New hire - keeping billable hours? 3

[JD6221]

Me: young EIT, ~2 years experience in civil-construction firm (did mostly drafting and calc prep/QA&QC)

Starting at a new company, transportation engineering. Word of mouth from previous employees is that the greatest challenge is "keeping busy", especially for the newer engineers, because everyone is "competing for jobs". I figure this means ultimately that billable hours --> should the employee be kept on payroll?

I don't yet know the company culture/learning environment for young engineers here, but does anyone have tips/strategies for someone in my position to... learn/do my work well while possibly being in an environment where projects are in short supply?

 

[TheTick]

Would employee B be working 100% billable hours if A wasn't marketing? Would B's computer and software be running if A wasn't maintaining?

Is B going anywhere in his career? What will his time be worth in 5 years compared to A?

Which one do the clients like better? Sounds like A is better at client-facing tasks. Also seems like more of a self-starter. Does more work in less time. A isn't spinning his wheels in the mud on mundane tasks.

So, yeah, which one is worth more? Which one would you prefer to do without?

 

[CWB1]

I'd prefer whichever doesnt eat the stinky bean burrito at lunchtime and can hold a phone conversation without yelling into the microphone.

 

[MrHershey]

Wow, sit out for a week and things really take off. Didn't mean to steal OP's thunder, but since we're already off on a tangent, I've found the discussion generated interesting. It highlights a difference between industries/companies that I hadn't really considered.

So, if we assume A and B are paid the same, say $70ph, and are working on a contract at $300 p/h

First part is fine. Second part is not the reality for the vast majority of projects at least at my firm (and I gather in my industry). Structural consultants in my field are typically paid on a lump sum basis. I didn't intentionally leave this part out, but its omission has highlighted some interesting differences of opinions.

So in my world, A and B both cost the same. But A and B also bring in the exact same revenue because they're both doing the exact same 3 projects and company is receiving the exact same 3 lump sums. From a payroll/accounts receivable perspective, these two employees look identical as they cost the same and bring in the same revenue. If I'm in management, I see employee A finishing their tasks earlier and using the extra time to develop themselves, help out around the office, and go out and get more work.

It's interesting to me the disconnect here between hourly and lump sum. In an hourly world B is the better employee, perhaps clearly depending on how (or if) you quantify the nonbillable time. They cost the same and are more billable so bring in more. In a lump sum world A is clearly the better employee. They cost the same and spend less time bringing in the same revenue, allowing them to take on some overhead work or bring in additional revenue, whether that's taking on extra projects or bringing in new ones. On top of that, since A is spending 20% of their time on the business side of things (marketing/business development/IT/operations), they're likely much better prepared to step into leadership/management roles for the company or even branch out on their own.

 

[GregLocock]

Ah, well if you don't state your assumptions its hardly surprising you get different results.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[vthomidis]

A or B, bottomline is : never ( or quite seldom anyway ) work over 40h weekly.

It is easier to do than you think ( or than what they want you to believe...)

 

[CWB1]

A or B, bottomline is : never ( or quite seldom anyway ) work over 40h weekly.

Sounds like a quick path to unemployment for the majority of folks on this forum.

 

[MrHershey]

Ah, well if you don't state your assumptions its hardly surprising you get different results.

Another assumption for the hourly scenario while we're harping on assumptions: Client doesn't figure out they're paying 33% more than they need to with Employee B's company and take their business to a company employing a bunch of Employee As.

 

[vthomidis]

CWB1,

My 2-sentence post, includes the answer to your comment
(..."or than what they want you to believe"..)

 

[CWB1]

vthomidis, I cant say I've ever worked for an employer that was anything other than open about their expectation of working the necessary hours to get the job done nor shy about laying off folks who refuse to do so.

 

[vthomidis]

CWB1,

Ok (so you've been always believing what they want you to..)

 

[moltenmetal]

vthomidis: it amazes me just how willing people are to turn their own fear into an implied threat on the part of someone else. Some get even more confused by making the implication that working for free is a sign of professionalism, whereas it is quite the opposite- it is a sign of being an amateur.

If an employee is constantly looking at their watch, downing tools and running out of the office the second the dinner bell rings, they are certainly at risk of being laid off. That's just human nature- those who aren't seen as members of the team, willing to make minor sacrifices for the team when required, are going to not be treated as members of the team when the time comes for hard decisions. Working extra hours routinely is another matter entirely.

A competent, productive engineer who fits their work neatly into 40 hours per week every single week, showing a little flexibility when truly required by the team, is at no risk of being laid off by any employer worth working for. That said, there are MANY employers who are not worth working for! It's easy for lazy managers to confuse a measurable thing like hours on a timesheet with actual productivity- something which is much harder to measure. That's perhaps what CWB1 is alluding to, and he's right- it's quite a widespread problem among engineers and can become a cultural feature in many companies.

When working as a project manager it is my job to ensure that everyone assigned to my job full time has something productive to do 40 hours per week, and to make sure that I have enough resources to ensure that the project will be completed with everyone working no more than 40 hours per week. If disaster recovery requires more than 40 hours per week from the available resources, that doesn't come as a free gift to the project- it's compensated for in some meaningful way or it's not done. Even when it's compensated for, I teach my young PMs that resorting to overtime is to be understood as tapping a well of goodwill which is of limited capacity. Project managers who go to that well routinely at our company soon learn their lesson and become better project managers as a result.

