The subject of part-time work is currently in-vogue with a recent blog suggesting that 'part-time' has become a dirty
word, and another report
speaking of the needs/desires of fathers to work more flexibly. But here's another angle... the availability (or should I say 'lack of') part-time and flexible work, in some sectors at least.
In the current economic climate you would think that there
would be lots of part-time roles as employers look to save money, but put ‘part-time’ into a search engine and
watch the number of available vacancies plummet. It’s not that there are no
part time vacancies, but if you want a part-time job your chances are pretty
slim especially for those who are better qualified/ very experienced - One leading site had 437 HR jobs in London but put part-time HR jobs,
London into the same search engine and you get.... Seven. (Some example we're setting as a sector!)
With the number of people unemployed, but looking for
part-time work (eg parents and carers) to suit their circumstances - it's incredibly competitive, especially if
your skills lie outside of retail or administration.
I appreciate that if the hours needed are full-time, then so
be it, but I suspect that often an employer will simply not have considered that
a role could be done part-time. And of the full time roles available, rarely
(if ever) are they offered as a job-share option which I assume is because
employers consider this a challenge to manage.
Those employed within an organisation applying for flexible
working and part-time internally have to have their requests seriously
considered. The fact that there are an increasing number of people in part time roles within the UK
highlights that there is a ‘market’ for part-timers and there is evidence to
suggest that there are significant benefits of employing people flexibly. However,
there is no real requirement for employers to think about this when a vacancy
arises.
In my experience a number of people looking for genuine
flexibility would be so grateful for it, that they are willing to undertake
roles below their previous ‘grade’ at a lower salary, bringing all their skills
and experience; and surely that represents great value for money. Yet despite
this, it would seem that recruiters are missing a trick. And there is also the
wider impact – a wasting of skills, families with less money to spend and therefore
an impact on the economy.
I don’t know if there is a solution, but I do believe this
is a problem.
What do you think? - Answers on a postcard please!
