Full time only...

[OverTheRainbow88]

I’m a long term lurker, the passed 2 months I’ve seen 3 roles I would love to apply for, have the qualifications, experience etc however, as a mum to a 2 and 4 year old I don’t want to work 5 days a week. 4 the most. However, when I’ve emailed to enquiry about the roles I’ve been told the post holder must be full time, and no job shares.
In my eyes these jobs can be done on a 4 day week or even by a job share. Surely; this is discriminating against working mums? Each time, I’ve felt deflated and moved on by yesterday’s job was the job I’ve been looking for for about 2 years. Yet the same response. What can be said/done? Or sadly nothing?

Thanks for any comments/suggestions

@Beamur

That kind of attitude is what is stopping intelligent, capable women going back into the workplace after having children. It sounds like the OP is perfectly aware of the limitations placed on her by her (and her partner, presumably) by having children, but is finding it hard to match her availability to the kind of job she's qualified for.

I disagree, OP seems to see the limitations and barriers as being put in place by the employers rather than by her own choices and actions.

I disagree, OP seems to see the limitations and barriers as being put in place by the employers rather than by her own choices and actions.

You mean her and the father's choices/actions?

@changingnames786

I disagree, OP seems to see the limitations and barriers as being put in place by the employers rather than by her own choices and actions.

You mean her and the father's choices/actions?

Yes, as I had referred to the need for the father to change his work patterns as well I assumed this was self evident

In addition for lots of roles in LA working with vulnerable service users there is a lot of multi agency work and when half the people are part time and work on different days it causes real delays and inconsistency in service delivery.

A lot of fathers meet more resistence from their employers when they ask for part time work or flexibility. I know far more men who are refused than women. My own dh was told 'thats what your wife is for' so actually employers make it hard for men to be supportive and that imlacts on women.
We dint all work in big firms who follow employment law!

Some organisations, like mine, might already have lots of part-time staff and therefore need full time staff so that at least a few folk are around all week for continuity. In a team of 13 only 3 of us are full time, we just couldn’t function with any more part-time staff.

I’ve noticed the return in emphasis to full-time work: ‘flexible’ provisions are offered as a tick-box exercise but excuses will always be found. Increasingly our economy offers only a binary choice between full time or gig economy insecurity.

This is exactly the kind of traditional feminist issue that needs a higher profile. The conflicts between work and family life are well known. There is a guest post currently about the motherhood penalty, which is as real now as it ever was because it is women who have to sacrifice themselves and their future for children: men are not called upon to take responsibility for their production of children, they are always viewed as a woman’s problem. The same people who claim we need ever more immigration because of an ageing population are often the same people who turn around and curse local women for bearing and raising the future adults required. Work in the post-industrial revolution era was never set up to work around that need for family life, and women were forced more and more into domestic slavery. The equal capacity of women to do work and the freedom therefore to pursue it was one of the major drivers and aims of women’s rights in the first place.

All of which lengthy ambling is to emphasise the validity of this as an issue and to contrast it with the automatic modern response that convenience and ever decreasing costs, ever increasing profits thereby, for business must be allowed to take priority. The way our society is set up forces women into vulnerability. This is not acceptable.

Your post assumes that the default position for a woman with young children is to work part time. It isn't. There is no default position. It entirely depends on your personal situation. There are many different scenarios for parents of young children.

What we are saying is that the number of those scenarios are reducing. The children have got to be looked after by someone. The principle of collective childcare is under attack, as somehow it has become uneconomic. We don’t all have family to help at the drop of a hat - today’s grandparents are less able and less willing themselves, through economics, distance or whatever.

@MildredPuppy

A lot of fathers meet more resistence from their employers when they ask for part time work or flexibility. I know far more men who are refused than women. My own dh was told 'thats what your wife is for' so actually employers make it hard for men to be supportive and that imlacts on women. We dint all work in big firms who follow employment law!

Yes. I dropped to part time when DD started school; it was a novelty in my company at the time but fortunately they wanted to retain my skills. DH would have been met with blank astonishment and refusal if he'd asked - though 2/3 time each would have been ideal and he probably wouldn't have ended up leaving a few years later due to health problems.

This is still unfortunately the reality for many.

Thanks for all your comments, they are helpful.

I’m thinking, I may apply and if offered bring up 4 days a week then?

My OH can’t reduce his hours as he works away 3 nights a week, so already ‘looses’ 6 hours a week of work as this is allowed to be during work time as such, which, I realise, we are lucky for. He also earns more than me full time than if I were full time.

4 long days at nursery are expensive as it is.

It’s a shame, as I know I was born to do these jobs and 3 of the people I spoke to didn’t even ask my experience of anything before considering part time.

The 6 hours my OH looses is travel time, I didn’t make that clear, sorry

Perhaps you also need to consider, and dispense with, this idea that it’s only a problem with very young children, ie preschool. Schools do not cover the same working hours as employment, and children are dependent until 18 legally. We have laws dictating that they should not be left alone until 12, nor overnight until 16 fgs. The economics of our times are forcing longer and longer dependencies too.

A lot of fathers meet more resistence from their employers when they ask for part time work or flexibility. I know far more men who are refused than women. My own dh was told 'thats what your wife is for' so actually employers make it hard for men to be supportive and that imlacts on women.

And the frustrating thing is it's women who are punished by this most of all.

@OverTheRainbow88

Thanks for all your comments, they are helpful.

