericka |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Working part-time to be with baby, yet needing to travel to client site
"Lady Penelope Creighton-Ward" wrote in message Oh, I meant to say that actual 'work' would only happen on Tuesday, 9-5, in the meetings. I will prepare for the meeting the night before while on the flight. It is usual and customary in US business practices that travel time to/from assigned duties that are not at one's regular duty station are counted in work hours as is prep time that is required to be done outside of the usual work hours. Keep in mind recent US court decision regarding who is eligible for over time. Salaried individuals making less than a certain amount [that I don't recall atm] are entitled to over time, so just because one is salaried does not automatically preclude over time pay nor suggest one must or should accept working more than 40 hours as appropriate or standard. Yes, there are professions and businesses where it seems that is the method of 'getting ahead', but that does not mean the law will turn a blind eye in regards to compensation for that time. Aula |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Working part-time to be with baby, yet needing to travel to client site
In article , Aula says...
"Lady Penelope Creighton-Ward" wrote in message Oh, I meant to say that actual 'work' would only happen on Tuesday, 9-5, in the meetings. I will prepare for the meeting the night before while on the flight. It is usual and customary in US business practices that travel time to/from assigned duties that are not at one's regular duty station are counted in work hours as is prep time that is required to be done outside of the usual work hours. Keep in mind recent US court decision regarding who is eligible for over time. Salaried individuals making less than a certain amount [that I don't recall atm] are entitled to over time, so just because one is salaried does not automatically preclude over time pay nor suggest one must or should accept working more than 40 hours as appropriate or standard. Yes, there are professions and businesses where it seems that is the method of 'getting ahead', but that does not mean the law will turn a blind eye in regards to compensation for that time. I think that decision was rather narrowly drawn. The case regarded essentially blue-collar workers who were made "exempt" by their employer when they were put in low-level supervisory roles. I forget the exactitudes, but it didnt' apply to a wide range of salaried employees. Certainly didn't apply to me. Banty |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Working part-time to be with baby, yet needing to travel to client site
"Banty" wrote in message ... I think that decision was rather narrowly drawn. The case regarded essentially blue-collar workers who were made "exempt" by their employer when they were put in low-level supervisory roles. I forget the exactitudes, but it didnt' apply to a wide range of salaried employees. Certainly didn't apply to me. The company I was working at at the time, where all staff except the handful of clerical help, were salaried, anticipated the impact of that ruling by increasing the salary/pay rate of a number of staff so that they came in just barely above the limit specified in that ruling. These were professionals working for a large non-profit and many of them regularly worked more than 40 hours in order to complete their assigned tasks. I doubt that that was the only company in the US where such an action was taken by management in order to avoid paying over time. Not all professionals make big bucks. Aula |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|