IT Sector Contracted Hours

Also in IT and received a new contract a couple of months ago (same job same company, just a change of legal entity). Contract changed from 37 hours a week to 37 hours a week plus additional hours when required, no overtime paid, no time off in lieu, including weekends.

40hr week, nice 4 day week that

37.5hrs 👀 did almost that in one shift back in the day 🤣

Yes, I know who the fool is etc etc.

40 hours seems pretty standard to me. (Ex-IT for 33 years).

Did you think you were getting the extra £5k pa for nothing? 🙂

Being on £80k per year could you not negotiate a shorter working week anyway?

Contract changed from 37 hours a week to 37 hours a week plus additional hours when required, no overtime paid, no time off in lieu, including weekends

Not in 'IT' but that would be a firm no. Is there an oversupply of IT peeps? There seems to be a shortage of skilled people in most fields? Sounds like the boss wants a nicer car.

40 hours is standard elsewhere, but if you can negotiate better then fair play.

@jamesoz - doesn’t really apply to me. It’s more my team members who are affected by it. In my role it’s expected of me to work what ever is required.

The more challenging aspect is motivating the team to do weekend overtime. Especially as bonuses are also reduced this year.

I’m actually providing time of in lieu to my team members, but that’s very much a local decision.

We did get an extra two days a year holiday, plus we always get the Xmas break as holiday, but that’s not written into the contract, we just get an email a few days before.

I work for a large US company, the hours for me are very flexible. I have a team in LA and Arizona, if I need to work late on calls with them I’ll start at lunch one day etc. But again, this isn’t contracted, just how my teams operate.

40 hours is probably the norm though. I tend to be in at 8 and leave about 6. But it varies. Fridays for instance I tend to finish about 3:30.

The US guys have it tough though. Way less holiday, the West Coast staff tend to come on line about 6am their time, so they work similar hours to the East Coast staff. We do have it easy in comparison.

Thanks for the responses. I know most people work more than the contracted hours - I was just trying to get a feel whether 40 official hours was unusual.

One of my ex-colleagues left in September for a similar role which has 32 official hours per week and whose employer allows those to be carried out of four days. I thought that this was becoming more widespread hence my concern about the extra hours in the new role.

In my current job I have the option to work from home some days but the office is only two miles away so I go in most days when I am not at a customer site. I go to a gym near the office four days a week and with my current hours can go before or after work. The after work gym visits are mainly for classes that start at 6pm. I am a bit worried that the new hours would interfere with that which is also a concern as I have transformed my fitness since joining the gym.

There are a few other red flags about the new role concerning benefits (worse than my current place) and overtime rates (again less than my current place) which have me concerned.

There is always a risk associated with changing jobs, and it seems like in this instance there isn’t a commensurate reward to balance it out.

40 hour week here

But don't let this influence you, if you don't like it then don't take it.

The US guys have it tough though. Way less holiday, the West Coast staff tend to come on line about 6am their time, so they work similar hours to the East Coast staff. We do have it easy in comparison.

you might want to check their working time if that’s a measure. In some organisations these early starts turn into early finishes. Both can avoid commuting delays if being on site is a thing.

Also the USA has a more dynamic employment environment. ‘Will to work’ means that in many states it is very easy for employees to move to another job which tends to make employers more responsive to market effects.

I won’t draw a comparison between USA and U.K. productivity. USA all the way.

Contracted hours - 40 seems very old school. As do start and end times. if the OP’s new employer then starts talking about ‘performance’ you have to wonder whether it’s desk time or output that they care about.

Edit. If the rate of pay is the same then what’s the reason for moving?

A 40hr work week is for the stone age - it's what we have here and is especially irritating when there's a bit of a mix across the corporate body as some guys are on 37.5.

Time a lot of places catch up - the French std makes so much more sense.

Id be more concerned about the hour for lunch, in my experience 30 mins is more normal. An hour for lunch is a sneaky way of getting an extra 40 mins a day out of you.

