AIBU to ask this at an interview?

[FriendshipsAreHardForMe]

I have an interview coming up for a full time position (37hrs).

I'd ideally like to work part-time but was finding the right opportunity hard to come by so decided to apply to some full-time positions in hopes to negotiate down.

Anyway.... In terms of asking them if they'd consider me working part time...

Am I being unreasonable to not say anything about hours until I receive a job offer (if I do of course)? So as not to put them off too quickly. But maybe they'd be annoyed I've potentially wasted their time.

YANBU - wait until job offer to ask for P/T
YABU - mention P/T hours at the interview

Thanks 😊

*two

@FindingMeno

I asked for different ( but not less) hours at interview to fit childcare needs and got the job. It depends on whether the job is a complete no go if it doesn't meet your needs, and how confident you are that you have something to offer. I don't see the point in wasting everyone's time by not being honest. They'll either accommodate you or they won't.

I think it's different asking for flexibility around how the hours are worked. If the work will still get done, then that isn't a problem.

If the work is there and needs doing, then part time is a problem because some of it won't get done. It's different with an existing member of staff who knows the workload and can make suggestions about how to do it more efficiently, but an external candidate wouldn't have those insights. I am not in the business of expecting part time staff to deliver full time workloads, so I would be left with a problem as to how the rest of the work is covered.

@Isntitironic1

To those saying she’s wasting the employers time, sometimes employers actually prefer to have to part timers job share a role than one full time. I would explain the benefits of a job share to the employer.

Yes, I agree that there can be benefits to that model (and some disadvantages too!). But the time to ask is before you apply rather than after everyone has wasted their time.

I would mention it at interview. If they don’t want a part timer they won’t hire you, but for all you know they could have someone else who is equally as brilliant who wants to go part time. Job shares can be great (and good for the company - you can generally cover each other if one is off sick!). Good luck

I've done it successfully before. Once I asked if there is any flexibility in working patterns and ended up working 4 days per week.

On another occasion I asked if I could do a full time job in 3 days (I accept that was cheeky!). We agreed that I'd try to do it in 3 but if I couldn't I'd go up 4. I stayed on 3.

In both these roles I did the full job, just faster and more efficiently.

People who are saying it's unreasonable aren't mentioning the upside for the business - if you can do a full time job well in less time, the business pays less to get the work done so they're happy.

I accept there's a problem of you're doing something operational where someone needs to be present for set hours.

I'm surprised so many people appear to be almost insulted by someone asking to negotiate.

I recruited for a large UK firm for years so have experience of this. It's not negotiation that upset recruiters, you would waste my time. That's what I'd be pissed about. Applying for a job you knew you would not fill the criteria for. If you enquired before submitting an application that's fine and not an issue but often jobs are advertised due to the business need of them being full time.

I've had a few people who have countered with part time hours when offered the position, they are turned down. If the role was suitable for possible part time hours, the advert would say so.

I'd be fine with it at interview and have been asked (and it was ultimately accepted) in the past. It can take a bit of back and forth however, so it's better done when someone knows they already want to hire you. You should ask about flexibility at the earliest point, because if that's limited then you know it's a "no"; then in my opinion wait until the offer to ask about a way of flexing. If you come across as highly flexible yourself then it hopefully isn't an issue. Caveat that I'm in IT, where it's always been a struggle to hire really good people as it's so competitive, which gives any good candidate a massive advantage once we have our hearts set on them. It's a candidates' market in many industries at the moment (engineering, retail etc), so a good time to get what you want, but of course not all industries are the same and it depends on demand. Good luck!

It depends on the nature of the job.
Personally I’ve mentioned it at interview, it’s not been a problem. In fact it got me a job the last time as they then recruited 1 full time candidate and me as a part time.

I also would consider you a time waster. If you are awesome and willing to do compressed hours then I may not be overly irritated but if someone else equally awesome interviewed I'd go with them.
I don't know how you get the time breakdown for your previous recruitment role, but I spend a lot more time before the person even gets to be interviewed by me and frankly an hour is an hour- let alone the other stuff.

I find the attitudes of replies from some of the managers / interviewers on this thread oddly aggressive.

It is interesting to me as I have had an interview experience that the op would probably welcome. I applied for a job advertised as full-time I was part-time in a different role when I applied (working for a different organisation). When I was interviewed and it went very well, it was sprung on me that they actually only wanted part-time hours, fewer than I was currently working. In the end I took the job (for various reasons) and they offered me another role to fill in the gap so I am working full-time now.

