Jobs with few hours that want massive flexibility

[Realii]

I keep looking at jobs, part-time and with pretty low hours that want massive flexibility. For example one wants 15hrs but presence at meetings that can be any day of the week as part of that. Others have totally unfixed shifts.
I used to easily get 2/3 jobs sometimes, and fit a few around each other. This seems impossible in the modern job markets. So many seem to not offer hours, yet feel they are buying you.
Is it just me?

I always take complaints about employees being unreliable with a pinch of salt .

The expectations are often so bizarre these days for low wages and poor conditions.

I'm always amazed for this reason at the insistence on some MN threads that teenagers must have a 'Saturday job' and that if they don't they're lazy and destined to fail. Maybe it's different in different areas but in my area no one wants a teenager who can only do weekends and the jobs that were done by sixth formers when I was one are now all done by people who are very clearly adults. The job market has changed, and very much not for the better.

@Hardbackwriter I've been saying this for ages. The part-time job market has changed so much.

We live quite rurally, but there's a tourist attraction that was always the rite of passage of village teens at the weekends and in the school holidays.

Now those jobs are filled by adults, and a lot of the jobs that don't involve a lot of energy like ticket collecting and the likes are taken by people who would have previously been retired by now.

They don't want teenagers who have restricted hours because of their age or school/uni commitments.

Even paper rounds are done by older people round here now because it doesn't matter if the papers are late in when the paperboy doesn't need to dash off to school.

I employ people through the NHS bank and I ask for people's availability and then offer them shifts based on that. If I am short staffed I would contact someone else but if they said no then so be it.

I didn't realise that this isn't the norm for zero hour contracts.

@YouReallyAre

I employ people through the NHS bank and I ask for people's availability and then offer them shifts based on that. If I am short staffed I would contact someone else but if they said no then so be it.

I didn't realise that this isn't the norm for zero hour contracts.

I think that is the case with most zero hour contracts.

However, there are many PT jobs that work on a rota basis. They want you to be available 40 hours a week when they can only offer say 10hours a week. You can't just turn down a shift as it's not zero hour contract. That's the problem.

[quote NotOfThisWorld]@PolkadotGiraffe

I absolutely agree. Sorry didn't mean to imply it was OK. This is why we still need laws to protect workers. Even when discrimination is inadvertant it's still a massive problem.[/quote]
Oh no, I wasn't implying that at all. It was clear you weren't happy with the situation either. I was just agreeing with you really about how disgraceful it is that companies can still do this stuff because they can get away with it, because the law is not enforced. And nobody without very deep pockets can afford to enforce it so it is effectively redundant.

@Goosefoot I agree with your post too. I just meant there are legal grounds to challenge this from an equality point of view whereas sadly, our Government has not given us legal grounds to be able to challenge it on terms of general unacceptability and unreasonableness. Which is definitely a problem in itself.

Also @Goosefoot that job probably wouldn't work for a working mum at all, as the PP said the partners wanted the 3 hours per day ad hoc whenever suited their diary. So if the meetings they wanted covered some days were from 3-6pm that would be a nightmare for a working mum.

@PolkadotGiraffe

Also *@Goosefoot* that job probably wouldn't work for a working mum at all, as the PP said the partners wanted the 3 hours per day ad hoc whenever suited their diary. So if the meetings they wanted covered some days were from 3-6pm that would be a nightmare for a working mum.

I am pretty sure she meant that the employee could configure the three hours per day how she wanted for that job. The HR people thought it wouldn't appeal to anyone.

It was the first job she described where the managers thought they should be able to set the hours depending on when they wanted to meet from week to week, and the poster was trying to convince them that wasn't a reasonable way to set up the job.

I'm not in the UK, but I'm finding the same thing here. They seem to expect people to just sit and wait for the phone to ring on the slim chance that they might be required for a few hours, it's ridiculous. I don't mind being flexible if I have a sensible amount of notice of when I'm required, but I'm not cancelling everything else I could be doing just for a few hours at minimum wage.

@Goosefoot no, I believe she said that she had planned it to be that way then the senior partners said immediately that these three hours would need to be fitted around their diaries and meetings at their convenience and their incomprehension when she tried to explain why this would not work for most people that might otherwise have been interested in the role.

Yes the first one was the one that was 3 hours per day/ 15 hours per week... the one we were discussing!

Yes, two separate jobs - the first is 15 hours per week which everyone agreed could be worked in any configuration (i.e. 2 x 7.5 hour days, 5 x 3 hours or anything in-between) but now the senior partners on the project want the person to change their hours at the drop of a hat to accommodate their availability rather than set meetings at the same point every week to fit that person's schedule. So we wouldn't be asking the person to do any more than the 15 hours but it's now expected that they will chop and change their working patterns to suit the company with very little notice. I'll be line-managing this role and am doing everything I can to put my foot down because it's a rubbish way to treat people.

The second job is unrelated and I included this as a counterpoint to the problem. I also realised there was a typo in my original post - sorry - it is 25 hours per week. This person needs to be in 5 days per week but can do 5 reduced days, several long and a couple short, whatever they want so long as we have their presence every day. But HR won't let me say this as we need to be a "fully flexible employer" My point is that we know there is a degree of inflexibility with this particular role so why pretend otherwise and waste some applicants' time while potentially not reaching those for whom this would work well?

I have a regular argument with my higher ups at work. We're contracted for a set amount of hours across a 7 day week and the managers want the rota to be changed every week so people don't get too set in their ways. So one week you could work Monday and Tuesday and the next Thursday and Sunday.
My point is that if you book a weekly yoga class or something you wouldn't know if you can actually attend which is fucking stupid. How can you plan a life when you never know when you'll be at work!?

I'm the one that writes the rotas though so guess what? 😁
It's the easiest part of my job- copy and paste 😂😂

Some management are just ridiculously petty as well. DS1 had a job in a care home last year. He worked a set 6 hour shift on Monday, Thursday and Saturday. Another person did the same set 6 hour shift Tue, Wed, Fri, and Sunday.

When DS's uni days changed he asked if there was any chance of swapping Thursday for Friday. The woman who did the other days instantly said she'd love the Friday off both because it would give her three days in a row off and because her partner didn't work Fridays.

The bosses said no. In the end DS left to work in another care home as working a Thursday just didn't fit with his uni hours. The bosses had a real go at him for his lack of loyalty and said they couldn't have staff changing rotas "left, right and centre" even though when they took him on they said there was a lot of flexibility

I work part-time (3 days a week) due to health issues and have done so for almost 15 years now.

I have always made it clear to employers that I want to work on set days/times and will only be available on these agreed days rather than accepting roles where they say you need to be available whenever they need you...

There is no advantage to you of being paid a part-time salary but expected to be available all the time. It only benefits the employer.

Anytime an employer tried to get me to do something on another day I declined. They soon get the message.

Most people who work part-time do so because they have other commitments (family, running a business on the side, health considerations) and you need to be able to meet those too.