To think you can’t really get a decent PT job unless you already work there

[Metoodear]

So following on from my post about working PT I getting loads of people saying yep rally easy to woke pt I get 30, 40k pro rata blah blah however these are often women who have worked for a company for a number of years then reduced after maternity leave i am also not talking about PT were you drop one day but are still working 9-5 four days a week

This kind of PT working is not what I was talking about I am talking about after having done a qualification then after having 2-5 years out of work after being a SHAM trying to find a PT job that is under 25 hours a week that is not in a school admin or retail in a company you never worked for
i am a support worker but have had to take a job at the lower end of the pay scale in order to secure 20 hours a week working i have friends that have degrees in physiology ect who work in admin and a friend who has a degree in a second language but is really struggling to find anything other than admin or work in a school for less than 25 hours after being at home for8 years

I myself have been looking for another job since I got my curroone and you just don’t see PT ones

So, I shouldn’t be able to have kids because I was unfortunate to be born into a society that doesn’t support part time work? I, like any of us, didn’t choose where I was born. I am very grateful for things like the NHS however the culture of UK society is not one I like, and it’s been getting worse over recent years with austerity.

I still think it’s important to have the option though, whether I need it or not. As I said in a few years when his career takes off I hopefully will be out of the scenario I dislike, but I still think others deserve better part time jobs.

Blair - the option is there. But not one that fits the very specific criteria you want. There’s part time and then there’s fitting around something most employers can’t accommodate.

No - but you should have realised that if you didnt want to work, then you should have waited to be able to afford not to do so. Alternatively, be open to options which may not meet your specific criteria.

but now I would NOT be happy with short maternity leave. I do work part time - in my view - 4 days - and I took a full years maternity leave. Worth every penny. I have credibility and a reputation - I have flexible working and an employer who accommodates my childcare needs - within reason! There’s no way I’d sacrifice the luxury we have of long maternity leave.

It IS impossible to please everyone, so it’s reasonable that whatever method used some people will dislike. You are lucky you like the one we have!

I have a flexible employer, probably the best I could possibly have for my needs. Would still rather be with the kids.

So what you have is on the one hand people defending employers for not wanting to fit in with school hours and on the other people saying schools should have to change their hours to fit in more with the reality of two working parents in the 21st century. Both sides entrenched, and in the middle are families struggling. And then people like Lazy who have got involving in an online debate with no broader interest in the subject as a whole - works for her so who cares about anyone else.

And as MANY pp have said - there ARE part time jobs available. As I keep saying - I’m in one. But - your definition of PT is - school hours, term time, flexible working, limited days, and open to people who’ve been SAHMs for several years and quite frankly have a lot less to offer an employer than those who have been working since their children were born.

There ARE options - just not the ones you want. Stop saying they don’t exist.

No - but you should have realised that if you didnt want to work, then you should have waited to be able to afford not to do so. Alternatively, be open to options which may not meet your specific criteria.

The issue is, we are biologically suited to have kids at a certain age, having kids later for career reasons is, in my opinion, a symptom of this very societal issue of financial greed and wasn’t something I was prepared to do due to the risks involved with having them later.

Again, not bashing anyone’s choice, but I think it’s a shame that society isn’t set up to support the natural age for this, as no matter how much we might want it to be, 40 isn’t the optimal age to have kids.

@BlairWaldorfsHeadband we'll agree to disagree because if i won the lottery i would still go to work FT!

I visit national trust properties, but would i want to go every week? No.

Nearly everything you gave mentioned is choldren focused, when do you do anything for you as an adult? I don't want to spend every day in a park, go to libraries, i went to 1 kids group, and i would never go back!

I love my DD, but i don't need to be with her 24/7. I am my own person seperate to being a parent.

@ferrier

Lazypuppy - it's not about you though. Working ft suits you -great.

Umm in my life it is about me, and my family. As another poster said, i don't want fo live in Germany or Holland. I like it here in the UK where i'm working FT.

