Recruitment, can't believe how hard it is!

[Sunnydawn]

I read and hear so much about people wanting flexible working, and how so many people are stuck in dead end jobs, or on zero hours contracts.

But, I am involved in recruitment for two jobs right now, one a professional job in a lovely environment, as a part time job share. The other, a part time, flexible, admin job, again in a lovely office, with training and a good career if you want it.

And no decent applicants! No applicants for the first. Loads who have applied for the latter, but ecan't even attempt the basics forvan interview or trial (ie. turning up in time, dressing half smart, answer a phone).

Frankly, I despair. What are people doing? Where are they working/wanting to work?

These are different places, by the way, so it's not the particular environment.

A job I left last year I had managed a small team of very unhappy people who felt undervalued and underpaid by the organisation. I tried everything to get them better hours, to give them training opportunities and they sometimes grudgingly took what was offered but not often. I left because I felt I had nothing new to learn and wanted a new challenge (Also it was depressing). They still feel under valued and underpaid now it seems (am in touch) but have not taken any steps to learn or move on. There is no helping some people.

Because I think you have to be realistic about what the childcare issues may entail, it is not really your employers prerogative or duty to ensure all workers have their ideal childcare arrangements. Some companies are very understanding but it also has to be of benefit to the company - closing your doors at 2.30pm because everyone wants to pick their kids up after school isn't of benefit to a company. If that's the hours you want then it is up to you to try to make this work with your employer or find a new one where it is suitable.

Munstermonchgirl - I fail to see what is wrong with exercising one's choice not to take a job you can afford not to take. None of these people insisted you employ them, did they? If a job pays so badly that only people who would like to earn a bit of extra cash but don't need to, apply, then what do you expect? They might prefer to volunteer for no pay at all if the hours suited them better.

Yes, and by the same token, if what employers are offering to staff is unappealing and they are finding they can't get or retain staff, they need to change it. It's about who needs who more.

They have to do what's best for them, that's the only obligation they have.

Because I think you have to be realistic about what the childcare issues may entail, it is not really your employers prerogative or duty to ensure all workers have their ideal childcare arrangements. Some companies are very understanding but it also has to be of benefit to the company - closing your doors at 2.30pm because everyone wants to pick their kids up after school isn't of benefit to a company. If that's the hours you want then it is up to you to try to make this work with your employer or find a new one where it is suitable.

But isn't asking the employer if this is possible and not proceeding with the job when it isn't, doing just that?

And in practical terms, how does this obligation to be realistic work when you don't know an employer and don't know what they have in place? There's really only one way to find out.

PP have mentioned job shares. In theory this is fine, in practice it is so difficult to manage. I find it hard enough finding one reasonably qualified person who will turn up on time, do their job and deliver a reasonable standard. Trying to find two that will not only do this but work together in a productive fashion, is next to impossible.

I do think some salaries are a piss-take though. I interviewed someone recently who unfortunately wasn't suitable for the role, but who came across very well. When I saw what her current salary was it took a real effort to keep a poker face - she was being massively underpaid. That's the downside of part-time hours though; lots of employers use it as an excuse to keep the wages low.

Wooo - I think people are massively overthinking my post!

I referred to a couple of real life recent examples in my school. Yes, of course at the end of the day it's people's prerogative whether to take the job (if for example they have a partner supporting them financially) I just think there's something inherently wrong when people are so wrapped up with having things exactly on their terms that they are passing up opportunities. A LSA is a highly worthwhile role, it's a totally necessary role, I teach dozens of pupils who need this type of support. It's not well paid, but the LSAs in my school are wonderful and find the job very rewarding. For someone to purport to want to do it but pass up an opportunity because they want every mon and fri off is pretty sad imo. Also passing it up because of not wanting to pay a few quid for childcare. (I wish people would read posts carefully - I said the candidate didn't want to pay for childcare)

If a person is turning down such an opportunity and is relying on benefits then it's not just sad, it's wrong.

Of course if you have some fundamental objection to childcare and won't let your children go then that's different- but you're probably going to seriously limit your work opportunities.

TBH having been involved in recruitment processes in a number of workplaces plus being an employee myself for nigh on 30 years, I think the balance is about right now... flexible working and part time opportunities are out there but may involve some degree of compromise, because no employer I know has the time or extra funds to try to tailor every job to every individuals personal wishes

I just think there's something inherently wrong when people are so wrapped up with having things exactly on their terms that they are passing up opportunities.

But... why though?

