To think people who work part-time shouldn’t get the same promotion chances as full-timers?

[ThatCandidBear]

If you’re only doing 3 days a week, how is it fair to expect the same career progression as someone putting in 5? AIBU to think promotion opportunities should be tied to hours worked?

Surely it depends on the hours needed for the promotion job?

I think promotions should be given to the best candidate for the job.

By your logic a promotion should go to the person who has been there the longest. I don’t agree that promotions should be awarded for time served. It should be for skills and ability to do the job - which part timers can also demonstrate

3 productive days by an excellent employee will always trump 5 by a mediocre one.

What if the person doing 3 days is far better at the job than the person doing 5? Everyone should have the same opportunity but if the promotion is full time the part timer has to expect to work full time

The question should be can the role be done within the timeframe.

If the answer is yes why should someone who is effective and capable be overlooked in favour of someome who may not be as effective in the role?

Career progression should be based on ability and results tbh…!

Not at all. There are plenty of higher level jobs that can be done on part time hours and working longer hours doesn't automatically make you better at your job or the best person for the role.

Well part timers, especially if the role started full time to begin with, do struggle to cut their workload and often end up doing a full time role on part time hours and wage. So it would suggest they are more efficient, more productive and better at their job than you. Why shouldn’t they get the promotion?

Perhaps they could job share? I know a lot of people (especially women) who’ve gone back to work part time after maternity leave and got promoted.

No, it should be the person that seems like they'd be most capable and suited to the senior position and it's responsibilities. That has the best attitude, is the most enthusiastic and proactive. And obviously that they are available to cover the hours required.

You make it sound as if part time workers don't work as hard?

Have you ever worked part time? I work the same job as three full time counterparts that work 37hrs in other parts of the county. I work 30 hours and complain less than them, I am referred to by them constantly and get better annual reviews. That aside there is such a thing as job sharing you know. The people advertising/interviewing know what they’re doing.

I can't follow your logic.

If they're perfectly capable of doing the job when working 3 days, of course they should get the promotion 😳

If the role required 5 days they wouldn't be offered it.

If the part time person had the skills and experience needed, why would they not be promoted? If they do a better interview and demonstrate the skills needed they should t be disadvantaged over a full time worker. And given a higher proportion of women work part time, you’re saying women shouldn’t be promoted over a man.

Well now, that would be a quick way to cause gross levels of employment discrimination against women and mothers, who are much more likely to go part-time because of caring responsibilities and who already suffer massive salary and pension disparities because of it.

If the promoted role needs full-time hours, then obviously that matters. I was thinking more about when part-timers expect equal progression in roles that could be done flexible but they’re contributing less total time. That’s where it feels tricky.

Yanbu. Why are people going in about 'time served'?
Its about what happens if urgent managerial tasks need to be made in their absence? Eg. They work mon-wed and something comes in Thurs am? Who picks up the slack? Staff on a lower wage 'doing it for the team and praise'...

Skill matters, of course. My point is more about overall contribution. If two people are equally good, the one doing 5 days inevitably delivers more simply by being there. So I wonder if it’s realistic to expect totally equal progression opportunities without factoring that in.

Opportunities should be equally available for everyone and if part timers weren’t allowed to apply this would disproportionately affect women, as they tend to work pt more

Good on them.

They have high expectations of their employers and clearly value themselves.

And if they end up with a promotion on the back of that, it's all good.

But presumably they are being paid pro rata so they are contributing exactly the same amount of work for what they are receiving. The full time worker isn't being shafted or hard done by.

If the role can genuinely be done in fewer hours, then yes, effectiveness should matter more than sheer presence. My worry is more about situations where the role realistically does require full-time coverage and yet expectations clash. That’s where I think fairness gets tricky.

This seems to imply that promotion is based on time served. It really isn’t.

Oh no I don't agree with this at all.

I know quite a few full time workers who do little more than turn up, do the bare minimum and collect their pay at the end of the month.

Equally I've worked with some stunningly brilliant part timers who do more in a few days than some do in a fortnight.

It's about the person, their capabilities and their work ethic.

Not hours in the contract.

But OP wasn't talking about the hours a promotion would be, she was talking about the hours the people are doing now. The hours the promotion requires are a different question, and it could be a part time senior role. There are some sectors where this isn't particularly uncommon due to funding.

And it's a bad argument.