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?

Years ago I was interviewing alongside a colleague. One candidate was very proud of his 25 years of experience. After the interview my colleague said 'That's not 25 years of different and developing experience, that is one year of experience repeated exactly the same 25 times!'

I work part time and I do my job more efficiently than some people who work full time. The green eyed monster is out tonight I think.

Well yes, they need to be available. That goes without saying.

If a role genuinely can’t be done in 3 days, the employer has the option to hire someone who is more competent on full time hours, or hire two people for a job share.

A business isn’t going to promote a part time employee where it isn’t merited. Part time workers are at a disadvantage by people working full time who think they work harder just because they work more.

If someone on a part time contract has been promoted over you on a full time contract, then they’ve overcome a lot of hurdles. You need to accept they are better at their job than you. Even if you think you’re equal. If you aren’t happy that you have been looked over for a promotion, whether it went to someone part time or not, then look elsewhere.

Don't be daft. The part timer may be absolutely brilliant at the prompted job and may want to adjust their hours

I work very part-time and usually contribute more in a week than my full-time colleague does. Still waiting for management to effectively performance manage the full timer!
if the full timer was offered promotion opportunities ahead of me, I would be fuming!

That’s exactly the tension I was getting at, efficiency and results should matter but often what gets rewarded is visibility or posturing. Makes you wonder how much ‘hours worked’ really tells us about contribution.

I work part-time and I deliver more in the four days that I work than many of my peers who work five days a week. That has been acknowledged by my boss and my bosses boss. I know that there is another part-timer at my level who is recognised as out performing the full-timers, and guess what? As well as being part-time we are both Mums!

Shifting it onto others because management have promoted a part timer who needs more hours, is bad management.

It's not the fault of the person who was promoted.

The workers picking up the slack would need to make their feelings known.

No not at all
If the role needs 5 days then the company need to either advertise 1 role at 5 days or 2 roles as a job share.

In real life the smaller the organisation the less likely it is that a role can be split.
And similar the higher the role is the harder it is to split the responsibilities of a fill time role.

The role is there to drive/meet the business need.
So if one of the employee inputs needed for the role is to be able to manage 5 days anyone who cant match that must-have key component cant get the job

I think it all depends on the circumstances and the role and the person but no the full time person shouldn't automatically have an advantage unless the new roles requires 35 hours and the person who works part time cannot do this.

That's it in a nutshell.

Completely.

I'm not sure why the OP doesn't see this.

They should be given the same chance at opportunities as everyone else but if the opportunities presenting themselves are FT then it’s upto the PT person if they want to up there hours to FT

In my organisation the national director works a 9 day fortnight, the CFO works 28 hours, and the HR director also works a 3 day/4 day split. Two women, one man, all excellent at their jobs, there are people whose role it is to deputise for them when needed. If there’s a will to make it work, it can do. The whole “can’t possibly be done in less than 40 hours” holds women out of senior roles and contributes to unnecessary presenteeism.

I'm fascinated by OP's stance on this, why it bothers you so much to start a thread. There's obviously a specific point/ grievance to view this as the norm.

Meant to click yabu

It's not about fair, it's about business. The best person for the job should get it, if the business can operate with their part time hours. Nothing tricky about it.

Well no, what you said was part time people shouldn’t have the same opportunities as full time staff, if anything you’re saying that visibility and posturing do matter, over a part time worker getting in with it.

The best person for the job gets the promotion.

If the promoted post is full time hours the all candidates would have to be willing to work full time. Equally if a promotion came up and it was 3 days a week all candidates would know the job is part time.

In my work part timers are disabled or mothers (or both). You'd have a discrimination case with that attitude.

It depends whether you are promoting for the level/grade or specific job role

A lot of large organisations promote to the level/grade but smaller ones may promote to a specific job role.

I’ve been promoted twice whilst working part time because I worked for a supportive employer who understood that offering flexible working patterns meant keeping more women in the workplace and did not just see me as a part timer. As women are more likely to be primary caregivers and therefore work part time, the approach of only promoting full time employees would be indirectly discriminatory toward women.

It's always the case that if you're working part time and want to apply for a different job that's advertised as full time, you have to convince the hiring manager that you can make it work part time or as a job share. An internal promotion is no different.

If you can do it PT, you're saving them 20% (or whatever proportion) of a salary so they'd naturally prefer the part time person. If you can't, you won't be hired.

Working fewer hours you may reach a particular level of expertise more slowly of course, you're getting less practice.

This very much depends on the role and industry. I work PT and that's my choice but it does frustrate me that things happen in my absence all the time, decisions are made and sometimes they forget to tell me and assume I was there. It leads me to make errors or have to double check ordinary things for fear that i have not been kept in the loop. We now finally have a better system of keeping me updated.

As it happens a promotion has been advertised and specified for FT staff only. I feel I'm the best candidate but I'm also not prepared to change my hours. I put forward a proposal where I would do some of the duties but not all, as some elements need a FT person present. I am hoping they will consider it. In the absence of any FT candidates I'm in with a chance. I actually think this very fair in the circumstances. If I'm not prepared to be there when an immediate decision is needed it's not fair to be promoted above someone who is there. It's a hands on client facing type job so being present is important.

I work part time (3.5 days) and have just got a promotion over 4 people who work full time.

With all the humility in the world, I was much more relevant for the role than them, and interviewed much better.

Your post smacks of being jealous you're not part time.