I did 37.5 in my last private sector job but couldn't live off it.

OP here. Yes, only 30 minutes for lunch (and they CLOCK it) so it's 9-5, 40 hours.
They increased my workload. I handled it. I wish I were indispensable, but of course--no one is. Or as Charles de Gaulle said, "The graveyards are full of indispensable people."
I dream of working in government. I know very talented, hard-working people who do, and who are rewarded with more flexibility than my company allows or has ever allowed. They work very, very hard and get abused (by the media, etc.) all the time. Of course, there are slackers, as there are anywhere, but if you want to see hard workers: check out the national park service, the social security administration, the federal trade commission, the national endowment for the arts, etc. I would love to join their ranks. Sigh.
There might soon be a change in management --everyone is on edge. I'm hoping it might be someone who understands what it's like to be a working mom of a young child.
Why does the workplace in this country make it so difficult to be a good mother and a good worker? It's HARD here. It used to be more balanced, I think--but now it's "lean in" or go home.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Besides there are not too many professional positions that offer 9-5 schedules today.

There are many in government. The private sector abuses exempt employees.

Some private sector employers take advantage of their employee but presenting government as being the standard to follow is bizarre. I associate government employees as being ineffective and inefficient - though there obviously are exceptions.

As a general rule, I would never hire a government employee who as worked in government for an extended period for a position in the private sector. There is just too much of a challenge in adapting to the demands of the private sector.

Never said that the government was a standard to be followed. Just that there are a lot of professional positions that are 9-5 in government. Based on your reading comprehension skills, I wouldn't hire you to be an admin in my agency. And thousands apply every day to escape the private sector and come in out of the rain into government.

I doesn't matter to me that you wouldn't hire me with my extensive experience in government. I field calls weekly from the private sector trying to entice me back to the private sector without you. No thanks.

Based on two anecdotal instances on the Internet, that and a dollar may get you a cup of coffee.

I am a paralegal in the private sector and my firm works 35 hours a week. Because of DOL laws regarding paralegals and legal assistants, I have a salary that is converted into an hourly rate that I am paid based on, so if I work anything between 35-40 hours a week, I get paid on top of my base salary and if I work 40+ hours, I get time and a half.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I work for a large private company, working 9-5. I know how lucky I am. But if I could leave an hour earlier every day, I would be so happy and would cheerfully take a pay cut, which would be helpful to our division. I mentioned this to my manager and she said, "Your health benefits will be affected." Which was a deal-killer for me (single mom with two kids), and she knew it. Worse, it implied that I could do my job in only 35 hours rather than 40, which, um, is true.
I discussed this with a colleague who said, "That's not true--I'm not even sure it's legal" to threaten health benefits if someone cuts back (is 35 hours considered part-time?) I know someone who has been freelancing/contracting with our company for a long time who would love 5 more hours a week and who does not need health benefits (her husband ensures the family). I mentioned all this to my union rep who said, "I don't know how to deal with that. No one has ever done that kind of job-sharing before."
Really, in this huge company is what I'm suggesting so outlandish?
Help, help. Thanks.

You will likely get one of two things out of this request:

a. an increase in workload, as you've just told your manager you essentially work only 4 days a week
b. your projects will be siphoned off to other folks to other folks and you'll be made redundant

If neither happens, keep quiet and be thankful.

Have to laugh at my own mistake here, funny

Anonymous wrote:I work for a large private company, working 9-5. I know how lucky I am. But if I could leave an hour earlier every day, I would be so happy and would cheerfully take a pay cut, which would be helpful to our division. I mentioned this to my manager and she said, "Your health benefits will be affected." Which was a deal-killer for me (single mom with two kids), and she knew it. Worse, it implied that I could do my job in only 35 hours rather than 40, which, um, is true.
I discussed this with a colleague who said, "That's not true--I'm not even sure it's legal" to threaten health benefits if someone cuts back (is 35 hours considered part-time?) I know someone who has been freelancing/contracting with our company for a long time who would love 5 more hours a week and who does not need health benefits (her husband ensures the family). I mentioned all this to my union rep who said, "I don't know how to deal with that. No one has ever done that kind of job-sharing before."
Really, in this huge company is what I'm suggesting so outlandish?
Help, help. Thanks.

