A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » misc.kids » General
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Working part-time to be with baby, yet needing to travel to client site



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old June 16th 07, 03:52 AM posted to misc.kids
Ericka Kammerer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,293
Default Working part-time to be with baby, yet needing to travel to clientsite

Aula wrote:
"Ericka Kammerer" wrote in message
. ..
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?


A great deal depends on where in the world she is. For some reason I think
she's in England, but I could be having a serious brain strain on that. My
understanding of laws in the US, as a member of management, is that she
falls under different rules than when she is working full time. She is,
essentially, [if in the US] returning to work on what amounts to light duty
after an absence under what would probably be FMLA. In any company I've
worked for that would have included a period of sit down negotiation with
the employer, prior to first day back on the job, to discuss exact
expectations regarding hours, pay, and exceptions. Her company, for
example, knows that she is returning to work after the birth of a child and
is taking it in stages. But, they have chosen to assign her a task that
takes her away from her new baby and family for a period of virtually two
days. That suggests to me a blatant disregard of the reason for her return
as a p/t employee and a very good reason for her to immediately set a firm
foot down as to what she is willing to do, and what she is not willing to
do, as well as her expectations of them. It looks, from this pov with what
is granted less than the full picture, like she is being taken advantage of
by an employer who will continue to pull similar stunts unless shut down
fast and professionally. Surely there are other staff who are not so
recently returned to *light duty* who could cover this task? If I was her
boss and I valued her as an employee I would not be disregarding her needs
by sending her off like this before she is ready for f/t work. I'd be
helping her make as smooth a transition back into the work force as possible
so that she'd be most likely to successfully complete the transition into
full time work for me again. Something about this whole situation does not
feel right from here.


Eh, I don't think the world is always so neat. Obviously,
I don't know what her particular situation is and only she can
comment on that. Still, I think all of it has to be considered
in the context of the job as a whole. I'm p/t because I am
unwilling to spend more time away from family. That said,
there are times when my job requires more hours. That's just
the nature of the work. I could put my foot down and say that
I won't ever do more than 20 hours/week, but if I did, I'd be
looking for another job. They can't afford to have me in this
position and unable/unwilling to cover these things. They're
not exploiting me. They're accommodating my unwillingness to
work full time, and this is part of what I do to enable them
to be able to do that. It's a win-win on the whole for both
of us.
To me, the situation does not at all sound like a
situation where an employer is being unreasonable or exploitative.
Everyone's just trying to get the work done. For some
accounting reason she's basically salaried instead of hourly.
I think it's perfectly fair and right that she should be
paid for the hours she works, and that whatever the company
policies are for charging hours during travel are what should
apply for her. Of course, that could be challenging to figure
out--if she's salaried, do the salaried rules apply or the
hourly rules? Because the salaried rules probably don't
have any provision for charging "overtime" during travel.
Things aren't always so simple--and sometimes these
complications arise when companies go outside the box to
accommodate situations like women coming back part-time
to transition after maternity leave. The last thing any
of us want to do is make them regret having been flexible.
Does that mean she should roll over and work lots of
uncompensated time? Of course not. She should be fairly
compensated for her time, either by not having to work
the other mornings or by getting paid for the additional
work hours. And if there's some crunch that prevents
not working the remaining mornings that week, perhaps she
can get comp time to be used later. There are many possible
solutions. But getting feathers all ruffled or getting
very rigid over things like this often doesn't lead to
a desirable end result. If you want flexibility from them,
it's usually wise to give a little flexibility in return.

Best wishes,
Ericka
  #22  
Old June 16th 07, 12:27 PM posted to misc.kids
Aula
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 112
Default Working part-time to be with baby, yet needing to travel to client site


"Ericka Kammerer" wrote in message
...
Eh, I don't think the world is always so neat. Obviously,
I don't know what her particular situation is and only she can
comment on that. Still, I think all of it has to be considered
in the context of the job as a whole. I'm p/t because I am
unwilling to spend more time away from family. That said,
there are times when my job requires more hours. That's just
the nature of the work. I could put my foot down and say that
I won't ever do more than 20 hours/week, but if I did, I'd be
looking for another job. They can't afford to have me in this
position and unable/unwilling to cover these things. They're
not exploiting me. They're accommodating my unwillingness to
work full time, and this is part of what I do to enable them
to be able to do that. It's a win-win on the whole for both
of us.
To me, the situation does not at all sound like a
situation where an employer is being unreasonable or exploitative.
Everyone's just trying to get the work done. For some
accounting reason she's basically salaried instead of hourly.
I think it's perfectly fair and right that she should be
paid for the hours she works, and that whatever the company
policies are for charging hours during travel are what should
apply for her. Of course, that could be challenging to figure
out--if she's salaried, do the salaried rules apply or the
hourly rules? Because the salaried rules probably don't
have any provision for charging "overtime" during travel.
Things aren't always so simple--and sometimes these
complications arise when companies go outside the box to
accommodate situations like women coming back part-time
to transition after maternity leave. The last thing any
of us want to do is make them regret having been flexible.
Does that mean she should roll over and work lots of
uncompensated time? Of course not. She should be fairly
compensated for her time, either by not having to work
the other mornings or by getting paid for the additional
work hours. And if there's some crunch that prevents
not working the remaining mornings that week, perhaps she
can get comp time to be used later. There are many possible
solutions. But getting feathers all ruffled or getting
very rigid over things like this often doesn't lead to
a desirable end result. If you want flexibility from them,
it's usually wise to give a little flexibility in return.


