'You can't get quality staff on part time hours'

[cakeandcustard]

This was said to me at a recent job interview. The job was advertised at 0.6 fte but it was made clear at the interview that it would very soon be increased to full time because 'you can't get quality staff on part time hours'!!!

AIBU to think that just because I have commitments outside work (i.e. 3 DCs) and therefore wish to work for fewer than the regulatory 37.5 hours a week, that doesn't mean I am going to do a crap job? I applied for the job on the basis that the number of hours advertised would mean that I could fit it in around my family and still be able to give the best service in work that I am able to provide. (didn't get the job but wouldn't have taken it anyway as I need something part time!)

I'm getting increasingly frustrated trying to find a professional part time position (for which I'm very well qualified) as when I filter on part time contract all that seems to come up are low paid, unskilled and/or temporary.

AIBU to think that employers are missing out on a wealth of skills and expertise if this view is as prevalent as it seems to be.

If you didn't think you could get quality staff for part time hours, why on earth would you advertise for a part timer when you really want someone to go full time?

I've been part time since my daughter was born (she's 18). I'm the second longest serving member of my team, at least partly because finding another job which suits my needs in terms of hours would be a total PITA. Full time people move on all the time, usually shortly after they've learned enough to be really useful.

I'm P/T , (3 days) 2 DC, Public Sector

I get into work an hour before I start, often there after I should be gone and I work a damn sight harder than alot of my collegues.
I cannot leave things till the next day, updates need to be within 24 hours.

So it depends on the member of staff really.

Appointments etc on my days off.
Unwell children, I share with DH, he can work from home sometimes.

At my work a senior member of staff had a child and returned part time.

Because of her reduced hours, she couldn't oversee projects or have her own clients, so helped out doing bits of admin etc when she was here.

The galling thing was she kept her old job title and salary despite not doing any of those duties. (And the ones she did do were poorly performed). I think that was really unfair.

When she put in her flexible working request, those matters should have been covered, chrome.

yanbu - part time professional jobs almost impossible to get as an outsider. It is my biggest beef that there are not enough teeth to get this sorted. I also think it is one of the biggest hurdles to womens progression at work.

I think for part time to work well 2 things need to happen:

1. The employee needs to have a good work ethic while at work, and
2. The employer needs to adjust their planning and work allocation to allow for reduced hours.

If number 2 doesn't happen, number 1 will never work out, and some employers just aren't willing to do it.

The tricky part comes when there's work where someone working FT will be required to work more than their 37 hours to meet deadlines, or in the case of one place I worked, 45 - 50 hours a week and most weekends, and due to childcare commitments etc the person doing PT can't, so their hours are more inflexible.

I've seen both good and bad with various arrangements, some people who have been PT and fabulous, and some who haven't. Although I suspect that those who haven't weren't fabulous workers when FT either (which is definitely the case with one person I know), it just wasn't as obvious as they were in the office more.

Same here notquiteruralbliss. It's always worked for me because they want my 'quality', and they'd rather have me for a few days a week than someone not as good full-time.