I think you need to look at this in the round. Are there any other things that don't sit well? Doesnt sound like the hours would work as well either. Assuming your are a higher rate tax payer that extra £5k will disappear very quickly, even at the lower rate a third of that will go in tax and NI. Nice as an extra £290 a month take home might be it will very quickly become the norm. Unless you desperately want the job or will be out of your existing job I'd be going back and explaining why you want the £5k on top of an increase to keep your hourly rate the same. Why would you want to move jobs for basically the same money and less favourable working conditions?

-added nothing-

There are a few other red flags about the new role concerning benefits (worse than my current place) and overtime rates (again less than my current place) which have me concerned.

this sounds bad. What attracts you to this potential new employer? More opportunities? Closer to home?

Other than the ‘their projects fit my skill set’ it sounds like a bad deal: more expected hours, same rate of pay, worse benefits? Why do they expect you should join them?

So far I’m not sold on it and would ask for WFH options, 35 hours a week contracted hours, comparable benefits, and a 15% increase in pay - whether that 15% is made up in pensionable pay (yay) or car or other allowances is up to you.

In my role it’s expected of me to work what ever is required.

I'd be filing this under "managing expectations."

The more challenging aspect is motivating the team to do weekend overtime.

Time and a half on Saturdays and double time on Sundays?

I've never understood why people work for free, unless they have a vested interest in the company.

There are a few other red flags about the new role concerning benefits (worse than my current place) and overtime rates (again less than my current place) which have me concerned.

It's a job offer not a new job. Negotiate. Tell them what you've told us, it's an extra [x] hours and lower O/T rate therefore you'd be happy to take the role if they increase the salary offer to [y] in order to offset that. If they say no then you've still got your existing job.

I know most people work more than the contracted hours

You should take a look at this thread : https://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/the-art-of-not-giving-a/

I have never understood why someone would sign a contract to work X hours for £Y, presumably thinking this was appropriate pay for the work they would do in that time, and then routinely work X + n hours for the same money. My view was always that long hours culture either meant that the person working long hours was a bit crap at their job and took longer than required, or that the management was a bit crap and couldn't say 'No' to work and then expected the minions to make up for their failings. There's a happy tension where there's a tiny bit more work to do than the team has capacity for as that keeps people focussed and makes sure they work on priorities, but it absolutely should not mean that everyone routinely works longer hours. Rant over.

OP - from what you've written the new offer doesn't seem that compelling. The only thing that'd sell it to me is if you were getting in-demand skills so that your next contract could be a higher rate, but as others have said there's apparently a labour shortage so you have a good position to negotiate from.

Be mindful of comparing to US CO’s. Developers are paid significantly more, especially in tier 1 cities. From my experience the same role for an in demand skill can be as much as 5x.

Usually negotion for salary, holiday, hours and benefits is done before accepting a new role. If you've accepted without negotiating and handed in your notice you’re not in the best position. If you haven't accepted just work out what you want to compensate for the additional hours and ask for it.

Nearly 40 years of working in IT and I've never had a job contracted at 40 hours, yes I've worked more, but never has it been contracted.

Current role is 37 hours and TBH based on how the company has taken the pi55 over the last few years (and my almost-retired 'status'), it's what I work. I actually keep a log of hours, and ensure any I put in, I get back - the last time I did a 'timesheet' was in the 80's - but, it means I can prove it.

Even if I and my colleague did double our hours we'd still not get the work done - funny though how our CEO has doubled his money in the 5 years I've been here yet we, like many others, are way behind even maintaining salary 'value'.

Also in IT and received a new contract a couple of months ago (same job same company, just a change of legal entity). Contract changed from 37 hours a week to 37 hours a week plus additional hours when required, no overtime paid, no time off in lieu, including weekends.

We did that in 2019

We did get an extra two days a year holiday, plus we always get the Xmas break as holiday, but that’s not written into the contract, we just get an email a few days before.

Hope there was a nice chunk of extra salary. We did and an extra 3-6 days holiday, depending on when Bank Holidays fall (they don't get added to the weekend round here, so we get an extra days holiday if the BH is Tuesday or Thursday).
Also got hybrid working thrown in and our bonus went from maximum 6% salary to 15%...

