Forum menu
From personal experience it’s not about being able to have a beer or whatnot, it’s about being able to schmooz with the upper management that gets you promoted. Being able to sound like you know what you’re talking about or voicing an opinion (even though it might be sh*te) and putting yourself in their faces gets you noticed. Not being genuinely good at your job, unfortunately.
So that’ll be a no then. Delivering small parts that are already well defined and highly driven by strict standards like the nuclear industry can be done like that but the concept phase in less rigidly regulated industries is very difficult to do fully remotely.
"Well defined" . L. M. F. A. O.
The standards may be. The problems absolutely are not. They're baked into 40 year old systems which differ from station to station. Our concept phases are probably even harder as we can't just throw stuff and see what sticks. We also have to justify absolutely everything
As you have come in to engineering late as you said was your early career in whatever field it was done in person?
Yes because I was a plant operator, kinda hard to do from home. Previous to that I did a merchant navy cadetship, see above.
I've done both extremes so I get that not every job is suited to it. I also get that you have to approach it with an open mind to make it work.
Look, you made an absolute statement, I gave you my experience which is at odds with that statement. Almost like, as already pointed out, this could be situational.
You don’t employ introverts? Those who do not drink? What about those with caring responsibilities? Can you not see how this would discriminate against them? being frozen out of the team? This is how the “old boys network” operates to the detriment of diverse and well functioning teams
All of that
Plus you've been very vocal in your pride at never working a second past your contracted hours.
I've been recruiting for the past few months. Got a recommendation for a candidate. Someone I actually recruited to a different company 6 years ago. Loads of experience. Way more qualified than any other candidate we'd seen a CV for or interviewed.
We interviewed them and it went great. Everyone really liked them. Then at the end of the interview they announced that they were only willing to work their contacted hours and not a minute more. Their work life balance was the absolute non negotiable for them. We completely respected that, and declined to make them an offer. The search continues.
We completely respected that, and declined to make them an offer.
Why?
You had the perfect candidate and expected them to work for free?
"Engineers were delayed in fixing an air traffic control meltdown that stranded more than 700,000 passengers because a critical member was working from home, an inquiry has concluded."
"“Having exhausted remote intervention options, it took 1.5 hours for the individual to arrive on site to perform the necessary full-system restart, which was not possible remotely.”
Boarding bob - if you cannot complete your work in your working hours you have much bigger issues than refusing to employ a good candidate because they will not work for free.
Doesn't it depend on what contracted hours means to Boardinbob? I'm not automatically assuming that means "you have to work extra hours for free" (although that seems likely) and that it could mean working the number of hours in your contract flexibly to meet the needs of the business. My employer has a number of teams that need to work as much put of normal office hours as in them, and would be impossible for someone to do their jobs if they stuck to our normal office hours.
I would find it unlikely that somebody who held their work life balance so dear would apply for a job knowing that it required such “flexibility” - especially if they have as much experience as stated. Obviously we don’t know the full picture here, but in situations such as this, I think management don’t like the prospect of employing somebody who will refuse to be a yes man/woman, despite the fact that they know for a fact that they can do the job.
I’ve been recruiting for the past few months. Loads of experience. Way more qualified than any other candidate we’d seen a CV for or interviewed.
We interviewed them and it went great ... We declined to make them an offer. The search continues.
Oof! That foots going to really hurt.
And I guessing your other employees will continue to hurt too as they absorb the extra work the person is being employed to do.
Unfortunately this is typical of how employers work, so full credit to BoardingBob for saying it aloud.
Unfortunately BoardingBobs work place sounds a great environment to build a toxic workplace where each employee tries to out do the other to gain BoardingBobs favour .. ouch!!
Boarding bob – if you cannot complete your work in your working hours you have much bigger issues than refusing to employ a good candidate because they will not work for free.
I must have missed the part where he said they were expecting it for free. Although given the comprehension of others on this thread. Perhaps I'm missing it in native English.
