Negotiating PT on a job advertised Full time

[lljkk]

Before applying for 3 jobs this week I cleared with the managers the idea informally that I would really rather work only 3-4 days/week. I was encouraged to apply for 2 of the jobs anyway, and the other job they said 4 days wouldn't necessarily be a problem.

But, IF I get interviews, and IF I get offered job(s), how do I raise this? What are the right words to use, how do I politely assert myself if they complain, or do I take that as a sign that I don't want to work for them anyway? Have you successfully negotiated PT hours on FT advertised job, and how did you successfully play it?

It's bothering me hugely and will interfere with how I perform at interview. Is it really okay not to bring up PT rather than FT during interviews?

And then there's the problem of making sure they only expect 3 days work/week rather than FT work output for 60% the price, but that's another problem.

thx.

Well I don't think you need to bring it up again at the interview as you've already discussed it. As they've still invited you for interview knowing that's what you want, the interview should be about your skills and experience etc.

They might bring it up of course, and may ask how you are proposing to do the job in the reduced hours they are looking for. I suggest you come up with something other than stating an expectation that they'll just take 40% of the role away. I also think it's not a question of "asserting yourself". They've advertised full time, so if you want something different it's about persuading and convincing, not asserting yourself.

bummer, I have zero powers of persuasion!
And I definitely won't offer to do a FT job in PT hours.

If they truly need someone FT then I can't be that person, I've decided. 2 of the jobs don't have fixed deadlines or objectives; they just have big pots of money to explore certain research questions. So it depends how good the other applicants are whether they'll bother with me.

Probably something else will come along.

"I definitely won't offer to do a FT job in PT hours."

But you've applied for a full time job and want to work part time hours! Are you proposing a job share?

Lots of people ask to be considered for posts defined as full time on a part time basis. The ones that are successful are the ones who proactively think about how the requirements of the organisation can be met by someone doing fewer hours, and come up with creative solutions. Rather than just saying they can't fulfil the employers requirements and expect the employer to figure out what's going to happen to the rest of the job.

You're already 2/3 of the way there- clearly they are open to discussing the prospect of filling the role on a part time basis, so if you are a good candidate and are prepared to meet them halfway in a constructive discussion about what they need from this role and how that can be achieved in fewer hours, you are in with a good chance.

They advertise FT because PT jobs don't attract many applicants. Not because the roles (2 of them, anyway) truly need FT. They have pots of money to spend as they see fit. One of them is desperate trying to get anybody qualified in.

But I appreciate your replies. I've got a solution I'm happy with. If they offer interview I'll email to say I can only do 60% FTE to start and if they find that unsuitable they can withdraw interview or I'll withdraw application, I completely understand why I may be unsuitable. I'm letting them know now to save future inconvenience and appreciate them considering me up to this point (blarblar). I can spin this very positively. I'm still happy to come in for a chat if they see me as possibly suitable for other roles in future.

So it's all transparent and no hard feelings. And I can concentrate on which job would I actually like best, or how to figure that out.

(And I'll keep job hunting elsewhere, too)

I only brought it up at the end of my interview, though the recruitment consultant who put me forward for the job had put it somewhere, so I wasn't deliberately hiding it. By that point I think that they had got to know me a bit and could see that me 80% was better than the other candidates 100%.

Obviously things are a bit different if you are an internal candidate as they already know you. But if not the take the opportunity to shine at interview rather than making the decision for them.

The company I work for recently advertised a role as full but have ended up taking on 2 people part time instead. From our point of view it's much better for holiday cover etc to have 2 part time.

I've applied for full time myself and then negotiated part time in the interview. It's more important to get the best people for the role rather than sticking rigidly to the job spec. I think a lot of employers are pretty flexible these days.

I went on a course at work, about recruiting. We were told that we should consider in advance whether a post could only be fulfilled on a FT basis, or if it could conceivably be carried out PT, and proceed accordingly. We were told that if we advertise only as FT, and the chosen candidate then negotiates for PT, we might have excluded some people who could not work FT (such as parents, almost certainly women, so possibly leaving us open to a charge of sex discrimination), if you are following me.
It almost happened: the candidate concerned turned out to be our 2nd choice and the 1st choice accepted the job offer; I knew the candidate's wife and knew that he could not work FT, but he did not bring this up at interview and the other panel member did not know this when we made the choice.

But your workplace may well work differently from mine: our HR dept is ultra- cautious in all regards!

I wondered about all that JSNNN, thanks for your reply. I wonder why they don't offer the positions as FT or PT to start with, saying it will depend on the type of can candidate which came forward which I am pretty sure is an option for 2 of the jobs. They already put the salary down as in a range depending on XYZ factors. It's an old-fashioned sector, iyswim, might be welded to what has always worked in the past without problems.

Last yr I interviewed for an ambulance service & they really messed about in their job adverts not meaning what was really on offer, also messed about a recruitment agency (I can go into a lot of detail, but not sure I should!).

oops about the extra "can" in last post.

I agree that it's sensible recruiting to consider in advance whether a post can be done part time, and reflect that in the advertising if possible.

However an employer is not going to get sued for sex discrimination if it considers part time for a good candidate even though they advertised for full time, that is ridiculous scaremongering by your HR department Justsayno.

They should be pushing the business benefits of being open to flexible arrangements, and encouraging managers to be open to negotiation by good candidates, not suggesting that unless they've specified part time in the ad they must not allow part time otherwise they'll get sued by people who didn't apply in the first place.

Marking spot.