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?

@Kite22

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.

But it costs the company more. 2 people doing 1 ft role costs more that 1 person because of how the NI etc is calculated plus recruitment costs. It's not as simple as that.

As a manager I really don't like job shares it rarely works well and the two colleagues spend more time handing over between each other it rarely equates to 1 FTE. Does your role have a clear split of responsibilities?

Are you in a union OP?

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 think this strengthens your position then.
When I did my first jobshare, someone else who had also been doing the same role as me wanted to go PT, and we made it clear in our application that we would be sharing the role (and yes, they wanted 2 days) so our two roles became one, and there was then a FT position to recruit to.

However, I'd be interested to know if the people saying that people don't want 2 days a week, have ever tried advertising. I think you'd be surprised.

As I've said all along, this is bound to be specific to each individual job.....none of the reasons listed as having a jobshare costing more, here, for example have ever applied in my role
Double the uniform costs. Always worn my own clothes to work
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) I could already do the role before being appt'd and there is little training since (also the case for OP, in that both her and her maternity cover have both done the role), and, where I have had training, I've never been set up in a hotel or given a food allowance in 40 years in the workplace.
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. Not my experience - and, again, it isn't the case for the OP.

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.

In that case I think they'll let you do it informally too, but don't want to commit to it as a permanent arrangement in writing. How much that matters to you depends on how far you're going to plan around it (I think they want to be in a position where they can withdraw WFH if they want to in the future), but I wouldn't make this the hill I died on.

@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.

You can only make a statutory request once every twelve months. You could make an informal one though.

I haven't read all the comments so apologies if already mentioned.
Have a look at Pregnant then screwed and Mother Pukka (Anna Whitehouse) who are fighting for flexible working for all www.instagram.com/p/CVvOf7BMRNR/?utm_medium=copy_link
www.instagram.com/tv/CWp74pBDMCV/?utm_medium=copy_link

The 'Senior Manager' piece actually makes it harder. Trying to job share a strategic or management position is pretty much a nightmare for everyone else that works with or for them (if the two parties have different views/styles, who do team members actually report to, how to manage it if people prefer to wait for one manager to come in rather than speak to the person there, people feeling undermined if their decisions are overturned on days they don't work, other stakeholders getting mixed messages etc ) so your application will most likely be viewed through that lens. It explains why 4 days is fine but 3 days/job share is seen as a no. Job shares tend to work better for admin/individual contributor/SME roles

I think fundamentally it will come down to how you answered the 'impact on the business/colleagues' question, in my experience a lot of people scrimp on that section as they are considering their wants and are less bothered about the needs over the needs of business

Sorry really tired! Considering their wants and needs and are less bothered about the needs of the business

I feel you. I remember returning after number 2 requesting part time hours (4 days a week) but was told it wouldn't work in my role and they offered me a lesser role with less money of I wanted 4 days a week
Soon after returning I found out 2 managers (exact same role as me) were working 4 days a week doing the role I was before maternity and wanted to return too. One of the people at the top who I get on well with helped me pay for a solicitor and I settled out of court (signing a non disclosure) as I made a claim for constructive dismissal (I did generally feel forced out as I couldn't do the role I wanted / was successful in at that place)

Part T great if you can get it. I hated full t just constantly chasing tails. I did school bus run for bit which gave good balance but we only had it during covid. I had 20 hours

You can only make a statutory request once every twelve months. You could make an informal one though.

Oh fair point - I'd completely forgotten that rule. Do you know whether the clock starts ticking from when the first application is made or from when it's implemented or denied? If OP made the request a while ago she might not have very long left until the year's up once she's back and has done three months.

@LivinginWFHlimbo

You can only make a statutory request once every twelve months. You could make an informal one though.

Oh fair point - I'd completely forgotten that rule. Do you know whether the clock starts ticking from when the first application is made or from when it's implemented or denied? If OP made the request a while ago she might not have very long left until the year's up once she's back and has done three months.

Pretty sure it's from the request . But the .gov website will have the details.