I'm always first to leave the office. Feel like I'm skiving.

inforfun

People here will probably come to my desk and ask if everything is ok if am still here 5 minutes past.
I get nothing for free so why would i give my time for free?

bee06

mrcheez wrote: »

it's actually safer cycling to work for 10 and leaving later. I'm not a morning person so 8 would kill me, if the commute didn't !

EDIT: saying that though, 30 mins for lunch is a bit criminal isn't it? A one hour break would increase productivity no?

I'd prefer 30 mins and to leave 30 mins earlier. I dunno what I'd do for an hour lunch! I start at 8 as well to avoid traffic. It's always nice and quite as well because most people don't start til later.

OP, I'm in a similar situation. I start at 8 and am supposed to finish at 4.30. I aim to leave at 5 but will stay if I have to (was there til 9.00 last Friday). But I'm always the first to go and feel so guilty when I see others sending emails at 8.00 or even sometimes 1 in the morning (working from home). But I always get my work done so it would be stupid to sit there until 6 for the sake of being seen to be there.

witchgirl26

OP has anyone actually said anything to you?

Honestly if you are getting your stuff done and not leaving things for others to have to pick up then don't worry overmuch. I don't get paid OT and generally am out the door just after 5 (work 8.30-5 normally). If there's bits I want to get done or if I feel I've had a really unproductive morning and feel guilty, I'll stay a bit to finish off stuff. Likewise, my boss is flexible with me if I need to start a bit later or take extra time at lunch for an appointment.

I don't agree with staying late for the sake of being seen to do OT. And this hasn't hindered my career at all. In fact in an interview I did last year I asked about overtime (in a place where you'd traditionally expect to see people putting in mad hours) and was told by the director I would have been working for that if I was having to do loads of OT they'd look at why as there's normally only 3 reasons: 1) The workload is definitively too much to get done in the time frame and more senior members of staff would need to look at this; 2) I was not being productive myself and therefore not getting things done on time; or 3) It was a one-off project which had a very aggressive due date and could there be some flexibility in hours afterwards as recognition.

Ben Gadot

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Some of the best managers I've ever worked with had the attitude that if you can't get the work done in the allotted hours you can't do the job.

Aye, between the time I arrive and leave I get my own tasks done as well as being available to offer dig outs to my colleagues. All done without staying for excessive clocking (though if something has to be done I'll put in the extra time and get it done). I also deal with a high volume of queries but I believe in managing your work and not instantly dropping everything at once to answer someone. If you do that your head would be fried.

I think your work should speak for itself and I've never had problems re bonuses and rises (relatively speaking).

I've seen so many people put on the facade of working hard as well as becoming the person everyone knows. Yet they are ones leaving in anger when the time comes around to appraisal.

In short, don't worry about it op if you can back it up with your work.

the_pen_turner

i don't understand the logic of if your work is done then you don't need to stay


you shouldn't stay either way. a few minutes to finish off is ok.
once you are working away and not dossing

if you have an 8 hour day and each task you do takes an hour. you should get 8 done in a day . if you are given 9 or 10 tasks do do then its not your fault that you 'only' got 8 done. that's bad management
if its an urgent order etc , once off panic then work late to get it done but not for free or at least a bit of give and take.

76544567

I used to do long hours in a company.
I would.do from 7am until 7pm, but i only did it because i got paid overtime.

There was.one guy who used to start at 6:30 and when he left at 4 all the tut tutting would start from the other staff about him leaving early.
Didn't matter that they all did 9-5 and the guy was in 2.5 hours before any of them. All they saw was him leaving before them. They to say things like, Joe is on a half day again. Or, would it kill him to hang around and give us a dig out once in a while.

I wouldn't take any notice op. And i certainly wouldn't do ot if i wasn't paid for it.

Ben Gadot

The funny thing is that some people don't realise what you can get done between 6.30am-9am without interruption. The same goes for after 5pm-7pm, only difference is that some people prefer to use the earlier window.

Neon_Lights

If you stay in past the appointed time other than the fact there's something urgent to be dealt with, you are an incompetent loser who sucks at both their job and life

davo10

Neon_Lights wrote: »

If you stay in past the appointed time other than the fact there's something urgent to be dealt with, you are an incompetent loser who sucks at both their job and life

There's a contender for "Sweeping statement of the year".

There are a whole lot of reasons for staying late, but the only good ones are the ones that benefit the employee. If not for pay or time in lieu, then it must be for improved chances of advancement. An employer considering candidates for promotion often chose the ones who can be relied on to put in the extra effort when needed. Of course if the person who leaves on time is much better at their job, he/she should be promoted, but that doesn't always happen.

