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

"Lady Penelope Creighton-Ward" wrote in message
oups.com...
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.


I have my opinion. Which is not worth as much as the policy for travelling
part-timers at yoru company. While it might work to ask forgiveness after
rather than seeking permission before, it is risky business.

Assuming you work for a company that you trust not to give you the shaft,
speak to HR for an equitable arrangement.

On 15 Jun 2007 10:04:51 -0700, Banty wrote:

Not *ever little thang* needs to be credited. Indeed, that gets tiresome and
gets negatively notices. When a coworker comes to management with small
accountings of ever little thang, she can look good. As in her supervisor
thinking "Gee, Penelope and so and so and so and so else never do this sort of
thing - I appreciate them all the more after this little session in my office
with Jack Takems."


Yes, I see people who constantly try to give themselves credit at work and
I do think it negatively impacts my impression of them. They tend to be
the same ones who tattle on everyone and they are usually the worst
workers.

Beliavsky wrote:
On Jun 15, 12:04 pm, Banty wrote:

snip

If you were working part time on a more permanent basis, you'd need to have some
clear boundaries as to what's what as far as travel time. But in these
circumstances it might look petty.

My impression from having worked about 10 years in the private sector
is that "small" concessions you make to your employer are rarely
noticed -- they become the norm. If the OP never mentioned the extra
travel hours while working part time to her boss, would she get
"credit" for it down the line? I doubt it -- it would be forgotten. At
least mentioning her concern to her boss signals that
(1) she is not a "pushover"
(2) the boss cannot expect a full-time work effort while she is still
working part time
(3) she has done something "extra" .

But there's a world of difference between working part
time as a long term plan and cutting back to part time for a
couple of months after the birth of a child. If this is very
short term, then nothing she's doing is setting much of a
precedent because she isn't going to be part time for long.
Furthermore, while any of us who have done it know that the
company usually makes out quite well, it is still perceived
as a favor when companies allow someone a flexible schedule
to get them through times like this and one has to look at
the big picture to decide whether this is the right thing
to make a stink over. It's always appropriate to ask, but
if you end up in a situation where you and the company
disagree on how to handle the issue, one has to be smart
about what one chooses to go to the mat over...especially
if one would like opportunities for flexibility to continue
to be available in the future.

Best wishes,
Ericka

Some replies so far are, in my experience, making this much too
complicated. Do your employer a favor and keep it simple: a travel
day that uses more than 8 hours of your time, regardless of how it is
spent, is a full work day.

Pologirl

"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

On Jun 15, 12:14 pm, Beliavsky wrote:
On Jun 15, 12:04 pm, Banty wrote:

snip

If you were working part time on a more permanent basis, you'd need to have some
clear boundaries as to what's what as far as travel time. But in these
circumstances it might look petty.

My impression from having worked about 10 years in the private sector
is that "small" concessions you make to your employer are rarely
noticed -- they become the norm. If the OP never mentioned the extra
travel hours while working part time to her boss, would she get
"credit" for it down the line? I doubt it -- it would be forgotten. At
least mentioning her concern to her boss signals that
(1) she is not a "pushover"
(2) the boss cannot expect a full-time work effort while she is still
working part time
(3) she has done something "extra" .

Eh -- If I were the OP, I wouldn't raise the issue but presume that
this abbreviated travel was a given. It seems, imo, entirely
reasonable to expect a f/t effort during those reduced p/t hours --
there's nothing f/t about having to travel for only a very small part
of a week, and I'm not clear on where the 'doing something extra' part
comes in, especially as the organization is allowing the OP to phase
back into a f/t schedule, and she's traveling and busy 2 days this
week.

(My bias is that I shifted from f/t to p/t after the birth of DD1 -- p/
t was part of the day; given that f/t was typically 8 hours -- does
anyone really only work 8 hours/day in a salaried position? -- it
seemed reasonable to work less per day on most days. Watching the
clock and trying to figure out whether to count a trip as x hours
versus y hours -- if such travel is typical of the position's
responsibilities -- seems like a bad idea to me. )

Caledonia

"Lady Penelope Creighton-Ward" wrote in message
oups.com...
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?

If you're part-time, you're hourly, right? You keep track of your hours,
submit them to your employer, and get paid for them.


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.

No, you should never have to spend "your own time" on work activities. If
your job is such that it impinges significantly on your off-hours, you'd
better be very well compensated.

"But now I'm at 50%, I don't know what's fair. Any suggestions appreciated.


Again, keep track of your hours and bill your employer accordingly.
Forfeiting your benefits for a month sounds like a crap deal as well. Unless
your company is a very very small one, that cost is probably insignificant.
Is your employer holding you hostage and taking advantage of you because
they know you need this job???

"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.

Aula

"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