I work as a developer in an IT company. The work isn’t the type of work where the hours need to be set. There are deadlines, but as long as they are met, the work can be done at pretty much any time of the day. I was hired as full time to work a 40 hour week, but it seems to be more of a 40 hour minimum and some periods I do much more than that.
Sometimes if there is lots of work to do I will be working till late at night and there has been some weekend work. The fact is, I don’t really mind. I’m single so it’s easier for me than some of my colleagues who might need to take care of their kids etc. If the work needs to be done, I’m happy to stay till it’s done. The weekend work there is a little bit of a compensation - but it’s not like 1 to 1 sort of deal - it’s more like if I spent all weekend working, I might be able to come in after lunch on Monday.
Anyway, I feel from my perspective, I’ve been fairly flexible. So I thought it would kind of work both ways. So last week, I had some personal business I had to attend to and I had to take off at 3:30. The next day I was told that I would need to take half an annual leave day for that. I was a little taken back - I don’t get much annual leave so I was saving them to go on a holiday at some point - I didn’t want to be wasting them. And I just figured that it’s two hours - I’ve given them much more than two hours of work - and given the nature of my work, I can easily make them up the next day even.
However, I was told the policy is that I have to be there during core hours. That to me sounds a little one sided. I have to be there during core hours - but if they need me, I have to be flexible enough to be there outside of core hours too with no or little compensation. However, if I need to occasionally move my hours around, they won’t allow the flexibility for me to catch up those hours another time.
My question is, is it reasonable for me to expect my workplace to be flexible for me if I’m willing to be flexible for them?