Is Overtime Pay Worth Being Away From Family?

Here's a very, very interesting question from CareerJournal: Is Overtime Pay Worth Being Away From Your Family?

The article details the pros and cons of accepting or declining overtime pay -- mainly, the extra income versus more time with the family. It's an interesting read and topic and I found the article to be a great insight into how one family dealt with the issue.

In this particular case, extra work was equated with extra pay. But many salaried people put in ours that are way over what would be considered overtime, and they don't get any extra pay at all. Or maybe it's simply understood that their job isn't a 40-hour-per-week one?

This all leads me to the following questions:

What is the work/life balance? When is working too much at any pay level simply too much?

A few thoughts from me:

1. Everyone will have a different answer. In my opinion, there's no "right" answer.

2. Your career is your most valuable financial asset. Any decision you make regarding it has implications (sometimes serious) for your finances.

3. That said, is anything worth more than your family? Maybe a career is worth more than an extra hour or two a week with your family, but what if it takes you away every weekend (in addition to the week?) Just where can/should people draw the line?

As I said, the answer will be different for everyone, but I'd be really interested in your thoughts on the issue. What do you do? Any suggestions for those grappling with this issue?

Comments

[Laura]

I am the type of person who highly values my downtime. As much as I want to enjoy my job, I am itching to get out of there at the end of the day. Working is not a substitute for the rest of my life, it simply is a means to afford the rest of my life.

I don't think that my take on work/life balance is uncommon nowadays and it's only becoming more common as young 20-somethings join the workforce. However many organizations are slow to adapt. I work in a 750-person office that is just one branch of a worldwide firm, and I noticed immediately when I joined that my attitude did not fit in here. The office is full of people who put in extra hours for extra pay, and even more full of eager beavers who put in extra hours just so they can be seen to be working lots. I am one of the few people in my office who leaves at 5 pm religiously, unless some pressing deadline comes up. And you know what? I get all my work done.

In an environment like mine, I know why the others put in the extra face time. That is how they determine loyalty and dedication here. It's not about results and performance, it's about how many miserable hours you're willing to suffer at your desk, even if you're just checking your hotmail when nobody is looking. I'm not willing to play that game, and I am aware that it will probably cost me a promotion. But that's fine by me, because I know a promotion in this environment comes with strings attached: I would have to work longer hours. And I'm not willing to do so. I am meeting my financial obligations, I'm saving for the future, and I am able to splurge every once in awhile on small indulgences, so I don't need more cash. I value my time at home more than my time at my desk.

I also think that firms like the one I work in will have no choice but to adapt their way of thinking in the future. It will happen organically, as the older generations retire and my generation moves up the hierarchy.

[plonkee]

A lot depends on how much you enjoy your job and what else you have going on as well as how much you are expected to work. An extra hour or so a day is ok for me, but more than that is a bit much. And I really like my job.

[Lord]

It also depends on how much you like the rest of your life. Work is often the refuge of those that are unhappy with their families and their lives. Instead of facing this, they occupy themselves with diversions and their work becomes their life. If they really enjoy it, fine, but too many submerge their feelings with it, and insist on dragging others with them.

[Blaine Moore (First Time Home Owner)]

My wife is in law school, so no matter how much time I spend at home we probably won't have as much time to spend with one another as either of us would like.

That being said, I give more than 40 hours to my job, but also am spending a lot of time on other projects to keep out of her hair. When we both have down time, we spend as much of it together as we can.

[Matt]

If you're working extra hours at a W2 job, then I'd say you've got problems of a non-financial nature. But I put in extra time on my businesses regularly...it's not so much a sacrifice as an investment, since the day those businesses are profitable enough to support my family is the day I can say a permanent "goodbye and good riddance!" to W2 work and the whole spending-1/3-of-my-time-away-doing-stuff-I-don't-usually-like thing. The extra work I put in today brings that day closer.

Think of it as the work/life equivalent of a mortgage prepayment. :)

[Suze]

I would like to think that companies will have to adapt to the need for more downtime for employees, but unfortunately, I've been in the workforce people seem to be working harder and longer hours, in addition to doing work tasks at home (like checking e-mail). Plus there's more work-related travel as businesses have more of a global focus.

Sorry to be a downer, but that has been my experience.

Lots of folks have to put in overtime on mere W2 jobs, it's just a fact of life. You can control it to a degree but it all depends on what you want out of life. Many, many careers depend on "face-time".

I only work about 40, sometimes 45, hours a week depending on the project I am working on. I like my job but I like my home life, too. It's a constant balance.

[Suze]

In my post above, I meant to say I've been in the workforce since 1982 -- so that's where I'm coming from. People are working more, not less.

[Laura]

Suze I understand your point but I think when employers have an entire generation of employees who simply aren't willing to make that sacrifice, they will have no choice to adapt. It's a power balance. When it's an employer's market, the job seekers and employees do as they're told if they want to keep their jobs. When it's a job seeker's market, the employers do what they have to do to win the good people. That power balance shifts over time, and as Baby Boomers start retiring in droves, it's going to quickly become a job seeker's market. That, plus people in their 20's and early 30's have had it drilled into them from a young age that there's no such thing as job security and a 20-year career with a single firm anymore, and they have no problem jumping ship when they're not getting what they want from an employer. So what's more expensive - adapting to the employee's needs, or having high turnover costs?

[Teri]

This is a big reason we moved somewhere with a significant decreased cost of living.

In the meantime I am lucky to be in a field with extremely high demand and a very understanding boss. I am an accountant. Unfortunately this time of year is crazy, but the rest of the year I can work a lot less. I kind of joy working hard and making extra money a few months of the year and taking it much easier, enjoying much more downtime the rest of the year. It seems to work out. Employers take what hey can get.

My goal is to support my family on a part-time job in the next few years. I am very blessed to be in this particular field right now. If things change down the road I don't think I will mind as much, but with young kids I value time with my family so much, and so far have avoided jobs that demand much more than 40 hours/week on average.

I was just reading the "pay off the mortgage" thread and that is one reason why I am not interested. Gives me some leverage to work less - but we live in a crazy expensive area and all that too. Cheaper than where we were but still expensive overall.

I REALLY love my job but I love my downtime too. ;)