I also haven't done any overtime or TOIL in more than a decade.

Just a point but some places use contractors to 1. fill a temporary need, 2. others as a try before you buy, and others 3. because they can not get anyone to work for them on a perm basis.

I have no idea what this company is but if it is #3 just smile and take the money but if they are not flexible then you do not be flexible.

40hr week, nice 4 day week that

Different work is different. There is something about being sat inteisvley in front of a computer every day that is very very draining. Creates a very odd tired.

It worker here (non contractor). In the UK we are contracted to 35 hours, Canada is 36.25, us is 40 and India is 42.5 from memory

Global IT consultancy here, European base and owned. UK and Europe is a 37.5 week and we bill to clients a 7.5 day. Our Indian and US divisions are 40 hours, and 8 hour billable day.

There are nominal working hours of 9-5:30 in our contracts but also an ‘as needed’ clause which is rarely (never in my experience) exercised forcibly. We do have overtime rates for weekends, but again, always at employee’s choice. There’s a prevailing employee-driven attitude of do whatever is needed (or be wherever needed) for the work to get done because we want to do a good job for our clients, but without sacrificing personal time unless you want to. Nowadays the start and finish times are more there so people are all available for meetings etc at a common time, rather than for presenteeism.

Personally, I’ll never work for a US company again for many of the reasons already stated in this thread and from experience.

Nowadays the start and finish times are more there so people are all available for meetings etc at a common time, rather than for presenteeism.

Yeah, our core/online hours have gone from 8:30-16:00. To 9:30-15:00 then 10:00-14:30 and with the last contract change they are now mostly "don't take the piss, make sure your manager/supervisor/colleagues know, make sure you're available for meetings". Except in customer support, where they have scheduled hours.

Contract changed from 37 hours a week to 37 hours a week plus additional hours when required, no overtime paid, no time off in lieu, including weekends.

As soon as I saw that I thought "US company"  thats the sort of nonsense that the WTD was supposed to prevent,   Its completely unacceptable to have compulsory unpaid overtime. I'd love to see a legal challenge to that.  I think if they sacked you for refusing to do unpaid overtime on your days off would be an easy win at tribunal and it probably means you are not within the WTD some of the provisions of which you cannot contract out of.  It would also fall foul of equalities law unless the are exemptions for those caring for others as that caring role is more common amongst women

Its completely unacceptable to have compulsory unpaid overtime.

Doesn't it all depend on how much £££££ is being chucked at you?

A check-out person on min wage then completely unacceptable. Someone on £100k+ then there's a certain expectation to bring jobs in on time when needed.

Even if you don’t opt out of the WTD, it’s quite possible to still do a considerable amount of unpaid overtime before you hit the WTD limits.

I’d need to do an extra 178.5 hours over the 17 week period before I fell foul of the WTD as I haven’t opted out. That’s roughly an extra two hours per day.

It’s why opting out of the WTD is pointless for most people.

But as mentioned above, as a salaried employee, I tend to ignore working hours. I decide if the salary is enough that I don’t mind working most hours. If it isn’t then I don’t take the job. To be salaried, and particularly high salaried, is a very different working expectation (on both sides) than lower paid hourly waged work.

Been in the industry 24 years and always worked 37 or 37.5 hour contracts as a permie.

All have expected to work longer where required for nothing extra, but currently work where I accrue flex for extra minutes worked - which is nice even if the pay is a little below industry standard.

Oh, and I work 8 hours Mon-Thurs with 30 min lunch, 5 hours on a Friday, but it is all flexible within reason.

Doesn’t it all depend on how much £££££ is being chucked at you?

No it depends on what was agreed when you took on the job. Not how a subsequent changed was proposed or what everyone else in the workplace does - you signed up to a set of Ts and Cs, and if you are then expected to change those to your detriment there has to be some recognition of that elsewhere.

Someone on £100k+ then there’s a certain expectation to bring jobs in on time when needed.

Just because there is an expectation in some industries does not make it right.  Its acceptable for urgent and emergency situations.  Not as apart of your normal working practices.

