To ask why are part time workers disliked?

[CherryCocoa]

I've recently returned to work but part time. It would appear that a lot of people higher than me are not keen on part time workers but I don't understand why? I work hard, I am conscientious, none of my work is passed to anyone else, but yet I'm still looked down on for being part time. Is it seen as lazy maybe? I work 30+ hours a week, I have a baby to look after and a house to run and obviously my pay is pro rata to account for less hours. I'm not a lazy person at all. I just don't get it, can anyone shed the light for me please?

I worked part time for 16 years and never came across any hostility.

There are many people who are contracted to work full time who still have to leave at a specific hour in order to do nursery pickup etc. My husband does this 2 days a week- finishes at 4.30 to collect our son, then logs back on later in the evening if he has any work to finish. It is simply not the case that full timers do not understand (or have) childcare responsibility. Conversely it is not true that every part-timer has to leave at a specific time.

What people are mixing up here is flexible working arrangements whereby someone has it written into their contract that they have to leave earlier than their colleagues, and part time working where a person works fewer than 5 days a week. Within that there are multiple permutations.

In my view employers can slice and dice this however they want, but it is perfectly fair that those who put in the extra hours (by which I mean working beyond their contracted hours) should be paid more, either as a bonus or higher salary. I can see that where a part timer earns pro rata exactly what the full timer does, but the part timer works their contracted hours only and get full timer does the extra, that would be unfair. Full timers can work to rule and part timers can work beyond their contracted hours. It’s up to the employer to ensure that the relative rewards reflect this.

Lola, management is not omnipresent and omnipotent. They can set the rules but it still depends on the individual staff to comply in good faith and have some give and take. If pt-ers don't pull their pro-rata weight, the ft-ers who care about the outcome pick up the slack unless they also boycott in which case the whole company suffers.
They don't have to be omnipresent or omnipotent.

They do have to manage their team in a way that is effective because that's their job and it's what they are paid to do.

In the PP situation, based on what they say:
Some staff (mainly full time) are being pushed into doing lots of overtime
Some staff (mainly full time) are being stuck with tasks that take them repeatedly over their hours
Some staff (mainly part time) are able to get all the easier tasks
Some staff (part time) are apparently able to get easier tasks by 'crying and whining' (though given that posters evident contempt for her part time colleagues that could easily mean they have stood their ground that they can't do X because they finish at 2.30 and have to pick their children up, which is entirely their right).
The team apparently manages their workload between themselves though based on PP the team clearly isn't managing otherwise they'd not be in this situation. The PP seems to think this is grounds for being pissed off at part time staff though.

So either:
A) Management haven't a clue what is going on in their team, in which case they need to do a better job and be in the loop a bit more
Or
B) Management do know what is going on and they are entirely accepting the current situation, in which case they are ineffective because there's people like the PP who are understandably annoyed at having to always pick up the slack.
Or
C) It's not as bad as PP suggests and they simply have a bee in their bonnet about how they think part time staff don't pull their weight

The PP said she spoke to management about the situation and they didn't care and told her she should go part time if it's an issue. It's a terrible and dismissive response.

So, assuming everything they say is true (and there's no reason to doubt it),it absolutely IS a management issue.

I don't see why PP is directing her anger at part time colleagues for not working beyond their hours because it 'isn't fair' that she does, when the whole situation is a systemic management failure.

No, they shouldn't hire them at all if it really is impossible to do a good job on part time hours in that place, as so many people are claiming. In other words, don't blame the part timers if your organisation can't handle it no matter how good they are. Blame the management who does think it's possible and offers and pays for part time roles.

I'm part time.

I would love not to hire pt-ers. It would make my life as a manager so much easier. Your comment does not take into account the fact that there are managers who accommodate flex working applications as a favour to the employee (hence, why it is easier to get pt-working once in an organisation) even though what the business really needs are ft-ers. Managers can be decent people to try to make it work even if their industry or the business does not suit it.

By your logic, if a ft-er within an industry that does not support pt working suddenly finds themselves needing pt hours, they would never be able to find a job in their industry again. How is that in the pt-er's interest. I think pt-ers need to grow thicker skin, speaking as someone who was previously pt and grateful for that respite whilst my dcs were young.

Lola you must be a wonderful manager. You make it sound so easy.

