Part time hours...

[blueberry12345]

Returning to work next year, and have requested to work 3 days a week with one from home.

Work have said that 3 days a week in my role won't work, they're happy to allow me to work 3 days for the initial return to work period of 3 months but then I will need to increase to 4.

In a global company like mine I'm sure someone else must be doing my role successfully on 3 days a week. Do they have to tell me if I ask this?

Also they are being very non committal about a day at home - saying it'll be dependent on performance etc etc.

I basically feel that it's a pain in the arse for them me returning part time and they'd rather keep my (male) maternity cover on in the post (full time).

Am I being unreasonable to request that I'm made aware of any other mums in the company doing my role on 3 day weeks?

Exceptionally common for private employers to refuse to part time working requests. 3 days really is not very much if you were previously full time. And I can’t see how it’s relevant or even helpful if you find out if others have been granted 3 days per week. In my experience it’s only top talent that might get their approval granted and/or industries where it’s the norm (eg public sector). Perhaps look for another job.

OP it’s not very clear why you think the role you previously did FT, and which has been covered FT during your leave, is actually possible to do 3/5 without any adverse impact on the business.

Not sure why this concept is so difficult for so many posters today.

I think it is reasonable to presume that the money the company save by only paying 3/5 of the OP's salary, will be used to pay others to pick up the work she won't be doing. Now, depends on the job, obviously, that could be another person of same level and skills, just taking on 2/5 of the workload, or in other cases, it might be to employ someone at a lower grade for more of the time, to support with a lot of admin or "less skilled" tasks that the OP currently does as part of her role.
I know we are all thinking of different jobs here, but it really isn't that difficult to imagine the company being able to find a solution if it wants to retain the OP, and also to attract other skilled, experienced people who, for a myriad of reasons don't want to work FT at the moment.

In a global company like mine I'm sure someone else must be doing my role successfully on 3 days a week. Do they have to tell me if I ask this?

No. Other peoples' working arrangements are nothing to do with you. Besides, just because it works for Jane Bloggs, it doesn't mean that it's going to work for you as well.

Also they are being very non committal about a day at home - saying it'll be dependent on performance etc etc.

I suspect they're worried that you'll try and WFH with no childcare in place in order to save money.

I basically feel that it's a pain in the arse for them me returning part time and they'd rather keep my (male) maternity cover on in the post (full time).

Or you could go back full-time. Part-time work doesn't work for all roles and can often cost companies more money as they need to recruit someone else (and pay another load of NI etc.) to cover the days you're off.

Am I being unreasonable to request that I'm made aware of any other mums in the company doing my role on 3 day weeks?

Yes.

I have known someone win the right to flexible working on appeal due to being able to show other people in the workplace had been granted the same thing she'd just been turned down for. So I would be keen to know if other people do this, though I'm not sure who I could ask in your shoes (it was very obvious in our workplace who was part time).
I would ask your union for advice.

I know we are all thinking of different jobs here, but it really isn't that difficult to imagine the company being able to find a solution if it wants to retain the OP, and also to attract other skilled, experienced people who, for a myriad of reasons don't want to work FT at the moment.

It costs more to have two PT workers, though, as the company has to pay two lots of NI, pension etc.

Isn't that pro rata? I don't know - but I know I make reduced NI and pension payments from my own salary so wouldn't it be the same for employers?

If you feel like they’d rather have the full time employee over the part time one, then you’re probably right and there will be a reason for it. Some jobs are just better done by a full time employee and there are valid reasons why it’s preferable for a company to want to employ one person instead of two.

It’s something that definitely contributes to the difficulties women often have when they have children and want to work, but it’s the way it is.

I agree recruiting 2 day posts is really hard. Actually 3 days isn't that easy either. It suits people while DC are very small and then they want more hours or school hours and you've already got someone to fill the other half of their FT job.. So it's short term and then one way or another you're recruiting again.

OP you need to concentrate on showing how your FT role can be done in 3 days and forget about wfh for now. Look at it from the employer's pov. You want to be paid for 3 days but actually you don't really want to be there for the third...Maybe you can make it work from home but I don't blame them for wanting to know you can make it work PT first.

