Reply to: Additional hours when working away

[MPwannadecentincome]

why not go by train and work on the train and then you might go above the 13.5 hours?

So to clarify, your normal base is close to home but they've asked you to go to another site for 3 days a week? Is this right?
But they're paying for the train and hotel for this extra travel?

So where does this minimum 9 hours come into it?

Exactly right. Another site, 4 hours away, 3 days a week. They'll pay for the train and hotel costs. The first I heard about it was yesterday.

The contract says that I basically have to work 9 hours a day to get my day rate of £n, but if I do a 13.5 hour day, I get £n * 150%.

My question was, given that the travel time plus the working time takes me over 13.5 hours, would I be justified in asking for that 13.5 hour day rate (i.e. the £n * 150%), even though I might not be actually working for 13.5 hours?

I will certainly have to discuss it, given that it wasn't mentioned at interview at all - but I wondered how any additional travel time beyond what you'd normally do would be treated from a contractual point-of-view.

[psychocandy]

This

Must wonder who stuck this in the contract mind. Someone wants to impress their customer at the expense of the contractor to make absolutely sure that the end payer is getting their full day with zero danger of moans about short days.

Remember agency once telling me client expected 9-10 hours minimum. Turned up - load of bollacks. But of course, free hours = client happy and agent not getting grief. Only one not happy is contractor working long hours but agent doesnt care does he?

[TheFaQQer]

I'm sure others will disagree, but I wouldnt go anywhere near a contract which states

£n per day - minimum 9 billable hours per day

This

[Pogle]

I'm sure others will disagree, but I wouldnt go anywhere near a contract which states

£n per day - minimum 9 billable hours per day

[GillsMan]

I don't think fairness comes into it. It's business - by definition any mutually agreed business transaction is 'fair'.

So fairness does come into it then.

[psychocandy]

So to clarify, your normal base is close to home but they've asked you to go to another site for 3 days a week? Is this right?
But they're paying for the train and hotel for this extra travel?

So where does this minimum 9 hours come into it? To be honest, thats a bit much if you ask me - sounds like client is making sure their end client sees your bum on seat and see value when they get charged by the client. One thing - at least they're willing to pay a premium for an extended day - not everyone does this.

I would be making sure the rate is premium for the extra hours though. i.e 20% more.

In terms of travelling, if client asks me to go somewhere then its pretty much in their time. Fair enough dont be silly about and if its now and again then no problem but if it was every week then its a bit unfair to add on 8 hors of extra travelling.

Had one client where it was in the contract that no expenses were paid but I had to go to client site up to once a fortnight. In 2 years, I think I went 4-5 times so happy there.

[MicrosoftBob]

I just hope you're well paid, 9 minimum billable hours per day is a bit much

Being a consultancy I expect that to mean literally at least 9 hour billable time to the consultancies end clients...

[SpontaneousOrder]

It's not unreasonable for clients to pay for your travel and accommodation if working away from your normal base. But asking them to pay for your time when not working? No.

Earlier this year, I was doing some work for BP. I have multiple clients on the go, so can genuinely say that time spent on one client means I can't be working for another client. BP wanted me to go to Houston for two days. Flight was on Monday and I was in there office on Tuesday and Wednesday, leaving Wednesday evening and arriving back on Thursday at about midday. I billed for the two days in their office (Tuesday and Wednesday) and not the Monday that I had to travel even though that was a whole day out for me.

Now maybe others have different views on this, but I think my way was fair for both client and me. Besides, they paid for business class flight which I thoroughly enjoyed.

I don't think fairness comes into it. It's business - by definition any mutually agreed business transaction is 'fair'.

I think it just comes down to recognising what is realistic and deciding what makes the best (preferably long-term) business sense. Or in the OP's case (assuming he's not working concurrently) what makes the most business/life balance sense.

If the travel was 3 days every week, then normally that would be factored into the day rate. So in effect the client is actually paying for the travel time.

If it's a once in a while thing, then the OP needs to understand that successful businesses please their customers.

[GillsMan]

It's not unreasonable for clients to pay for your travel and accommodation if working away from your normal base. But asking them to pay for your time when not working? No.

Earlier this year, I was doing some work for BP. I have multiple clients on the go, so can genuinely say that time spent on one client means I can't be working for another client. BP wanted me to go to Houston for two days. Flight was on Monday and I was in there office on Tuesday and Wednesday, leaving Wednesday evening and arriving back on Thursday at about midday. I billed for the two days in their office (Tuesday and Wednesday) and not the Monday that I had to travel even though that was a whole day out for me.

Now maybe others have different views on this, but I think my way was fair for both client and me. Besides, they paid for business class flight which I thoroughly enjoyed.

[SpontaneousOrder]

3 days away, every week? If it wasn't mentioned in your dealings with them/interview, then I'd find another gig (unless they cough up what you want). I *could* put up with staying away, but I'd be getting another £100 a day for that, which after expenses leaves a little incentive do bother my arse to do it. I'd never do it for the rate I'm on now unless I was desperate.

[northernladuk]

It's got to be worth a shot. There was never any mention of travel like this when I met them initially. The first I've heard of it is today, so I'm tempted to push back on it unless they're prepared to pay the additional rate.

Just don't want to get binned two weeks in!

Well you are going the right way about it picking at hours and making an issue over some travel.

What's worth more, take a little to provide a professional service and thank them for plenty of extensions or push them for every hours possible and they get a bit hacked off and don't renew.

There is a balance, some clients may try to screw you royally but there is also a bit of flexibility on both sides that can be used without having to go down to every hour billed etc. IMO contractors with that attitude don't go far at all. They will do the minimum possible and the client knows it. Come renewal time the wheat gets sorted from the chaff. Don't let them screw you over but don't look like a moaning tight arse either.

Try and find out where the flexibility is and their expectations of how often this will happen before going in and potentially shooting yourself in the foot. After a quiet chat if it does appear they are going to have you over a barrel over the duration of the contract then push back if you feel you need to.

Then if I was the client I would just ask you if you're cut out for this contract; if you don't like it...

But hey, why not give it a try - they can only say no (maybe).

It's got to be worth a shot. There was never any mention of travel like this when I met them initially. The first I've heard of it is today, so I'm tempted to push back on it unless they're prepared to pay the additional rate.

Just don't want to get binned two weeks in!

[cojak]

They'll pay for the hotel, and for the train fare - although I'd rather have the mileage!

Travelling will just be a pain in the a**e, so I was wondering whether it would be poor form to mention the £n+50% clause in my contract.

Then if I was the client I would just ask you if you're cut out for this contract; if you don't like it...

But hey, why not give it a try - they can only say no (maybe).

[cojak]

Thanks. There's nothing in my contract that specifies a place of work - so I guess I can reasonably refuse to do it unless they pay an additional rate. I would probably be fine with doing it if I were to get the rate + 50%, but I wouldn't want to do it for my normal rate.

How would you approach discussing it with them?

It depends on what was said about working 'away from home' at contract interview time. And what your contract says.

But basically just tell them that it wasn't mentioned at interview and you want to talk about accommodation and mileage expenses.