"Strongest candidate by far" yet didnt get the job because I couldn't commit to full time hours

[Eskimo333]

An application for a job came up at work. With previous experience etc I was perfectly qualified to do the job. It was advertised full time, but positions are always advertised full time where I work. So, I asked if there were any objections to me applying for it part time (30 hours). I was told no objections. I applied, got selected, was interviewed. It went really well and I was told there and then I was the strongest candidate but that the difficulty was going to be in whether me being there 3 days a week would impact on everyone else in the team negatively. After consideration I agreed to increase to a fourth day but as a short day (so 35 hours a week). This was then considered by my would be manager (who interviewed me).

I didnt get the job, I was told it had gone to the second choice full time candidate, who has no managerial experience and that despite me being the strongest candidate and way more experienced than anyone else, 3.5 days wasnt flexible enough and would have an impact on the rest of the team.

I certainly dont want to take this forward legally, just looking for opinions on whether this was fair. I am finding it hard to feel like this is not discrimination. I need to be part time based on child care and I was already stretching myself to do 3.5 days rather than the intended 3.

I love where I work but am now feeling like it will be impossible to ever progress as this will be the case for the forseeable future!

[Schoolchoicesucks]

timewise.co.uk/power-50/
Trying another clicky link

[RosaWaiting]

What would annoy me was being told it was fine before you applied.

That’s clearly not true so why didn’t they think before telling to apply?!

[MeanMrMustardSeed]

Sounds fair to me. They want FT, you don’t. They appointed someone else.

[CinnabarRed]

But there are some jobs that really do need to be full time. A receptionist, for example, that has to be available 8:30-6:00 M-F. No good offering that to someone for 4 days per week. Or some client facing positions where service users need both continuity of personnel and those personnel to be available during office hours.

I’m not disputing that many jobs can be done part time; just saying that there are lots of jobs that can’t without the employer in question being behind the times.

Job shares are possible, of course, but more often as 2.5/2.5 day splits, or close to that. 4/1 days splits, for example, are nigh on impossible to make work because the person on 1 day, or even 1.5 days, doesn’t get enough exposure to what’s going on.

[Oblomov19]

So sad. Most companies so behind the times. Don't they know that most people want to work a 3 or 4 day week.
And I bet businesses can allow that. Most of the time.

[MitziK]

What's their idea of fulltime if 35 hours a week isn't it?

[PleaseGoogleIt]

I think I would have upped to full time for the right promotion (sounds like you really wanted it). Nurseries and childminders are available 5 days a week - DD goes 4 but I think I'm going to go back to full time as workload is full on and I enjoy my days at work.

[Medievalist]

It sounds more than fair. They didn't just dismiss your application but sounds like they gave it considerable consideration but didn't think a PT role would work.

[BernadetteRostankowskiWolowitz]

Would the increased salary from the promotion cover the additional childcare? Do you have a dp or dh who could drop to 4 days so you could increase to 5?

[ChicCroissant]

It is disappointing on a personal note, OP, but entirely fair in a business sense. They want someone in every day.

[Schoolchoicesucks]

JustMe9 it'not always true that you won't advance in a career working part-time.

There was a feature on radio 4 this week about a successful job share team and also this

timewise.co.uk/power-50/

[Schoolchoicesucks]

That's very disappointing OP particularly as 35 hours is pretty much full time in some places.

It's hard to know from the outside what impact you being there less than full time would have had on others in the team. Maybe it would have been detrimental, maybe not. Would there have been any difference if you'd be willing to split the 35 hours over 5 days rather than 3.5? Are the other team members junior and need someone senior (ie you) on hand all the time? Could that have been done remotely/with you on call remotely?

There are organisations that can help companies look at structuring work in a more flexible way. Companies pay for this as it helps with their gender pay gap figures and helps recruitment and retention.

I would definitely feed back your disappointment and could be worth suggesting something like that to them?

[AnnaMagnani]

It's fair. They want FT, you could have worked FT and had FT childcare.

Perhaps if they had no other candidates, or 2 in a jobshare then it would have been different, but fundamentally they want the job done FT.

However if you split everything into jobshare then when one party leaves, you find all your roles are part-time and they may not have wanted to go there as you end up having no FT roles.

As a business, it really is up to them. Just like it's up to you to choose your childcare arrangements.

[Whisky2014]

They want full time, you don't want full time.
Hard luck but it's fair enough on their part.

[Redwinestillfine]

It's depressing that so many employers are behind the times. They would probably have got more work out of you, efficiency isn't just the number of hours you work I would feedback to them that if it was genuinely a job that can't be done on less than full time hours then they should have clearly said so when you called to see if you could do it on reduced hours. There are employers out there who are a lot more enlightened op, maybe time to go d one that better fits your work life balance?

[TalkinAboutManetManet]

I certainly dont want to take this forward legally

On what basis?

You applied for a FT role, put forward a case to have PT hours, they considered it and determined that it did not meet business needs.

Unless the person who got the job is a male without childcare responsibilities, who was given the PT hours, I don’t see your argument.

[Daffodil101]

I’ve just been approached about a job that I’m very qualified for. Its a 12 month role. It’s in the same company. They couldn’t think of anyone else who had the same skill set. They’ve also ‘borrowed’ me on three occasions this year to work on specific cases that needed my skill set. These were cases where there had been complaints about the previous work. On all three occasions they’ve received compliments about me.

I work part time. The job they want me to do is full time. As I’m very efficient, I’d probably do five days work in three. But no, they are going to try and find somebody who can satisfy the ‘full time’ tick box, even if they are unskilled and need training. For 12 months. It’s insane.

[vdbfamily]

Is it a role that you could be absent one day a week and not have a detrimental affect on the business. My most recent promotion I requested 4 days and they said it needed to be full-time because it was in quite a mess but agreed to reconsider if I got the mess sorted. After 9 months they agreed to 4 days. There are jobs where it is fine and jobs where you need to be there daily.

[Sofasurfingsally]

This has happened to me too. It's infuriating that so many companies will only advertise part time jobs, when it honestly isn't necessary. I've offered to find my other half for interview, and also to be flexible about which data I work, as required (I can), but no. Very experienced people (often women) who want to drop to part time hours without losing several grades are looking for a needle in a haystack.

[LordProfFekkoThePenguinPhD]

That happened to me - they wanted me full time but I had always told them that I just couldn’t at that time. Sad - it was a good job - but I guess I’d rather know before and realise that the work just would pile us and it would be unmanageable.

[TheOnlyLivingBoyInNewCross]

Do you need to be part time based on childcare or is that what you choose? As others have said, childcare is available 5 days a week.

The job was advertised as full time so I presume that that is what they needed - how can it be discriminatory to offer it to the person who can work the advertised hours?

[Babyroobs]

I was in a similar situation last year, in fact I was the only applicant that turned up for the interview ! I think one of the main reasons I didn't get the job was that it was full time and I had made it clear I didn't want to work more than 4 days. They did say they wanted to employ me though and to wait another 18 months until the current part time person was due to retire and then apply again. I understood their reasons.

[CherryPavlova]

It’s unreasonable to expect every job to be adapted to what you want to work. It’s a full time post and you aren’t willing/able to work full time. There is no obligation in law to require your employe to offer a full time job on a part time basis.

[Redcliff]

Where I work 36 hours is full time. I think its shortsighted of your company to not allow at least a trial of your requested hours.

[JustMe9]

If its a FT role why then can you get childcare arrangements for full time? Surelly nurseries are open 5 days a week not just 3 or 3 and a half :D you will not get any carreer progression working PT ever!