- Pregnancy
- Baby & Toddler
- Parents
- Getting Pregnant
- Baby Names
- Product Reviews
-
Registry
- Community
-
More
Want a personalized experience?
Download the free app
Working Moms
Stacyc625
member
If PT is so ideal- ...?
Stacyc625
member
in Working Moms
Then why do so few companies/industries offer PT work.
I have seen time and time again- women stating that working PT would be 'ideal' for them-
I know personally in my field (tax law) it is very difficult to find PT working options- (which is why i work for myself now).
However you would think that more companies would be more apt to explore offering their workers a PT option- work/job share program etc. Not just for women- but men as well if they wanted to explore the option.
If you were extended a PT option (w/ taking a salary cut) would you explore that possible opportunity?
This discussion has been closed.
Re: If PT is so ideal- ...?
My gut answer: men run the world/economy and most men don't want to work part time.
Maybe that's harsh....but I know here in my office which is VERY 'progressive' (ie there is paid paternity leave, etc) most of the men seem to willingly work more hours, want to 'move ahead' more, etc.
I know going part time would limit my options as far as projects I could manage, etc. They do 'allow' it and I've toyed with it but since I just got promoted I feel I can't yet. I still feel funny telecommuting some days, etc.
I don't think society has pushed the 'have it all work life balance' cookie down men's throats as much as women.
God I sound awful today don't I?! I'm in a pissed off mood.
I've done both. I wanted to go back to FT because I want to earn my full salary. PT is ideal. I hope to go back to PT after we get some projects wrapped up around the house and don't need the cash flow.
The costs involved to train someone to work PT are the same as FT, so that is a big reason why so many companies are not interested in offering PT work.
I am in a happy mood and I totally agree. My company (a university) is wonderful that after 2 years of full time service you can request to cut your hours and salary to 60% but keep your benefits for up to 2 years. Unfortunately its not a long term option and after 2 years you do have to return. You also can get denied based on the type of job that you have. Some departments offer more flexibility than others so that also is a little dissapointing.
I assume this.
But I also agree with the other PP's comments too. At my previous employer, they allowed a couple women ONCE to do a job share and it didn't go well. Therefore all future opportunities were nixed as well.
I think that many managers are also out of touch with what their employees actually do and whether or not their jobs could be done PT. seriously. I had a job that I had about 8 hours of actual work to do each week and my manager wouldn't allow me to go PT b/c of headcount reasons. It was a weak excuse. Same as "if i let you, I'll have to let everyone." That's BS.
I would do anything to be able to work PT in a professional role similar to what I have now.
DD -- 5YO
DS -- 3YO
I don't think I would do PT. Like you, it would be really hard in my field (litigation) to maintain any sort of consistent PT schedule.
As to why more companies don't offer, PT, I think PT can be ideal for the employer, but it's not always ideal for the employer. It certainly doesn't work for all positions, and I'm not even sure it works for most positions.
I don't think there's a lot of positions where having multiple part timers just isn't practical. In some jobs, there's an accountability issue where one person needs to see the project through from start to finish, and the types of projects involved are too big for PT work. If you have regular clients, they might not want to have to deal with two people rather than one. If the job requires training, it's an added expense and not as much bang for the companies buck to have to train up multiple people. There's also more scheduling hassles for any position that needs to be covered over regular, fixed hours. There's also a general perception I think (which may or not have some basis to it) that a part time employee may be less committed to the job on a long term basis (i.e., a full time employee taking benefits has more incentive to stay with the company than one who is only doing it for a little extra $$, which is a more likely scenario for potential part time employees than full time ones...like I said, may or may not be justified).
I wouldn't work PT. My job isn't conducive to it at all, I could not get done what I need to get done working part time and two people can't do my job just splitting hours (it falls in the category of a project orientated position that needs one person to have oversight).
Like others have said, it's simply not beneficial or practical for employers to have lots of part-time employees. Twice the training costs and half the accountability/consistency.....why would any employer agree to that?
And for me - part-time would be ideal, as long as I was still getting paid a full-time salary and getting my benefits. But that isn't very likely! While working PT would be fun, it's not worth giving up that much pay and all the benefits that I'm currently entitled to.
I work in a male dominated field (engineering) at a male dominated company. They have no need to offer part time work (although they do in some other orgs) because if I don't want it there is a man who is willing to work full time.
