To think people who work part-time shouldn’t get the same promotion chances as full-timers?

If it needs 5 days to do the job they can rightfully advertise it as a 5 day job. Personally I would advertise it as a job share also ... so I get the best people doing the job.

Yabu

Promotions are not based on who has served the longest time.

Any business that uses time-served as a promotion criterion will not thrive.

A 3-day per week employee who has been in the role for 2 years has the same amount of actual hands-on practice of doing that rote as someone doing it 5 days a week for 15 months but has the full 2 year's experience of having a brain that is familiar with the role, understands its challenges and can think about improvements, because brains don't switch off in non-work hours. If the promoted role needs more of the latter kind of skills, as well as other skills not generated by time-served, the pt employee could well be a better bet than a full time employee

Don’t be ridiculous

Wow

Apart from this impacting more women, which has already been mentioned…

I work ‘part time’ but still 28 hours, which is 4 days. Everyone told me not to drop one day because I would basically still end up doing a full time job crammed into 4 days and get paid less to do it. Which i what I am doing.

Working full time doesn’t equal quality over someone who works fewer hours.

I can't think of any roles that can't be split with a bit of imagination and thought.
It sounds as though you don't approve of part time work and want to discriminate against them which in reality means against women as the vast majority of part time workers are women

so full time workers never posture?

That is complete nonsense.
Promotion should be linked to performance not the number of hours worked!
I have worked with part time people who get more done in 30 hours than others do in 40.
By OPs reasoning someone who is inefficient at their job but works overtime every day should get promotion just because they are at work longer.

Ability to do the job would be top of my list. FT or PT. You get brilliant FT and PTers. We’ve all worked in places where that’s true and with people who believe putting in more hours makes them good at what they do even in fact they might not be as productive or as capable

If the role requires full-time coverage, then that's what it should have.

But that doesn't mean it needs a full-time worker, in most cases the needs could be met by 2 people working p/t hours.

I work for an organisation that really recognises the need for work/life balance. There are staff on f/t contracts that are doing a management role for part of the work and a more junior role the remainder of the week and all sorts of different permutations. One management role that was advertised as f/t went to two staff as a job share, because both of them were outstanding applicants who wanted to work p/t.

My team includes 2 f/t staff, and several p/t timers, hours range from 17 to 30. There is no unfairness, we all perform well above targets and expectations. The only time there has been a performance issue was when a new colleague started and proved to be a skiving bastard. They were put on a PMP, and left soon after.

I find in practice it’s rarely the part timers who get promoted but I think everyone should be considered. I do think it disadvantages oarents / carers otherwise (normally women!) as more often to be part time duevto other commitments. If should be about capability of doing job.

No I don't think promotion should be tied to hours worked.
As a business, I guess it depends on what you're looking for with the 'promoted' job. If you need that job to be full time hours it may not be possible to promote a part timer, unless they are willing to up their hours or a job share is viable. Two part timers would need to be the best candidates in that situation though.

Not providing equal promotion opportunities to part time workers would likely fall under indirect discrimination, disadvantaging people with protected characteristics. Think about the type of people who are more likely to work part time; parents (often women), maybe those with a disability. Those are protected characteristics and therefore it is illegal to discriminate (including indirectly).

Well in many jobs they would be paid pro rata for that. I had pro rata pay for a promotion but was expected to carry out the full role. So while I was getting career progression I was being underpaid and expected to complete more work in the time I was given than a full timer. It was the thing which finally pushed me back to full time work.

This argument is inherently sexist. If you are a woman and have made some humans to populate the planet you may well have taken time off and return part-time. It’s just not ok to downgrade career opportunities for mothers as compared with other people. Its a tricky balance but you can’t treat us like second grade workers.

It's not their fault you didn't get promoted because you aren't as good as they are at the job, or at writing an application. Your issues should not be projected onto other people, because it's a -you- problem only. It's not fair, it's spiteful, it's extremely self-e titled, self-centered, and narcissistic. A narcissist will blame everyone but themselves. You need to deal with your problems in a more appropriate manner.

Wow

controversial post!! i’m amazed that you even thought about it - of course part time mums should get promoted! the same as full time!!

Surely being promoted is about having the attributes, skills etc for the job... not the hours put in.

So women deserved to be held back for taking time out to look after young children but men can just carry on and have a great career. And people wonder why the wage gap persists. 🙄

I work my arse off, I am master's degree educated, regularly work additional hours and am excellent at every aspect of my role. You're telling me I haven't earned career progression?

This. Guessing you have no children op?

What a depressing thread. It's illegal to discriminate against part time workers for good reason. Women and disabled people are more likely to be part time. If you deny career progression to part time staff in favour of full timers then you indirectly discriminate against women and disabled people. The best person should be promoted.

Lots of women work part time, normally for childcare reasons . You’d basically make it impossible to progress if you were a women with a child.

Ever heard of discrimination against the part time worker?

I stopped listening at the word ‘only’.

When I worked’part-time’ in a criminal justice legal role, I was working at least 45 hours during my official 3 days a week. Anyone who uses the word only in relation to that can fuck right off. The only ‘only’ about it is the pay.