3 ms·

> 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

> 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.

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.