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?

I’ve seen cases where part-timers do end up squeezed, essentially doing full-time work for part-time pay. In those situations, I’d agree they’re showing serious efficiency and should be recognised. My point is about roles that genuinely can’t be scaled down without gaps, that’s where promotion fairness feels complicated.

Presumably the full time worker occasionally takes leave or has a sick day. Arranging appropriate cover is part of every job.

Hard disagree! The person best suited to the job should have it. Many jobs can be done effectively without being full time. I have a high level job in my organisation but only work 4 days - so do some other colleagues.

I'm not sure what type of promotion you're talking about.
I would expect to get promoted based on skills and experience. If I'd worked 3 days week, as opposed to 5, I would have less skills and experience because I'd been doing the job for less time.

However, one person working 3 days a week might be able to get more skills and experience than another working 5 days if they had made a particular point to do so, and the 5 days a week person was coasting.

If the promotion requires 5 days a week, IME they are less likely to promote someone who will only work 3 because they then have to try to find a job share partner, or work out a way to reorganise the work.

If the role requires full time it will be advertised as such. If the employer then agrees to appoint someone on part time hours it is for them to arrange to fill in the gaps. It’s not the fault of the person who negotiated their hours nor should they be disadvantaged by being part time.

No should go to who is fit for the job

Job shares can definitely work when the setup is right, I’ve seen them succeed too. I’m more questioning situations where the workload or responsibility can’t easily be split. That’s where it feels less straightforward to treat part-time and full-time as identical for promotion.

Hours worked is irrelevant really if you’re shit at your job, I’ve seen part time staff carry a team and full time staff so nothing more than turn up, drink a few coffees and then go home.

You can be the best employee and be part time and the worst but full time, it really doesn’t matter for promotion. All that matters is that the best candidate gets the job and is capable of meeting the criteria, it’s irrelevant if both of those things are true whether they work 16 hours or 37.

Really poor argument op. Also putting organisations at the risk of indirect discrimination and claims against them

I only ever worked PT as it suited my need to have quite a bit of downtime around working (turned out I'm ND). However, I worked very hard in whatever hours I did do and would regard comments like the Ops as really pretty rude and unappreciative of my contribution.

Have you been outshone by a part-timer?

Ten years ago I participated in a research programme that found that you were seven times less likely to get promoted if you were part-time than full-time. My organisation tried to improve this but I would say that full time staff were still far more likely to get promoted than part-time staff.

I’m not saying part-timers don’t work hard. Many do, often under more pressure. I just think when it comes to senior roles with heavier responsibilities, the number of hours available does become part of the equation alongside capability and attitude.

It’s not complicated. If the job needs full time hours it is appointed as such, either by refusing part time hours and appointing someone who can work full time or by filling the job with two part time people who job share. If the employer advertises a full time role, appoints a part time person and doesn’t fill the gap, it’s the employers responsibility to deal with that.

Sounds like you’re excelling even with fewer hours, which is impressive. I’m not dismissing that at all. My point was more about whether the structure of some senior roles realistically allows for part-time but you’re right, job shares and efficiency can make a big difference.

The best candidate will get the promotion, We have a lot working PT some of whom far outperform FT team members. They are often happier with a better work life balance.

Yes the hours are part of the equation.

That's why they're considered at the time of the promotion being offered.

Plenty of higher up people are part time workers.

If they were failing due to not working enough hours, this would be addressed in their assessments with their line managers.

It’s not about disadvantaging women (or men), it’s about the practical side of whether senior roles can actually be done in reduced hours. If the job really needs full-time cover, then part-time might not be realistic. But I take your point that where it can be done part-time, it shouldn’t be an automatic block.

it is as rare as hens teeth for two people to be equally “good”. People are individuals and one will always be a better fit for the promotion role, it might be close but there is always something.

Well the Part Time Workers Regulations that protect part timers from being treated differently due to their p/t status say that they should have equal access to training and promotion opportunities, and rightly so.

Just weird to ask this question.

There is nothing magic or sacrosanct about five days. It's a made up custom.

Promotion should be about impact per hour being paid.

I think the world would be a much better place if we all learnt critical thinking skills.

Exactly, that’s the concern I was getting at. If a role genuinely requires full-time presence for urgent decisions, then promoting someone part-time just shifts that responsibility onto others. It’s not about time served, it’s about whether the job itself can realistically be done within reduced hours.

Ah okay. Sorry I didn’t get this from your initial post. It’s interesting because in most industries I’ve worked in it is in fact rare to find senior leadership on official PT hours, but I do find senior leadership obviously have a lot more scope to flex and adjust their own working.

I worked 20 hours a week. When dd1 went to school and twins got funded nursery I could afford to work more hours so went for promotion and got it. Yes I’d been part time but before dc I worked full time and was hugely successful. Unfortunately my job was relocated and so I took redundancy and looked for part time roles while dc were little and I rethought my career. 2009-2013 I worked part time, then was promoted and I’ve been very successful. Working less hours at one point in my career didn’t make me of less value it was just the right balance for my family. My skills were there important part when it came to Interview, as they should be!

You’d love where I work, OP.

Person A: fantastically inefficient but tells dept head (not her line manager) how busy she is and she should get promoted, which he does without consolation with her line manager.

Person B: does the job in a timely and efficient manner, to the extent of doing the same job in 4 days a week rather than 5. Promotion? What promotion? She’s not bringing in any more money (though she is saving the company 20% of her salary).

The promotion should be given to the person that best meets the knowledge, skills, attributes etc required for the job.

Whether they are part time or full time, gender, age, race, religion etc shouldn't impact things, unless one if those factors is part of the job requirements.

If it is a full time job, and someone part time is best fit, then it would be for the employer and employee to work out if and how that can be managed.

However, the part time employee should also be thinking about that and discussing it with the employer before putting in the application.