Lots of people (usually women) would like to spend time with their children whilst maintaining their skills and bringing in a bit of money. So that when they can return to the workplace full time, they havent massively lost out. that is a slefish attitude that another pp mentioned. You want employers to be fully flexible for you while you are completely inflexible for them?

As I keep saying - I’m in one. But - your definition of PT is - school hours, term time, flexible working, limited days, and open to people who’ve been SAHMs for several years and quite frankly have a lot less to offer an employer than those who have been working since their children were born.

My job allows that, so I know they exist. But they don’t exist in large numbers.

Then you need to cut your cloth accordingly. I’m in my 30s. My career has taken a hit - but it’s par for the course. I don’t consider myself a victim of societal greed - I’m a public sector employee - but I worked hard to get to where I am, paid for an education and will continue to strive to further my career in an organisation I’m proud to be a part of.

Explain to me where organisations like the NHS would be otherwise?

Nearly everything you gave mentioned is choldren focused, when do you do anything for you as an adult? I don't want to spend every day in a park, go to libraries, i went to 1 kids group, and i would never go back!

I love my DD, but i don't need to be with her 24/7. I am my own person seperate to being a parent.

I do tend to do children focused activities during the day, although I have one “selfish” day a week when I either read a book or go for a meal with DP or something like that.

I am a very family focused person though and I don’t like being away from my DC much, or my larger family. I live on the same street as my parents, my own GPs live 15 minutes away, we are all very close. Appreciate not everyone wants this.

They don’t exist in large numbers because it’s a model that’s impossible to support. For example, if I worked a pattern that was PT, school hours, term time only - who would they pay to cover my job the rest of the time? A temp? At an exorbitant hourly rate? I mean... can you see the lack of logic???

Explain to me where organisations like the NHS would be otherwise?

The NHS is quite good for part time work though? A lot of people I know who work part time are NHS workers

They don’t exist in large numbers because it’s a model that’s impossible to support. For example, if I worked a pattern that was PT, school hours, term time only - who would they pay to cover my job the rest of the time? A temp? At an exorbitant hourly rate? I mean... can you see the lack of logic???

Depends what it is. My job has enough people who don’t want those hours to cover for those of us who do. It’s also possible to employ agency staff if it’s an NHS role.

In the model you’ve described? I’m an NHS worker. Formerly an ops manager. Your model doesn’t work for these roles.

Plus you haven’t answered the question - in a term time only, school hours only, who covers? Nurses / other front line clinical staff / managers / hr personnel / finance teams?

Plus as I keep saying - I am PT! But not in the way you seem to define it.

You cannot seriously tell me that an appropriate use of funds is to employ someone on a term time contract and then employ an agency temp to work the school holidays.

Have you any idea about how much that costs? This is a case in point - you don’t seem to realise how any of this would work in practice. that’s a completely and utterly inappropriate use of money. Outrageous.

@RiverTam it works for me, my partner, my family, a large proportion of my friends who have kids and love working part time...

Yes obviously i don't care about anyone else

I made the decision not to have a child until i could afford it. I waited until i had the right job, with great maternity, work/life balance and earning potential. These were decisions i made, everyone makes different decisions.

Everyone who is saying its not fair they can't find the exact pt hours they want, surely you knew this was likely to be the case, and yet you still decided to have children anyway (completely your right to obviously) but i don't see why you are moaning about the system now, when it has been like this for years. Was it really a suprise that you can't find, like *Since2016 said your definition of PT is - school hours, term time, flexible working, limited days, and open to people who’ve been SAHMs for several years and quite frankly have a lot less to offer an employer than those who have been working since their children were born.

ossible to support. For example, if I worked a pattern that was PT, school hours, term time only - who would they pay to cover my job the rest of the time? A temp? At an exorbitant hourly rate? I mean... can you see the lack of logic???

^ this ^

I would really like some explanation of how it would work, rather than people just repeating ‘this is what I want, therefore an employer should provide it.’

