Lack of progression for part time workers

[kiranhpp]

Women get treated like shit on return to work , going from full time to part time, it's like put up shut up earn your money stop complaining you are not progressing just enjoy being a mum.

(And I earn more than 3 x times my DH - this is not about not being able to afford childcare- it’s because I want to)

[quote locketpol]@MoreToExplore but some women want a career and to be there for their children. We should be able to have a decent career part time job [/quote]
That's called "having your cake and eating it too" and is generally accepted to be unrealistic. Children require sacrifice. If you wish to continue progressing with your career, you need to have children with someone who is willing to make that sacrifice, so that you don't have to. If it doesn't work out like that, then you have to accept that your career will take a hit.

None of this is a secret, women should know all about all of this before choosing to have children, unless they're living under a rock.

[quote oranemaiden]@Ohalrightthen I disagree.

Where I work it's 12.5 shifts so full time is 3 of those and part time (25 hours) is 2. I see the part timers not allowed on courses or allowed extra responsibilities and the bosses say well your not full time your not accessible to me .
Hmmm what by one extra day [/quote]
Well yeah the same expense gets 33.333% more out come.

You'd be an idiot not to

It’s great that some people and some roles work really effectively part-time and give more value for money than full-timers.

I don’t agree with the entitlement that part-timers should be placed on a pedestal, and that employers should not even be able to consider the fact they’re not around every day, as a factor, to weigh up against everything else, in deciding on progression.

I work 3days a week as a manager. My client list is as big as a FTE. I log in on my days off and keep things moving along. My overtime is disproportionate compared to my FTE. I've missed out on promotion. I catch up on training in my own time. Salaried so no overtime paid. I feel I'm an asset to my company who pay me 3/5of my FT salary, yet I'll be leaving to further my career. I think it'll be their loss.

@WishingOnACarrot I am doing the same I work 25 hours in a job with no progression at the moment as I'm not being put on the training courses or being given any responsibilities. So therefore I am interviewing soon for a senior post that is advertised as 22.5 hours.

I’m totally staggered by the replies on this thread
Who decided that all jobs take exactly 37.5 hours a week?
Why do people think they managers have to be overseeing their team every hour of every day?
Why are results not more important than inputs?

@WishingOnACarrot

I work 3days a week as a manager. My client list is as big as a FTE. I log in on my days off and keep things moving along. My overtime is disproportionate compared to my FTE. I've missed out on promotion. I catch up on training in my own time. Salaried so no overtime paid. I feel I'm an asset to my company who pay me 3/5of my FT salary, yet I'll be leaving to further my career. I think it'll be their loss.

I think the fact that you have to work overtime on your days off is a pretty good illustration of why the majority of managerial roles don't work for part time employees.

ohalrightthen I disagree. I have been PT for seven years. Could easily run my client list previously. I've taken on more clients recently (due to our office winning more work) and that's where the problem has arisen. My list is now bigger than it was when I worked FT. Really the firm should be employing another manager or spreading the workload more equally. But, as I say, I wont be doing it longterm as I'm no longer wanting to remain with the company. They are losing a dedicated, experienced manager who is paid 3/5FTE. They'll recruit to replace me at 5/5 salary and I bet my replacement will have the same list as me. The difference in wage cost and ERs Ni and pension of that 2/5 extra they'll pay them will be c£35-£40k.

@ceeveebee

Nobody is saying those things.

Most employers pay based on time contracted, as the results of work are not easily measurable in any other way.

For people who get more results proportionally than full-time colleagues they should push for that to be recognised. But there are hard-working people who get great results, who also happen to work full-time. Are they not more valuable than someone who is just as good but is only there 60%?

In many roles a manager is needed to oversee things and make decisions every day, or have cover when they’re off. In some cases it’s not necessary but still a slight inconvenience to have to schedule meetings around people’s days off.

I empower my team to make decisions in my absence because I am not a micro manager. Clearly anything very urgent I am contactable 24/7, as anyone in a senior leadership role would be.

There is no denying that many many people, both men and women, have successful careers on a part time basis. Did you look at the link I posted? I have been part time for 8 years and I am at the very top of my career and earn much more than I did when I was a full time 20 something.

What’s your view on non-exec directors who only work 1-2 days a month, should they have to work every day, or can they use their time effectively to contribute their skills and experience when it’s needed?

I think we are at such opposite ends of the spectrum that we won’t agree on this.

I don’t really disagree with what you’re saying that some people can be successful part-time in some roles.

On average, most jobs have a big pool of work to be done by multiple people, eg a company has 100 projects to manage. If someone works more hours then ON AVERAGE they’ll get more done, projects will move that bit faster or the project manager will be able to take on a little bit more scope. Or for sales people, on average if they work more hours they’ll sell more.

So the people who work more hours deserve more training and promotion opportunities as they’ll produce more output from the investment.

Obviously humans are on a bell curve of productivity so there will be people who end up producing more work in fewer hours. If you’re in that case, make the case for your promotion, but be prepared to say why you’re better than someone who’s there an extra day. Don’t expect your boss to ignore the fact you’re part-time. Statistically, full-time people will be promoted more than part-time assuming they all fall across the bell curve evenly.

That’s a very old school and traditional approach.
I am valued for the knowledge and strategic input that I bring; for the decisions I make and for what I lead and inspire others to do, rather then what I “do” myself. And that does not require me to be there 5 days a week
. We advertise every role as available flexibly or part time, and why we promote people finir the talent, potential and capability they have, not how many widgets they make...