You are right, flexibility is good and appropriate, and may well be what is
going on in her situation. I have, however, seen far too many times where
employers [or supervisors not complying with company policy] took advantage
of people in similar situations. The old once bitten twice shy saw applies
to my reaction. I have learned, negotiate first and be prepared to stand
firm on things in order to both keep one's job and prevent being abused.
One hopes, however, that her situation is not akin to those I have witnessed
and all parties will be thrilled with all results. Being aware of other
potential outcomes and issues, however, gives a person opportunity to think
through those possible problems and be prepared should they start to arise.

-Aula


  #23  
Old June 16th 07, 01:33 PM posted to misc.kids
Banty
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,278
Default Working part-time to be with baby, yet needing to travel to client site

In article , Aula says...


"Ericka Kammerer" wrote in message
...
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?


A great deal depends on where in the world she is. For some reason I think
she's in England, but I could be having a serious brain strain on that. My
understanding of laws in the US, as a member of management, is that she
falls under different rules than when she is working full time. She is,
essentially, [if in the US] returning to work on what amounts to light duty
after an absence under what would probably be FMLA. In any company I've
worked for that would have included a period of sit down negotiation with
the employer, prior to first day back on the job, to discuss exact
expectations regarding hours, pay, and exceptions. Her company, for
example, knows that she is returning to work after the birth of a child and
is taking it in stages. But, they have chosen to assign her a task that
takes her away from her new baby and family for a period of virtually two
days. That suggests to me a blatant disregard of the reason for her return
as a p/t employee and a very good reason for her to immediately set a firm
foot down as to what she is willing to do, and what she is not willing to
do, as well as her expectations of them. It looks, from this pov with what
is granted less than the full picture, like she is being taken advantage of
by an employer who will continue to pull similar stunts unless shut down
fast and professionally. Surely there are other staff who are not so
recently returned to *light duty* who could cover this task? If I was her
boss and I valued her as an employee I would not be disregarding her needs
by sending her off like this before she is ready for f/t work. I'd be
helping her make as smooth a transition back into the work force as possible
so that she'd be most likely to successfully complete the transition into
full time work for me again. Something about this whole situation does not
feel right from here.


Ooo - no, that's a dangerous way for a corporation (or the employee for that
matter) to look at it.

Yes, she's known to be taking part time since she had a baby. But it's not up
to her *employer* (and she shouldn't let them look at it that way) to decide FOR
HER what it means and what she needs in this time. That trip could be something
important to her future ratings (keeping in touch with a critical client, for
example), and she may well have the wherewithall (family help, hired help) to
make the trip. Her manager, or some honcho in an office, should not be dealing
out *anything* according to how he or she perceives any family obligation to one
or other employee. It's up to the employee her or himself to bring it up and
change positions or negotiate terms as needed.

She didn't do that, she was able to make the trip; she's only asking about
compensation.

Banty

  #24  
Old June 16th 07, 01:36 PM posted to misc.kids
Banty
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,278
Default 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

  #25  
Old June 17th 07, 01:39 AM posted to misc.kids
Aula
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 112
Default Working part-time to be with baby, yet needing to travel to client site


"Banty" wrote in message
...
She didn't do that, she was able to make the trip; she's only asking about
compensation.



I understand that. My point is that I've seen more than a few people who
were in a similar return to work position to her make a huge stink if they
were asked to do *anything* other than the p/t hours they'd negotiated with
the management, and I mean the specific hours of work, not the number of
hours/week. This is an area fraught with potential misunderstanding for
both employee and management, hence my suggestion that negotiations should
be done up front before hand so there are no assumptions made by either
side.

Aula


  #26  
Old June 17th 07, 01:42 AM posted to misc.kids
Aula
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 112
Default 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


  #27  
Old June 18th 07, 04:22 PM posted to misc.kids
Lady Penelope Creighton-Ward
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 190
Default Working part-time to be with baby, yet needing to travel to client site

Thank you everyone for your responses. I found the discussion
extremely useful. I still haven't had that conversation with my
supervisor, but thought I should give you some more context: I work in
IT here in the Boston area, and my company has been very accomodating
to me in the past year or so, as I've had two babies in quick
succession. They allowed me to work from home virtually the entire
year and have not sent me on any overnight trips at all, even though
we generally do travel to client meetings as needed - which, for me,
has been once or twice every three months.

We are expected to work overtime as needed, without additional
compensation. Because the work comes in bursts at times, we do have
short stretches when we don't necessarily need to put in our full
hours.

To be fair, we get 12-13 days of company holidays a year, plus 5 weeks
of personal time off (PTO), which includes vacation and sick time.
The PTO of course is pro-rated depending on whether one is p/t or f/t.

  #28  
Old June 18th 07, 11:45 PM posted to misc.kids
Aula
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 112
Default Working part-time to be with baby, yet needing to travel to client site


"Lady Penelope Creighton-Ward" wrote in message
ps.com...
Thank you everyone for your responses. I found the discussion
extremely useful. I still haven't had that conversation with my
supervisor, but thought I should give you some more context: I work in
IT here in the Boston area, and my company has been very accomodating
to me in the past year or so, as I've had two babies in quick
succession. They allowed me to work from home virtually the entire
year and have not sent me on any overnight trips at all, even though
we generally do travel to client meetings as needed - which, for me,
has been once or twice every three months.

We are expected to work overtime as needed, without additional
compensation. Because the work comes in bursts at times, we do have
short stretches when we don't necessarily need to put in our full
hours.

To be fair, we get 12-13 days of company holidays a year, plus 5 weeks
of personal time off (PTO), which includes vacation and sick time.
The PTO of course is pro-rated depending on whether one is p/t or f/t.


It sounds like you've got a honey of a deal and a nice company to work for.
From the perspective of what you've shared things sound much more workable,
in that they are more likely to be reasonable in expectations and
compensation than other companies I know of. I hope your trip goes well and
you continue to enjoy a smooth readjustment to the working world.

-Aula


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:44 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.