This is a Premium feature
To use this feature subscribe to Mumsnet Premium - get first access to new features see fewer ads, and support Mumsnet.Start using Mumsnet Premium
"Strongest candidate by far" yet didnt get the job because I couldn't commit to full time hours(37 Posts)
An application for a job came up at work. With previous experience etc I was perfectly qualified to do the job. It was advertised full time, but positions are always advertised full time where I work. So, I asked if there were any objections to me applying for it part time (30 hours). I was told no objections. I applied, got selected, was interviewed. It went really well and I was told there and then I was the strongest candidate but that the difficulty was going to be in whether me being there 3 days a week would impact on everyone else in the team negatively. After consideration I agreed to increase to a fourth day but as a short day (so 35 hours a week). This was then considered by my would be manager (who interviewed me).
I didnt get the job, I was told it had gone to the second choice full time candidate, who has no managerial experience and that despite me being the strongest candidate and way more experienced than anyone else, 3.5 days wasnt flexible enough and would have an impact on the rest of the team.
I certainly dont want to take this forward legally, just looking for opinions on whether this was fair. I am finding it hard to feel like this is not discrimination. I need to be part time based on child care and I was already stretching myself to do 3.5 days rather than the intended 3.
I love where I work but am now feeling like it will be impossible to ever progress as this will be the case for the forseeable future!
It may well be fair.
If they have properly considered it, and have a sound case for needing certain hours, then they are correct to go with the business need.
If they're just sticking to established hours, then possibly not.
I hope you took the opportunity during interview to make it plain how you could make the role work in fewer hours? Do you feel they listened properly to potential solutions?
I have pretty much just had the same thing happen to me.
I requested to work 30-35 hours over 4/5 days.
I wasn’t offered the position I applied for but we both agreed it was time for me to move up from the role I’m currently doing.
Here I am 6 months later in the same role but taking on the responsibility of someone more senior.
That's disappointing. Not illegal though as they could say they assessed the job as being full time only. I often find it can be easier to go full time for a little while and then request flexibility when you're in the role and doing well .
Sorry to hear this OP - similar happened to me, it really stings but apparently doesn't count as discrimination as they can say f/t is a business requirement even if you think it's feasible to be p/t.
I also asked this on the AIBU boards and got told I was being unreasonable - but it boggles my mind that businesses are passing over good people for the sake of full time bums on seats.
Its not fair in the sense that it's not fair on you but it's fair for the business.
Unfortunately their needs usually come first and at the expense of yours
Of course it’s fair. It’s a full time job and you can’t do full time hours. Am I missing something? Not meant to be goady, I’m genuinely confused...
If they can give a valid business reason why they need someone full-time then it's not discriminatory. I requested part-time hours in my current job due to childcare, which was declined for business reasons so I'm having to leave to find a different part- time job.
Is it fair? Well yeah, they advertised a FT role. You put in your application based on the fact that you can only do PT hours. They interviewed you and judged you as being the best candidate and if you'd been able to do the hours they need for that role, then presumably you'd have got it. But you can't, so it went to someone who could.
They advertised a FT role, which you aren't able to do, so yes it's fair. Your childcare arrangements are up to you, but if you want to progress and the only roles that ever come up for advancement are FT, you might want to consider reviewing them in order to make yourself more suitable as a candidate. It looks like everything else you have to offer is great, it's just your lack of availability that's the problem.
Unfortunately, I think it’s fair. It was advertised as full time, and just as you may have hoped they might be willing to change it to work with your shorter hours, they may have hoped you’d be willing to change to full time. It’s not discriminatory to not hire someone for a full time position who can’t work full time hours for whatever reason.
If its a FT role why then can you get childcare arrangements for full time? Surelly nurseries are open 5 days a week not just 3 or 3 and a half :D you will not get any carreer progression working PT ever!
Where I work 36 hours is full time. I think its shortsighted of your company to not allow at least a trial of your requested hours.
It’s unreasonable to expect every job to be adapted to what you want to work. It’s a full time post and you aren’t willing/able to work full time. There is no obligation in law to require your employe to offer a full time job on a part time basis.
I was in a similar situation last year, in fact I was the only applicant that turned up for the interview ! I think one of the main reasons I didn't get the job was that it was full time and I had made it clear I didn't want to work more than 4 days. They did say they wanted to employ me though and to wait another 18 months until the current part time person was due to retire and then apply again. I understood their reasons.
Do you need to be part time based on childcare or is that what you choose? As others have said, childcare is available 5 days a week.
The job was advertised as full time so I presume that that is what they needed - how can it be discriminatory to offer it to the person who can work the advertised hours?
That happened to me - they wanted me full time but I had always told them that I just couldn’t at that time. Sad - it was a good job - but I guess I’d rather know before and realise that the work just would pile us and it would be unmanageable.
This has happened to me too. It's infuriating that so many companies will only advertise part time jobs, when it honestly isn't necessary. I've offered to find my other half for interview, and also to be flexible about which data I work, as required (I can), but no. Very experienced people (often women) who want to drop to part time hours without losing several grades are looking for a needle in a haystack.
Is it a role that you could be absent one day a week and not have a detrimental affect on the business. My most recent promotion I requested 4 days and they said it needed to be full-time because it was in quite a mess but agreed to reconsider if I got the mess sorted. After 9 months they agreed to 4 days. There are jobs where it is fine and jobs where you need to be there daily.
I’ve just been approached about a job that I’m very qualified for. Its a 12 month role. It’s in the same company. They couldn’t think of anyone else who had the same skill set. They’ve also ‘borrowed’ me on three occasions this year to work on specific cases that needed my skill set. These were cases where there had been complaints about the previous work. On all three occasions they’ve received compliments about me.
I work part time. The job they want me to do is full time. As I’m very efficient, I’d probably do five days work in three. But no, they are going to try and find somebody who can satisfy the ‘full time’ tick box, even if they are unskilled and need training. For 12 months. It’s insane.
I certainly dont want to take this forward legally
On what basis?
You applied for a FT role, put forward a case to have PT hours, they considered it and determined that it did not meet business needs.
Unless the person who got the job is a male without childcare responsibilities, who was given the PT hours, I don’t see your argument.
It's depressing that so many employers are behind the times. They would probably have got more work out of you, efficiency isn't just the number of hours you work I would feedback to them that if it was genuinely a job that can't be done on less than full time hours then they should have clearly said so when you called to see if you could do it on reduced hours. There are employers out there who are a lot more enlightened op, maybe time to go d one that better fits your work life balance?
They want full time, you don't want full time.
Hard luck but it's fair enough on their part.
It's fair. They want FT, you could have worked FT and had FT childcare.
Perhaps if they had no other candidates, or 2 in a jobshare then it would have been different, but fundamentally they want the job done FT.
However if you split everything into jobshare then when one party leaves, you find all your roles are part-time and they may not have wanted to go there as you end up having no FT roles.
As a business, it really is up to them. Just like it's up to you to choose your childcare arrangements.