Hours in Contract

[Pondlife]

The question here is not 40 hrs/week. The issue is the contract says 35 hrs/week, and that is what the OP has based his rate on. Now working for 40 hrs/week, would decrease his rates and s/he is not happy about it. If the client/agency has been upfront about 40 hrs/week, there would have been no issue I guess.

Whilst I conceed that this is exactly what his contract states - 35 hrs is 35 hrs. But unless the Op is on hourly rate it's largely meaningless within the context of a professional working day.

The client's expectation of a PWD equates to a 40hr week. The OP is of course well within their rights to question the contract and maybe try to squeeze a couple of quid out of the agent BUT is also likely to start annoying the client before they even start.

My opinion, and it is just that, is that it's not worth it sometimes. The Op is perfectly entitled to quit the contract claiming it's not what was agreed but is most likely cutting their nose to spite their face.

[billybiro]

I think arguing over 2.5 hrs over the week is asking for trouble. IMHO if you start with a 9-5 with exactly 30 mins for lunch attitude, expect to get walked off site the first time you are caught on a non business website or turn up late due to traffic.

I know what you're saying, and arguing over 2.5 hours does sound petty, but it's not so much the 2.5 hours per se, more the fact that this is now the thin end of the wedge and there are plenty of clients who, if you give them an inch, they'll take a mile.

[billybiro]

For £400 a day I would expect someone to work a 40hr week and not bleat about it. Just my opinion.

Especially considering the amount of time some spend on here whinging about clients expectations on time keeping

My view still stands that if you want to be picky about the number of hours you work then expect the client to be picky about how you spend them.

For me, it's not worth the hassle. 40hrs/week is not unreasonable IMO.

Then let's put it another way. Let's say it's you in this contract. You've agreed to work 40 hours per week. You're expected to work 40 per week, and you do and no-one expects anything different of you in relation to the hours you work.

But, you've agree a day rate of £400. But after your first invoice, you realise you've only been paid £350 a day, and it remains like that for the rest of the contract.

Is this reasonable? It's only a bit of give and take, isn't it? Nothing to "bleat about", eh?

[Pondlife]

Then let's put it another way. Let's say it's you in this contract. You've agreed to work 40 hours per week. You're expected to work 40 per week, and you do and no-one expects anything different of you in relation to the hours you work.

But, you've agree a day rate of £400. But after your first invoice, you realise you've only been paid £350 a day, and it remains like that for the rest of the contract.

Is this reasonable? It's only a bit of give and take, isn't it? Nothing to "bleat about", eh?

It's not the same IMO. I agreed to do a professional days work for £400. The length of that day is what ever reasonable time it takes me to do that work.

If you're that concerned about hours you work, get an hourly paid role. My experience is that higher paid roles are in 'days' not 'hours' and with that comes some give and take.

All I am saying is if you start arguing over something that is IMO reasonable at the start you are heading for the next few months under scrutiny. As I said earlier, much better to give when they need and take when you need.

[JamJarST]

Does this additional time include lunch and tea times? I am expected to work a 40 hour week, but that I include the time I take for breaks in that time, i.e. it is my "at work" time not my working time. If you take half an hour for lunch, then 40 hours is actually 37.5 and if you take an hour then it is 35.