I'm contracted 8-4.30 but will regularly work on into later to accommodate occasional operational issues then take time back in lieu and I expect my team to do the same and its made clear for interview But I guess that's because on many things a 12 hour delay till the next shift would be roughly $300k-1mil in time cost alone due to 100-150 people being static as well as the machinery.
Although those with regular/anticipated OT are cash compensated.
I do realise things were different in NHS. But we all know the mess that's in.
And in interests of being transparent. I've a team of 14 - 2 who work from home -arranged under me with my support to do so both against an upper management who didnt want it to be so. I am also fully flexible with others in the team if they need to work from home occasionally for -appointments /boiler services/deliveries etc. The work gets done. I find the shirkers show up in other ways..... - they usually show in the office shortly after probation so never get the memo about the flexibility..........
So you’ve not been accountable for the design of a large complex multidisciplinary system then?
It's all i've done for the last 10 years, usually working ~2 days a week from home, and almost 2 years doing 4 or 5 days a week from home.
It's been no problem at all for me and my teams. It has for many others though.
I absolutely want an employer that supports protecting my working hours but that is more from the insidious bleed to require just a few hours extra every week as par for the course, that is where you can point to a need for additional resource requirement.
If there is a specific project driven need to be somewhere else or push to get a thing completed to hit a timetable complete then that's different. I'm contracted on 37.5 hours/week, this week I'll be on 50 by the end of today, stuff to get done, need to align to a wider multi company team demand, has to be me there, and that's fair enough, I'd not do it every week. i've had a couple of weeks like that this year. I'll not get compensated with lieu payment but there is a recognition that at other points I might be working "softer" to make up for things like this.
It's a professional respect thing that, if both parties are comfortable to provide it, should run both ways in a good company/organisation. In Boardinbobs example company needs flexibility but employee won't/can't provide it then there isnt a fit, equally the employee may want flexibility and if the company won't/can't provide it it doesn't work, it doesn't make either party unreasonable as long as it is works both ways. People being argumentative about different ways of doing things is daft though.
“Engineers were delayed in fixing an air traffic control meltdown that stranded more than 700,000 passengers because a critical member was working from home, an inquiry has concluded.”
““Having exhausted remote intervention options, it took 1.5 hours for the individual to arrive on site to perform the necessary full-system restart, which was not possible remotely.”
So a management failure, insufficient critical cover? You need more than one person able to do the job and make sure there's always someone on shift/on site. Not rocket science.
I mean, we have a legal obligation to make sure there is a first aider in each landscape. So we do.
Then at the end of the interview they announced that they were only willing to work their contacted hours and not a minute more.
Good on them. It sounds like they picked up on toxic culture during the process and made it clear they weren’t up for that. You made it clear in not offering what your workplace is really like. Likely a bullet dodged I’d say.
“Engineers were delayed in fixing an air traffic control meltdown that stranded more than 700,000 passengers because a critical member was working from home, an inquiry has concluded.”
““Having exhausted remote intervention options, it took 1.5 hours for the individual to arrive on site to perform the necessary full-system restart, which was not possible remotely.”
The story is behind a paywall.
Was it an employed Engineer who supports more than one location, a subbie (who possibly supports numerous clients) or just someone who was WFH (and never use to)?
I've worked on card authorisation systems since the 90s. The last machine room I went into was in Moscow in the late 90s (it was a start up, the machine room was next to the office and the reason I went in was because the breakers had tripped).
Since then I've never had to go into a machine room and never had to get someone to do anything in the machine room due to an incident. Planned work, yes e.g. cabling new routers but not emergency.
In my current job the machine rooms are 70 miles from the office and that's normal. Gone are the days of running tapes around the city of London if Comms lines failed.
I've been working for 30+ years, and in every single job, from the most menial Saturday jobs in my teens, to senior corporate roles, there's always been an element of overtime from time to time. Reward for that overtime has varied from compensation to time in lieu, and sometimes no direct compensation.
I'd love to work in these industries where there's never any need for overtime.
