Anonymous wrote:

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.

Oh. So you really only work a 37.5/hr week. We are expected to be at the desk from 9-6pm with a one hour lunch. I'm having a hard time thinking you have a difficult life if you actually get to clock out at 5pm.

Honestly, your last sentences are really histrionic. Working 40 hrs a week is not at all "leaning in" and hardly a challenge to "balance". It's actually a very normal and manageable schedule for FT workers. It sounds like you want to work PT. No problem with that, but don't compare yourself to the hard workers at NPS, SSA, or NEA. They don't clock out at 37.5 and whine about want 35 (or 32.5, which is what you really want). They do their jobs. If you want to join their ranks, let go of the idea of working less and be a responsible parent.

---single mom who has always worked 50+hrs a week because that is what it takes.

You realize you can "work hard" at a part time job too, right? Or an 80% or a .75 FTE (or however your organization categorizes time). Because it can "take" different things for different professions. Are you also one of those people who like phrases like "you can't cut it" or "couldn't hack it" ?

Anonymous wrote:
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.

It is hard here- I'm not sure that it was previously easier or if it was just that women tended to work more traditional jobs like teaching, secretarial work, nursing, etc., which of course are not easy jobs at all but with teaching your physically-at-work schedule is similar to your kids' school schedule, etc. Other countries have more friendly policies for families- not just moms, dads too- but I think in the U.S. the attitude is more 'if you want both a career and kids, it's your responsibility to figure out how to do it yourself, and don't complain.' 'It takes a village' is a lost concept, particularly if you don't have family nearby to help out. It is what it is, but unfortunate in some ways. At some point attitudes may change and "flexibility" will no longer become a dirty word, but it may take some sort of watershed moment over here.

OP, can you shift your schedule earlier?

I work a schedule similar to yours, but it's 8:30 to 4:30, and that makes a significant difference in my commuting time as a driver (and how packed the metro was when I used public transit). Would they let you work 8 to 4?

Anonymous wrote:^^The fallacy to your comments is that in the real world - especially in the private sector - there are not too many positions where people "dilly dally" around.

You're naive.

^^The fallacy to your comments is that in the real world - especially in the private sector - there are not too many positions where people "dilly dally" around.

Anonymous wrote: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.

I think the reason so few places allow a 35 hour week is that it's our culture. It's all we know right now and behavior is hard to change. In general, change scares people. Workers are afraid that reducing the work day by five hours will demonstrate they are not needed and lead to a massive layoff. Employers fear workers are taking advantage of them and they won't get the biggest bang for their buck out of each staffer. So, it's better to have people sitting there 9-5, or more, even if 1/3 of the time is spent dilly-dallying at the water cooler. At least they're there, at the office, being paid to be present.

How many people here would actually be willing to take a small pay cut but keep benefits if it meant you received every Friday off, only working M-Th, or worked a 5 day week 9-4. Would the pay cut in exchange for a shorter week be worth it to you? Does it really come down to sitting at your desk for an extra day basically simple for the money? I've taken a look at my own work day and I probably spend only 30 out of the 40 hour week actually WORKING, as in producing a product, sitting in meetings, assisting coworkers. But would I be willing to cut those ten extra hours? Would be nice to but then the benefits would be removed. Then there's the commute. An hour each way in rush hour sitting on a crowded train taken out of my life to basically appear at a desk. In the end, at least for me, it's really all for the benefits.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Oh. So you really only work a 37.5/hr week. We are expected to be at the desk from 9-6pm with a one hour lunch. I'm having a hard time thinking you have a difficult life if you actually get to clock out at 5pm.

Honestly, your last sentences are really histrionic. Working 40 hrs a week is not at all "leaning in" and hardly a challenge to "balance". It's actually a very normal and manageable schedule for FT workers. It sounds like you want to work PT. No problem with that, but don't compare yourself to the hard workers at NPS, SSA, or NEA. They don't clock out at 37.5 and whine about want 35 (or 32.5, which is what you really want). They do their jobs. If you want to join their ranks, let go of the idea of working less and be a responsible parent.

---single mom who has always worked 50+hrs a week because that is what it takes.

+1...I don't know what makes OP think she can become a fed and work less hours. My husband works at one of the agencies she mentioned in her post and he frequently works 50+ hour weeks. Someone who came in and wanted flexibility and special treatment would not move up.

Anonymous wrote: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.

Progress on this issue happened in US between 1860s and 1930s largely due to unions and a culture that supported the notion that you should help your neighbor. Also there were still large amounts of legal immigration during these periods but number of jobs largely kept pace and there were no structured gov subsidies to bring in guest workers. It was legal and structured and not focused on providing guest workers for large multi-national companies that were based in India.

The United States Adamson Act in 1916 established an eight-hour day, with additional pay for overtime, for railroad workers. This was the first federal law that regulated the hours of workers in private companies. The United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Act in Wilson v. New, 243 U.S. 332 (1917). The eight-hour day might have been realized for many working people in the U.S. in 1937, when what became the Fair Labor Standards Act (29 U.S. Code Chapter 8) was first proposed under the New Deal. As enacted, the act applied to industries whose combined employment represented about twenty percent of the U.S. labor force. In those industries, it set the maximum workweek at 40 hours,[16] but provided that employees working beyond 40 hours a week would receive additional overtime bonus salaries.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-hour_day

With all the guest workers and H1Bs taking low level IT jobs and the F1 students taking the college postions/TA jobs , the average IT worker in USA just keeps getting screwed and screwed.

At one point in our culture, workers supported and fought for each other. Now it is every woman for herself.

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.

Oh. So you really only work a 37.5/hr week. We are expected to be at the desk from 9-6pm with a one hour lunch. I'm having a hard time thinking you have a difficult life if you actually get to clock out at 5pm.

Honestly, your last sentences are really histrionic. Working 40 hrs a week is not at all "leaning in" and hardly a challenge to "balance". It's actually a very normal and manageable schedule for FT workers. It sounds like you want to work PT. No problem with that, but don't compare yourself to the hard workers at NPS, SSA, or NEA. They don't clock out at 37.5 and whine about want 35 (or 32.5, which is what you really want). They do their jobs. If you want to join their ranks, let go of the idea of working less and be a responsible parent.

---single mom who has always worked 50+hrs a week because that is what it takes.

OP, you are currently working 37.5 hours per week. 1/2 hour per lunch. I have the same at my position but it is theoretical since I'm exempt. I don't do much over that as I have a child to pick up.

I previously worked at a large nonprofit with a 35 hour work week standard. But many worked over that as we were exempt and dedicated to the cause.

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.

+1

I agree.

The other thing I have noticed is the trend by some posters who expect special treatment to deal with their personal situations involving changing work hours, schedules, taking time off for part of the year, etc.

It will not fly with most companies and may actually be negatively perceived.