To be annoyed that my employer won’t let me go part time?

Oops! So you are saying you have been spinning two days work over five? I imagine if that is the case there has been more than a hint of sarcasm when they say they don’t know what they would do without you.

I can see how this can be tricky for an employer.

Your work might currently be able to be done in two days, but if it's the type of role that they need someone available at any point within five days, I can understand them rejecting it.

It's not a regular office job where generally the same things happen week in, week out. It fluctuates through busy periods and they need the flexibility of someone that is available whenever they need them. Job sharing might not work because of the fact that it's more difficult to have two people doing the same job on different days. In my work, for example, we have roles that one person has to do the job, so it's not possible for one person to do it for 2 days and then another person pick up where the first person left off.

I feel for you though. They don't want you to leave but can't sort out your role and you can't carry on working (for being a good friend/family member). No good deed goes unpunished, as they say.

For a HoD, you don’t seem hugely clued up as to how it works. It’s understandable that you are seeing it from your own emotional perspective, but the employer considers it from a business perspective. It looks like your work has to be managed elsewhere - by other people? - on the days you’re not there, and just because others do it, doesn’t mean it’s applicable to your role. I’m sorry for your circumstances, but your employer isn’t being unreasonable.

Sorry for your situation OP, it sounds really hard.
But honestly, if your job can be done in 2 days instead of 5, something is badly wrong in the company and they should not be paying you to work full time. You may need to look for another job sadly, or a different solution to the family situation.

One final suggestion @Topoftheroof …

Negotiate going freelance with them for just two days a week. They’ll have no overheads on you (but check IR35 - although as HOP you should have a decent working knowledge of this). Go for a title such as ‘Production Director’ or Consultant HOP.

Make the next LP ready to step up into the full time HOP but on a lower rate (for the title as previously mentioned) if it’s about money.

They’ll run all the budgets, channel / finance chats but you can oversee, train & mentor them. Get a 6 month contract with the prod co.

Gives you the breathing space you need, keeps you in there, and gives you the opportunity to look elsewhere or pick up other days as and when (putting a quick budget together for a development etc).

But - crucially - you have to sell it to them based on your knowledge of the company, how losing you would mean losing that ‘muscle memory’, why you love working there and any other added extras you can think of. Brilliant relationships with channels, really good pastoral care examples, processes you introduced etc etc etc.

Good luck!

Have you looked into what you are entitled to claim money wise if/when you take on the 4th child?
I know of someone in a very similar situation, all be it with older children (2 primary and 1 secondary) and she is recompensed a lot of money for having them. Obviously I don’t know the ins/outs of it but she has often said she doesn’t need to work at all anymore due to the level of money she gets.
I can see why you’d take on the 4th child if directly related to you, rather then put them into the system, however if the long term plan is that they cannot return to their biological parent(s) they would be very adoptable as still very little.
I admire you greatly for stepping in and taking care of them, I hope you can sort the work situation out but I would definitely sit down and go over the numbers to see what you need to do or if taking some sort leave would be more appropriate rather then trying to juggle everything.

Haha I’d be careful who you say that too … what are you doing for the other 3 days? Getting paid for doing nothing?

Appeal or start looking elsewhere.

Seems like a bad claim unless you want to never work full time again. Because it sounds like a full time position is redundant at this company.

I appreciate you think you could do it in 2 days, but would there really be zero business impact? A customer (internal or external, e.g. if you work in accounts and a colleague has a question, or a literal customer if its something like sales) needs to talk urgently on a Thursday, but you're not in till next Tuesday- who does that? A member of your team had a personal emergency on the Friday and needs some support - who does that? There's a HoD meeting about new business strategy on Monday - but you're not there, so who goes, are you expecting a team member to have to step up for no extra pay? The MD needs an update on your department results and you're not there etc etc. You might be right that all your pro active work could squash into 2 days (although it begs the question what on earth have you been doing the other 3) but the reactive responses will be so much slower. That's why 4 days is reasonable, because rarely is it absolutely essential and occurring on the 1 day you're off (when I worked 4 days occasionally it did and I'd swap days around).
You're looking at this purely from your own perspective (understandable) but there is absolutely no way the head of a department can go down from 5 days to 2. The fact you're even thinking that because some other people do 2 days, you should to, is a massive lack of understanding about employment law. In law, even if those 2 people did the exact same job as you, they could still say No on the basis that would be too many people in that role doing 2 days/the business impact would not be reasonable/absorbable. So totally ignore what working pattern other people work, it's not helpful to your argument at all, and will just make you frustrated. Your argument should exclusively focus on the business needs/impact.
I'd suggest negotiating, would 4 work, or some time from home, or a period of unpaid leave/sabbatical?
You also put yourself in a vulnerable position, a FWR results in a perm contractual change, if you can and do complete everything in 2 days, no way would they change it back to 5 at your whim - why would they pay more for the same service? And you'd not be able to force them to, as you'd have signed the change down to 2 days.

