3 ms·

A few reasons why: * Part time workers tend to go away. Leaving you having to find another person to fill that role. Hiring is expensive. Getting new employees

A few reasons why: * Part time workers tend to go away. Leaving you having to find another person to fill that role. Hiring is expensive. Getting new employees up to speed is expensive. * When a part time worker leaves, they take away their knowledge of the business. This is scary to some because folk worry about competitors. This is scary to all because it's knowledge that you need to build up again internally. Your staff are an asset. * Startups need to build teams. It's much harder to build teams when some of the members aren't their for 50% or more of the time. Flip it around. Would you hire somebody half time if they told you that they were spending the rest of their time focusing on their own startup? Would you think that they'd be really focussed on your work? Would you think they'd be more or less likely to leave on short notice if their startup took off? Would you be a little bit nervous that they'd be taking stuff they'd learned from you and maybe using it to their own advantage and your expense?

jarofgreen 14y ago
Your first two are basically "Part time workers tend to go away" then explaining why that's bad. I agree that high/fast worker turnover is a bad for a knowledge business like ours, but do they tend to go away faster than full-time workers? On what are you baseing that? I'm not sure I've seen that. Also, OP didn't say that the job that turned him down was a start-up. Team building is important, but it can still happen with part-time workers. Especially if your an established IT business that can parcel out small bits of self-contained work to part-timers, it's not a insurmountable problem. (OP: Good Q, I've also noticed this in the UK. No idea why tho.)
- adrianhoward 14y ago
  Your first two are basically "Part time workers tend to go away" then explaining why that's bad Yup :-) The "reason why it's bad" bit was the thing I was trying to focus on. Since that's the issue that the OP will have to get out of potential employers heads (or find potential employers where it's not an issue). On what are you baseing that? I'm not sure I've seen that. I don't have any stats I'm afraid. Just my experiences over the years. Anecdotal I know but it would seem to make sense. By definition part time folk are spending the time they're not with you doing something else. Whether that's surfing, spending time with their family, working on a side project, or whatever. Those things are important to them otherwise they wouldn't be spending their time on them. Sometimes they get more important than the part time role. Team building is important, but it can still happen with part-time workers Agreed. That's why I said it was "much harder" not impossible :-) I'm not trying to argue against part-time employees. I've been one. I've worked with 'em. I've hired 'em. It can work out great. It's just that the benefits that the employee gets by being part time are not necessarily risk free for the employer. If you're aware of the risks then you're in a better position to reassure a potential employer that they don't apply to you. Oh yes - for the OP - did you ask why they didn't want a part time role? I always ask why I get rejected. You may not always get an honest answer of course - but you'll often be surprised if my experiences are anything to go by. I've learned a lot by being rejected :-)
  - jarofgreen 14y ago
    > By definition part time folk are spending the time they're not with you doing something else. Whether that's surfing, spending time with their family, working on a side project, or whatever. Those things are important to them otherwise they wouldn't be spending their time on them. Sometimes they get more important than the part time role. Don't really agree with that. This is a heavy start-up community so perspectives will be screwed, but most of the side things people spend time on are things that aren't going to become a full time job and mean they resign. In fact, I would reckon it's probably the other way around - the reason your making it your side thing and desperately clinging on to your part-time job is because it's something that you know will almost certainly never make you money; like having a kid or some strange hobby like acting in amateur theater :-) I've also done part-time for years, and in general I'm a big fan of it. Thing is, all the risks you describe happen with full-time employees to. So is it they are worse with part-time? Or more importantly, do employers perceive them to be worse? As you say, as the job-seeker it falls on you to convince the employer the risks are less in your case.