I don't think we should accept that "that's just the way it is".
Employers may well not want to employ women due to risk of maternity leave. They may not want a woman who's had one child as likely they will have a second. They are more likely to want to work part time. We need a society that accepts that equality actually matters and that children (and the people who have them) are a social responsibility not just a personal one.

You need to put a case to them as to how you will make a full-time role work as part-time with one day at home. The onus is on you.

I think it is reasonable to presume that the money the company save by only paying 3/5 of the OP's salary, will be used to pay others to pick up the work she won't be doing. Now, depends on the job, obviously, that could be another person of same level and skills, just taking on 2/5 of the workload, or in other cases, it might be to employ someone at a lower grade for more of the time, to support with a lot of admin or "less skilled" tasks that the OP currently does as part of her role.

It might be reasonable to presume that's how it should work, but it isn't how it does work in my experience. When people go part-time they either are expected to shuffle their work into less time or other team members pick it up (or both). Job shares are quite unusual in my personal experience. Obviously that will vary for different employers, sectors, etc. but it certainly isn't the case that an employer would always use the money 'saved' in the way you suggest. Quite often the employer would really rather the employee didn't go part-time and sees letting them do it at all as a big concession.

Work have said that 3 days a week in my role won't work, they're happy to allow me to work 3 days for the initial return to work period of 3 months but then I will need to increase to 4.

Personally I'd accept this, try my absolute best to make it work in these three months and then apply again for the reduction from four to three days, pointing out the evidence that it works. At this point I think it becomes harder for them to argue against - three months is long enough that it's hard to see why it would be ok for then but not for longer.

@DreamerSeven

You can’t use the fact someone else works part-time to justify how it will work for your particular role. And someone else’s flexible working arrangements shouldn’t be disclosed without their consent. You need to focus on countering the business reasons your employers must provide to explain why their decision is wrong.

In my experience this is the only way to get adjustments at time - they have allowed someone else to do xyz so why are they refusing for you to do it?

You need to be clear why you want the WFH day. If it's so your child can be with you it won't work. I'm guessing that's why they're saying it's dependent on performance.

It depends on your specific role and the circumstances of it. Even if someone else does it in 3 days, it isn't a case of 'they can do it, so you must let me', because each request has to be looked at on its own merits eg in a simple example - if you have 4 in a team, one drops their hours to 3 days, and a year later person 2 also requests 3 days. Person 2 could be declined because person 1 doing it means that they can't reallocate the work of 4 full time roles amongst the team with 2 part timers. Yes they have to consider job shares etc but they can't force person 1 to change to accommodate person 2, so it may be a no

@LivinginWFHlimbo

Work have said that 3 days a week in my role won't work, they're happy to allow me to work 3 days for the initial return to work period of 3 months but then I will need to increase to 4.

Personally I'd accept this, try my absolute best to make it work in these three months and then apply again for the reduction from four to three days, pointing out the evidence that it works. At this point I think it becomes harder for them to argue against - three months is long enough that it's hard to see why it would be ok for then but not for longer.

Agree 100% with this. You have a chance to show them you can make three days work. Come back to the WFH later.

@LivinginWFHlimbo

Work have said that 3 days a week in my role won't work, they're happy to allow me to work 3 days for the initial return to work period of 3 months but then I will need to increase to 4.

Personally I'd accept this, try my absolute best to make it work in these three months and then apply again for the reduction from four to three days, pointing out the evidence that it works. At this point I think it becomes harder for them to argue against - three months is long enough that it's hard to see why it would be ok for then but not for longer.

This is a really useful post!

Yes you are unreasonable to ask for the working arrangements of other mums, not least why just mums and not other part time workers! In any case it is none of your business and furthermore not relevant to your request for part time hours. Just because an organisation can accommodate one request doesn’t mean they have to accommodate every request. Even within the same team, maybe I have a team of ten and agree that one person can go part time, it doesn’t mean I can (or must) agree the other nine all go part time too.

You need to focus on your own request and how it would work for the business. There are eight legitimate reasons a business can turn down a request so I would look them up and then base your business case around them, effectively eliminating all as reasons to decline your request.

Truthfully, I think you have asked a lot of many employers though. Going from five days in the office to two days in the office and one at home would be a large adjustment and I am wondering if you have made it clear you will have childcare in place for the at home day too. If not, I would make sure you have done this.

