Hours in Contract

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[jmo21]

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.

I was just working an example. If that is what they ask for and you agree to it up front, then fine, I agree, not unreasonable.

My point is more about when they (agent/client) try and sneak an extra 5 hours into your contract after you've signed.

I see that as THEM being picky AND sneaky about the hours they want you to work.

Just IMHO.

For what it's worth, I've never had a 40 hr/week contract, all mine have been 37.5.

I think I'd be nervous of a workplace that would wanted that and would assume they'd be the type of place that would want more on a regular basis, as opposed to the odd extra couple of hours here and there.

[rd409]

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.

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.

[Pondlife]

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.

[jmo21]

I've never really uderstood these type of threads. If you're on an hourly rate it's irrelevant, no? If you're on a daily rate then you do "whatever is required within reason" i.e. a professional working day.

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 much prefer to work the extra time when they need and take the extra time when I need.
Everyones a winner.

If you start getting petty/picky about it you're heading for a PITA manager who spends all day watching you.

well, it's actually 5 hours the OP is arguing about, he expected 35, that turned to 37.5, now it's 40.

So he's being expected to work more than half a day over the week for free for the duration of the contract.

Lets say his rate is £400/day for 35 hours = ~£57/hr. Those free hours work out as 57*5 = £285 a week, roughly ~£1142 a month, ~£13,714 over a years contract (very rough 5*4*12 calc not taking hols etc into account)

So while I agree with give and take, work a little later when necessary etc, I also don't believe in being taken for a ride by some agent or client who thinks they get me at one rate, then sneak in an extra 5 hours/week.

edit: actually the OP is happy to give them free 2.5 hrs to take it to 37.5 anyway, that's his lookout, but I think my point from 35 -> 40 hours stands, someone is at it!

[Pondlife]

I've never really uderstood these type of threads. If you're on an hourly rate it's irrelevant, no? If you're on a daily rate then you do "whatever is required within reason" i.e. a professional working day.

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 much prefer to work the extra time when they need and take the extra time when I need.
Everyones a winner.

If you start getting petty/picky about it you're heading for a PITA manager who spends all day watching you.

[BlasterBates]

They've changed the contract verbally, write them amendment to the contract.

If they don't agree you leave site forthwith.

You're entirely in your rights to do that, because they changed the contract.

If you're not too greedy, with gnashing of teeth they won't have any option but to agree.

Say 5%.

[jmo21]

If you're on an hourly rate there's no issue is there? Just bill and get paid. If you're on a daily rate, the 'how many hours in a day' has been done to death on these boards.

well clearly there is, and digging through the whole post it comes down to this....

My problem lies with the rate being negotiated at 35 hours when the working week is actually 40.

Depending on how much you need this role..... I'd be booting the agents arse, and telling them you want the extra 5 hours paid at the same rate, while apologising to the client for the agents mistake.

[rd409]

I have had a read through related topics and believe this is a different situation.

I agreed a contract with Agency to work for Client A who have subcontracted me out to Client B. From past experience this situation gets messy but this is not a question about rates - I am happy with my rate. The contract agreed with Agency is for 35 hours per week. I have worked through Agency before and this is their standard contract. I do always deliver a minimum of 37.5 hours/week because that is what I do.

I have been onsite at Client B for a few weeks. Last week there was a conversation about hours expected which equated to 37.5 hours. No great shakes there. This week it has been stated that the expected hours are actually 40 rather than 37.5.

My issue is not with having to work more hours because I am very much used to doing 50+ (paid of course). My problem lies with the rate being negotiated at 35 hours when the working week is actually 40. I was a little cheesed off initially but quickly moved on, however I do think there is something wrong here. I realise this is not a Client B problem so they do not need to be involved. I have raised this with Client A and they have said something to the tune of, "oh yeah, I should have told you about that".

Thoughts?

Hopefully you have overtime rates defined in your contract. Just let your client know, that you are going to bill for another 5 hours as overtime. If they try to negotiate, just tell them "oh yeah, I should have told you about that". Simples.

[ratewhore]

If you're on an hourly rate there's no issue is there? Just bill and get paid. If you're on a daily rate, the 'how many hours in a day' has been done to death on these boards.

Personally, I do what it takes to get the job done. Rarely does that exceed 37.5 hours. But that's just me and that's how I like it...

[youwhut]

I have had a read through related topics and believe this is a different situation.

I agreed a contract with Agency to work for Client A who have subcontracted me out to Client B. From past experience this situation gets messy but this is not a question about rates - I am happy with my rate. The contract agreed with Agency is for 35 hours per week. I have worked through Agency before and this is their standard contract. I do always deliver a minimum of 37.5 hours/week because that is what I do.

I have been onsite at Client B for a few weeks. Last week there was a conversation about hours expected which equated to 37.5 hours. No great shakes there. This week it has been stated that the expected hours are actually 40 rather than 37.5.

My issue is not with having to work more hours because I am very much used to doing 50+ (paid of course). My problem lies with the rate being negotiated at 35 hours when the working week is actually 40. I was a little cheesed off initially but quickly moved on, however I do think there is something wrong here. I realise this is not a Client B problem so they do not need to be involved. I have raised this with Client A and they have said something to the tune of, "oh yeah, I should have told you about that".

Thoughts?