Isn't this conflating two different things, employees with caring responsibilities and part-time workers?

Probably, but it wasn't me who did so. I was responding to previous posts regarding those who leave earlier than the end of the working day when there are still "2 hours to go". Not for part timers there aren't. It makes no odds to me if the rest of the office works til 5pm or 8pm - I still can't stay!

Lola you must be a wonderful manager. You make it sound so easy
It's not easy and very few managers get things perfectly right, me included.

It doesn't take much common sense (regardless of whether someone is a manager or not) to realise that a team:

• where tasks are a Hunger Games style free for all
• where there's no logical assessment on allocating tasks to employees

-where full time colleagues consider it crying and whining and lazy when part time colleagues (shock horror) want to do their hours -where a manager tells a team member who raises concerns to suck it up or go part time

isn't a well managed or well functioning team.

Even if the PP was exaggerating the situation (though we have no reason to suggest she is), to tell an employee to suck it up or go part time is poor management and only further entrenches unduely negative feelings towards part time colleagues. It probably suits the manager to have their staff bitching between themselves than themselves because it reduces the likelihood of a united team expecting to be led.

managers who accommodate flex working applications as a favour to the employee (hence, why it is easier to get pt-working once in an organisation) even though what the business really needs are ft-ers. Managers can be decent people to try to make it work even if their industry or the business does not suit it.

So, management failure. If part time working is incompatible with the business, blame the managers responsible for deciding to accommodate it to everyone's detriment as a "favour" to an individual. They sign off the contracts and expense. Don't blame the person offering part time hours, blame the one who makes the business decision to take them when it isn't compatible with what the business needs.

I can offer my services as a juggler to a hedge fund; if that turns out to be incompatible with the business, don't blame me for offering to turn up and juggle every day for £50k. Blame the manager who decided to pay me to do it as a favour to me.

Often it is not so clear cut whether or not an industry or role is compatible with pt working.

If it were slam-dunk, I would agree why bother. Very easy to turn down flex working applications for 'business reasons'. As a manager, I will be able to get away with that legally.

What happens more often than not is that pt arrangements CAN work if everyone, including the pt-er is prepared to give-and-take. This could include the pt-er working over their hours some days, just as ft-ers would have to. If everyone works to rule and ignores the ebb and flows of business needs, then it makes sense not to hire pt-ers at all. I am fine with that too. I suspect the 2 pt-ers who report to me will not be so keen, since currently I am the one arranging for cover, which includes myself working out-of hours, to make up for their (unpaid) absence. I would love to work to rule. Wonder what my manager will say.

I can offer my services as a juggler to a hedge fund

This is an absurd example. Surely real life is a lot more nuanced.

@LolaSmiles I can see that you are most definitely the sort of PTer I work with. Inflexible and so militant about your work hour everyone else be damned! People like you understand the work has to be done by someone, just not you. That's why FTers are always the ones doing extra hours and being off late. The work needs doing but just not by you. And some people wonder why most FT dislike PTers.

blueshoes
Yes they're being absurd, but they're right. If managers are granting part time to people to carry favour when there's likely to be a substantial negative effect then the buck rests with the manager.

Too often people seem willing to turn on their colleagues and have good old moan about part time staff rather than ask difficult questions of managers.

Give and take is all well and good but too often give and take seems to mean managers taking with very little give, and then colleagues turn on each other if anyone doesn't want to be taken advantage of.

@LolaSmiles I can see that you are most definitely the sort of PTer I work with. Inflexible and so militant about your work hour everyone else be damned! People like you understand the work has to be done by someone, just not you. That's why FTers are always the ones doing extra hours and being off late. The work needs doing but just not by you. And some people wonder why most FT dislike PTers.
You've come to that decision because I think MANAGERS should MANAGE their teams in an appropriate way instead of expecting colleagues to fight it out between themselves?

Your perspective is weird. I think managers should manage their teams appropriately and that everyone (full or part time) has the right to work appropriate hours, but this is apparently militant
It's really quite concerning how quickly colleagues are willing to turn on each other.

If there's a pinch point then the MANAGERS need to manage. They need to look at their teams, staff strengths, staff hours, the tasks available and MANAGE. That is what they are paid for. If managers are managing effectively then there is reasonable give and take from all people, and in my experience people are willing to be flexible. If managers don't manage effectively and promote a free for all then the team lacks cohesion and people become resentful and unwilling, especially if the employer is taking more than giving.