I could have seen this as the interviewer wasting my time, I made the point that I had applied for a ft role deliberately, so they dug out another job to make up the hours.

My point is that until you interview you don't always know if you want to work for the company. So you are not "wasting time" if you decide a job/ company is not right for you, for any number of reasons following an interview even if the job is offered. So all this preciousness from managers is a bit ott.

When I was offered my last job they asked me what hours I wanted (full time in my case). It was a tiny company (two directors and four support staff) and incredibly family friendly. The other three support staff only worked school hours.

I was really impressed but it did make for some very lonely times in the office during the holidays!

My current job made it clear at interview that part time is not option even though most of the longer serving staff are part timers! Shame, because i'm at a stage in life where I would like to and can afford to drop a day.

I was interviewed for a full-time j ob, which I got. But when the offer was made I said I would rather be part-time or jobshare. Luckily another interviewee had performed well and had made the same suggestion. It gave the company a bit of flexibility on days and hours too.

@FlemCandango

I find the attitudes of replies from some of the managers / interviewers on this thread oddly aggressive.

It is interesting to me as I have had an interview experience that the op would probably welcome. I applied for a job advertised as full-time I was part-time in a different role when I applied (working for a different organisation). When I was interviewed and it went very well, it was sprung on me that they actually only wanted part-time hours, fewer than I was currently working. In the end I took the job (for various reasons) and they offered me another role to fill in the gap so I am working full-time now.

I could have seen this as the interviewer wasting my time, I made the point that I had applied for a ft role deliberately, so they dug out another job to make up the hours.

My point is that until you interview you don't always know if you want to work for the company. So you are not "wasting time" if you decide a job/ company is not right for you, for any number of reasons following an interview even if the job is offered. So all this preciousness from managers is a bit ott.

Exactly!

The interview is all about finding out if it's a good fit. If managers are so worried about interviewing people who may not be a good fit then they should go through an agency with specific pre-interview questioned asked.

People can turn out to be a bad fit for a number of reasons, hours is only one.

I see it as bias against women. The whole "this is the job market, suck it up" view is so aggressive and outdated. These aren't people I'd want to work for anyway!

Clearly there are lots of examples of it working well so I'll proceed in asking.

This post was about WHEN is best to ask. I have no intention of not interviewing just because my preference is PT.

I must admit if you mentioned to me that you wanted part-time when interviewing I would be put off. If I have the budget for 1 full-time position and you want 0.8 I would struggle to find another candidate to work 0.2 it would also take the 0.2 person a lot longer to be trained etc, it would also cost me more to employ 2 people to fill the role. As a manager with a budget this is how I would look at it.

I don’t get why so many posters are annoyed you want to ask for PT?!? You’re right - people negotiate on lots of things … salary, location, start time, hybrid.
I would wait until you get the offer and bring it up then. It sounds like you’re fairly flexible anyway, and not ruling things out if you’d be happy with 0.6, 0.8, compressed or FT.
1 do a 9 day fortnight and it’s fab.

@Gingersay

I must admit if you mentioned to me that you wanted part-time when interviewing I would be put off. If I have the budget for 1 full-time position and you want 0.8 I would struggle to find another candidate to work 0.2 it would also take the 0.2 person a lot longer to be trained etc, it would also cost me more to employ 2 people to fill the role. As a manager with a budget this is how I would look at it.

I agree completely. When I'm recruiting for a FT position it's because the workload needs FT hours. I would be annoyed to waste time interviewing, offering and at that point they ask to work PT. Well no, if I could cope with PT hours then that's what I would have advertised for. Flexibility and compressed hours is fine. But not less hours than I have asked for.

If you don't fit the criteria then you dont apply. If you don't want to work full time then don't apply and interview for a full time role. It's full time for a reason.

@FlemCandango

I find the attitudes of replies from some of the managers / interviewers on this thread oddly aggressive.

It is interesting to me as I have had an interview experience that the op would probably welcome. I applied for a job advertised as full-time I was part-time in a different role when I applied (working for a different organisation). When I was interviewed and it went very well, it was sprung on me that they actually only wanted part-time hours, fewer than I was currently working. In the end I took the job (for various reasons) and they offered me another role to fill in the gap so I am working full-time now.

I could have seen this as the interviewer wasting my time, I made the point that I had applied for a ft role deliberately, so they dug out another job to make up the hours.