I'm the product owner in an Agile structure for an in house IT team. We have a developer who works part time and is unhappy she's not getting exposure to more challenging work. The issue is the business need their improvements delivered ASAP. If we need to workshop requirements or showcase on days she doesn't work because it's the only day we can get the majority of the key stakeholders together due to their schedules (as opposed to PT working) she can't partake, there's just not the continuity and we don't deliver to standard or on time.

She's a good developer but often when a bug arises it needs fixing there and then and if she's not around, someone else will pick up and follow through, then their name gets known and they become the go to person.

A few senior roles do work compressed hours and if I schedule something during the time they don't work (because I can't keep track of who works when) then more often than not they'll join in.

Thank youuuuu! All this bullshit about how XYZ disadvantages women - no, it disadvantages women who let the fathers of their kids get away with doing fuck all. If you choose an equal partner in parenting, your disadvantage shrinks remarkably.

Yet another thread full of people who don't understand how deeply ingrained societal expectations and structural barriers impact women's ability to participate and progress in the labour market.....

So depressing.

Instead of blaming women for choosing poor partners ( if only it were that simple) and choosing to work part time ( again, not that simple) we should be addressing and challenging the expectations and barriers women face - especially when they have a child.

I work in the public sector and this isn't the case, part time and flexible working are common, we have part time managers and senior leaders. However if you work half time it will take you twice as long to have the same experience as someone full time. I chose to consolidate full time over 4 days and do did DH (also public sector) it gave us two fewer days to need childcare, and neither of us is disadvantaged in our careers. I got promoted while on mat leave and DH has just completed a professional post grad which has led to his impending promotion.
However the people I know who are part time and have been promoted are also flexible they aren't running out of the door at exactly 2:30 each day and if training arises on a nwd they make other arrangements/swap days and attend, as do I and DH

I had what I thought was a great partner. He had an affair and left, leaving me quite literally holding the baby. He then took a job that involved lots of travel.

Typically industries dominated by women pay less (care, health and beauty vs building, automotive for example). This adds to the National gender pay gap and endures for the statistical majority of couples it makes more sense for the woman to work PT.

It’s great for you if you’ve got a great husband who hasn’t you know, left or died or become seriously ill. But don’t toss your hair and screw over the women who are 74% more likely to work PT than their male peers due to structural elements of our society. Promotions can be job shared or worked PT- any industry refusing to consider this for any post at all is guilty of indirect sex discrimination

But don’t toss your hair and screw over the women who are 74% more likely to work PT than their male peers due to structural elements of our society.

Yep ... this.

[quote joyfuldee]**@Ohalrightthen* @NailsNeedDoing* I have an interview coming up that is a senior role and it's 22.5 hours per week managing a caseload of patients. So it can be done. [/quote]
Of course some roles are part time, but just because some roles can be done part time doesn’t mean they all should be, or even can be.

You may well find that an entire caseload of patients can’t be comfortably managed on 22.5 hours a week though.

Promotions can be job shared or worked PT- any industry refusing to consider this for any post at all is guilty of indirect sex discrimination

But why should companies be obliged to spend double the time and money and effort in recruiting and training two people when they could do it for one and end up with the same amount of productivity?

Businesses don’t exist as a convenience to provide employees with any chosen working hours, they exist to make money.

My company is very small, so we actually have complementary small senior roles or specialities. And it's much easier to afford a step up for someone if you only have to pay 80% FTE.

I have a great relationship with our CEO, and even told him that he didn't need to worry about my salary hike for long, because I planned to reduce hours soon, kids or not. He works 3 days himself.

Small companies can be great for this sort of thing. There's very little seniority in my company but a lot of specialism. That might frustrate someone for whom more people to manage or more seniority is important, but we view progress as value-added activity, not a leg up the hierarchy.

(It didn't used to be like that, and the behaviour between management levels and within management levels was absolutely toxic - and I HATED managing people. Progress, IMO, should be about your skill contribution and ability to manage yourself, not nanny other colleagues.)

Part time only really works if it's a job that can wait on their day off or a decent job share is put in place. It's a pain in the arse having to do someone else's job because something has come up on their day off.

It's just sensible to consider whether a part timer is going to be able to actually fulfil a role on their days or if they will have to be carried by other members of staff.

I agree that jobshare is a brilliant way to manage this and progress - but in order to avoid the pitfalls that others have mentioned above, the jobshare partnership have to really be committed to making it work for their organisation i.e. not spending hours of work time on handovers, never double handling etc. Done right it can bring big benefits to the organisation as well.

But why should companies be obliged to spend double the time and money and effort in recruiting and training two people when they could do it for one and end up with the same amount of productivity?
Businesses don’t exist as a convenience to provide employees with any chosen working hours, they exist to make money.

While I understand that not all roles are suited to part time work a good organisation will understand the benefits of a diverse workplace.

By not considering part time or job shares you are putting women at disproportionate disadvantage and making it difficult for more men to undertake flexible work - which is one of the key things we need to happen for women to gain equality.
While full time work is seen as the only way to succeed and progress men will continue to dominate due to the barriers and structural inequalities imposed by society

I think it depends on the sector.

I have mainly worked for charities and part-time working is very common with these organisations. Often because many third sector organisations can't afford to have everyone on full time contracts...

I have held manager and head of team roles while working part-time without any problems. I also worked as part of a job-share.

There are definitely less vacancies going for senior part time roles but they do exist.

Can I also remind some of the posters above that it is illegal/discriminatory for an employer to offer less opportunities for training and promotion to an employee simply because they are part-time or to offer them less favourable pay/benefits and so on...

The idea that work needs to be 9 to 5 and full time was already pretty silly before Covid.

Now I think more people grasp the fact that flexible work patterns and working from home can also be beneficial for both employee and employer.