TJ was a nurse in the NHS? I imagine there's plenty of overtime available, I assume he just refused to do it
Unfortunately BoardingBobs work place sounds a great environment to build a toxic workplace where each employee tries to out do the other to gain BoardingBobs favour .. ouch!!
With very little respect, that's BS. You can't judge that from what has been posted.
There is a difference between requiring flexibility and somewhere being toxic and that comes in reflected flexibility. Earlier this year I was working on 2 projects, one with a team in Australia the other with a team on the west coast of the US. So I tended to be doing calls at 7:30am and/or 7pm, if it was one or the other I'd just shift my working day to suit it, if it was both I'd split the day into 2 and go do something in between. Company gets it's flexibility but I make it work for me. Equally I normally tend to finish early on Wednesdays to go on club night rides and Thursdays I start later because I'm a bit knackered, or I can go to dentists/drs/school meetings, I do however ensure my contracted hours are done within the week. I wouldn't dream of ever asking for permission to do that, or being censured for it by anyone within the company for it, and if client meeting requirements dictate differently then that gets factored in. As a parent I much prefer this flexibility to when I had a fixed 9-5:30 contract with neither party deviating from it.
If that is what BBs company was offering ,why is that unreasonable? Is it any more or less unreasonable than a company that gives no flexibility but also requires absolute compliance with contracted times from employees? It may well be that the candidate needs to work absolute hours to fit around other things which is absolutely fair enough but that means that some roles don't work for them.
If BBs company expects to have all of the flexibility they need without allowing the same to employees then I'll accept that they're taking the piss but there has been no suggestion of that.
The story is behind a paywall.
Was it an employed Engineer who supports more than one location, a subbie (who possibly supports numerous clients) or just someone who was WFH (and never use to)?
The headline seemed like a real stretch from the article text, which said that the on call engineer took 1.5 hours to get on site, after having tried to solve the problem remotely. Guideline (not rule) was that the engineer should have been no further than 1 hour away when on call.
Appears to have been an engineer employed by NATS
"In their final report into last year's incident, published on Thursday, the CAA found a Level 2 engineer was working remotely rather than on-site at NATS' headquarters in Swanwick, Hampshire, on 28 August."
"
It was then agreed that the senior engineer would go to the control centre, but it took another hour and 30 minutes for them to arrive.
By that time, it had been three hours and 15 minutes since the incident began."
"https://news.sky.com/story/air-traffic-control-chaos-that-left-thousands-stranded-made-worse-by-wfh-engineers-password-failure-caa-finds-13254283
On the other hand at least until hundreds of thousands of passengers were stranded he had a better home/work balance.
I thought the engineer couldn't fix the problem even when he was onsite??
It was eventually fixed by a the Frequentis Comsoft in Germany (remotely!)
TJ was a nurse in the NHS? I imagine there’s plenty of overtime available, I assume he just refused to do it
I organised my work so there was no need to go over my hours and i also organised my staffs work so there was no need to go over their hours. part of being a good boss and a good team leader
working overtime with no compensation is abusive
If BBs company expects to have all of the flexibility they need without allowing the same to employees then I’ll accept that they’re taking the piss but there has been no suggestion of that.
he is certainly suggesting the overtime is mandatory and also in some cases unpaid
he is certainly suggesting the overtime is mandatory and also in some cases unpaid
He is not, he's suggesting that flexibility is required, the two are absolutely not the same. He's not even suggesting that overtime is required. Flexibility could be total hours in a week (formally compensated or otherwise), it could be when this hours are within a day (within a reasonable band or otherwise), it could be where you need to be and requiring overnight stays. Just because you have in mind your view of what it is does not make it correct and black or white.
And just as reasonably, the remuneration package may be at a level that these things are acceptable as long as the expectation is clear to both parties. That may be performance related bonuses, it may be base salary levels it may be access to other benefits (including unfettered WFH ability).
I organised my work so there was no need to go over my hours and i also organised my staffs work so there was no need to go over their hours.