 

[vthomidis]

Moltenmetal : a star for you, couldn't agree more!

I would like to particularly quote : " there are MANY employers who are not worth working for"
" It's easy for lazy managers to confuse a measurable thing like
hours on a timesheet with actual productivity- something which
is much harder to measure."

 

[MacGyverS2000]

Fought my own battle with that years back... yearly review said they loved the work coming from my desk, yet continually chastised me for not working much more than 40 hours per week. Basically, "We think you're great, but we think you should be great longer." This, from the same company that just 5 years prior had an over-worked/over-stressed employee walk in and kill his manager, followed by taking his own life."

Dan - Owner

http://www.Hi-TecDesigns.com

 

[TehMightyEngineer]

I'll throw my $0.02 in.

When I changed pastures a few years ago, at each interview meeting I asked how many hours I was required to work and also how many hours was expected or typical for the position during high-work load periods. None of the interviewers seemed to balk at this or infer I was being lazy, my intent was to ensure a level playing field in evaluating the various positions that I received offers on. It also allows me to establish early that adding on additional hours beyond what I was told during that interview is essentially a reduction in my pay.

Recently this came into play where I had to put in a number of 60+ hour weeks. I was hired with the understanding that I would work nominally 50 hours with minor overtime and some 40 hour weeks when we're slow. I asked my boss in advance if I could get some overtime pay prior to starting these long weeks. He said that was fine. After those weeks were over he said that he appreciated the extra effort and if I could continue it on occasion he would give me a raise that would more than cover the equivalent overtime pay.

In short, it was professional and pleasant for both parties to have a clear understandings of what was expected/offered and to provide incentives for going above and beyond what was required (but with the note that it was not required, I could just have easily not taken the raise and just worked my normal schedule).

It's worth noting that most of my jobs are lump sum and non-traditional in that I work as a sub-contracted engineer 90% of the time.

Ian Riley, PE, SE
Professional Engineer (ME, NH, MA) Structural Engineer (IL)
American Concrete Industries

https://www.facebook.com/AmericanConcrete/

 

[CWB1]

vthomidis, I believe what I see and know, not what others believe my reality "should" be. I have managed and hired enough to understand culture and personality types without the corporate training (tho I've sat through quite a few required company funded psych classes), and there is no fear nor false beliefs on my part. In the military I regularly worked 15+/day for little money in crap conditions, I fully understood what I was getting into for the money/benefits just as I do today. I have no issue with employers having expectations beyond 40 hours but rather a significant issue with the belief that salary or title somehow imply a set 40 hour week as that's not engineering culture at any company I've known. My reality/experience is just as my class was warned in college - engineering is a rather consuming lifestyle, not a job. IME in aero and automotive if an engineer isnt willing to work ~50 once/month they're not going to be employed long. That being said, a 30 hour week every 6-8 isnt uncommon either. If that fits others' idea of "seldom" or "occasional" OT then great, if not then their experience is different than mine. My current employer pays OT to those of us on salary and I am grateful for that, but others haven't and its not something I've ever really cared about. I've seen OT demanded on occasion elsewhere and agreed with those engineers being quickly let go - they tried to change culture rather than finding one that they fit into. Personally, I've left companies over less (boredom, disagreements, lack of upward mobility, etc), always on good terms and never by invitation. I know my value and have always walked into another engineering office within a few weeks, no worries.

Beyond actual office hours, I also believe that certain value/weight in these discussions needs to be given to continuing education. Every new role I've had has involved significant independent study after-hours to "come up to speed" on the necessary material and that to me is simply a different variety of work. Maybe in 20 years I'll relax and find a position with an employer wherein all my extra-curricular engineering reading is allowed within those 40 hours but in the meantime I expect regular, hectic weeks for the money and benefits offered.

 

[GregLocock]

CWB1- it's a big world out there. My contract says 38 hours a week. On average, that's what they get. Sure, as we approach gateways I'll put in 6 day weeks if necessary. But it all averages out. Oh, and the longest I've been unemployed since leaving uni is, um, zero.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[CWB1]

Hi Greg, no doubt you grew up and most of your career was in a different time. My father had two jobs total since leaving the farm at 16 until retirement, I'm well into my second career in my mid-30s. I've never had a contract between myself and my employer since leaving the military bc (after hours beer money aside) I choose not to work for myself. If by some circumstance I was offered enough job security in a contract stipulating XX hours/week then I might only work that, cant say for sure, but its a nice thought. OTOH I've seen the lazy and incompetent workforce that too much protection often produces (no offense to any individual under contract btw), the largest here in the US being our govt (reference the public sector thread for others' similar opinions), so without significant monetary maybe its not such a nice thought?

 

[vthomidis]

CWB1,

Every point you state is nothing new, it is the "mainstream".
I have been hearing that, since more than 28 years in engineering environment, by many
people.
Let me put it another way : It's all in the mind (like most things in life).

Believe me, there never have actually been " different" times.
(Possibly though, heavy taxation applied by Trump's administration on imported steel will give some - I am joking)
At the end of the day, the job / profession is what you make it.
I understand that you enjoy putting extra work and time - that's good, i am sure you will
do great and i am sure you' ve already achieved enough.

I do agree with you concerning the public sector workforce.