I've approached my boss several times about part time and each time he shuts me down with a no. Doesn't give any reason why it couldn't work and won't listen to my thoughts on why it could work.
If I was offered the chance of part time I would dance and sing and take it in a heartbeat. Never would happen in my current field though, never.
I plan to work PT after I finish residency.
I sort of think that feminists in this country took the wrong tract. Instead of going the route of making work/family balance tolerable for women, we have taken the route of women being equal to men in the workplace, and "breaking the glass ceiling." That means working FT or more.
The other problem (as so many have mentioned) is that medical insurance is linked to having a FT job.
WTF?
Me thinks that someone evidently doesn't know what "feminism" is about. Of course it was/is all about being equal to men, in the workforce and otherwise. It's about not expecting or demanding special or different treatment due to being a woman.
Good Lord.
a company would definitely BENEFIT from having PT workers- simply on the lack of benefit costs ALONE. I don't agree with the 2x amount of training costs.- plus look at it this way. how many companies lose a female employee due to not offering any flexibility and she has to choose between work FT or SAH. so therefore the company has to rehire, retrain, and all of the costs that come with that which could easily be avoided entirely by offering a PT possibility or flexibility.
Well, sure - if they don't offer benefits and only offer part-time wages, they'd save money. But how many women here listed benefits as the reason that they work full-time? So no - a company isn't going to benefit by having part-time workers if they're still providing them benefits and paying them well.
I'm sure companies don't like having to train a new employee after losing a female employee after she has a baby. But let's be honest here...........that's not incentive for them to offer part-time positions, it's only incentive for them to not hire women in the first place.
In a lot of professional jobs, working part-time just isn't feasible. There's 40 hours/week worth of work to do, and simply splitting it between two people isn't practical. I don't see companies refusing to do it as being woman-haters. They're just being practical.
I guess that I think that maybe it should be about what is "special and different" about being a woman. My mind is open to other ideas. This is just something I have been thinking about recently.
No, feminism was NEVER about how women are special and different and should be treated as such. It was the absolute and total opposite of that. That we're capable of doing what men can do and should be treated as equals, with equal rights.
Being treated as "special" and "different" is why women were once upon a time confined to the home, not allowed an education, not allowed to vote, and treated as property of their husbands. Because we were "special".
I think it's more about how work structures/environments/jobs are structured. Over and over we see it as 'impossible' to do the job in part time or split between people....but is it *really* impossible? Or have we dug ourselves into a hole where our jobs are too big to fit into what many of us would consider the ideal work/life balance.
Let's be honest......if the workplace/culture got creative, was willing to explore different options, etc most jobs could be shrunk/changed/reorganized to fit into a shorter work week, job shared, etc. But because few have made that first step it remains an 'impossible' dream.
I know that it never was. I am speculating that maybe that should have been part of it or be part of it. There are a lot of women who would like to spend more time in the home, and that option is less avaiable. Maybe it should be part of a modern feminism to focus on things like longer maternity leaves, paid maternity leave, increasing the amount of PT jobs, and getting quality childcare subsidized. Maybe universal healthcare should be something that is a feminist issue if women are forced to work more than they want to in order to get benefits for their family.
I think this is VERY well stated!!
Also, one extra side comment is that I think it's ironic that it is viewed as having one foot out the door. Time and time again, I've read/ heard/ seen studies that show that the more flexibility an employer offers, the MORE loyal their employees are. Think about it, you'd be hard pressed to leave a great gig once you get it. So, in the short run- yes, it might cost more for training 2 people but you'd probably have a better chance at getting some "lifers" than others who are just biding their time until something better comes along in 2-5 years.
My husband and I have discussed this ad nauseum and we'd both love to work PT so we could both spend more time at home with DD. Of course then there's the benefits discussion....
I believe Starbucks and Home Depot are two companies that offer benefits to their PT employees. It would be interesting to see what their turnover rate is.
Speaking for my own job, yes, it would really be impossible. Part of my job is building up expertise, experience, contacts, a position in the field, etc., and as nice as it would be to say I could work part time and be as effective doing it as someone full time, it would be a lie. I don't expect my workplace or the culture to compromise on getting the most and the best out of my position because of my personal priorities, I feel if this is the job I want (which I do), it's me that has to live up to its full potential and be competitive in the field. I imagine in a lot of professional fields it's similar, and I think the decision of how to balance family and career in that type of setting is a personal one, and those who prioritize career (which may in those fields mean working full time) should be rewarded.