    - adrianhoward 14y ago
      Thing is, all the risks you describe happen with full-time employees to. So is it they are worse with part-time? Like I said - I don't have any hard data. But I've been working for... gosh... 26 years now.... and my observation is that part-time employees generally (not always) have a higher turnover than full time. As well as "other thing" becoming more important than the part time job - another common failure mode is "other thing" failing, and the employee then looking for a full time role. That full-time role is often not at the same place they're working full time (either because there isn't room for a full time role - or because they have better options elsewhere). Or more importantly, do employers perceive them to be worse? Certainly true in my case. I could be fooling myself - it's been known to happen fairly often :-)
      - malandrew 14y ago
        Is the turnover high enough that it's better to have no employee at all? Plus, in the case of one of these projects, it was a 1-2 month project so turnover wasn't even a concern.
- malandrew 14y ago
  In the case of both gigs I was turned down on this past week, I have more depth of knowledge and experience with building a backbone.js project than the others I would have been working with. At the very least I'd be helping out both teams avoid going down the wrong paths and helping them choose the best ways to use the technology because I've been down those roads already. i.e. I probably would have helped the others be more productive than they would have been otherwise.
anthonyb 14y ago
All of the things that you've mentioned apply to full-time employees too. Flip it around again: As a business, employing just part-timers (ie. using the part-time as a carrot) could be a very good way to build a decent team. Doubly so if they're working on a startup - you know they're good. And if everybody's part-time, there's no potential resentment. You'd want some ground rules (maybe one day per week where everyone's onboard) but other than that I don't see why it wouldn't work.
- adrianhoward 14y ago
  All of the things that you've mentioned apply to full-time employees too. Well... yes... but to a vastly lesser extent. There are only so many hours in a day :-) As a business, employing just part-timers (ie. using the part-time as a carrot) could be a very good way to build a decent team That sounds like an interesting tactic. I'd be interested if anybody tries it. My personal experience, or at least my perception of my experience since I didn't write everything down, is that part-timers have a higher turnover than full-timers. I suspect that could well kill the advantages that you talk about.
  - anthonyb 14y ago
    If you have a decent part-time job, where you're treated and paid well, why would you be any more likely to leave than a full-time employee? I know I'm not.
    - adrianhoward 14y ago
      If you have a decent part-time job, where you're treated and paid well, why would you be any more likely to leave than a full-time employee? I know I'm not. See the conversation over there > http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4060394 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4060394 :-)
malandrew 14y ago
On the flip side, it's statistically likely that their startup will fail, which means that you may eventually have the opportunity to try to hire them on full-time if and when that does happen. Someone who is a startup founder is likely to be far more pro-active about making sure the right things get done right then just going along with the group. There are certain skills that you get with a startup founder that you wouldn't get with a rank and file employee. The taking of knowledge from what you are doing and using it to their advantage really is an issue of analyzing what you are doing and what they are doing and determining if there are conflicts of interest. With all the people I have spoken too I've always been proactive in discovering where I may have a conflict of interest and being transparent about it with them to see if they are okay with that conflict of interest or not.

