(or naive) in thinking that 12 years professional experience is not diminished by working part-time...?

[misspollysdolly]

Or have two periods of maternity leave...?!

Have recently had contact with an ex-manager who floored me slightly by snidely saying that 'in real terms' my 10+ years since training in my chosen profession doesn't count for all that much because for most of those years I have worked part-time and I have also had two periods of maternity leave. She therefore claimed that I am still relatively 'new to the field' (which is why she did not re-employ me, but gave the job to a newly qualified person...the context of this conversation was me questioning how a newly qualified individual can win out over 10+ years of professional experience)

Am I being unreasonable to a) be a little hurt/confused by her statement...? and to b) think she is actually wrong...??! The conversation has reminded me of all the reasons why I left a position where she was my boss, so I guess it serves some purpose...!

MPD

It depends on the job I think, and on how much extra training/CPD was done while working part time. Some jobs do change a lot and up to date training is essential.

YANBU to be confused by her statement. Could she have just been making up any old crap because it was easier than Irving other reasons?

Giving, not Irving

I think your manager is wrong to say it "doesn't count for all that much", as clearly you have been at work for much of that time, and certainly will have more experience than a newly qualified person.

However, you have of course been working less than someone who has been employed full time. No doubt you have missed out on meetings, training and gaining experience.

So, I don't think you can say you have 12 years' experience, but you definitely do have significant experience.

What field do you work in, as that may influence what other people say on here?

Utter crap. If the other person is newly qualified, even if you equated your part time + x 2 maternity leave to 4 years experience you still are a long way ahead of them. In fact, saying that your experience doesn't count because of that probably counts as sexual discrimination.

I agree with jelly in that you don't have 12yrs experience but I'm sure your experience is still significant.

Some industries move at a rapid pace and constant up to date training...or even just staying on the job full time is imperative.

If prospective employers don't think it does, then it doesn't.

It depends on the field, I think, and also on your attitude towards being part time. I employ quite a few part time staff, and they fall into two distinct camps: those who take their responsibilities every bit as seriously as full time staff, but happen to work fewer hours, and those who constantly try to palm their responsibilities off on their full time colleagues with the whiny refrain that they are "only part-time". I can do without the latter, frankly, and wouldn't rate their experience. The former category, on the other hand, have as much to bring to the table as their full time colleagues.

I do think it's discriminatory for your ex-boss to give that as a reason for not employing you though. Obviously, you haven't got as much experience as someone who has been full time for 12 years, but you have a whole lot more than someone who is newly qualified.

Could it be that she has reason to doubt your commitment for any reason? And perhaps wrongly equates that with the fact that you've been working part-time?

Utterly discriminatory. In fact, one of the examples that was in the literature for what used to be the Equal Opportubities Commission, was that Lloyds would only promote managers who had had 10 years experience and were under 35. A female member of staff complained and said that that discriminated against women who had children as it meant they were less likely to achieve the 10 and 35 qualification by sole virtue of their gender. She won.

A former colleague used to tell anyone who would listen that she should be promoted because she had been with the firm 6 years " and it's about time".
In those six years she had had two mat leaves of one year each, two years of full time work and two years at three days per week. So in real terms she had had about half of the experience she thought she had.

However, I don't think that is the reason behind your failure to get the job. Someone newly qualified with less experience is almost certain to be cheaper. You may find that is the real deal breaker.

Although she has a point, it's pretty outrageous and offensive to voice it.

I have been in my career 17 years and also worked PT and had two (short) maternity leaves and have never come across this attitude.

And on balance it's a crock of shit. Your years of experience in the field is more significant than someone newly qualifed surely.

Anyway, all I care about when I'm recruiting is a person's talent, personality and ability to a great job.

I think that what she said to you is quite offensive.

In many cases someone working part time will have organised their hours so that they do attend training, make a significant but proportional contribution to the work and are performance-managed the same as anyone else. You are also keeping up with ideas and developments, just by exposure to the job.