I mean, you keep telling us how wrong it is, but you've not given any rationale for this. Maybe it actually isn't an opportunity, if it's going to require a person to make compromises that they feel would outweigh the positives of the job. Not really for you to say.

Totally agree on compromising. Not in anyone's best interests for a company to not give consideration for childcare but many companies who have a majority female workforce could find this difficult to meet everyone's needs

Myuser - yes, that's it in a nutshell. I worked at a firm years ago where the team was entirely female and all (except me) had DC and worked PT. It was a large firm so they could be quite accommodating of different working patterns, but for smaller firms this is just not possible. One person only worked term times (it wasn't a school), another only worked 7 hours on a Monday - and so on. It was a real challenge to keep the continuity of work and productivity going, as jobs would be half-done or have multiple people involved - which would often lead to crossed wires or mistakes.

I'd like to see a move towards firms having their own nurseries and creches which provide childcare and wrap-around care. It would be more cost-effective for the business and the employee. You'd get a better level of remuneration for the nursery staff (what they are paid is outrageous considering the responsibility they have!), you'd get better engagement and productivity from employees because they know their kids are being well looked after in a local setting. Better for the environment as fewer car journeys - win win.

Clearly not a passed up opportunity, but a lucky escape for employee and employer. What would be far worse would be to accept the job, then start being "sick" on and off on Mondays and Fridays. At the end of the day, an LSA role is low paid, term time only and far more a labour of love than anything else - it certainly won't pay enough for a family to survive on just that income. If you don't love it, better not to do it!

I don't really see what is the harm in people asking about the days and hours that suit them - I can see it is irritating to field enquiries but they are not demanding you employ them are they? I work freelance, and volunteer, and actually a Mondays only or Monday and Fridays job would suit me fine (not an LSA) as I need three days in a row to work when I have a job on. I can also imagine that someone might have family circumstances (aging parents, sporting or other hobbies that involve travel) where they want to work Tues-Thurs. I'd always consider such arrangements a long shot but wouldn't think i was being entitled to ask, politely.

I'd love to see some of the job ads for which people have had few decent applicants, if anyone could be bothered posting links (perhaps with name change)? This has been such an interesting thread.

Hyacinth- you're overthinking this! If someone can afford not to take a job because they have a partner funding them etc, and they decide that the job they want involves too many compromises- fine! I would rather they didn't grudgingly work for me tbh!

But I was talking about people who claimed to really want that type of work, term time only, one hour a week more than school hours, working with children supporting them in school. I think they're unlikely to get a better opportunity Than the one offered because I'm fortunate to work in a great school, well managed and great kids on the whole.

I also come across thread often on MN (as well as people in real life) who are frustrated because they want to work and use their intellect, skills, have the camaraderie etc but have found themselves left behind in the jobs market because they haven't been prepared to compromise in the slightest.

So although I agree with you- don't take a job (provided you can afford not to) if it doesn't suit you, I do think it's sad for people who subsequently realise that it could have opened a door to opportunities for them

Nothing wrong with asking, I think people should ask about flexibility but personally I wouldn't mention my kids and be very careful of looking like I could be difficult. Nothing more offputting than someone coming to interview only to list you their life story and telling you what they need in their life from you .
There is a more tactical way to negotiate hours than looking demanding or difficult with a lot of personal things that could affect your work. I had a male boss who was put off young women completely because their childcare issues were a constant battle but that is unfair, I have tried to be as considerate as I can be and I get that respect back.

I also come across thread often on MN (as well as people in real life) who are frustrated because they want to work and use their intellect, skills, have the camaraderie etc but have found themselves left behind in the jobs market because they haven't been prepared to compromise in the slightest.

To be fair I have seen this too and it is a shame. Also I have taught my kids that sometimes you have to make sacrifices and compromises. I don't have another adult to share finances or childcare with but I feel like I need to set a good example to my DD's about work ethic and also that of women in the workplace. No pressure on me then

YY myusername!

I've also experienced those interviews where the candidate is very out of touch with the world of work and seems to think we can rearrange the job to fit round their life.