I’m thinking, I may apply and if offered bring up 4 days a week then?

My OH can’t reduce his hours as he works away 3 nights a week, so already ‘looses’ 6 hours a week of work as this is allowed to be during work time as such, which, I realise, we are lucky for. He also earns more than me full time than if I were full time.

4 long days at nursery are expensive as it is.

It’s a shame, as I know I was born to do these jobs and 3 of the people I spoke to didn’t even ask my experience of anything before considering part time.

As someone who frequently recruits for these types of roles i suggest you don't do this. As another poster said if they are advertising full time only that is what they want. Having been through a couple of recruitment cycles recently when people did exactly this, apply for a full time role and then say they want part time when offered the role, I can tell you it didn't go down well. Not only was the job offer withdrawn but they will unlikely be considered favourably if they apply for a different vacancy in the team The reason they didn't ask about your experience is because you are not able to meet one of the non negotiable criteria which is working full time.

@MayYouLiveInInterestingTimes

Perhaps you also need to consider, and dispense with, this idea that it’s only a problem with very young children, ie preschool. Schools do not cover the same working hours as employment, and children are dependent until 18 legally. We have laws dictating that they should not be left alone until 12, nor overnight until 16 fgs. The economics of our times are forcing longer and longer dependencies too.

Unfortunately true - I was able to continue working full time before DD started school as there are options for full time care. It was only when she started school that I needed to drop my hours.

Well, maybe these jobs could be done that way. But you know, lots of jobs also can't be done that way.

It may also be the case that there are plenty of candidates who want to work FT hours.

Job shares can be great, or not, for clients.

It's very difficult to pin these things down, but usually if an employer is looking for a FT worker, it's because they think that the work requires that.

I'm currently doing a temporary job on a 4-day a week basis, I enjoy the work and my manager and colleagues seem very happy with what I am doing (we are all wfh at the moment). I asked if it would be worth applying for the permanent job, my manager encouraged me to. As I have experience of the job and a lot of experience in the sector, I know that it could easily be condensed into 3 days (some afternoons, I have literally nothing to do) and I mentioned this - he said he would discuss it with his senior. It came back that the role has to be 5-days and in-office, no compromise. So now I'm not going to apply and the company will have to retrain someone, I suspect because the company has a culture of presenteeism and "That's The Way We've Always Done Things" .

It's crap and imo one of the main barriers to women's career progression. In my organisation it's generally no problem to reduce your hours after maternity leave. But then there are so many women stuck at the same grade for the next 10 years because every new post is advertised as full time.

I work in local government and it used to be really good for flexible working but things are now going backwards due to endless cuts to budgets.

What happens is that if a full time job is advertised and the person you take on only wants to work part time then this will be allowed but the remainder of the job is lost and becomes a 'saving'. What this actually means of course is that everyone else has to do more work in less time and we're already under huge pressure.

I was faced with this situation recently when recruiting for a post in my team - if I agree to take someone on for 3 days a week then I get left with 2 days of work and no one to do it. So obviously I am going to favour the person who will do 5 days even if I think the other person would be better at the job. As it turned out the best person was fine to work full time. But I was really uncomfortable about the possibility of having to make judgements like this because I work part time myself and job share my post so I benefit from flexible working. When I asked to go part time it was assumed that someone would be brought in to do the remainder of the job. Not anymore.

So this is another example of how cutting funding for public services has a disproportionately negative impact on women.

I wonder actually if I should raise this issue with our equalities team because it seems pretty clear discrimination against anyone who can't work full time due to caring responsibilities which is overwhelmingly women.

But I also think from an employer POV that it is much more expensive and labour-intensive to hire, train, manage and pay 2 people to fill one role. I'm a manager and you wouldn't think one more person is that much more work but sometimes it really is

As an employer with a few experiences of managing flexible and job share working over the years, I found the opposite. I found having a mix of collaborative ideas from two job sharing people, the usually always available cover for holidays and planned leave etc, having double the skill and experience mix in the role, and so on made for a really good management experience and excellent productivity, I would say probably above employing one person in a full time capacity.

Benefits come into the PT vs Ft thing too. In many sectors, any job that can reasonably be done PT has already been made PT officially, because then they don't have to pay benefits. It's cheaper in those scenarios to have two PT workers with no benefits than one FT who has to get them.

I've also seen the problem malloo describes. In my spouses' workplace, which is public sector, they are contractually obliged to extend a lot of flexibility over work times. But it comes back to bite them, a lot. People ask to be moved at public expense an then reduce hours once in the new position, for example. They hired one woman who immediately asked to do reduced hours for her artistic work and later for childcare - but this meant in the end more work for others in the section. And of course this meant not doing certain kinds of fieldwork, where they could have unexpected overnights due to weather, so that was all on other team members too. Even though necessary fieldwork is part of the job.

This has generally been a popular place for women to work specifically because of the good union that keeps these things in place, but I can easily see why the private sector might not want to get into it. Because if you do it for one person, you are suddenly in a position where you are expected to make the accommodation for all, and that's not terribly sustainable and the other workers are understandably pissed off.

• In many sectors, any job that can reasonably be done PT has already been made PT officially, because then they don't have to pay benefits. It's cheaper in those scenarios to have two PT workers with no benefits than one FT who has to get them.

Really? My company never quibbled about benefits, I'm glad to say. Something like a group health insurance scheme I don't suppose each person costs them enough to be worth pissing people off about.