However, I think there might be nuances depending on the role and on how you have structured your career. For example, in the first school I taught at there was someone who liked to give the impresssion of being deeply experienced. However, one day she began telling me her life story for some reason and it turned out that she had been qualified for just one year before her first maternity leave, had returned full time for less than a school year, had a second maternity leave and then been part time thereafter. So she had had only one year of teaching the full curriculum, guiding the children's development from start to finish, going through the full cycle of planning, assessing and reporting - and that had been the year in which she was least experienced. I must admit it did colour my view of her thereafter.

So I think it also depends on the nature of the role eg, is it something that can easily be subdivided or, is the whole job more than the sum of its part-time parts.

it is diminished in that it might only equate to e.g. 6 years full time. But then again, part time workers have to be up to date in their current field just the same as full time workers - its not as if a part time staff member does their job the way everyone else was doing it five years ago, because that's where they ate in terms of hours worked.

She said your experience doesn't count for much, and that you were relatively new to the field.

You left a position previously where she was your boss, do you like and respect each other?
You didn't say how many hours you worked PT, or how long your maternity leaves were. As a teacher, if an NQT worked 50% of a timetable, they'd take twice as long to qualify, have missed out on a lot of training and daily experiences that all count towards being experienced. So did you work 3 days equivalent? 2 days?
How committed were you perceived to be when you did the job? That would have a big impact on my belief as to whether I wanted you or not..
Is this job full time or part time?
It sounds as if she already made up her mind and was looking for reasons.

where they are

But some do, treaclesoda.

I think it's discriminatory. I have 10 years professional experience, including one period of maternity leave and 9mo part time. I'm interviewing for a graduate position next week. The reason I am interviewing and not being interviewed is because I have the experience which has put me in a more senior position.

You may well not have the experience of someone who has worked continually for 10 years in the field but you cannot, imo, be compared to someone newly qualified.

My DH started in his profession straight after his A-Levels. Then at 24 he took 2 years out to go to Uni. He achieved nothing, eventually dropped out. But then went back into the same industry on £10k more than he left on. That industry (a specific type of engineering) now requires new starters to have a degree. He is now contracting, and everyone ignores the 2 years out he had as they are more interested in what projects he has worked on, and what experience he has with different systems/regulations etc.

Basically, I don't know if that means that because he's a man they don't care so much about time off, or if it's because that specific, rather small, industry genuinely cares more about what you can actually do. DH often refers to it as an "Old Boy's Club", and I see his point. He's never been out of work for more than a week, but has never had to try v hard to get a new job. Most of the time he just gets calls from people he's worked with before offering him a new job.

I have a colleague who has had 3 years of maternity in her 5 years of employment and has worked 2 days a week for the last 4 years, she moans a lot about not being promoted, and being 'sidelined'.
She also manages to be on leave every time there is something important that she is supposed to do as part of her job (quarterly review presentations, etc)
It's very frustrating to watch, maybe this is the perception your old boss has of you, OP?

Has your industry changed a lot?

It could be that the newly qualified person has been taught new software/methods/laws?

MPD

Without knowing your occupation it's very difficult to answer your AIBU.

Does she have DCs and perhaps a little guilt because she works full time?

Does she have not have DCs and want them?

Is she trying to have DCs and has not due to whatever reasons?

She is saying your years of work are worth 0 because she has chosen someone newly qualified and that is obviously daft.

YABU to think that part-time is the same as full-time. However YANBU to think your experience is a lot more than that of a newly-qualified person!

Gah! Missed a crucial NOT out!

As others have said in the more wider debate around this a huge amount depends on variables such as the type of industry eg in 12 years you may well have vast amounts of experience and kept up to date via CPD even if you weren't actively 'practising' in that field. Similarly there are different types of 'part time' and maternity leave - I don't think it's belittling to anyone's choices to view someone who took 2x a full year maternity leave and then does say 3 days a week 9.30 to 4.30 or 'term time' hours as not having the same amount of experience as someone who took say 2x 6 months and then has done 4 days a week 'professional' hours (eg technically 9-5.30 but in reality in the office from 8.30, staying late to get the work done etc).

YABU. You have much less experience than a full-time co-worker who'd also been employed for 12 years who hadn't taken a sabbatical.