Discrimination or not?

[NMAI]

PART-TIME WORKING ... we all know just how difficult it is to find part-time jobs, let alone progressive, well paid part-time jobs with training and opportunities.
I work for a very large company of over 12k employees. They are great in many aspects, pay, bonus, training if you are full time, benefits, culture etc. BUT it's INCREDIBLY difficult to find part-time opportunities in the business.

In my 'quest' to find a part-time opportunity due to my secondment ending in December, I have come up against massive 'anti part-time' attitudes, culture and language throughout the business.

Some examples;

• Internal recruitment manager states 'Branches do not like part-time, which is difficult because there are so many great part-time job-seekers I could place in roles'
• HR Manager States; "Part-time usually means four full time days. There's very few to no roles part-time"
• Area Manager States (after being asked if they'd consider part-time in a branch assistant manager role); "A part-time manager would not set a good example"
• Being asked numerous times when I'd be thinking about increasing my hours.
• Senior Manager vetoing the option for the opportunity of a full-time role being trialled on a part-time basis despite my career history and experience being very well matched to the role and an interim manager putting me forward for the role telling me I'd fit the role perfectly. Senior manager also states that IF they'd even consider a 3/4 day role, it would be "incredibly busy and knowing how much I want work life balance and the importance of my family, it might not work"!!!
• The business working hard on their equality, diversity and inclusion policies with key focuses on certain groups (menopause, disability, women) and with a motto that outlines their values as 'purposeful & valuable to all' they completely disregard and ignore part-time groups of people. They also have a Gender & Development network and celebrate Women's International Day with events and the like.
• When I pose the question to HR Seniors - will the business start focussing on part-time and flexile working - I am completely ignored! On live HR Teams meetings, I ask the question - again getting ignored altogether whilst other questions get acknowledged

To me this is direct and indirect discrimination - not just discriminatory to me but to ALL that limited to working part-time or only want to work part time. Am I wrong to think this?

My husband says none of it is aimed at me so it's not discrimination and warns I could be playing the victim. BUT it's not just about me.

I also have a particular history with this company 16 years ago not allowing me to work part-time 3-days following the birth of my first daughter. They used VERY weak excuses that, at the time, did pursue an ACAS enquiry but due to poor mental health (post-natal depression), I was not strong mentally to challenge.

Seems reasonable Business response to me from a wide range of people

Have you put in a request for flexible working? The Company will need to consider it and there are specific rules around the reasons they can reject.

A big part of why some managers are reluctant to consider part time is about how the work gets done. If you are able to explain how you can work part time but still achieve what is needed, you have more chance of success.

Have you formally requested flexible / part-time working in line with the legislation?

In general you may be right that this story of culture mitigates against women's employment opportunities - technically indirect discrimination as it is more likely to impact on women. But it is equally possible that the business case for specific roles does not stack up. So you'd have to pursue this formally - hearsay and random comments don't make a case of much apart from, possibly, some dinosaurs in business suits.

Always baffled by the time an OP gives to a very long thread but then doesn’t bother to follow up 🤷‍♀️

It is not discrimination. It is standards. You are not owed a job, you are not owed success. Companies have no obligation, moral or legal, to twist themselves into something that is convenient for you.

The idea that someone would expect to work part time and be given a leadership position illustrates the ridiculous level of entitlement some people have. If you want success, you should have to work for it. The person who works harder and more is going to be promoted, make more money and be given the leadership positions they earned.

Everyone on earth needs to grow up and realize that the universe does not revolve around the particular spot where they happen to be standing.

Some jobs do work really well as part time, some don't, mine wouldn't.

I do flexi-time, very flexible, flexi time, I can basically work whatever times I want as long as the job gets done, but the role is big enough that 1 person could not do it in less than full time hours and splitting it between 2 people would be inefficient because of the amount of handover and loss of consistency that would be constantly needed.

If your work have assessed that part time isn't feasible and can justify that then it will be hard to make any kind of discrimination case. Not necessarily impossible, but difficult.

I thought legislation had changed and legally they have to consider a flexi working request? Have you made a formal request?

Put in a formal request

They have to consider but as long as they have a valid business justification they can refuse it.

Honestly op. You need to
Stop looking for discrimination everywhere. Some companies just aren't in favour of part time working. It's not specific to you. Some roles are less suited to it -and It can be quite old fashioned in todays world but it's not discrimination.
This kind of nonsense takes away from actual discrimination. Your company is not obliged to give you exact hours that suit your circumstances. You can always leave and find something else S

Have you considered job share - companies might be more receptive to that?

Nothing you have described is either indirect or direct discrimination. In order to bring any action for discrimination, you would have to show some sort of detriment (for either direct or indirect discrimination). You cannot.

Managing people’s part time does rarely work ime. The junior colleagues end up stepping up and then feel bitter because they’re not paid for that.

