Would you take this WFH deal?

[Anonymous]

Y’all are hilarious. Companies are on hiring freezes and doing layoffs left and right.

If OP could find another job, she wouldn’t even be asking this question.

[Anonymous]

This is the multiple job troll from the jobs forum. Very distinct writing style.

[Anonymous]

They are counting the 2 hours you don’t have to commute on Wednesdays as working hours. I would. It agree to that. You should work 8 hours whether you are home or at the office. If they counted the 2 hours a day you commute on the other 4 days, you’d be “working” 50 hours a week, not 40. I’d at a minimum pushback with only having to work 8 hours when home. The non commute should be a benefit to you and under this scenario, it’s not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We are going back to office. It is difficult for me as a long commute driving in rush hour.

My boss with HR permission agreed to I can work 40 hours a week as follows.

10 hours Remote on Wed. As long as productive whole 10 hours.

Then I can do 7.5 hours with a 30 minute lunch (8 hours) other 4 days. I can start work anytime between 6am and 12 noon.

Technically it eliminates my long commute 5 days in a row. I get a break on Wed. and I no longer have to deal with rush hour on days in.

I want two - three days at home? But running out of justifications. Any thoughts?

Do you get paid by the hour? If you are a salaried, exempt employee, you should not be tracking the number of hours you work. The act of tracking your hours puts your company at risk of making you non-exempt. And then they will have to pay for overtime for every hour after 40 hours in a work week.

[Anonymous]

That’s no “deal.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They want you to work over 40 hours per week? Am I reading that right? I wouldn't do it because it doesn't seem ethical. I would work 40 hours per in in the office while looking for something else.

It is a 40 hour work. I work 7.5 hour four days a week but in office 8 hours due to 30 minute lunch break.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They want you to work over 40 hours per week? Am I reading that right? I wouldn't do it because it doesn't seem ethical. I would work 40 hours per in in the office while looking for something else.

It’s only 38 hours.

I don’t think it’s a great deal but what are your options? Are you willing to leave?

[Anonymous]

The 10 hour day you can take lunch. This is on the clock work.

On WFH You go on line punch in. You punch out lunch, you punch in from lunch and punch out end of day. You have a productivity log on excel where you log tasks complete by hour.

In office you punch too. It is 40 hours. But working 8 hours a day puts you in traffic 8 hours a day.

My company moved most of company to on the clock unless senior mgt. with no remote option and on the clock it is hard for some people. For others it is easier. No OT allowed. The close in folk come to work punch in and out so their 40 and leave

But a struggle others with long commutes the in person

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They are counting the 2 hours you don’t have to commute on Wednesdays as working hours. I would. It agree to that. You should work 8 hours whether you are home or at the office. If they counted the 2 hours a day you commute on the other 4 days, you’d be “working” 50 hours a week, not 40. I’d at a minimum pushback with only having to work 8 hours when home. The non commute should be a benefit to you and under this scenario, it’s not.

No, they are saying she can work 30 minutes less on 4 days - that is 2 hours. And tacking the 2 hours onto Wednesday.

Op- only you can decide if this works for you. Are your tasks flexible enough to have 10 hours of work on Wednesday? Can y[u stay focused for that long? Do you not have to meet with others? That is what messes up my flexible hours. I theory I can start and leave early, but peopl always schedule late meetings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are going back to office. It is difficult for me as a long commute driving in rush hour.

My boss with HR permission agreed to I can work 40 hours a week as follows.

10 hours Remote on Wed. As long as productive whole 10 hours.

Then I can do 7.5 hours with a 30 minute lunch (8 hours) other 4 days. I can start work anytime between 6am and 12 noon.

Technically it eliminates my long commute 5 days in a row. I get a break on Wed. and I no longer have to deal with rush hour on days in.

I want two - three days at home? But running out of justifications. Any thoughts?

Do you get paid by the hour? If you are a salaried, exempt employee, you should not be tracking the number of hours you work. The act of tracking your hours puts your company at risk of making you non-exempt. And then they will have to pay for overtime for every hour after 40 hours in a work week.

If you work for a defense contractor you have to charge your time to specific job codes (program, overhead, B&P, etc). Everyone tracks their hours. I'm a VP at a very large company and I log my hours worked this way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Y’all are hilarious. Companies are on hiring freezes and doing layoffs left and right.

If OP could find another job, she wouldn’t even be asking this question.

Nope. Just like we are still waiting for that recession.

[Anonymous]

10 hours at home sounds... Not fun.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They want you to work over 40 hours per week? Am I reading that right? I wouldn't do it because it doesn't seem ethical. I would work 40 hours per in in the office while looking for something else.

It’s only 38 hours.

I don’t think it’s a great deal but what are your options? Are you willing to leave?

It’s 40 hours, not more not less. Can’t you all do basic math?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This doesn’t sound like a good deal and you sound like a troll.

People are not being trolls just because they aren’t screaming that FT WFH is the only acceptable schedule. You sound like a troll.

[Anonymous]

It’s not much of a deal. If you otherwise like your job and your only real concern is commute then yes, but if it’s more than that than no.