My point is that until you interview you don't always know if you want to work for the company. So you are not "wasting time" if you decide a job/ company is not right for you, for any number of reasons following an interview even if the job is offered. So all this preciousness from managers is a bit ott.

So you were part-time, wanted part-time, applied for full time but miraculously they suggested part-time at the interview? I'd say that's pretty unusual and you got lucky.

Of course a job is about fit but it's not going to be a good one if they want a full time member of staff and you want part-time. Two part-time members of staff job sharing will cost more than one full timer hence the reason employers aren't keen.

You need to ask about part-time at the outset of the process. Why waste your time in jumping through hoops if they won't even consider it?

Although the tide may be turning now, it has been an employers market for a long time where the power lies with the employer. You may not like that but it's the way it is. You have to play the game. Someone upthread said that jobs are created to fulfil a business/organisation need not because Brenda in the village needs a little part-time job to fit in with her kids.

There are lots and lots of threads on the employment boards complaining about the lack of well paid part-time roles. Most women working part-time have either decided to suck it up and accept low responsibility minimum wage jobs with no progression opportunities or they are already established/well regarded and have the bargaining power to request part-time/flexible working.

@FlemCandango

I find the attitudes of replies from some of the managers / interviewers on this thread oddly aggressive.

It is interesting to me as I have had an interview experience that the op would probably welcome. I applied for a job advertised as full-time I was part-time in a different role when I applied (working for a different organisation). When I was interviewed and it went very well, it was sprung on me that they actually only wanted part-time hours, fewer than I was currently working. In the end I took the job (for various reasons) and they offered me another role to fill in the gap so I am working full-time now.

I could have seen this as the interviewer wasting my time, I made the point that I had applied for a ft role deliberately, so they dug out another job to make up the hours.

My point is that until you interview you don't always know if you want to work for the company. So you are not "wasting time" if you decide a job/ company is not right for you, for any number of reasons following an interview even if the job is offered. So all this preciousness from managers is a bit ott.

Of course you can decide that you don't want to work there. I have done it myself. However, it's a bit different if your decision is based on an entirely foreseeable reason, ie you cannot meet the basic requirements of the job as advertised. That is wasting someone's time, and it's also taking up valuable interview slots for people who could actually do the job.

@BlinkingBananas

Why should we suck it up when there are lots of examples of people working effectively in PT jobs?

It isn't all about budget. Yes, budgets are important but so is getting the right person.

An example, my brother was headhunted for a position. He managed to negotiate it (pre Covid) from London office based to WFH full time which was very rare back then. He also asked for a £5k pay increase and got it. He was presumably given it because, ALL things considered, he was best for the role.

Women have a lot to offer. I have a lot to offer.

Loads of companies NEVER offer PT, even though it may work really well. Some people just don't think of it. It's archaic.

PT can reduce sick leave rates, parental leave. PT workers often put in more than their contracts hours for less pay. Less pay = less pension contributions, less bonus if applicable etc.

So it isn't just about budget for a position. There are lots of things to think about.

And I've said many times that I'd still consider full time.

You seem hell bent on pushing the notion that is a huge waste of time even going for the interview, why? Did you feel forced into FT work? I'm just trying to understand why you wouldnt think someone should at least try.

And FWIW I would never call up before an interview and mention negotiating hours. In the same way no one would call and say "you're offering £30k, before I apply can I just check if you'd pay £35k? They'll say no 100% because they don't know you and don't know who else they'll get through the door.

Negotiations only work if someone's in demand which is why I think I'll wait until after the interview, if I'm successful.

@FriendshipsAreHardForMe I agree with you, it’s so frustrating. There are definitely a lot of jobs advertised as full time just because ‘we always do it this way’. And it’s really really tough for individuals like you, me and so many other women to challenge this structural issue, as individuals who each have limited power. And especially when these people are pitted against each other in a competitive interview process.

But I think stick to your guns - the more good candidates negotiate for pt hours the less horrified some of these hiring managers will be, and change will inevitably follow. Especially when some firms are already open to pt and flexible working. It’s just always going to be an uphill battle for individuals to change a structural issue.

Some really weird notions on this thread - such as ‘a workload’ taking a set x hours, without any reflection on the skill/productivity of the person carrying out the work and how quickly they can get it done.

