To feel part time workers get a raw deal when it comes to progression

[shouldbesleepingnotscrolling]

I went part time after I had my first baby, my employer that I have been with for nearly 10 years wouldn't let me reduce my hours in the current role where I had a small team I managed, so I had to take the only position available in a different department, not managerial but same pay, pro rata'd.

I have since not had any opportunities to use previous transferable skills, promotions or go back to managing, job sharing will not be considered with other part time members. Even when I have been putting in extra hours and taking on additional work and responsibilities.

So I thought Id look outside the company, there are barely any part time roles available that aren't entry level, most are MW. Ive contacted local recruitment agencies and searched online.

My options seem to be stay in a job with no progression or recognition or take something on less pay at entry level with the hope there may be a chance to progress eventually.

My AIBU is to think there doesn't seem to be any decent opportunities for someone willing to work hard with good experience or am I just doing something wrong?

@brookstar

"That's part of the problem though.... why should one person be the primary contact for childcare emergencies? Why isn't that shared between parents?"

Totally agree with this. I have older children, but one has health condition / disability, which makes it difficult for me to work full time. My agreement with DH is that I have one day off to manage all the routine appointments, but DH does all the emergency stuff. He can work from home, I can't. So if DD gets sick (which she does, a lot) he picks up on the short notice stuff. His employer and mine have always known this is the score from the outset, and both have been happy with that: it does need to be shared imo.

@shouldbesleepingnotscrolling

'DH can't drop hours easily'

Every single woman I know, in a variety of roles, has been able to go part time.

Yet not one man. In similar or identical roles.

It's not that men can't go part time, it's that they WONT. Having a penis doesn't mean you can't drop a day.

It's a tricky one.

I do believe in supporting women to stay in the workplace, and facilitating part time work definitely helps with this. I also believe in all staff having a good work life balance, and in being a flexible employer to support this. In practice, I have bent over backwards to accommodate part time working requests from valued members of staff.

However, if I'm really honest about it, having part time staff in more senior roles can be a real pain in the arse to manage. When I agree to a member of staff going part time, I know that this will usually mean me picking up some of the slack on their non-work days as issues will crop up in their absence that need to be dealt with promptly. Job shares potentially offer a solution to this, but they tend to be more expensive - you generally need some overlap in order to ensure that they're communicating properly, so if they each do 3 days a week, that's an extra 20% cost on the role. You typically need to pay for 2 sets of equipment, 2 x training costs, even just twice the amount of my time to do 1:1s, appraisals etc. The other alternative would be to appoint a deputy for the part time member of staff so that they can cover in their absence, but that relies on having someone with the skills to take that on, and it also costs more if you're going to reward them fairly. So, as we're not flush with spare money floating around, the extra work typically just ends up with me sucking it up and doing more unpaid overtime.

I don't know what the solution is. I will continue to accommodate requests from valued members of the team to reduce their hours, because they have demonstrated that they're worthy of the hassle. I am much less inclined to make adjustments for new staff whose contribution is unproven.

I should add that I appreciate that there are some advantages to having PT staff as well. A job share provides better cover when one person goes on leave etc, or better continuity when one person moves on to another role. They might bring complementary strengths and skill sets as well. However, that's all very well if you can afford the additional costs of a job share arrangement and not very helpful if you can't!

An alternative way to look at it from a cost perspective is that hiring someone part time means your business can afford to bring in and benefit from talent/skills/experience that would otherwise be unaffordable if it were a full time role.

Yes, that's a valid point, and for some jobs, that could work really well. I think it's relatively easy to accommodate part time staff in relatively junior positions and also in specialised standalone roles where the work can be undertaken independently.

The problem in my view arises with regard to management positions where the role can't easily be contained within the specific days that a part time member of staff might work, eg where urgent issues need to be dealt with/decisions need to be made on the days when the person isn't working. This won't apply to all roles, but it does apply to pretty much all of the more senior roles in my organisation. That means that someone has to pick up the slack when the part time staff member isn't there.

"eg where urgent issues need to be dealt with/decisions need to be made on the days when the person isn't working. This won't apply to all roles, but it does apply to pretty much all of the more senior roles in my organisation. That means that someone has to pick up the slack when the part time staff member isn't there."

