To apply for a full time job knowing I only can work part time?

[Dinoswearunderpants]

I'm curious to hear your opinions. I work in finance and working four full days per week with a Monday off work.

I'm considering looking for a new role however all are advertised as full time.

It's a candidates market right now and I wondered whether to simply apply for roles that are FT then after the interview, explain I need PT.

I feel a lot of roles could be done over 4 days instead of 5 but it's just easier for companies to advertise FT.

I could speak to some recruiters and explain I'm looking for PT. I'm just wondering whether to be upfront from the start or go through interviews with a hope of being successful then explain I'd like four days.

WWYD?

Contact them and ask if they would consider part-time or job share. If not then you are not wasting their time. I would be incredibly annoyed to interview someone, find they are the ideal person, and then be told they cannot fulfill the role. It just wastes everyones time.

Personally, it would put me off someone coming for an interview and then saying afterwards you can only work part time. The role will have been advertised at full time because they need full time. My personal opinion, but I'd be put off by this.

Could you condense and ask to do 5 days in 4? Best of both then?

I would consider you a time waster if you turned up to interview for a FT position asking for PT work.

What does the advert say? Does it state that they will consider flexible/blended working arrangements? If so you could ask to condense the five days into four.

Obviously they could say no, but it's worth a try.

My DH has been doing this for 20years. He applies for full time roles and then tells them at the beginning of the interview that he only works 4 days. He's never not got the job. He doesn't compress so gets paid 0.8 of the salary. Most companies are happy to save the money.
It depends how much they want you!
I'm not sure I'd wait until they made the offer as that might piss them off. Good luck!

Yes you are being unreasonable. If you don’t want to work Mondays then ask about a compressed week, which a lot of people at our firm do but do this at application stage, not after an interview. I’d look to withdraw any offer made if a candidate did this.

I did this a few years ago. I applied for a full-time job, and asked at the interview if there was any possibility it could be part-time, and with some days working from home. They said no, but offered me the full-time job, which I turned down. I then got a phone call asking me if I’d accept the job on a part-time basis, and I named the hours and balance of office/ home working I was happy with, and they agreed to it. I’ve now been made the head of department, still part-time, so it all worked out well.

I don't think 30 hours would be a massive issue for most roles if you were the perfect candidate. If it was 22.5 or something I would say discuss before interview as it fundamentally changes the role but 4 days is a bit different. I wonder if you could think about days - working say 8 til 5.30 so it's 36 hours (with half hour lunch)?

I know many people who have successfully done this.

This! Just go for it.

I did this albeit the advert did say something about flexibility I think. I was clear up front that I could only work four days a week for childcare reasons and it was never an issue. I'm currently looking for another role and have been upfront and said I'd only want 4 days so if that doesn't work, it's fine to say so now and I won't go any further in the process.

I would ask at application stage
As an employer it depends on the role if there is flexibility I usually state this in job ad

I’ve happily employed people for 30 hours rather than full time 37 hours. Local government for context, we advertise being a flexible employer.

Agree that 4 days is not as much of an issue as 2.5 days or something so I think go for it.

I think it also depends on the role/level. The higher the role probably gives you more room to negotiate. I've interviewed plenty of junior/mid roles and I've always had choice of good candidates. If someone would have asked for PT after interview I would have just selected my candidate from the other good choices. But the higher the role I find you seem to have more room to negotiate.

I don't think this is unreasonable. I've had people do this at interview before.

I would not wait until offered the role, that is too late and would piss me off if I were recruiting. If you were upfront at interview, I would have a lot more respect for that.

I'm interviewing for a FT role at the moment. And it's FT because I need someone 5 days a week. Just because you think 'lots of jobs can be done in 4 days' it doesn't mean you can look at a job description and decide you know best.

It is taking a lot of time out of my already busy day to interview people (inc all the prep), and then I'll shortlist and do it all again for second interviews. If someone turned around after the interview and said they wanted PT, I'd be mighty pissed off that they had wasted my time.

If you want PT, ask them beforehand if they'd consider it. For the right person, I might consider a couple of shorter days, but I'm advertising for a FT role for good reason.

Rant over.

All roles at the last place I worked were advertised as full time but that they would consider applications on a part time basis depending on business needs and the right candidate. Does the job spec say anything like this?

I’ve done this before but for an internal position. Was advertised full time but I messaged the hiring manager and asked if part time would be considered and was told yes, if the candidate was successful and right for the job. I applied and was offered the position and was the best move for me

Thanks for the replies. It's good hearing people's opinions.

Sadly I can't condense as I'm responsible for pickups/drop offs to the childminder. My husband has condensed his days so he has a day off for childcare too.

For those posters saying it doesn't make that much difference between 30 vs 37.5 hrs - who does the extra day's work? It's still there to be done, surely?

If a FT role is so 'flexible' that it can actually be done in 30 hrs, then you're actually looking for someone to work 30hrs, surely?!

Curious to know the sector you're hiring in please?

It's a legal requirement that they have to consider your application to work part time once you are employed and the responsibility lies with your employer to say why it's not possible.

There was a news article yesterday that the unions are pushing for this at application, with the same reliance on the employer not the employee.

I've also done it multiple times. I work in a very specialised field and part time roles aren't advertised. I'm also brilliant (!!!!) so once recruited it's better to have me 4 days than no days!!
K