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?

Like it or not, that's the law of the land - part time workers can be treated no less favourably, or given less opportunity tgan full-time staff

Overall contribution is irrelevant. Both employees are only being asked, expected and paid to contribute their contracted hours. Even if we close our eyes and pretend that they're both 'equally good', there is no expectation that the 3-day employee will complete the same volume of work as the 5-day employee.

The promotion will presumably involve different duties, responsibilities etc. Assuming both employees would stick to their 3/5 day pattern there are only two things to consider:

1- Can the requirements of the new role be completed in 3 days (or with a job share)?

2- Who is better suited overall for that role?

This is no different an attitude to people who think being in a role for a long time entitles you to progression, and are repeated shocked to find out that is rarely the case.

Thankfully the law disagrees… part-time workers have legal protections against such misconceptions (including being treated unfavourably). Should add I’ve always worked FT but most of my PT colleagues equally as committed in my experience:

www.gov.uk/part-time-worker-rights

Agreed.

There is a certain amount of work to be done in a firm; whether it’s done by 5 full time people of 3 full time people and 4 part time people makes no difference to anyone (although the flexibility to hire part timers will probably increase the talent pool significantly). YABU

YABU. If someone working part time has better skills and knowledge than someone working full time, the part time worker is more deserving of progression. If they have been working for the same length of time I'd say they're even more deserving as they have elevated their skills and knowledge quicker despite having less working hours.

YABVU. By your thinking someone who works part time in a junior role will be stuck there, never to be promoted, simply because they’re part time.

It is discrimination and you are not helping.

They only get paid for 3 days as opposed to 5 days. And they get less holiday allowance.

other than that, why should there be a difference?

If someone is exceeding what is expected of them in the hours they are paid for, doesn’t matter how many hours they work, they deserve promotion.
if It’s a new role promotion (rather than in-role-progression), as others have said - depends if the job can be done part time.

UABVU, why assume that someone who works part time is not as apt or conscientious as someone up work full time? Just because someone works “full time” doesn’t mean they are working all the hours they are paid for.
in my experience, those working full time then to always want to do all their work and many times work above and beyond the hours they are paid for.
your view is also quite discriminatory- many people who work part time, are likely to have to childcare responsibilities, long term illness, care for elderly or disabled parents/ children.

you probably already know all this but…. Anyways

'Putting in more hours'? You mean, working more days than part time workers and earning a correspondingly higher salary? Full time workers are not putting in an extra two days effort for nothing. If anything its part time workers who tend to put in the extra as they have spare capacity that full time workers don't. Two part time workers job sharing tend to offer more to a business than one FTE for this reason.

There are some people that believe some jobs can't be part time, but this is a belief rather than fact and affects women's careers more.

If we want a successful society then women need career opportunities as well and can't be limited by the fact that are also bringing up the next generation of doctors, nurses, soldiers etc.

Part time role models should be encouraged at the most senior levels.

We all know who benefits from valuing things like 'worked more overall hours' and exactly who is disadvantaged.

depends how much value you add in the time you’re there and how good you are at your job. You rather keep someone who is valuable and can only work part time, as opposed to someone who can work full
time / over time but is replaceable.

Bizarre……

Surely promotion is earned by being good at the job. It depends on the job I guess, but there's no reason a part-timer couldn't be as good as, or better than, a full-timer.

That’s the type of response I would expect from you

I, as a part timer (I work 4 days a week instead of 5) was promoted to a senior role when several staff, all of whom were full time, were interviewed for it at the same time. My team have flourished and know that if there's an issue they can contact me at any time. I'm not cocky enough to suggest that a couple of them wouldn't have been brilliant at the job, but I was considered the most suited and I've worked hard to ensure my team meet all their targets and are looked after. They know they can come to me at literally any time and I'll do my best to help.

Full time doesn't necessarily mean better.

Reading through all your posts OP, this seems to be more about availability than hours worked (which is more understandable because I'd have been annoyed if you were suggesting the 45 hours I worked last week over four days weren't 'enough').

Thinking of my workplace, it's hard to work part time and I'm often online or on emails on my non-working day. My boss is very good at letting me take time back where I can. If I were to progress to Head of Team, it would be ever harder. The department needs a Head available throughout normal working hours. So I'd probably end up being even more available when I'm 'not working'.

So because I disagreed with your assertions about full time workers being “more visible”, “more willing to do overtime” etc etc (which is rubbish by the way, certainly in every organisation I’ve worked in for the last 25 years) and now you presume to know how I think?

I stand by my response - bizarre

That would be indirect sex discrimination since women disproportionately make up the part time work force.

I think your description is often the reality.

My view is that part-time makes no difference, best person ‘wins’. Politics and stupidity of management could well play out as you describe. Does it always? No. Can it? Yes.

It also sounds like the trap that benefits bashers like to use - the only works part-time tops up on UC using my hard earned tax etc., why can’t they get a better job…..
Now you know they are facing desired discrimination if they DO try to better themselves

Tried to edit to bashers not bashers though I like the thought of benefits badgers

“Putting in” 🥴
By that same wonky logic, promotions should be given to part timers as they aren’t ‘taking out’ 5 days of wages.