My Huband's boss is full time, but works condensed hours to give her one day off a week. It's a fairly niche role that does require flexibility and she sometimes has to work evenings and weekends. Their compromise is that they don't contact her on her day off, unless it's an emergency... her deputy can make most decisions, but if there is an urgent situation she's on standby to deal with that. I think she has family support to enable that. If she needs to come in on her day off, she claims the time back the following week or two.

But that needs flexible thinking and open communication on both sides to work.I have seen other women go part time and work strictly to rule (eg not allowing the corporation to contact them at all whilst they were on Mat leave (long before Kip days) and it really did them no favours at all.

On other times, the flexibility can really help the business. A few months back, a colleague quit their job, so a couple of us went full time to help cover the gap until a replacement was found. It really helped my employers out of a hole, and my boss really appreciated it. But again, it takes flexibility and openness on both sides to develop this. I've been really lucky to have had good employers that help me manage my needs (I have older children, but one with a serious health condition / disability) and I've always repaid that by being flexible and meeting their needs as best as I can.

I agree OP. I’m still working FT although I would like to be PT. Most women have a FT then cut down to PT.

I lost my job in 2020 and all the jobs in my area are advertised as FT unless I want to go back to admin and earn 50% less salary before going PT which would mean that it’s unsustainable. The only jobs I see being advertised as considering PT are public sector roles. I’ve found that if you go to a job interview and hint at needing some flexibility with working hours most employers find a reason not to hire you.

Its shit.

I’ve just recruited 2 new roles in my team. Both were offered as FT or 0.8 roles. I thought we would get lots of interest in the PT option but nope. Seems such a shame as they are ideal roles for people needing flexibility.

And I should have said, both manager level roles paying c.70k so not junior roles…

I agree that flexibility on both sides can be beneficial, and that good will on both sides is invaluable. I myself have benefited from flexibility with regard to working patterns, but took a similar approach in terms of being contactable during non-work times in order to make that feasible.

Unfortunately, in my experience, a lot of part time staff can't or don't want to open up that option. In my experience, this has generally meant me as their manager picking stuff up in their absence.

Its almost a viscous cycle, part timer spends years working hard on the ‘mundane’ aspects of the job and not getting promoted and cant move on - might as well take on the child emergencies etc as it will have no impact on how they are viewed, this however contributes to the ‘flaky’ perception.

I’ve found that if you go to a job interview and hint at needing some flexibility with working hours most employers find a reason not to hire you.

I also notice more and more jobs are advertised as 8:30 to 5:00 or 9 to 5:30, or anything other than 9-5, gently signalling that anyone with childcare responsibilities need not apply.

Yes I have seen this and by the time you have added travel on, the kids need to be childcare from 8am to 6pm which I feel is too long for nursery age children (and not always available!).
It seems that you should either put off having children until you have worked your way up to a senior role (but not leave it too late as the bio clock is ticking) or have kids younger and sacrifice seeing them so you can have a career or be happy in a part time role where you cant get anywhere.

I got my last job part time that was advertised as full time. However, I made it clear in the interview that I was doing 4 days over 5, so I was available every day, that I expected it to be for 18 months max (children progressing to secondary school) and that my husband was generally the school emergency contact due to proximity. I was offered 30 hours, and 18 months later I've just done a flexible working request to go back to full time from this September. Not expecting it to be refused to be honest!

This is critical from day one after maternity leave. Sick days need to be split 50:50, drop offs, pick ups regardless of part time status. In fact arguably if you are part time you need to be more " on it" as much less slack is cut.

No, you could easily have wasted their time for your own selfish ends. I wouldn’t consider that acceptable, for the reasons I’ve already explained.

incidentally, if this is how you behave at work - personalising things, calling anyone who disagrees with you ‘narrow minded’ - I’m surprised that anyone antsnto offer you a job.

*I agree that flexibility on both sides can be beneficial, and that good will on both sides is invaluable. I myself have benefited from flexibility with regard to working patterns, but took a similar approach in terms of being contactable during non-work times in order to make that feasible.