@AndMatt

I was at risk of losing my job once because the "other half" of my PT role left and they basically CBA to try and find a replacement. I was offered the choice of going FT or redundancy (which was apparently OK because the PT role was redundant, they needed someone FT).

Anyway, when I asked for data on the number of women employed at my level in the company (which was very poor at the time) they backed right down and decided I would keep the PT role. They actually appointed a FT man to fill the gap left by my PT colleague.

I think just letting them know I wasn't going quietly was enough.

That said, you have no automatic right to have your flexible working request met, you need to show how it will work for the company (and one reason may be to retain women). Part time is still a discrimination issue because it overwhelmingly affects women.

You didn’t need to go into the stats on women workers. You cannot legally be made redundant because there is an abundance of work and you work insufficient hours. Redundancy relates to a lack of work, so that would have have been an unfair dismissal.

Also I think the assumption on here that wfh is so that the OP can save on childcare is unfair. OP may be very committed to her job but just wants more flexibility.

I’m going back FT after maternity leave and will have 2 days a week wfh.

The wfh days mean that my baby doesn’t need to be dropped off a nursery until 8.45 on those days instead of 7.45 AND it means it can be me who collects him. I won’t save any money on the start time it’s just nicer for baby to have a less rushed morning.

Nursery shuts at 6pm and my job finishes at 5:30, I physically can’t get home fast enough to collect unless I work from home.

@Drunkpanda

Isn't that pro rata? I don't know - but I know I make reduced NI and pension payments from my own salary so wouldn't it be the same for employers?

It is, but it still costs more overall to have two PT employees on your books than it does to have one FT employee, both in terms of money and time.

When I recruited in retail, some of the issues we had were:

Double the uniform costs.
Double the time spent training (and double the costs involved, as we sent people away on training courses - so 2 x travel costs, 2 x hotel rooms, 2 x food allowances)
People wanting a certain number of days per week - recruiting for a 2x day a week position was next to impossible as it wasn't enough money for most people to make it worth while.

@Kite22

We do quite a few school hours arrangements, but 3 days means someone's not there when you need them almost half the week.

Unless the company employs someone to do the other 2/5 of the week, which is what I assume the OP is assuming would happen. Then you have people to cover all the work. It really isn't that strange a concept. I presume the OP isn't saying "I normally only put in about 3/5 of the effort anyway, so it wouldn't matter if I am only there 3/5 of the time". The proposal is usually to have one person paid 3/5 of a salary to do 3/5 of the role and another to be paid 2/5 of a salary to do 2/ of the role. Obviously, it depends on the role as to how that is distributed.

It's quite hard to get people to do 2 days, most people want at least 3. Not to mention a lot of people requesting 3 days flex working don't want to do Mondays/Fridays. So a Monday/Friday contract is often not attractive

I also agree that it’s a bit unfair to assume the OP is trying to save on childcare. Conversely, she could be intending to spend the time she would have spent on commuting on putting in a couple of extra hours work.

You have to show how the business need can be met by your requested change.

The fact they asked for 4 instead of three sounds like they wouldn't replace the hours and work can be moved elsewhere?

Can you offer 2.5 days a week? Means they could get someone to do exactly the other half? This would potentially be more attractive to recruit to

Thanks everyone SO MUCH for the response on this.

For context - most of the company does at least one day - if not more - at home. They will argue it is performance related for everyone, but it does seem to be a bit inconsistent on this front e.g I know people who are not performing well who are still doing frequent days from home.

I have pitched the idea of a job share and was told it wasn't something the business likes to do. My maternity cover would be very interested in doing a job share with me, and there is actually another role he could do 3 days a week so it could work out perfectly. My boss wouldn't even consider it - conversation closed.

I absolutely would not be looking after my child on my day from home but it would save me commuting, give me a better work life balance, enable me to spend more time with DC in the evening, there are so many reasons I would like a day WFH.

Not to mention the fact I ran a very successful operation before having my baby entirely from home during a global pandemic. I feel like WFH suited them then - but not now, so they're making it difficult.

I'm a senior manager in a global company with a small number of employees beneath me. Someone asked what I did - hopefully that gives more context