As an employer, flexibility is a great draw for good candidates. I have several on my team who I probably wouldn’t have if I’d insisted on standard FT in the office hours, but who are highly skilled and productive and have a greater impact in, say, 4 days than some of their peers do in 5. The staff members massively value the flexibility- I’ve no doubt they could be earning significantly more at a more senior level in a more old-fashioned, inflexible workplace but they value the flexibility over the money, and I and my company get the benefit.

It also frees up a little bit of budget and headcount to give me more flexibility elsewhere - eg to enable a 1.2 FTE jobshare.

Recruitment is a two-way process. You’re interviewing them as much as they’re interviewing you (though you’d have a hard time convincing some of them of that; they’ll be convinced their doing you a favour by deigning to interview you.) Overall, supply of labour is currently significantly constrained - I’m very aware that the people I’m interviewing are in demand and I need to make our workplace attractive to them - rethinking jobs and how they can be done, ways of working, location, salary, culture, right down to the quality of IT kit.

I would definitely ask about the possibility of part time/compressed hours before or at interview. I’d rather know upfront what you wanted and would try to make it fit or compromise if possible. There’s nothing wrong with it at all! I think it depends how you go about it. I recently had one candidate at interview say she would only work 0.6 and minimum one of those days must be at home. It was a full time role, though I’d have considered 0.8. I couldn’t have made 0.6 work for the role so I’d have appreciated that conversation a bit earlier. But if you approach it with “would you consider…” rather than “I will only accept…” then I don’t see the issue!

@JassyRadlett

In all fairness you have no understanding of my area of work or what the workload looks like so I think it's very short sighted to dismiss a "notion of workload and x hours"

If I had taken on someone who only wanted to work PT they would have had to work up to full time hours as overtime most weeks. Which would not be fair as they had specified part time only.

@JassyRadlett

Some really weird notions on this thread - such as ‘a workload’ taking a set x hours, without any reflection on the skill/productivity of the person carrying out the work and how quickly they can get it done.

As an employer, flexibility is a great draw for good candidates. I have several on my team who I probably wouldn’t have if I’d insisted on standard FT in the office hours, but who are highly skilled and productive and have a greater impact in, say, 4 days than some of their peers do in 5. The staff members massively value the flexibility- I’ve no doubt they could be earning significantly more at a more senior level in a more old-fashioned, inflexible workplace but they value the flexibility over the money, and I and my company get the benefit.

It also frees up a little bit of budget and headcount to give me more flexibility elsewhere - eg to enable a 1.2 FTE jobshare.

Recruitment is a two-way process. You’re interviewing them as much as they’re interviewing you (though you’d have a hard time convincing some of them of that; they’ll be convinced their doing you a favour by deigning to interview you.) Overall, supply of labour is currently significantly constrained - I’m very aware that the people I’m interviewing are in demand and I need to make our workplace attractive to them - rethinking jobs and how they can be done, ways of working, location, salary, culture, right down to the quality of IT kit.

I agree with most of that, and of course flexibility is hugely important, which is why I would always state this clearly when advertising. It would be foolish not to. However, if I haven't said that there is flexibility around the hours worked, then that's because there isn't any!

As for a workload taking a fixed number of hours, most jobs are predicated on this assumption. Of course, some people are super efficient and get the job done in less time, but I'd only be willing to take a punt on that if I already knew the person and had faith in their ability to pull it off. Lots of people argue that they can do the job in part time hours but then just end up expecting other colleagues to pick up the crap for them.

To be clear, I'm not against part time working in the slightest. I have lots of excellent part time staff on my team - some who have reduced down after years in the job and others who have taken roles that have been advertised as job shares or part time hours. I also have people working on compressed hours etc. I'm all in favour of people being able to fit work around their lives. However, I do expect people applying for jobs to be able to fulfil the basic requirements of the role. I don't think that's a particularly big ask.

[quote HerculesMulligann]@FriendshipsAreHardForMe I agree with you, it’s so frustrating. There are definitely a lot of jobs advertised as full time just because ‘we always do it this way’. And it’s really really tough for individuals like you, me and so many other women to challenge this structural issue, as individuals who each have limited power. And especially when these people are pitted against each other in a competitive interview process.

But I think stick to your guns - the more good candidates negotiate for pt hours the less horrified some of these hiring managers will be, and change will inevitably follow. Especially when some firms are already open to pt and flexible working. It’s just always going to be an uphill battle for individuals to change a structural issue.[/quote]
👏👏👏