The Venture wrote in June about the trend of people doing extra work for the same pay. Economic data showed rising productivity per hour worked, and sluggish wage and salaries growth. It was obvious that many companies had worked staff harder for the same pay. Telling mid-ranking staff they must work professional hours, in unionised industries no less, takes this productivity trend up several notches. It is one thing to encourage staff to work longer than the minimum required; quite another for firms to openly put a hefty number on the extra hours required before overtime is paid. Or to expect longer hours when required, but offer no time in lieu to employees when work slows. Don’t get me wrong: I’m all for companies maximising labour productivity, but relying on subjective definitions about professional wages and hours potentially creates myriad risks – and, frankly, seems underhanded to force people to work even harder based on loose terms the company invents. For one thing, who really is a professional? Many workers consider themselves professionals, but do not belong to a professional body or have accreditation that signals their expertise, like a doctor, accountant or lawyer. Should graduates or mid-ranking employees be considered professionals?

What is a professional salary? Plenty of tradesmen earn far more than your average office worker, yet are not defined by their wage. Try telling a mining or construction worker who earns much more than the average wage that they are expected to work an extra day each week for no extra pay. Moreover, who determines the difference between professional hours and normal hours? If the normal working week is 38 hours, and professional hours are deemed to be 45 hours, the company effectively expects staff to work almost an extra day each week when required, without extra pay. That’s a big ask for any worker, let alone those earning below $100,000 in a capital city. Would you willingly work the equivalent of another day each week when required, all because your employer deems you earn a professional salary and that 45 hours is a professional working week. It’s little wonder so many workers are stressed these days. Try telling a mining or construction worker who earns much more than the average wage that they are expected to work an extra day each week for no extra pay. What of entitlements? Is annual leave and other benefits based on your professional working week (the one the company expects of you) or your normal week (the one it pays you for)? And who records your professional working week to ensure you receive recognition for it?

Finally, did you know about the requirement of professional hours when you joined the firm? My guess is, it was never in your original job contract, other than a nondescript line that you might be required to work more hours than the agreed amount from time to time. I bet the interviewee never told the finance employees mentioned in this story that they were expected to work up to another day each week, for no more pay. They might have declined the job. Think about your best employers. Did they have a rule about how many extra hours you are expected to work each week before getting overtime, or time in lieu? Or did you work harder because you liked the company and its customers, and wanted to pitch in to help other staff? Was it the organisation’s culture that encouraged you to go beyond the minimum required, or rigid rules? To be fair, I understand some companies needing clearer rules about when employees can charge for overtime. No firm wants staff slugging them for extra time and higher pay the minute they go over their normal working week. Not many can afford it in a sluggish economy. A few extra hours each week without overtime? Maybe. An extra day? That’s something to be discussed upfront with staff, not thrust upon them under the guise of professional hours.

What do you think? Should professional get overtime?