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.

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

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

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.

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

"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

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

"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

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

"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