To an extent you were planning against maximum use case and it is able to be funded as such therefore you aren't resourcing for peaks and troughs and where it is it is seasonal trends so to an extent predictable. Where there are resourcing issues the impact of that is passed down to the patients (appointment cancellations, etc.). It's the nature of the beast and allows a specific style of working approach, manufacturing is similar. Other industries are different and work differently.
part of being a good boss and a good team leader. working overtime with no compensation is abusive
And yet the NHS has significant problems with overtime, budgeting for use of contractors to cover shifts, staff burnout & morale.
You say requiring overtime is abusive but I think it's far worse when the lower paid staff are expected to pick up all the unpleasant shift work impacts and grief, provided with no flexibility but more senior you are the more these constraints and requirements. When senior management expect you to do something different to them that is where abusive practices arise.
I don't think I could bear a job with strict hours, and I'm happy working in an industry where the workload is variable rather than static. No overtime, just a salary and flexibility.
A lot of industries are like this, and imo Bob's position is reasonable. It's only a problem if it's all take and no give.
Bob states overtime not flexibility
Obviously business critical incidents l or occasional longer days are acceptable so long as the legally required compensatory rest is given and its paid
A culture of constant mandatory overtime and presenteeism is not
Bobs post read to me and the others as the latter
We have it in our contracts that employees should be available to work outside of contracted hours which are, notionally, 9am–5.30pm. However we have people that start at 8am, take shortened lunches and finish earlier, others that start at 10am and take no lunch etc. We are also cool with people dipping out to do school runs, get haircuts, go to the dentist, take partners to hospital appointments etc.
So, as an employer, it does really **** me off when we get kick-back on the *very occasional* time we ask someone to work extra hours (with time off in lieu) in order to make a deadline.
Ohh, and everyone is free to work whatever remote hours they want to – we only occasionally (like every couple of months or so) ask people to come into the office for meetings (then they have the nerve to ask us to pay them travel expenses)! Err, did we pay expenses when you were in the office full time? What does it say in your contract?
I think it’s far worse when the lower paid staff are expected to pick up all the unpleasant shift work impacts and grief, provided with no flexibility but more senior you are the more these constraints and requirements. When senior management expect you to do something different to them that is where abusive practices arise.
I quite agree - which is why non of the staff in my team ever worked over their hours either. I made sure of that as I said in my post.
which is why non of the staff in my team ever worked over their hours either. I made sure of that as I said in my post.
And yet as you progress up the management chain in the NHS that does change. Management and consultants are not regularly working night shifts are they? They aren't covering in case someone is late arriving, etc.
Unions are strongly represented in industries where there is a significant asymmetry in the expectations and conditions placed upon different levels of staff or those further from management have a greater expectations to provide flexibility than the managers. And there is a good reason for that.
Obviously business critical incidents l or occasional longer days are acceptable so long as the legally required compensatory rest is given and its paid
So you do require flexibility and do expect staff to work beyond their contracted hours. So you want flexibility did you provide it back? Or on top of that were you requiring them to sign in and be present at the specific start of their shift and finish no later than their defined end time, breaks to be no longer than defined as well I would imagine. Did your staff to have to request leave through you? Did they have to speak to you to request/approve variations to shift patterns?
No I never required flexibility from my staff. I was talking about a general case. I managed workload so this was not required
If staff required a small amount of time off duty for any reason they normally got it without requiring that time to be paid back ie doctors appointments and the like
Staff had contracted hours of work and were expected to work to that. Breaks were always taken. an extra break would be given if we had time available on occasion. Some posts I had I did the leave and shift swaps, some not.
I had staff that had come from units with a culture of presenteeism. they were used to working thru breaks and after hours because of the culture and management and were surprised that this didn't happen in my units. Staff who do not take breaks are less productive, happy staff are more productive
I left a role and company at the end of my road (that I was doing rather well with) - to take an opportunity that would never have been possible based on office location. The flexible option made this a reality.
