5 ms·

This won't work at a company that inherently values long hours, yes. And it's much easier at a job you've been at for a while, yes, because then you're much mo

This won't work at a company that inherently values long hours, yes. And it's much easier at a job you've been at for a while, yes, because then you're much more valuable in a whole bunch of ways. It is doable at new jobs, but that is much harder the first time around. So you have the right plan: 1. Get a job at company that isn't obsessed with long hours. 2. Stick around for a year so you're extra-valuable. 3. Negotiate shorter workweek. You will then have easier time negotiating at later jobs, especially if you don't quit ("thanks for the offer, I'd love to come work for you. however, at current job I work 4 days a week... do you think you could match that?")

anoplus 7y ago
Also, the extra free time will enable you to prepare for a new place. Searching and working fulltime simultaneously is hard.
dancek 7y ago
I started working 30 hours / 4 days a week in my last job. When I started looking for a new job, I told everyone up front that my working time will be 30 hours. IMHO it was much easier that way than if I had first started full time. Sure, naming your terms will turn off companies that don't like people that have terms, or that absolutely want their workers to be there every day. But that might actually be a good culture filter.
- itamarst 7y ago
  Oh, you don't start full-time on the second job. For the second job you just only ask for shorter workweek _after_ you have the offer. Obviously it worked out for you with being upfront, so that's great. But you get more offers if you only ask for it once offer is in hand, and more offers == stronger negotiating position.
  - allannienhuis 7y ago
    That seems pretty dishonest to me. You don't have offers in-hand for part time work, you have offers in-hand for full-time work, unless it's brought up during the interview process - and hopefully pretty early, allowing them to bail early if that won't work for them.
    - itamarst 7y ago
      Every employer I've had has been _very_ happy with me. And the two companies which hired me not-full-time probably wouldn't have even interviewed me at all if I'd said I wanted a 4-day-workweek upfront. So basically I am doing a disservice to employers if they filter me out prematurely because they don't know what I can do. I _do_ make sure to ask about work/life balance early on, so as to prevent wasted time on both sides.
    - dragonwriter 7y ago
      > That seems pretty dishonest to me. It's no more dishonest than the firm not providing their salary constraints up front before/during the interview process.
      - allannienhuis 7y ago
        I don't think two wrongs make something right.
        sexyflanders 7y ago
        It’s not wrong though. They are offering their terms, to which you are providing a counter offer that includes your terms. Standard negotiation practice. Not following through with the fully executed agreement is what would be dishonest.
        lugg 7y ago
        I think the issue is that salaries are such an arbitrary business as it is. Pulling out the ok, I'll trade you 25% salary for 25% time at the last minute is pushing the limit. Then again, I don't think I would personally have a problem with it so maybe you're right?

anoplus 7y ago

Also, the extra free time will enable you to prepare for a new place. Searching and working fulltime simultaneously is hard.

dancek 7y ago

I started working 30 hours / 4 days a week in my last job. When I started looking for a new job, I told everyone up front that my working time will be 30 hours. IMHO it was much easier that way than if I had first started full time. Sure, naming your terms will turn off companies that don't like people that have terms, or that absolutely want their workers to be there every day. But that might actually be a good culture filter.

itamarst 7y ago
Oh, you don't start full-time on the second job. For the second job you just only ask for shorter workweek _after_ you have the offer. Obviously it worked out for you with being upfront, so that's great. But you get more offers if you only ask for it once offer is in hand, and more offers == stronger negotiating position.
- allannienhuis 7y ago
  That seems pretty dishonest to me. You don't have offers in-hand for part time work, you have offers in-hand for full-time work, unless it's brought up during the interview process - and hopefully pretty early, allowing them to bail early if that won't work for them.
  - itamarst 7y ago
    Every employer I've had has been _very_ happy with me. And the two companies which hired me not-full-time probably wouldn't have even interviewed me at all if I'd said I wanted a 4-day-workweek upfront. So basically I am doing a disservice to employers if they filter me out prematurely because they don't know what I can do. I _do_ make sure to ask about work/life balance early on, so as to prevent wasted time on both sides.
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    > That seems pretty dishonest to me. It's no more dishonest than the firm not providing their salary constraints up front before/during the interview process.
    - allannienhuis 7y ago
      I don't think two wrongs make something right.
      - sexyflanders 7y ago
        It’s not wrong though. They are offering their terms, to which you are providing a counter offer that includes your terms. Standard negotiation practice. Not following through with the fully executed agreement is what would be dishonest.
        lugg 7y ago
        I think the issue is that salaries are such an arbitrary business as it is. Pulling out the ok, I'll trade you 25% salary for 25% time at the last minute is pushing the limit. Then again, I don't think I would personally have a problem with it so maybe you're right?