WTD is about a lot more than the 48 hour week.  compulsory daily and weekly rest times, annual leave etc

Stockholm syndrome anyone?

My contract is 37.5, with 30 mins lunch. Not IT but this is company-wide including IT peeps.

I must not have looked at the contract properly, as I took an hour for lunch for the first two years and only realised when I was TUPE-d over to another part of the company.

I still take the best part of an hour TBH, need to cook lunch and walk the dog most days.

My point is the contract and the reality of what people work may differ. But it would be a concern for me. I value work-life balance.

A check-out person on min wage then completely unacceptable. Someone on £100k+ then there’s a certain expectation to bring jobs in on time when needed.

I disagree.

Someone on £100k+ works extra hours to get a "job in on time." Sure. So why shouldn't they get time off in lieu just like everyone else?

What's the cutoff here, at what point does this "certain expectation" kick in? You've compared someone of a 7-figure salary with minimum wage. What about someone on £30k? £50k? £99k?

I still take the best part of an hour TBH, need to cook lunch and walk the dog most days.

Yeah, there was an interesting reply up the thread about the company somehow stealing your time if you had to take more than 30 minutes for your lunch break. I was usually in the opposite situation (we had a degree of flexi-time) whereby 30 minutes meant you were likely to be stuck at your desk but with an hour, or 90 minutes, I'd go swimming, squash, walk etc. That made a massive difference in Winter too when I'd otherwise never see daylight during the working week.

I'm in IT based in Ireland and working for an Indian company. We work 37.5 hours per week and I believe our Indian colleagues work 40 hours. We don't get overtime during the week and it is rarely required but we do get paid well for weekend overtime (also rarely required).

Yeah, there was an interesting reply up the thread about the company somehow stealing your time if you had to take more than 30 minutes for your lunch break. I was usually in the opposite situation (we had a degree of flexi-time) whereby 30 minutes meant you were likely to be stuck at your desk but with an hour, or 90 minutes, I’d go swimming, squash, walk etc. That made a massive difference in Winter too when I’d otherwise never see daylight during the working week.

I think that is the thing with lunch. Some people can use a long lunch effectively others that 30 min is better having at end or beginning or the day, the issue is with companies that force a 1hr lunch as then for some people that 30min extra is wasted.

Yeah, there was an interesting reply up the thread about the company somehow stealing your time if you had to take more than 30 minutes for your lunch break.

If you've got facilities onsite, it's easy to inhale your lunch and then think "well, I might as well go back to work rather than sit here for another 40 minutes." I fell foul of this for a while. I started going home for lunch - 15 minutes to go home, 15 mins to make food, 15 mins to eat it, 15 minutes back again. It got me out of the office but really wasn't a great use of time. In the end I fixed it by bringing TV boxsets in; bowl of pasta, laptop, headphones.

The problem comes really though when it's expected. If I take half an hour of an hour's lunch then I'm leaving early / coming in later tomorrow. The door has to swing both ways. I've often said "I'll work to rule if you want, but you won't like it."

Global Telco here - 37.5. Previously global management consultancy also 37.5. That being said I work more than those hours most of the time (management role blah blah blah). The Telco is a lot fewer hours than the management consultancy mind!

40 hours is normwlly a US thing in my experience. I'd want more than a 5k raise.

What’s the cutoff here, at what point does this “certain expectation” kick in?

When you have a stake in the company. And working more increases the value of that stake.
i.e. at our sort of level, work extra hours to ensure that a contract gets signed/sale made when you are *guaranteed* a share of the money made, or a payment for completion. My bonus and the value of my shares are essentially completely disconnected from any extra hours i do, so i don't do them and management know there is little point in asking, as we are generally not the bottleneck. (Those that do get asked to do overtime get a free evening meal, taxis home (if they can't catch buses), and can apply for an allowance for childcare).

I must not have looked at the contract properly, as I took an hour for lunch for the first two years and only realised when I was TUPE-d over to another part of the company.

We have a 42 minute lunchbreak in our contracts, i rarely take less than that, and probably 3-4 days a week take an hour...