There are many roles that need full time cover. Some that need 24/7 cover. If hordes of people were employed 9.30 to 2.30, 3 days a week and with all school hols off (because they don’t want to work every day, they don’t want to have to use any childcare) all those other hours would still need cover. Businesses and public sector organisations would probably end up having to pay at least twice the going rate for people prepared to do the less attractive slots. So how does the public sector fund that? Put up taxes? Gosh, that would see those 3 day a week people complain! Oh and what would happen to the cost of living....

Thank you @momo27 it was the comment about ‘oh but the nhs can use agency’ that completely wound me up. I can just see how to explain why my agency use budget is sky high and in the red... it’s a blinkered view - ‘the system is broken’ - it’s not, but it’s impossible to accommodate those sorts of patterns in most roles for obvious reasons.

So how does the public sector fund that? Put up taxes? Gosh, that would see those 3 day a week people complain!

I’ve actually supported higher taxation for many years.

You cannot seriously tell me that an appropriate use of funds is to employ someone on a term time contract and then employ an agency temp to work the school holidays.

It works in an emergency, but there are other options too. As has been stated on this thread, plenty of people don’t want part time hours. So I doubt you’d get a massive shortage, but why could it not be covered by job shares and extra shifts?

Term time is harder to cover than part time, I agree, and it’s always feesible.

I lucked into an amazing job that’s only 20 hours a month for my local CCG - it came up at just the right time and it has been brilliant. I know things like this are rare as hens teeth though!

I have some sympathy for those that say they didn’t want to wait - @lazy ‘s approach is the ideal one but a luxury. We’re going to have to buy a cheaper house next than we wanted ideally because of childcare costs and my career stalling because of mat leave / pt working but it’s a choice. You just cut back!

This is all about choices imo.

Job shares wouldn’t cover term time only hours. Extra shifts cost money - that also attracts a premium depending, and it’s not a certainty. That means a lack of consistency on the ward and potentially employing people who have no experience in that area - potentially unsafe. Nursing as a worked example. It means a lack of sustainability - constantly.

no matter how much we might want it to be, 40 isn’t the optimal age to have kids.

Who said anything about waiting to be 40? I work PT in a challenging, interesting role on 60k FTE. I conceived my first at 30 and at 34 am now done with kids. I put in nine years of graft (including two master's degrees PT) to get where I am, which put me in a very good position, and I've been promoted since having my first while working PT.

You're setting up this picture where the whole world is against you and your biology, and it's not reality. It's entirely possible to have your kids fairly young and still get yourself in a good position career wise. And quite obviously the only people who are going to offer school hours, term time only, are... schools. Employers pay you because they've got work that needs doing, not because they charitably want to fund you spending time with your family.

Hiring is high-stakes and risky for employers. When you have a job that needs done all week, every week, it would be stupidly risky to hire someone for it that you don't even know and have no verification that in part-time hours they can give you what you need when you don't even know if they're any good yet. Whereas when you have someone that you know provides quality work already, they are a valuable asset, and flexible and part time is far less of a risk than losing them and having to replace them.

If you want to get what you want from an employer, try thinking from their perspective. It's not that hard.

I agree you cut back. Like I said, we don’t have our own car, which is something most people consider easential. Our holidays, when we do go on holiday, are uk kids holidays. I’m not considered rich by anyone’s standards!

Excellent post queenavaris.

Yes there are tough decisions to be made, balancing the window of fertility, how much training and qualifications to invest in, where in the U.K. to live to get value for money etc

But we’re all operating within those parameters, and there is still a good deal of choice within them.

And as a woman in my 50s I still maintain that the systems we have now are miles better than when I had my kids and you were back to work when they were 12 weeks old and there was no right to request flexible working. And in turn, what I had was better than what was on offer to my mum... no regulated childcare, no day nurseries, no option to remain in work. And in turn, what she had was better than her mum who had to give up her job when she married.
Things have moved massively in a direction which favours women. But there will never be a system which enables people to dictate that an employer hires them on the exact terms they dictate.