jarofgreen 14y ago

Your first two are basically "Part time workers tend to go away" then explaining why that's bad. I agree that high/fast worker turnover is a bad for a knowledge business like ours, but do they tend to go away faster than full-time workers? On what are you baseing that? I'm not sure I've seen that. Also, OP didn't say that the job that turned him down was a start-up. Team building is important, but it can still happen with part-time workers. Especially if your an established IT business that can parcel out small bits of self-contained work to part-timers, it's not a insurmountable problem. (OP: Good Q, I've also noticed this in the UK. No idea why tho.)

adrianhoward 14y ago
Your first two are basically "Part time workers tend to go away" then explaining why that's bad Yup :-) The "reason why it's bad" bit was the thing I was trying to focus on. Since that's the issue that the OP will have to get out of potential employers heads (or find potential employers where it's not an issue). On what are you baseing that? I'm not sure I've seen that. I don't have any stats I'm afraid. Just my experiences over the years. Anecdotal I know but it would seem to make sense. By definition part time folk are spending the time they're not with you doing something else. Whether that's surfing, spending time with their family, working on a side project, or whatever. Those things are important to them otherwise they wouldn't be spending their time on them. Sometimes they get more important than the part time role. Team building is important, but it can still happen with part-time workers Agreed. That's why I said it was "much harder" not impossible :-) I'm not trying to argue against part-time employees. I've been one. I've worked with 'em. I've hired 'em. It can work out great. It's just that the benefits that the employee gets by being part time are not necessarily risk free for the employer. If you're aware of the risks then you're in a better position to reassure a potential employer that they don't apply to you. Oh yes - for the OP - did you ask why they didn't want a part time role? I always ask why I get rejected. You may not always get an honest answer of course - but you'll often be surprised if my experiences are anything to go by. I've learned a lot by being rejected :-)
- jarofgreen 14y ago
  > By definition part time folk are spending the time they're not with you doing something else. Whether that's surfing, spending time with their family, working on a side project, or whatever. Those things are important to them otherwise they wouldn't be spending their time on them. Sometimes they get more important than the part time role. Don't really agree with that. This is a heavy start-up community so perspectives will be screwed, but most of the side things people spend time on are things that aren't going to become a full time job and mean they resign. In fact, I would reckon it's probably the other way around - the reason your making it your side thing and desperately clinging on to your part-time job is because it's something that you know will almost certainly never make you money; like having a kid or some strange hobby like acting in amateur theater :-) I've also done part-time for years, and in general I'm a big fan of it. Thing is, all the risks you describe happen with full-time employees to. So is it they are worse with part-time? Or more importantly, do employers perceive them to be worse? As you say, as the job-seeker it falls on you to convince the employer the risks are less in your case.
  - adrianhoward 14y ago
    Thing is, all the risks you describe happen with full-time employees to. So is it they are worse with part-time? Like I said - I don't have any hard data. But I've been working for... gosh... 26 years now.... and my observation is that part-time employees generally (not always) have a higher turnover than full time. As well as "other thing" becoming more important than the part time job - another common failure mode is "other thing" failing, and the employee then looking for a full time role. That full-time role is often not at the same place they're working full time (either because there isn't room for a full time role - or because they have better options elsewhere). Or more importantly, do employers perceive them to be worse? Certainly true in my case. I could be fooling myself - it's been known to happen fairly often :-)
    - malandrew 14y ago
      Is the turnover high enough that it's better to have no employee at all? Plus, in the case of one of these projects, it was a 1-2 month project so turnover wasn't even a concern.
malandrew 14y ago
In the case of both gigs I was turned down on this past week, I have more depth of knowledge and experience with building a backbone.js project than the others I would have been working with. At the very least I'd be helping out both teams avoid going down the wrong paths and helping them choose the best ways to use the technology because I've been down those roads already. i.e. I probably would have helped the others be more productive than they would have been otherwise.

anthonyb 14y ago

All of the things that you've mentioned apply to full-time employees too. Flip it around again: As a business, employing just part-timers (ie. using the part-time as a carrot) could be a very good way to build a decent team. Doubly so if they're working on a startup - you know they're good. And if everybody's part-time, there's no potential resentment. You'd want some ground rules (maybe one day per week where everyone's onboard) but other than that I don't see why it wouldn't work.

adrianhoward 14y ago
All of the things that you've mentioned apply to full-time employees too. Well... yes... but to a vastly lesser extent. There are only so many hours in a day :-) As a business, employing just part-timers (ie. using the part-time as a carrot) could be a very good way to build a decent team That sounds like an interesting tactic. I'd be interested if anybody tries it. My personal experience, or at least my perception of my experience since I didn't write everything down, is that part-timers have a higher turnover than full-timers. I suspect that could well kill the advantages that you talk about.
- anthonyb 14y ago
  If you have a decent part-time job, where you're treated and paid well, why would you be any more likely to leave than a full-time employee? I know I'm not.
  - adrianhoward 14y ago
    If you have a decent part-time job, where you're treated and paid well, why would you be any more likely to leave than a full-time employee? I know I'm not. See the conversation over there > http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4060394 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4060394 :-)

malandrew 14y ago

On the flip side, it's statistically likely that their startup will fail, which means that you may eventually have the opportunity to try to hire them on full-time if and when that does happen. Someone who is a startup founder is likely to be far more pro-active about making sure the right things get done right then just going along with the group. There are certain skills that you get with a startup founder that you wouldn't get with a rank and file employee. The taking of knowledge from what you are doing and using it to their advantage really is an issue of analyzing what you are doing and what they are doing and determining if there are conflicts of interest. With all the people I have spoken too I've always been proactive in discovering where I may have a conflict of interest and being transparent about it with them to see if they are okay with that conflict of interest or not.