Jodotman

People have to realize employers really don't give a flying f about you unless you are the 1 in 10 who are exceptional at job and would do anything to keep you and make you happy. You are making them a profit.

It depends really on your salary and responsibilities about overtime.

I wouldn't stay working in a company that doesn't pay you overtime or give you back the time in annual leave

I wouldn't stay working in a company if you had to work three hours extra every night because they are short staffed even if they did give you additional leave or pay

I would work overtime for two weeks solid because a project is finishing then yes if they gave me back in holidays/pay.

I want to be out the door at 5.30 every single day.

Avatar MIA

Jodotman wrote: »

I want to be out the door at 5.30 every single day.

And there's definitely a need/place for people that want that.

davo10

Avatar MIA wrote: »

And there's definitely a need/place for people that want that.

Companies and built on people like this and they provide neat stepping stones for those that are career minded.

Neon_Lights

davo10 wrote: »

There's a contender for "Sweeping statement of the year".

There are a whole lot of reasons for staying late, but the only good ones are the ones that benefit the employee. If not for pay or time in lieu, then it must be for improved chances of advancement. An employer considering candidates for promotion often chose the ones who can be relied on to put in the extra effort when needed. Of course if the person who leaves on time is much better at their job, he/she should be promoted, but that doesn't always happen.

What I gauge from what's being said there is that if you're a lick arse, stay late. If you're getting overtime and need it why not.

But yeah it's more about an ability to get things done rather than a morose personality deficient individual looking at cats for 2 hours after their contracted home time.

I think the standard workday is too long as it is, studies have shown and I agree that people are most effective in 6 hour sprints and are happier because of it.

Ayuntamiento

bee06 wrote: »

mrcheez wrote: »

it's actually safer cycling to work for 10 and leaving later. I'm not a morning person so 8 would kill me, if the commute didn't !

EDIT: saying that though, 30 mins for lunch is a bit criminal isn't it? A one hour break would increase productivity no?

I'd prefer 30 mins and to leave 30 mins earlier. I dunno what I'd do for an hour lunch! I start at 8 as well to avoid traffic. It's always nice and quite as well because most people don't start til later.

OP, I'm in a similar situation. I start at 8 and am supposed to finish at 4.30. I aim to leave at 5 but will stay if I have to (was there til 9.00 last Friday). But I'm always the first to go and feel so guilty when I see others sending emails at 8.00 or even sometimes 1 in the morning (working from home). But I always get my work done so it would be stupid to sit there until 6 for the sake of being seen to be there.

I feel the person who sends an email at 1am would actually look a bit deranged and sad...
I sleep with my phone next to my bed for the alarm so if I got an email at 1am it would probably wake me up. I'm sure that would piss of a lot of people.

I've heard that some of the multinationals have enforced a policy whereby if you must send an email at an unreasonable hour, you have to go to HR the next day and account for it as that kind of bs is one of the many factors leading to burn-out and high employee turnover.

Jodotman

Just to add to my post I don't mind people who stay on late to achieve the promotions etc. Some people love working and would rather be working than been at home.

People seem seem to stay in jobs for a long time in crap benefits and crap work life balance. Most times you change job you should see a pay increase, keep changing to get the best benefits, working conditions and to ease the workload.
Took me 8 tries to find the perfect job and will never leave the company i'm in to go back working in crap again.

I love Sean nos

How many people work in your office OP? If there's 4 others working an extra 2 - 3 hours per day, then that's enough workload to justify a headcount increase.
So your colleague consistently performing this work means that there's a job opening for someone that needs it.
Assuming of course that they're all not just inefficient.

witchgirl26

Ayuntamiento wrote: »

I feel the person who sends an email at 1am would actually look a bit deranged and sad...
I sleep with my phone next to my bed for the alarm so if I got an email at 1am it would probably wake me up. I'm sure that would piss of a lot of people.

I've heard that some of the multinationals have enforced a policy whereby if you must send an email at an unreasonable hour, you have to go to HR the next day and account for it as that kind of bs is one of the many factors leading to burn-out and high employee turnover.

That doesn't always work though in a multinational. I mean the US working hours or Singapore ones would be through our night time so they may be sending emails at a reasonable time for them.

My last company was a multinational and the policy in our team (which was global) was that you weren't expected to answer any emails after 7pm your time. I'd wake up though most mornings to about 10-15 emails sent during their work days and I'd just deal with them then. I don't believe sending people to HR for that is right - HR have more to be dealing with and it's not their issue if someone can't just ignore their phone.

