Makes sense. I suppose talking louder to her would have been counterproductive!
Are you late? It really depends on the job. If the person in the prior shift can’t leave until you take over, you’re probably late if you don’t get there by 8:55. If your job starts with your reading emails, and no one expects to interact with you until 9:30, getting there at 9:15 is probably fine.
It also depends whether you are being paid hourly or on salary. If you are hourly, you ought to work the same number of hours you are being paid for, and either more or less is problematic. But salaried jobs have squishier hours.
???
Autoincorrect, probably; but I can’t figure out what for.
Edited to correct that horrendous swypo.
My office has flexible hours. 9-5 is the basic workday but you can work 8-4 or 10-6 or some other arrangement agreed with your line manager as long as you get the hours in and are present for the things you’re supposed to be present for.
I tend to get into work between 9:30 and 10 and then work to 6 or later, because that’s what works for me. No one cares.
If you’re not 15 minutes early, you’re late.
That is cool.
My office also had flexible hours. I think people on the East coast were supposed to get in before 11, and not leave until 3, and work 8 hours, in a predictable enough way that their co-workers could find them. I showed up ~8:30 because it was easier to park at the computer rail parking lot if i got there on the early side. And since i ordinarily caught the same train, and stopped at the same coffee shop on the way in, i was pretty predictable, even if i didn’t arrive at a “round time”.
If I’m hourly and you’re paying me to be there at 9, i shouldn’t have to arrive before 9. Granted, there’s lots of employer wage abuse. But it’s wage abuse to make your employees show up before you start paying them.
When I worked I always showed up at least 20 minutes early in order to prepare for my day. It wasn’t mandatory - it was my choice - but I felt it necessary to do some prep work in order to get myself organized.
Also, for many years I was in a position where you could not leave until you signed off to your relief person. There were some employees who were chronically 20 minutes late on arrival and didn’t give a shit that, in doing so, they were forcing others to work past their end-of-shift time.
mmm
I wasn’t speaking from the employer’s perspective, but from the employee’s perspective. That phrase was drilled into me in the Navy and it has become my philosophy for everything on my calendar - doctor’s appointments, work, dates, concerts, etc. If I’m expected to start working at 9 am then I am going to be there and ready to start by 8:45. The only day I was ever late for work was 9/11.
This is precisely why the above philosophy was routine in the Navy. I haven’t been a shift worker too often since then, but the philosophy has served me well.
That’s incredibly rude.
Also, I’ve never held that kind of job for pay. I’ve volunteered to a lifetime total of … About half a dozen shifts that work like that, however.
That’s why i said it depends on the job.
Strictly speaking you are late if you arrive at 9:01, that’s the definition of late.
I chose the 10:00 option nevertheless because there is late and late and I assumed the poll asked for the second meaning.
However my answer depends on it being a rare occasion, if you, from time to time arrive at 10 AM I wouldn’t consider it too bad,
If you consistently arrive at 10 AM… on the other hand…
Maybe I should’ve chosen the 9:15 option.
When I worked in offices, I was always early. I liked having a little wind-down time after the drive, get my coffee ready, etc. Most of my employers considered the “start time” to be when one is sitting at one’s desk and ready to work, which I feel is a reasonable expectation.
I’ve definitely had co-workers who felt that if their wheels hit the parking lot before 9:01, they were on time, and they’d actually be at their desk 15 or 20 minutes later. These people were always problem employees in other ways as well.
My last hourly job had a time clock. It rounded to the nearest 15-minute increment, so if you clocked in up to 7.5 minutes late, you’d still get paid in full. Some of my co-workers were masters at exploiting this feature.
Currently, I’m an independent contractor working all over the country. The team (all independent contractors as well) choose a time to meet in the hotel lobby, and we all ride to the job site together. People are generally respectful of each other’s time, but nobody is watching the clock down to the minute. We report the number of hours we actually work; start and stop times are flexible.
My former boss said something similar, but only 5 minutes. Mainly for meetings, because if a meeting is scheduled for 9:00, it starts at 9:00.
I remember an argument I had at an old crappy job I had. Finding a desk, making sure the desk had all the necessary manuals and if not finding them from somewhere else, and logging in to all necessary systems could be up to 15 minutes. I refused to use the t-15 period do to it all, that was my time.
The Vince Lombardi School of Timekeeping. 
(For that reason, the big clock on the exterior of Lambeau Field is intentionally set 15 minutes early.)
If you’re being paid hourly, i totally agree. And if the job is such that there needs to be a handoff, and it take N minutes, both employees should be paid for that N minutes. Anything else is wage theft.
(And yes, i know that wage theft is common. It’s still wrong.)
I’ve spent far too much time in my life getting edjimicated, so I rejected the scholarship. I chose the two schools because they offer degrees in my field (and I did happen to attend one of them).
I rejected the scholarship because
A) I have a family that depends on my salary.
B) Not much interested in formal education at this point of my life.
If forced I would take Oxford (Because: Tolkien, duh) and Paris.