Unfortunately, in my experience, a lot of part time staff can't or don't want to open up that option. In my experience, this has generally meant me as their manager picking stuff up in their absence.*

If a full time member of staff was on annual leave, would you expect them to be available on their non working hours? Would you begrudge having to pick up their work? The issue isn't the part time staff member. It's the way they're managed. You need to find better solutions to manage the work. They can only do what they can do, in the hours they're there. Outside of that, it isn't and shouldn't be made their problem.

I guess this reflects the lack of respect for part timers and that's kind of what op is talking about. The attitude seems to be that it's ok to go part time as long as you are still willing to work on your non contracted time, because you need to be seen to be working as much as your full time colleagues even though you have less time to do it in. But there's no expectation that a full time member of staff should be available on non work time, or if there is they'll usually be paid accordingly with a higher salary or a disturbance allowance or similar.

FWIW I have done ft, pt, ft, pt and ft again. DCs are 18 &15 I am 46 and just moved into a £150,000 position, so got there in the end.

But always, always shared childcare responsibilities. When I was at work I was at work IYSWIM.

Not at all, I certainly don't expect PT workers to do stuff on their non-working days. I was responding to a pp who knew someone who had made it work that way.

I agree that the PT member of staff can only do what they can do in the hours that they're paid for, and that it isn't their problem outside of those hours. However, just because it isn't their problem doesn't mean that it isn't a problem, and it is partly this problem that gets in the way of part time staff being able to progress as quickly as they like. The organisation typically has to invest in an expensive job share or the PT worker's line manager ends up sucking it up themselves. This isn't always feasible or desirable, and so the organisation may decide that more senior posts are better undertaken by full time staff.

I think we need to be honest about this.... there are trade-offs on both sides. For a really talented worker with exceptional skills that would be hard to match, most employers will bend over backwards to be accommodating of their desired working patterns because retaining an excellent member of staff is the top priority - I have done this myself, knowing that the extra burden will land on me as the manager. For a fairly average member of staff, it might not be worth the hassle and I would be less prepared to suck it up because I have my own work life balance to think about as well.

I've found the solution is sideways moves. I'm on my third... that way I get some interest and novelty and a pay rise without needing to do the full time then drop back to part time thing. Or become part of the wallpaper.

OP - I think you need to network rather than waiting for jobs to be advertised.

I'm pretty flexible. I've worked pt hours across 4 days and 5 days, checked emails on the days I don't work, volunteered to lead things and do things, organised (and sometimes paid for) my own training etc.

But I still detect a strong sense that my employers think they're doing me a favour.

I'm sorry, but they're not. The alternative for me of PT is doing something different, freelancing or not working at all. It's the price of them getting my skill set, which is in short supply currently.

I have lasted over a decade now as a teacher because I know what I can handle on top of the other things going on in my life - and it's not 60 hours a week in termtime!

@Anothernamechangeplease I really agree with your posts on this thread, they match my experience too.

Also after being on the other side of the situation (co-working with, and working under various people on part-time hours) I have to say I think the roles where part-time hours work well with the rest of the staff don't tend to be ones where you can be progressed into line management very easily. It needs to be something that can either be left or picked up quite easily by others when the part-time worker isn't there - and I've never really seen that work well in senior management. I've seen it being coped with because that was the arrangement made, but usually it's only the person doing the part-time role who seems to think it's working out. Most of the time it's been other, lower down team members picking up the slack, and they don't necessarily agree with that assessment!

This thread actually raises some interesting points. I'm currently investigating how we staff a new team to expand our offering. On paper you would think the roles would be ideally suited to females (or males) who wanted a more flexible approach to a role. I.e fully remote with occasional face to face meetings required, interesting work, flexible hours / variety of options re hours etc. options for progression - if wanted. but. In reality. The work is project based with tight deadlines (just the nature of the industry).

It would be hard to have someone who only worked say 0.5 or 0.6 FTE as we would have to have a shadow for each employee so double costs - which I'm not sure the Board would approve. Plus the non-standard work hours etc make it unlikely to happen.

It's frustrating but if anyone has any ideas of how it works in their companies or best practice I'd love to hear them. At the moment we rely on contractors who can be allocated specific projects but that has its own issues e.g availability.

I've found the total opposite. I've taken the tactic of applying for FT roles and asking for PT at the end of the interview. 100% success rate at roles between 40 & 70k over last 10 yrs, always worked 0.6 or 0.8.