The idea of women being treated special or different in the context of flexible working time really bothers me. It's sexist to say that women need and/or deserve the option to work part time more, men can be just as good care givers and have just as hard a time balancing family and work as women do.
I agree with you the way things are now....my job is the same. BUT in the true 'ideal' world would the workplace culture have developed the way it has? I mean, other countries, while not perfect, work shorter hours/weeks and still have many of the same 'jobs' if you KWIM. Are they as 'good' as the US, probably not, but they have a better work life balance.
But I agree, the way the workplace culture is in the US right now, many jobs can't be done part time. yet.
As someone who works in HR Management, I disagree. Yes, for certain positions it's plausible but not all. I do work PT currently, but I work for a company that's small enough that they don't need a FT HR person but big enough where they need an HR person (many employment laws don't apply to companies with less than 50 employees, so once you break that barrier having HR is helpful.)
From the employee's perspective, not many women can afford to work PT for an extended period of time, as we live in a 2 income society. I think people ideally want to work part time to have the balance between being home with kids and still maintaining a career but it dosn't work financially for many families. Looking at census statistics, 55% of women with a child under age 1 worked, and 72% of women with a child older than age 1 work. From an employer's perspective most moms can't financially afford to work part time for an extended period of time, so to train 2 people for one job and most likely turn over those people within a year isn't cost effective.
well- i am very glad to NOT be in those statistics. Personally- i have hired and kept SEVERAL PT people employeed (I have my own company)- turnover has never been a problem.
Speaking in general terms, with most people in this country living paycheck to paycheck and having to rely on 2 incomes, in the grand scheme of things a part time set up just wouldn't work on so many levels for both employee and employer. From a recruitment standpoint, it's much tougher to find people willing to work part time hours as opposed to full time since with the cost of housing, health insurance being pricy,etc it's necessary to have 2 incomes for many families. Women with young children make up a small percentage of the workforce, so to try to make jobs to cater to them specifically just doesn't make sense since you're cutting so many people out. Most people, besides moms, want full time work. Even many moms like myself who plan on either working PT or SAH completely only want to do so until their kids are school aged, so PT work isn't always a long term commitment.
I work PT and job share. A lot of posts have brought up the fact that training costs are double. In my case, they brought on my job partner to cover my maternity leave, so that cost had to happen anyway. Once she was trained, the only additional expense has been supplying 2 computers for us. We do not earn benefits and are paid hourly.
Benefits for the company include 2 minds for the price of one, flexibility with scheduling because we work odd hours to get things turned over fast, and best of all, in a pinch, they can get more than 40hrs without paying overtime because we'll each work up to 30hrs. (Conversely if there's not much work, then we don't work, again saving them money.)
Granted, a job share is a bit more complicated to set up than just having a bunch of partimers. We delegate the work between ourselves and basically present ourselves as one person so that they don't have to worry about telling both of us the same thing twice. Obviously this requires some good communication and a great working relationship... but when you get a job share going that works, the company also gets some pretty strong company loyalty.
We've been doing this for almost 3 years, since my DD was born. I knew my job partner from a previous company and have known her for 10 years. She had been a SAHM for 5 years before this.
I think you need to do a little research. "Modern feminism" as you say, does focus on all of those things. So maybe before you start commenting on feminists ruining the specialness of women, you should know what you're talking about.
I tried it and it did not work for me. My job really can't be done PT. Although I could probably cut 10% out of my week, I need to be available 100%. WAH 1x a week seems to work better for me. When I worked PT, I was working 100$ for 80% of the pay and it sucked! And, I was doing 90% of the errands and housework b/c I was making less than DH and was home more (although, not that much more). It didn't get me more time with my kids AT ALL!
For us, we have a better balance when we both work FT and I WAH 1x a week.
PT is ideal for families, not so ideal for companies.
You've found the same solution I have. Sounds like you are a lawyer (so am I) and you have started your own law practice. There are PT legal jobs out there, but they are VERY few and far between. So having my own law practice seems to be the only way to do it - at least, for me.