I love Sean nos

witchgirl26 wrote: »

My last company was a multinational and the policy in our team (which was global) was that you weren't expected to answer any emails after 7pm your time. I'd wake up though most mornings to about 10-15 emails sent during their work days and I'd just deal with them then. I don't believe sending people to HR for that is right - HR have more to be dealing with and it's not their issue if someone can't just ignore their phone.

Also work for a multinational, so there's a lot of mails coming in at all hours. I've gotten into the habit of switching off the data connections (wifi and mobile) on the phone at night. That stops the beeping and flashing lights at weird hours.

In fact I go through periods of removing work mail and apps from my phone altogether. When travelling, it can be handy to check in on how things are going, but that has to be balanced against the need to switch off.

The last client I worked with had a rule about not sending them notifications after 22:00 unless it was something absolutely critical.

Wanderer2010

I work for a multinational but never ever get emails on my phone after work? Why would anyone have your work email connected to your phone? I can see why senior managers may need to be connected at all times but why would anyone under this level be getting emails at home in the middle of the night?

I love Sean nos

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

I work for a multinational but never ever get emails on my phone after work? Why would anyone have your work email connected to your phone? I can see why senior managers may need to be connected at all times but why would anyone under this level be getting emails at home in the middle of the night?

Might come as part of a work-supplied phone.

Some see it as a status thing.

Also, not all emails received require action. The company I work for in particular are masters at generating mails that I could not care less about. A lot are automatically generated, which means they can arrive at strange hours. That's why I switch off my data connections when hitting the scratcher.

sondagefaux

JackieChang wrote: »

Forgot to add in my original post - none of us get paid OT.

We perform different functions and one of the people in the office is our manager.

But even if we have different workloads - and it does vary for all of us now and then as I said I'd stay late if I really need to get something done - surely they would have some chance of leaving at 5pm here and there. I'm literally always the first person out the door. I feel like I'm breaking an unofficial policy.

Anyway, I'll just keep doing what I'm doing as others have suggested.

The only unofficial policy in that place is expecting people to work unpaid overtime.

Feck that - you get paid for your work, extra for overtime.

If not, get out of there.

Avatar MIA

inforfun wrote: »

People here will probably come to my desk and ask if everything is ok if am still here 5 minutes past.
I get nothing for free so why would i give my time for free?

Yeah, says the unpaid mod :pac::p:P

Miaireland

I am the same in my workplace. I am nearly always the first to leave and I used to stress about it. I finally copped on that the reason I could leave on time was that I am much more productive during my working hours than others that I work with. I always stay if there it something outstanding if mine but normally there is not.

limnam

sdanseo wrote: »

I regard it as part and parcel of being salaried and people who stick to their exact hours with zero flexibility annoy me a little. They're not in the wrong, but it comes across as a little unreasonable once the employer is willing to recognise the extra time worked somehow.

I think people start out flexible, most people anyway are reasonably flexible.

I've not found most employers to be as equally as flexible.

People's flexibility wears thin when you stay behind for an extra two hours and then some idiot is questioning why you're 5 minutes late a week later.

If a job requires flexibility it should be advertised as such and expectations outlined before hand so both parties know what they're getting into and can make the call before they actually take the job.

Rather than been told its 9-5 and been asked to stay till 7-8pm every night for the last x weeks of quarter etc and then have the clowns around you getting upset because you're not flexible when it was never a requirement from the outset.

So you're being "annoyed" at the wrong people imho.

flazio

If I'm finished on time but others aren't I politely ask if there's anything I can do to help. The answer is usually 'no' but I leave work feeling a bit better.

davo10

Neon_Lights wrote: »

What I gauge from what's being said there is that if you're a lick arse, stay late. If you're getting overtime and need it why not.

But yeah it's more about an ability to get things done rather than a morose personality deficient individual looking at cats for 2 hours after their contracted home time.

I think the standard workday is too long as it is, studies have shown and I agree that people are most effective in 6 hour sprints and are happier because of it.

Not at all, I firmly believe that the extra effort must be of benefit to the person doing it or it's not worth doing.

But if two people are good at their job and one is willing to go the extra bit of effort, then that is the person who gets promoted.

It's easy to throw around that accusation, a "lick arse" no less, but if you don't get promoted or a salary increase and the other person does, then you should have no complaint, they earned it by their extra effort. Every company needs people who will do just what they need to do, but companies also need the ones who want promotion more than the other girl/guy. It's easy for the ones who want to get on to get ahead of the ones who just do what is required, that's why they are good stepping stones, you just have to do a bit more than them. Very few have a mindset that drives them to advance, most just want to take a wage and go home, that's fine, but don't complain when the go-getter moves up.

Being productive is fantastic, but the fact is that you are being paid/employed to be productive.