It was sold to me that the team was remote - signed off at VP level etc etc, although the contract did still have to state the office rather than remote and the requirement to go in as and when. This was fine. But for either of the two locations we have - it is now a 4 hour round trip (at best). This doesn't work with a primary school aged child.
In line with other companies, they've upped the frequency requirements and a looming buy out (with the new company mandating 60% time in the office) - will cost me about £700-800 per month in train fairs.
The mad thing is that our company billed the whole remote working as "being able to get the right people for roles with location not being a factor". They subsequently said in a town hall that they were scrapping that and "if we can get someone who's a reasonable role fit within commuting distance, then that is good enough"
I am delighted - as are all the other people that unwisely took them at their word. Ah well.... It's been a great 3 years!
But that experience you have TJ is from a requirement for absolute start and end of shift. And in that you are correct that taking breaks leads to a happier and more productive workforce. Your remuneration would also reflect that.
But in industries where you do not need to define start and end times for business planning requirements you can provide (and expect in return) flexibility to meet both personal and company requirements. Being given the agency to manage your own workload to meet the demands of clients also leads to happy engaged staff in contracting/consulting conditions (as long as salary reflects the potential impact). Different strokes for different folks. Doesn't make any one better or worse, shouting that it's abusive is silly.
Despite it being far easier to move companies within the consulting world, levels of retention in the companies that I've worked in that provide that flexibility are far lower than ones that don't. If it was abusive or felt to be unreasonable staff would just up and leave. But the movement is generally from public sector (with fixed hours) to consulting rather than the other way.
Bob states overtime not flexibility
He talks about sticking rigidly to contracted hours, and you appear to have assumed that's total hours worked, which it might be but isnt clarified clearly by Bob. It could mean "you need to be at work between this time and that time" or "you must work x number of hours, some of which are out if normal office hours"
Can you quote what you're looking at?
To clarify, sometimes during a couple of points in the year, my team need to work longer than their contracted hours to get their job done. They are compensated for this.
If someone says there is zero flexibility from them around working overtime, then at these peak times they wouldn't be able to do what's needed. I'm much happier that they told me this at the interview rather than a few months in, when it would have been a much bigger problem for both sides
They are compensated for this.
So paid (and mandated) overtime, but no flexitime? A requirement to be flexible is almost a given in any job. Not hiring someone unprepared to be flexible makes sense for many businesses. But the desire for burning the wick at both ends sometimes to be balanced with time off to recharge at others, shouldn’t be seen as shirking. Flexibility needs to cut both ways if you want a dedicated and healthy workforce.
sometimes during a couple of points in the year, my team need to work longer than their contracted hours to get their job done
That's a management issue. Either the team needs to grow for this extra work or the incoming workload needs to be managed so that the team can deliver it within their working hours. Knowingly committing to work that won't be possible without your team working overtime is a failure by somebody higher up to say No.
For context I managed a large team with a variable workload and multiple competing deadlines every day. Nobody was ever expected to work beyond their contracted hours and I'd make damn sure they took their full annual leave entitlement too.
Oh Christ! You’ve done it now! You’ve summoned his restless spirit back from the dead!
The NATS failure has FA to do with WFH.
- System failed, on a Bank Holiday.
- Onsite Engineer couldn't fix and after a while called in the On-call Engineer.
- They couldn't get access remotely so had to come in, took them 1.5 hours vs 1 hour 'agreement'.
- On-Call Engineer still couldn't fix so called in Software Company.
- They fixed after 30 mins.
If the On-Call Engineer had got there within the 1 hour 'agreement' the problems would still've occurred, just it'd been a 2 hour 45 minute delay rather than 3 hour 15 delay...
Bob - so you wouldn't employ someone with caring duties then? someone who had children to pick up from school?
Bob – so you wouldn’t employ someone with caring duties then? someone who had children to pick up from school?
are you just making shit up to smear mud now ? he never said that either.
its a question. If he will not employ someone who is prepared to work over their hours then what about someone who needs to leave on time because of childcare responsibilities? He made it clear its a red line for him. Staff must be able and willing to work mandatory overtime.