So, in the review of my part-time-ness over the last 2 months, both myself and my boss are satisfied that it hasn't impacted negatively on my work at all, and that 3 days a week would be the next logical step.
However.
My boss wants to chat to HR as they might have a problem with the further reduction in hours for the following reasons:
1. Some of my benefits may not be applicable if I work at such a reduced rate of hours. (Surely this is a decision that I should make and not HR, as in I would be happy to forgo the benefit if it meant I had the better benefit of working part time);
2. If my desk is empty for nearly half the week, people would look 'sideways' at the empty space and start asking questions about my entitlement to a desk as we are pushed for space. (So pushed for space that other people who have offices and desks and are out of the office most of the time are still allowed to keep their desks, so pushed for space that there is an empty desk right behind me and it has been empty for 2 months, so pushed for space that there are plenty of free desks in the other 2 office buildings we have here)
So you see my frustration. Coupled with the fact that the changes have to be requested before the 10th of the month for them to take effect as of the 1st of the next month. Which means I won't be going down to 3 days until June 1st. That's five months after my initial request. Stupid reasons which drag everything else down too.
But the real reason could be this: Is my boss worried that people will say 'your colleague can do her job in 3 days a week and does it well. Why are we paying you for 5?' It could well be. Which is why he doesn't want to say no outright, as there is no evidence that a reduction in hours is harming my job, so he palms me off to HR to say no.
And then if they don't reduce my hours, do I start to look for another job???? I guess I have to figure out how important that extra day at home a week is.....
But for the meantime, I shall file this in the SFGTD tray and stop worrying about it.
However.
My boss wants to chat to HR as they might have a problem with the further reduction in hours for the following reasons:
1. Some of my benefits may not be applicable if I work at such a reduced rate of hours. (Surely this is a decision that I should make and not HR, as in I would be happy to forgo the benefit if it meant I had the better benefit of working part time);
2. If my desk is empty for nearly half the week, people would look 'sideways' at the empty space and start asking questions about my entitlement to a desk as we are pushed for space. (So pushed for space that other people who have offices and desks and are out of the office most of the time are still allowed to keep their desks, so pushed for space that there is an empty desk right behind me and it has been empty for 2 months, so pushed for space that there are plenty of free desks in the other 2 office buildings we have here)
So you see my frustration. Coupled with the fact that the changes have to be requested before the 10th of the month for them to take effect as of the 1st of the next month. Which means I won't be going down to 3 days until June 1st. That's five months after my initial request. Stupid reasons which drag everything else down too.
But the real reason could be this: Is my boss worried that people will say 'your colleague can do her job in 3 days a week and does it well. Why are we paying you for 5?' It could well be. Which is why he doesn't want to say no outright, as there is no evidence that a reduction in hours is harming my job, so he palms me off to HR to say no.
And then if they don't reduce my hours, do I start to look for another job???? I guess I have to figure out how important that extra day at home a week is.....
But for the meantime, I shall file this in the SFGTD tray and stop worrying about it.
Comments