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

No should go to who is fit for the job

If the role requires full time it will be advertised as such. If the employer then agrees to appoint someone on part time hours it is for them to arrange to fill in the gaps. It’s not the fault of the person who negotiated their hours nor should they be disadvantaged by being part time.

I'm not sure what type of promotion you're talking about.
I would expect to get promoted based on skills and experience. If I'd worked 3 days week, as opposed to 5, I would have less skills and experience because I'd been doing the job for less time.

However, one person working 3 days a week might be able to get more skills and experience than another working 5 days if they had made a particular point to do so, and the 5 days a week person was coasting.

If the promotion requires 5 days a week, IME they are less likely to promote someone who will only work 3 because they then have to try to find a job share partner, or work out a way to reorganise the work.

Hard disagree! The person best suited to the job should have it. Many jobs can be done effectively without being full time. I have a high level job in my organisation but only work 4 days - so do some other colleagues.

Presumably the full time worker occasionally takes leave or has a sick day. Arranging appropriate cover is part of every job.

But OP wasn't talking about the hours a promotion would be, she was talking about the hours the people are doing now. The hours the promotion requires are a different question, and it could be a part time senior role. There are some sectors where this isn't particularly uncommon due to funding.

And it's a bad argument.

Oh no I don't agree with this at all.

I know quite a few full time workers who do little more than turn up, do the bare minimum and collect their pay at the end of the month.

Equally I've worked with some stunningly brilliant part timers who do more in a few days than some do in a fortnight.

It's about the person, their capabilities and their work ethic.

Not hours in the contract.

This seems to imply that promotion is based on time served. It really isn’t.

But presumably they are being paid pro rata so they are contributing exactly the same amount of work for what they are receiving. The full time worker isn't being shafted or hard done by.

Good on them.

They have high expectations of their employers and clearly value themselves.

And if they end up with a promotion on the back of that, it's all good.

Opportunities should be equally available for everyone and if part timers weren’t allowed to apply this would disproportionately affect women, as they tend to work pt more

Yanbu. Why are people going in about 'time served'?
Its about what happens if urgent managerial tasks need to be made in their absence? Eg. They work mon-wed and something comes in Thurs am? Who picks up the slack? Staff on a lower wage 'doing it for the team and praise'...

Well now, that would be a quick way to cause gross levels of employment discrimination against women and mothers, who are much more likely to go part-time because of caring responsibilities and who already suffer massive salary and pension disparities because of it.

If the part time person had the skills and experience needed, why would they not be promoted? If they do a better interview and demonstrate the skills needed they should t be disadvantaged over a full time worker. And given a higher proportion of women work part time, you’re saying women shouldn’t be promoted over a man.

I can't follow your logic.

If they're perfectly capable of doing the job when working 3 days, of course they should get the promotion 😳

If the role required 5 days they wouldn't be offered it.

Have you ever worked part time? I work the same job as three full time counterparts that work 37hrs in other parts of the county. I work 30 hours and complain less than them, I am referred to by them constantly and get better annual reviews. That aside there is such a thing as job sharing you know. The people advertising/interviewing know what they’re doing.

No, it should be the person that seems like they'd be most capable and suited to the senior position and it's responsibilities. That has the best attitude, is the most enthusiastic and proactive. And obviously that they are available to cover the hours required.

You make it sound as if part time workers don't work as hard?

Perhaps they could job share? I know a lot of people (especially women) who’ve gone back to work part time after maternity leave and got promoted.

Well part timers, especially if the role started full time to begin with, do struggle to cut their workload and often end up doing a full time role on part time hours and wage. So it would suggest they are more efficient, more productive and better at their job than you. Why shouldn’t they get the promotion?

Not at all. There are plenty of higher level jobs that can be done on part time hours and working longer hours doesn't automatically make you better at your job or the best person for the role.

Career progression should be based on ability and results tbh…!