I doubt that any head of department role can be effectively carried out in 2 days a week. What if something comes up unexpectedly that needs your attention?

This, and even if they are in the same role them being in 2 days could be the reason you can't be. Flexible working agreements don't set a precedent.
I'd be very surprised if a HoD re could be done in 2 days though, that seems unrealistic to me.

Exactly. So many people have made this point now, but OP is ignoring the issue. How can you do a five day job in two days? Why would they then pay you over five days if you proved you could do everything in two days.

Solo parenting 3 children and managing a full time job is a massive commitment - well done OP. I'm not surprised you're stressed and pulled all ways.

Taking on a 6 month old baby as well (from presumably challenging circumstances) could seriously blow everything apart and like others, I'm surprised that social services would sanction this? You're successfully caring for 3 children alone - and they will need an immense amount of your time. This baby will have massive needs - how on earth can you meet them - even if you're able to work part time?

I'd urge you to seek out someone to talk to professionally about this. I mean this kindly but this reads as if some of the decisions you feel you must make are not good ones - for you or for the children.

You are not a ‘general’ member of staff though OP. You are a head of department. I work somewhere where our head of department has gradually reduced her hours and quite honestly it’s a shambles. Anyone who needs something important has to wait until she’s in which creates a lot of challenges. As a head you have more responsibilities so I understand why they might be inclined to say no. I wouldn’t go around saying that in your opinion your job could be done over 2 days if you work 5. That could create problems for you.

I hope you didn’t tell them this!!

I don’t understand if yiy can go your job in 2 days why are you stressed or is it just you need to be physically away from the office for time to care for relatives ? Maybe you could ask to work more flexible hours ? Or reduce to 4 days ?

If I was your manager and you armed me with all this info, I’d be looking at reorganising the other two days work and making an “efficiency saving” by losing your role.

IF you could do your job in 2 days a week, and they could pay you 40% of your current wage to do it, they’d be nuts not to. So I suspect you can’t.

IF you could do your job in two days why are you so stressed about working for 5 days. You can’t be working hard.

YABU.

I don’t think your life is compatible with taking on another child. You are a single parent already and stretched way too thin. Without knowing why you think this baby is only your responsibility, it’s hard to give specific advice on that, but you can and need to say no. It won’t help anyone is you are unemployed and raising 4 children on your own - you need to focus on the 3 you already have.

You sound like a hard worker - single parenting 3 foster children ‘and’ working a full time and demanding role is already much more than more could handle. I’m a bit surprised that they’ll actually let you take on more than this as it doesn’t seem sustainable

Back to the job though - they can’t stop you from applying for anything you want to and asking for part time hours. I just don’t think it’s feasible to expect a management level role with that level of responsibilities and pay for 40% of a week. It will create so much extra work for others - even just having an additional person on staff for know everything you do for HR and decision making etc etc etc. I think denying it is fair enough and you need to really think about the whole picture here.

Being 2 days a week as a boss isn't practical. I worked 2 day week non management role and it was really difficult. By the time you catch up what's happened the other days you've lost a morning already.

The fact that there are others doing 2 days, does not mean that it's possible for your role. They do however need to be able to justify why your proposals are not possible "we don't want to" are not justifications. I see you have suggested a job share. Rejecting this on the basis of no applicants is only justified if they have in fact advertised a job share and been unsuccessful. That said, you do need to think about the implications of such a share, like handovers and covering each other's holiday etc. which are generally requirements of this arrangement.

The employment rights act stipulates the reasons that rejection can be given, these being:-

• the burden of additional costs
• an inability to reorganise work amongst existing staff
• an inability to recruit additional staff
• a detrimental impact on quality
• a detrimental impact on performance
• a detrimental effect on ability to meet customer demand
• insufficient work available for the periods the employee proposes to work
• planned structural changes to the employer's business

Dropping from 5 days to 2 as head of department would never work. You cannot be head of department and only work 2 days a week. Who do people go to for guidance the 3 days you are not working? You say you can do your job in 2 days but your company say you can't as they are looking at it from a different perspective. Sometimes I can easily cover my workload in less than 5 days but in my position the team fall apart when I am on leave. Its not just about your workload, its about your department and company needs.