Anonymous wrote:At my current stage in life I’m jealous of you OP because I’d love to work 25-30 hours a week so I could see my young kids more. Before I had kids and I assume once they are older I would be bored working 30 hours a week. So I feel you. Maybe take up a hobby you could do while ‘working’?

I have never been bored in my life. IMO, it takes a very boring person not to be able to fill in a day.

It sounds like you are able to complete this job in way less than 40 hours due to your education and experience. Someone else would probably take 40 hours to get everything done and not even do it to your standard, so they would still be paying someone the same salary for lesser or equal work product. I wouldn’t feel bad about this.

I don’t understand why you took the first pay cut, let why would consider one now. Know your worth.

OP here. Thank you so much for all of the replies.
The position I have now is well below my education level (I have a PhD and many certifications, while this position does not even require a bachelor's degree ) and expertise (I've been with this company for 18 years) which I am fine with. I am not looking for career advancement or any additional career development at this stage of my life and I've been very open about that with my employer and supervisor. I am not saying that I will never learn anything new, but there is nothing that I actively need to know to further develop any skills for what I am currently doing .

I could see a new person struggling in this role because there are a lot of details and balls in the air at one time. You need to prioritize and manage your time very well or you could get behind very quickly .
But I've been here so long....I know when to throw the balls up and when they need to be caught. I have strong relationships with many department heads so I know who I need to go to and what I need to go to them to get things done . I have always been great at details and efficiency.

I will continue to explore additional work tasks I can help with and of course will always do the work that needs to be done and be available during my working hours. This is just such a drastic change from the daily grind I had before but I think part of correcting it maybe me not being so efficient with things and letting projects draw out a bit longer than I actually would need them to.

This position is just such a drastic change from what I have done for so long that I think I still may be in the transition period. Even after over a year.

If you are salaried, then there is absolutely nothing to feel guilty about. You are delivering what needs to be delivered and doing it successfully.
If you are hourly, I agree with another PP who said you should think of those hours as "on call" where you can respond when needed. You could also read subject area material and grow your professional knowledge or take courses through an online learning company to grow your skills -- even if they are not strictly your area of expertise -- and then you are using that time for work related professional development and so are "working".

Anonymous wrote:If they are paying you for 40 and you’re working 30 then you’re stealing 10 hours pay from the company. Take the pay cut or find some more tasks to do.

How about companies who give you more than 40 hours of work per week, require you to complete, but don't pay overtime since you're salaried? Same?

I had a friend in a similar situation. She would do self-paced trainings during downtime. I remember her doing a lot of technology trainings learning how to use new software. She would also do research to keep up on new trends in her field and often share it with colleagues.

So are we all in agreement? Hourly employees don't need to work the full 40 hours they get paid for so long as they get done. What needs to be?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If being paid hourly, it's wrong. You are lying about hours worked. That is illegal in most (all?) states.

If being paid on salary, it's probably not wrong. You are being paid for work done, not time spent doing it. But there may be an obligation of availability during certain hours, too.

So from your perspective (which is wrong btw) employers get to have hourly employees on call and only compensate them for the time they need their expertise? It doesn't work like that, OP's employer is paying for OP to be on call much like a retail store is paying for a cashier to be available even if there is no one to check out at that immediate moment.

This is a good comparison. If it was strictly for hours worked, it should be set up like freelance with the hours being billed monthly.

Hourly is non exempt.

Are you a nonexempt employee at this point OP?

Anonymous wrote:If being paid hourly, it's wrong. You are lying about hours worked. That is illegal in most (all?) states.

If being paid on salary, it's probably not wrong. You are being paid for work done, not time spent doing it. But there may be an obligation of availability during certain hours, too.

So from your perspective (which is wrong btw) employers get to have hourly employees on call and only compensate them for the time they need their expertise? It doesn't work like that, OP's employer is paying for OP to be on call much like a retail store is paying for a cashier to be available even if there is no one to check out at that immediate moment.

It's not a salaried job

Anonymous wrote:If you’re available to them 40 hours per week, getting all of your work done on time, and routinely offering to take on more work, you have nothing to feel guilty about. They set the terms of employment, not you. You’re not the one who designated that this is a full time job. If they replaced you, a new hire would take longer to complete the same work. Just enjoy the ride.

+1 Absolutely.

Anonymous wrote:Even though it's lying about HOURS worked?

It's a salaried job and OP is looking for additional projects. As long as she is available to accept work and isn't turning projects down/not completing work on time I believe she's fulfilling her obligations.