But of course, it's so unreasonable of me to think that managers should manage their teams and they get out what they put in.

P.s. I'm part time, a manager, and regularly volunteer to do additional things, because my managers understand how to manage properly. There's give and take on all sides.

@LolaSmiles you keep talking about it's a deficiency in management and on our team the management tell us then the task is ready to go and then we are supposed to work out the best people to work on those tasks we are in effect managing ourselves our direct management would have no or very little say in who works on the task.
Luckily today the one hardworking PTer on our team took the ballacher of the tasks so I could put my 5 and 7 year old to bed tonight. First time in a week I have been able to do this as one of our PTers is off with stress due to being told she had to work over Christmas even though she hasn't worked one for 4 years.

@LolaSmiles you keep talking about it's a deficiency in management and on our team the management tell us then the task is ready to go and then we are supposed to work out the best people to work on those tasks we are in effect managing ourselves our direct management would have no or very little say in who works on the task.
Luckily today the one hardworking PTer on our team took the ballacher of the tasks so I could put my 5 and 7 year old to bed tonight. First time in a week I have been able to do this as one of our PTers is off with stress due to being told she had to work over Christmas even though she hasn't worked one for 4 years
The reason I'm saying it's a management issue is because the way things are currently allocated clearly isn't working!

Your management are throwing tasks to you all and telling you to fight it out between yourselves.

If this approach was working then you'd not be picking up all the overtime and feeling resentful.

You've said yourself you raised it with management and they basically didn't care and told you to go part time if it mattered that much. That isn't good management.

You can keep telling me how things are currently done as much as you like, but the fact is it clearly isn't working and that means the person responsible for the team has a duty to step in. Their inaction is leading to disproportionately workloads for some workers (such as you), and resentment within the team. This is not the fault of part time workers.

@wellthatsunusual

I've never worked anywhere that the part time workers refuse to work a minute over their paid hours whilst the full time workers are doing loads of unpaid overtime. It sometimes seems to be expected that if you are part time you can take on the workload of a full time staff member but magically fit it into fewer hours.

Basically, anywhere I have worked with strong leadership, there is no resentment towards part timers. Anywhere with poor management, the full timers resent the part timers, the part timers resent the full timers and everyone resents the management.

This is very true I think, I have worked 18hpw since and imbetween having kids (x3) worked over two long days and 1:4 weekends plus an out of hours on call rota for at least 5 years. This was on a job share with another mum who did the same on two other days. There is no way on earth that my employer would have found a full timer willing to do 4 long days a week and 1:2 weekends and on call.

Our manager used to complain about employing part-time parents despite the fact we barely ever took time off, worked through our lunch breaks and stayed late to finish the work because you wouldn’t be in the next day to finish it. There is also a certain applied efficiency which comes with experienced staff and (dare I say it), the multi-tasking/time management skills of a busy mum. Also we stuck around and took a lot a bad treatment because arranging working hours with corresponding childcare which fits around DH work was not easy so you are kind of trapped there.

Since we both left they have struggled to staff that job at all, they have lost loyal clients and only seem to find inexperienced locums to work the shifts.

I now work somewhere where almost everyone is part time, mature ladies with families or horses. It’s lovely and we all help each other out, cover shifts and holidays where we can and are mostly appreciated for doing so.

I now work somewhere where almost everyone is part time, mature ladies with families or horses. It’s lovely and we all help each other out, cover shifts and holidays where we can and are mostly appreciated for doing so.
Same here, only with a mix of full and part timers. There is a good culture and everyone respects the fact everyone has a life outside of work. There's give and take on all sides and I genuinely believe that is because the ethos is right at the top.

The only time I have ever felt resentment as both a full and part time member of staff is when management has been poor.

IME the biggest frustration I've seen with part time workers are the ones who go on and on about their work life balance and how important it is to them - which gets irritating to colleagues who have to work FT. Everyone's life work balance is important but not everyone has a husband to cover your reduction in salary by dropping to part time.

Also important to point out that while part time workers take home less overall, an employee doing 0.6 fte on 50k (pro rata) makes more per hour than her Fulltime counterpart on 50k due to differences in tax/tax bracket. So actually that is something colleagues could feel resentful about.