That said, I manage 3 part time colleagues who are great and I know they’ve always felt second rate in the team. I get it because I’ve been part time before when dc were little so I’m actively fighting that view from the wider team but it does seem embedded, like part time workers are less valuable. Ime they spend less time gossiping in the kitchen and work really efficiently. It’s even younger members of staff who look down on them. I value them and make sure they know that. The promotional roles within my team wouldn’t be possible part time though.

Put an official request in. See what the response is; follow it up with ACAS / your union if you feel it's discriminatory.

We can't answer the question yet as we don't know what their response will be (and nor do you, despite what you anticipate).

.

Always baffled by the fact that people don't realize other people have a life away from their keyboard and are not tied to their computers or phones all day long! 🥴

Where is it in my post that implied I wasn't wiling to work for it? How does wanting to work part-time equate to not hard working for it and being entitled?! 🤔

I'm more than willing to work damn hard for a successful position. Being part-time wouldn't impede my ability to do so. I think you missed my point!

Why is that immature?

I definitely believe companies need to be more diverse. Why should I have to simply settle for low paid low skilled, mind numbingly dull, non -progressive roles JUST because I can only work part-time?! Why should that disadvantage me?!

I think the key question is who carries out that role when the part timer isn't working. Sometimes the answer will be someone they job share with. Sometimes there won't be a need because the work can be completed by one person in the hours they work. Sometimes it's the juniors or managers in the team who have to fill in, and that isn't good for employee morale. There are just some circimstances where it doesn't make business sense to have someone working in a role part time - particularly in a senior role where someone always needs to be available.

It doesn’t sound discriminatory (what you describe) - it is short sighted of them, but they are allowed to be, irritating though that is. You can apply formally for flexible working, legally - they are also within their rights to refuse if they have valid business reasons - which it sounds like they think they have. I would seriously consider looking for a role in a more flexible and inclusive workplace. Many organisations are very flexible these days, and part time hours are not a hindrance to promotion. Are you in a role that might be available in the public sector? They (we) are generally very flexible on hours/location, etc.

Some of the things you mention gender et al are protected characteristics. Working part time is not.
Have you set out a business case for part time or job share? I know in my job, it would never work, nor would it at the next levels up. So it would not be approved due to business need.

For goodness sake, it’s not anti part time and discrimination. It’s the jobs you want not being doable on a part time basis. Not all roles can be. My employer would haemorrhage money if my role was part time. It also wouldn’t work as a job share. The amount of handover and nuance to individual areas simply wouldn’t make it possible.

Be more realistic would be my advice, an employer will not offer you a role part time that requires full time.

Some roles genuinely don't work part time. As a manager, when I have supported requests from people in management positions below me to reduce their hours, I have found that it generally means me picking up some of the slack when they aren't around. I have been prepared to tolerate it for some really good members of staff because I don't want to lose them, but it does generally increase my already heavy workload. And if it wasn't my workload, it would be someone else's.

I don't think it's necessarily discrimination when organisations say no. It might simply be that you haven't managed to put together a convincing enough proposal about how you will manage the role effectively on fewer hours. If organisations really believed that the job could be done just as well on fewer hours, they would bite your hand off at the offer... think of the financial savings from their perspective! The reason they don't do this is either because they're concerned that the job won't get done properly or because they think someone else will end up picking up the slack. If you can convince them that neither of those objections are well founded, I can't see why they would say no.

Yes, it can be discrimination. Most commonly Indirect Discrimination where certain rules exclude a group of people from having the same opportunity as others.

You can find out more by looking up The Part-Time Workers (Prevention of less favourable treatment) Regulations 2000. This legislation covers you from being excluded from any promotion and development that's available to full-time workers.

You could also contact ACAS who'll offer some free advice on this.

Most commonly Indirect Discrimination where certain rules exclude a group of people from having the same opportunity as others.

@2pence in the OP’s scenario - how would this apply?

Surprised at these comments. If you look into recent employment law cases regarding rejection of flexible working requests you'll find that the comments made regarding your "family and work/life balance" are potentially discriminatory and could be seen as indirect sex discrimination.
All orgs are required to consider all formal requests and reject on the bases of 8 reasons only with justifiable reasons that stand up in a tribunal. They are also expected to seek alternatives to make both parties happy. Of course orgs can reject and not all jobs are suitable but a consideration has to be given.

Op - have you put in a formal flexible working request? Have you got a flexible working request policy? Have you considered what impact you going part time would have on the org and how those things can be mitigated? You need to essentially put a business case together for your part time working and present it to them as per the flexible working legislation- if you don't have one you need to follow the ACAS codes of practise on it.

It's a bit concerning in general the responses here - showing such an antiquated approach to working. Part time is not "dossing" it's not taking the piss or anything of the sort. Ways of working have and are changing. It's about time we all embraced that.