To think there should be more part time jobs

[Banana99]

I'm unemployed (by choice because I thought I would get something else).

I've had employment agency on the phone again offering me full time work. I've had several agencies tell me if I could work full time I would be employed tomorrow as they are desperate for people!

Except I can't work full time, my childcare options are rubbish (older primary child) especially in the holidays and DHs work is long hours and unpredictable.

Why don't they split more jobs in 2. Literally could tear my hair out with it.

Go where there are lots if others working part time.

I agree it would benefit everyone if managers got away from the full time mindset.

I tend to negotiate my own hours, but I work in an industry that my skills are in demand. Promotion eludes me though!

Some people with preschool children actively prefer working weekends, if they have a partner or family member who can look after the DC but works during the week. Can be very useful. I used to work for an advice service that offered evening and weekend sessions, and although I left before I had kids, had I still been there I'd have asked for more of those.

I manage some part time and a few full time staff. part time is a total pain, they have to be trained so twice as much training to pay for, twice as much uniform to buy, holiday is more complicated, and it takes longer for them to get to know the job and the customers ( who see twice as man people) Also if someone wants part time it is often because they are playing the tax credits game, which I'm non too keen on.

ExConstance, I agree it's more people to train but in my experience part time staff stick around much longer due to it being difficult for them to move to a similar role elsewhere. Therefore you benefit from not having to train as frequently and also less recruitment costs. I disagree that holidays are any more complicated at all. Part time makes no difference as holidays are pro rata'd. I also disagree on more uniform. Part time staff wear it less so it should last for longer. It sounds like you're hiring the wrong people if you're seeing no benefits to part time staff. I have no idea how tax credits work but if they are a factor that's something the government should address, not active discrimination by employers with a bias towards those who want to work part time in order to take responsibility for out of work life.

I can understand it is more costly and awkward for employers to employ 2 part time rather than one full time person. BUT surely completely ruling out anyone that can't work full time is limiting the field of prospective candidates considerably. What if the ideal person by far could only do 3 or 4 days a week or had to be able to do the school drop off before work so therefore couldn't start till 9.30 say?

I just wish employers were open minded about hours. So many just won't even consider it. However, when I was looking I did take the chance of applying for full time roles, but in my covering letter/statement say that I was only looking for part time. At interview I'd discuss what I was looking for. I got offered a couple and they were willing to negotiate. Unfortunately didn't quite find the right thing so gave up - it is so much hard work looking for work and going for interviews with a toddler to look after and no childcare!!! Now happily a SAHM out of choice but I would willingly work if I could find the right hours (in an ideal world that would be 3-4 days per week, less than 30mins from home, within pre-school hours/term time only) and not earning is not an option for everyone!

I think too many people are too picky about hours. I would like to work part time because I think full time + travel takes up too much of my life, and I would like to see my DP more. But you can't have everything. I like my job and my pay isn't horrific, so it'll do.

I also see a shed load of jobs that are part time and know plenty of people struggling to get full time (East Anglia).

I'm extremely picky about my hours, because I can be and I don't have to settle for working FT when I'd prefer PT. People prioritising their desired work/life balance is not a bad thing.

And yes, of course employers are narrowing their field considerably if they'll only consider FTers. That won't be an issue for some employers, of course. There are many who feel very happy with the quality and quantity of staff they're able to attract, and the rate they need to offer to get them. Others know that they're able to get more good people by being broad minded. There are, after all, plenty of shortage occupations even in this time of high un(der)employment.

Yes doing a shortage occupation has meant I gave had the upper hand in these cases. My most recent job I dictated my hours to suit.

I've done that a few times too. Not on the shortage occupation list, but a very niche area. The flipside is that I could get more money pro rata if I were FT, like you, so there's that to consider. But does mean the employer is getting a bargain!

Hardly any part time in my area too.

Yes there is retail work but part time then often means unsociable hours.
Part time during normal working hours are like gold dust.

Of course decisions can still be made on a timely basis. It does of course require give and take from both the employer and employee but surely if a decision is urgent you pick up the phone and talk? Anyone working part time in a responsible position surely understands this?

Are you suggesting that the part time person is contacted on their days off with urgent work problems to resolve? In which case they wouldn't really be having a day off at all. What if they had a screaming toddler trying to get their attention whilst taking said phonecall?

It's basic market economics, if there are sufficient people willing to work full time and that's easier for the employer then why wouldn't they take the full timer? Only in shortage occupations would it make sense for an employer to consider part time employees if they were struggling to recruit/retain.

Most employers don't do the 'nice thing' they do the 'business sense' thing which quite often involves recruiting a full timer particularly with mid and senior level roles.

Yes Maggie that's what I am suggesting. I have been there (including the screaming toddlers) I also said give and take is required. It's not perfect all of the time but overall it is absolutely possible.

I strongly disagree with the 'its basic market economics' comment too. In my experience the forward thinking and most successful businesses recognise the benefits of part time employees at all levels. The 'business sense thing' comes from having a well motivated and diverse workforce which is proven to improve business performance. The HR team need to be on board. The employees need to be on board (and accept some degree of 'being on call' as required) but to perpetuate the myth that PT doesn't work at senior levels is sadly outdated and insulting.

Yes, and it's been evident on this thread that some of the reasons people might give as 'business reasons' aren't accurate. For example an employer not wanting part time employees because they think it will cost them more in NI isn't accurate. Indeed, if you're recruiting a 15k role, you'd be better off in that respect with jobsharers.