To follow my last post a worker on 50k ft makes take home after tax £144.77. The part time person on the same pro rata salary on the days they work take home £154.10.

So it is a bit frustrating if the part timer never does additional hours or leaves right on the dot of 5 when the full timer is expected to work long hours - especially when the part timer makes more per day!

@Waferbiscuit

To follow my last post a worker on 50k ft makes take home after tax £144.77. The part time person on the same pro rata salary on the days they work take home £154.10.

So it is a bit frustrating if the part timer never does additional hours or leaves right on the dot of 5 when the full timer is expected to work long hours - especially when the part timer makes more per day!

That’s the best argument for pt working on the thread tbh.

Yes, that is a great argument for PT working and one of the reasons I do it. It's not like the information is secret. An evening with a calculator and you can work out the best way forward. You do have to not care too much about climbing the greasy pole though.

@blueshoes

Often it is not so clear cut whether or not an industry or role is compatible with pt working.

If it were slam-dunk, I would agree why bother. Very easy to turn down flex working applications for 'business reasons'. As a manager, I will be able to get away with that legally.

What happens more often than not is that pt arrangements CAN work if everyone, including the pt-er is prepared to give-and-take. This could include the pt-er working over their hours some days, just as ft-ers would have to. If everyone works to rule and ignores the ebb and flows of business needs, then it makes sense not to hire pt-ers at all. I am fine with that too. I suspect the 2 pt-ers who report to me will not be so keen, since currently I am the one arranging for cover, which includes myself working out-of hours, to make up for their (unpaid) absence. I would love to work to rule. Wonder what my manager will say.

Well, again, whose responsibility is it to work out whether part time workers would be beneficial or at least compatible with this business? Who's responsible for making changes if it turns out that they're not?

You keep trying to blame part timers for the fact that management hires part timers. It is like blaming a juggler for being employed at a hedge fund because their juggling skills aren't useful to the company or compatible with the low-hanging chandeliers. If the type of work on offer isn't beneficial even when the workers do the job fine, management shouldn't be deciding to pay people to do it. It's a management issue. If a woman asks to go part time after having baby, again, it's up to management to make the call. If they think she's a great worker and want to keep her by allowing it, that's up to them. She obviously impressed them enough as a full timer and presumably remains accountable.

Part time work is notoriously difficult to come by, partly because it often is not compatible with a business, so I'm grateful that I'm able to do it. If anyone has a problem with me being part time, they need to speak to the board. The position was advertised as part time. That was their business decision, not mine.

That's why FTers are always the ones doing extra hours and being off late.

Absolute poppycock.
As I said before, if that happens where you work, then tackle it. Don't think for a minute that is universal.

Everyone's life work balance is important but not everyone has a husband to cover your reduction in salary by dropping to part time.

I think that's very simplistic. The cost of childcare means that full time work is more expensive for many people than part time work. Which is fine if you have a great career with a high salary, you're only taking a hit for a few years and you suck it up, and you benefit in the long term. If you're in the position where the cost of full time childcare what do you live on in the meantime? A lot of people, possibly even the majority, don't have the option of working for a negative return, even if it is only for a few years. So they do their sums and they choose the option that works for them, which is sometimes part time.

Waferbiscuit
But the tax brackets are set by the government and surely most people of working age can, or should be able to, assess on what's right for them.

For example, I saw a job advertised for the same sort of position I have now but was paid on a different pay scale. The overall pay was the same but the terms and conditions on the advertised payscale are worse than my current position. When job hunting and moving between full and part time the first thing I've always done is work out what my take home pay would be. It's surely a standard thing to do.

A part time salaried worker is paid less because they are doing a salaried role and are paid pro-rata. If because of tax codes (due to their salary being pro rata-ed) they end up better off then good for them. It's no different to someone choosing not to take a role that pushes them the other side of the higher tax income bracket, or would mean they lose tax credits etc

If the role is hourly paid then the full time and part time people get the same hourly rate.

What's the alternative? Tell salaried part time people that their pay gets decreased more than the percentage hours they've dropped because some full timers think it's unfair that the part time worker falls into a lower tax threshold (which they only do because they've dropped their hours and pay)?