I consider myself forward looking and am prepared to negotiate and be flexible where possible- but at the end of the day a job is a job. Being in education the needs of the children come first- just as an example, it may work for a child with high level SEND to have 2 LSA job sharing with one mon- tue and one wed- fri but it might be too fragmented for the child to cope with one person Monday and Friday and the other the middle of the week. (and i wouldn't even like to think about the difficulties of trying to employ someone for just Mondays and Fridays anyway!) In such a scenario the needs of the pupil rightly come first. We have appointed people who work flexibly if they are the best for the job. We wouldn't employ someone on exactly their own terms if this conflicted with the needs of the pupils and wider school

Lalsy - you'll probably find that people can't link because there are usually protocols attached to where you can advertise. So if I were to link to one of my vacancies ( I can't, because they have closed now) and then HR were suddenly fielding enquiries from people who told them they'd seen it on a thread on MN, there'd be an interesting conversation for me at the end of it about why I took it upon myself to advertise a post on MN without sign-off!

There's no harm in asking about the hours when you first enquire, but you'll find that the hours advertised are usually non-negotiable. In my case if I advertise a FT vacancy between 9-5 M-F, then it's because I need someone in that seat at those times. If there is flexibility then the advert will usually say 'flexible hours/shift pattern available'. The problem seems to be in the number of hours required, because even those flexible jobs often need FT commitment. I hardly ever advertise PT roles because the business I work in doesn't lend itself to that kind of approach. The most common way to find PT work in my business is to come in FT for a stretch and then submit a flexible working request.

Yes, I agree with you both on all that.

I suppose what I find frustrating is that a couple of times recently I have seen jobs advertised that I was interested in and when I emailed asking whether they would consider part-time applications, got back a standard reply referring me to the job ad. For one job, it was actually two different roles put together, and I saw them re-advertising recently so presumably they hadn't found anyone? The other thing that puts me off (and I realise I am fortunate to have the choice) is that a lot of part time jobs seem very badly paid AND inflexible. I feel I do have more to offer and wouldn't mind working for less than I usually do, but would want to keep some of my existing freelance work and volunteering going alongside. Maybe it is impossible and I certainly don't expect anyone to take all that into account.

Sorry, Paul, yes of course you are quite right! Shame - would be interesting to see what we are all talking about!

Munstermonchgirl - I think you'll find the people that pass up the opportunity of working as an LSA were only saying it was exactly the sort of thing they would love to do, when they actually just meant working in school hours only is exactly what they would like to do, they can take or leave the children they will be working with. So it is really not a shame when they don't want the work.

I agree with those who say take a full time post, then negotiate. I know several men in my office who did exactly that. Their reasons range from studying to caring for elderly parents. I know only 1 woman who has done this.

It's obviously difficult as you have to arrange (expensive) childcare to cover your FT hours, and you take the risk that they won't agree to you changing. However, recruitment is expensive and disruptive, and if they think they'll have to do it all over agaia they might well agree.

You know what it's just occurred to me how many of the difficulties mentioned on this thread are down to pure sexism!

Don't mention children
Don't suggest you have childcare/caring responsibilities to consider
Don't push on flexibility

Even the ageism is worse for women

if you're of child bearing age you're unemployable in case you get pregnant

if you have children of an age that requires childcare you're less employable

if you've been a sahm for x years you're unemployable because you lack recent experience and references, possibly need a LITTLE training to bring you up to date with current methods/tools (including software), training which is really hard to access/pay for outside of a job.

Pauldacre I've loved your posts here but honestly, given the above do you really see employers allowing/organising/subsidising childcare on the premises?

And yes discrimination is illegal but surely we all know that many employers find ways around the law?

I know. And it's frustrating because I often think that there are lots of capable, bright, sparky people on here - who are clearly sensible, articulate and intelligent - many of whom aren't getting the chance to work in a role which suits them AND allows them to fulfil their potential in terms of productivity, job satisfaction and earning capability.

We need to see a change towards flexible working in terms of not having to be office based. I think that freedom would be better for many parents - if your job was to move towards output rather than purely hours worked, then it would give you the flexibility to balance work around other commitments. So if you have the kids at home in the morning, then they go to a party or playdate in an afternoon and you are able to get your head down for a couple of hours. Or you do the school run and then bash out some solid work between 09:00 - 15:00.

I am quite interested in changes to practices and customs in general - there's lots of really fascinating research about guessing how the world will change. One theory is that employers are going to HAVE to move towards remote working - which will naturally encourage flexibility - because the amount of traffic and congestion on the roads means that they are going to struggle to get people to attend offices. Likewise the cost of real estate means that the operational cost of providing all of these desks and facilities is increasingly expensive. The ubiquity of WiFi and the normalisation of things like Skype means that remote working is not only possible but in many cases more productive - fewer distractions and no wasted time sitting in traffic commuting.

Also part time jobs are traditionally mainly female filled roles and that's why historically they are more poorly paid. Progress is very slow.