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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|