You will likely get one of two things out of this request:

a. an increase in workload, as you've just told your manager you essentially work only 4 days a week
b. your projects will be siphoned off to other folks to other folks and you'll be made redundant

If neither happens, keep quiet and be thankful.

Anonymous wrote:

Besides there are not too many professional positions that offer 9-5 schedules today.

There are many in government. The private sector abuses exempt employees.

Some private sector employers take advantage of their employee but presenting government as being the standard to follow is bizarre. I associate government employees as being ineffective and inefficient - though there obviously are exceptions.

As a general rule, I would never hire a government employee who as worked in government for an extended period for a position in the private sector. There is just too much of a challenge in adapting to the demands of the private sector.

I work at a job where you can pay a higher rate to work 30 hours part time. So I think it was an 80/20 split of insurance cost (employee paid 20%) when you worked full time. But then if we dropped to 30 hours salaried, it was a 0/40 split.

The thing is, its so easy to work an additional 10 hours -- would yu really respect the 40? Maybe instead of asking to drop hours you could ask to go to a compressed schedule.

Work four, 10 hour days maybe? or work 9 hours, eight days in a row, then take off the next 8 hour day? E.g. Work 8-5PM on Mon,Tue,Wed,Thu,Fri,Mon,Tue,Wed,Thu, and take off Friday? Every other week.

I doubt there is a clear-cut law which covers this, and suspect it is employer-dependent.

I work in healthcare and for nurses 36 hours is considered FT for all benefits purposes, at least where I work. (This is because nurses work 12-hour shifts, and it really wouldn't make sense to have anyone come in for one 4-hour shift just to make 40 hours.) But I don't think applies to other positions, even in my workplace.

Contact HR to see if your health insurance will indeed be cut. At my job, 30 hours a week is full time and under that, you aren't offered benefits like health insurance, as you will be considered part time. However, even if the health insurance will remain for you, if your boss needs you there until 5, then you must work that.

Isn't 9-5 already a 35-hour week? Or do you only get a 30 min lunch, which makes it 37.5?

And you can't do 8-4 instead?

Besides there are not too many professional positions that offer 9-5 schedules today.

There are many in government. The private sector abuses exempt employees.

At my employer, anyone that goes below 40 hours a week is considered part-time, with an accompanying reduction in benefits.

Have you considered looking at flex-hours? For example, you could work 9 work days and get the 10th day off.

Anonymous wrote:I work for a large private company, working 9-5. I know how lucky I am. But if I could leave an hour earlier every day, I would be so happy and would cheerfully take a pay cut, which would be helpful to our division. I mentioned this to my manager and she said, "Your health benefits will be affected." Which was a deal-killer for me (single mom with two kids), and she knew it. Worse, it implied that I could do my job in only 35 hours rather than 40, which, um, is true.
I discussed this with a colleague who said, "That's not true--I'm not even sure it's legal" to threaten health benefits if someone cuts back (is 35 hours considered part-time?) I know someone who has been freelancing/contracting with our company for a long time who would love 5 more hours a week and who does not need health benefits (her husband ensures the family). I mentioned all this to my union rep who said, "I don't know how to deal with that. No one has ever done that kind of job-sharing before."
Really, in this huge company is what I'm suggesting so outlandish?
Help, help. Thanks.

Not outlandish but consider the ramifications: if you are allowed to do so, what would the rationale be for denying others the same sort of flexibility?

Companies and managers do have to consider the implications of these sort of exceptions on employees overall - and the effect on morale of offering selective flexibility.

Besides there are not too many professional positions that offer 9-5 schedules today.

I work for a large private company, working 9-5. I know how lucky I am. But if I could leave an hour earlier every day, I would be so happy and would cheerfully take a pay cut, which would be helpful to our division. I mentioned this to my manager and she said, "Your health benefits will be affected." Which was a deal-killer for me (single mom with two kids), and she knew it. Worse, it implied that I could do my job in only 35 hours rather than 40, which, um, is true.
I discussed this with a colleague who said, "That's not true--I'm not even sure it's legal" to threaten health benefits if someone cuts back (is 35 hours considered part-time?) I know someone who has been freelancing/contracting with our company for a long time who would love 5 more hours a week and who does not need health benefits (her husband ensures the family). I mentioned all this to my union rep who said, "I don't know how to deal with that. No one has ever done that kind of job-sharing before."
Really, in this huge company is what I'm suggesting so outlandish?
Help, help. Thanks.