Assuming that you would take a break at some stage during the day, would you be happy to be paid for your 6 hour day and accept a significant reduction in your wage, or would you be daft enough to think you should receive the same wage for a shorter day?

Prime Irish Beef

JackieChang wrote: »

My hours are 9-5 and I'm usually gone by 5 ish. I might work till 5.30 sometimes and once in a blue moon I'd stay till 6 or 7 if a deadline HAS to be met. But 99% of the time I'm out the door between 5 and 5.15pm.

My manager and office mates always stay till much later. I've heard of them leaving at 6pm, 7pm or 8pm. It's getting a bit awkward saying "bye now" at the end of the day, I feel like I'm taking the piss and should be staying on.

Anybody else in a work environment like this? Do you give in and stay an extra hour for the sake of it?


No I don't work in finance.

edit: forgot to add that none of us get paid for overtime.

Tbh, you should be getting the work done during the work day. If I knew I could stay on later and do my work, it would make me less productive during the working day.

I would ignore others and do as your doing. The most important thing is that you're getting the work done.

I only ever stay late when there's some massive deadline, people have lives.

witchgirl26

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

I work for a multinational but never ever get emails on my phone after work? Why would anyone have your work email connected to your phone? I can see why senior managers may need to be connected at all times but why would anyone under this level be getting emails at home in the middle of the night?

Mine was on a work phone which was separate to my own personal phone. I know a lot of people who just used the work phone but that made them essentially contactable at all hours. I keep mine separate so I can put the work one away in the evenings/on weekends/on holidays.

sondagefaux

witchgirl26 wrote: »

Mine was on a work phone which was separate to my own personal phone. I know a lot of people who just used the work phone but that made them essentially contactable at all hours. I keep mine separate so I can put the work one away in the evenings/on weekends/on holidays.

Or move to France!

From Sunday, French companies will be required to guarantee their employees a “right to disconnect” from technology as the country seeks to tackle the modern-day scourge of compulsive out-of-hours email checking.

On 1 January, an employment law will enter into force that obliges organisations with more than 50 workers to start negotiations to define the rights of employees to ignore their smartphones.

Overuse of digital devices has been blamed for everything from burnout to sleeplessness as well as relationship problems, with many employees uncertain of when they can switch off.

The way to a better work-life balance? Unions, not self-help
Peter Fleming
Read more
The measure is intended to tackle the so-called “always-on” work culture that has led to a surge in usually unpaid overtime – while also giving employees flexibility to work outside the office.

“There’s a real expectation that companies will seize on the ‘right to disconnect’ as a protective measure,” said Xavier Zunigo, a French workplace expert, as a new survey on the subject was published in October.

“At the same time, workers don’t want to lose the autonomy and flexibility that digital devices give them,” added Zunigo, who is an academic and director of research group Aristat.

The measure was introduced by labour minister Myriam El Khomri, who commissioned a report submitted in September 2015 which warned about the health impact of “info-obesity” which afflicts many workplaces.

Under the new law, companies will be obliged to negotiate with employees to agree on their rights to switch off and ways they can reduce the intrusion of work into their private lives.

If a deal cannot be reached, the company must publish a charter that would make explicit the demands on, and rights of, employees out-of-hours.


Improve your work-life balance with these tips
Read more
Trade unions which see themselves as guardians of France’s highly protected workplace and working week of 35 hours have long demanded action. However, the new “right to disconnect”, part of a much larger and controversial reform of French labour law, foresees no sanction for companies which fail to define it.

French newspaper Libération praised the move in an editorial on Friday, saying the law was needed because “employees are often judged on their commitment to their companies and their availability”.

Some large groups such as Volkswagen and Daimler in Germany or nuclear power company Areva and insurer Axa in France have already taken steps to limit out-of-hours messaging to reduce burnout among workers.

Some measures include cutting email connections in the evening and weekends or even destroying emails automatically that are sent to employees while they are on holiday.

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/dec/31/french-workers-win-legal-right-to-avoid-checking-work-email-out-of-hours

beauf

Long hours are a double edge sword. If you are young and single and you work all the hours you can great. But there will come a time when you can't. Then you can't really complain, if companies only want single people, who are young, and once you fall out of that you become unemployable.

But that's the game. If you are working in a place that makes long hours normal, then either you suck it up, or move to some where that has a life work balance that you want.

The other side is that it can be counter productive for the employers, to have people working long hours for a variety of reasons. Someone goes sick, you lose more man hours than people working a regular day. Work estimates can be completely thrown off, if not all staff can work the same hours. People get sick, make mistakes.

But if it works, then it works. Its really up to the individual to decide what works for them.