Anonymous wrote:It really depends on what your employer classifies as full time. I'm a nurse working 3 12 hr shifts a week (36 hrs) and that is considered full time. Starting Jan 1 they are also considering those working 60 hrs per pay period as full time as well.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd love to get a job where I can dilly dally around for part of the day and make a half-way decent salary.

My experience is that's it's boring and soul crushing. To know you only have two hrs of work a day but have to sit in a chair for 8, not seeing your kids..

Um, find some more work to do.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd love to get a job where I can dilly dally around for part of the day and make a half-way decent salary.

My experience is that's it's boring and soul crushing. To know you only have two hrs of work a day but have to sit in a chair for 8, not seeing your kids..

Anonymous wrote:Yeah I think there have been a lot of studies that show that more hours does not equal more productive. So if you want to brag about sitting at your desk for 50 hrs, good for you. But to think your per hour productivity is more than someone who works less is likely not true.

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.

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.

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.

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.


I'm glad it is easy for you, but it isn't easy for many people, including me. And I have a partner, so you'd think it would be easier. But each person has a different temperament and set of demands on him/her (commute, kids who can't handle long days, ailing parents, pets, health issues, life stresses), and it's crazy not to be able to see that for some people, leaving at 4 instead of 5 might make a great quality of life difference.

Anonymous wrote:I'd love to get a job where I can dilly dally around for part of the day and make a half-way decent salary.