Hacker News Reader

Comment by UglyToad | Hacker News Reader

I actually tried this at my last job, the idea was to start swapping raises for time since I value my time and life far more than the diminishing returns from more (fairly but) heavily taxed raises but the startup I was at was incredibly zealous about long hours so I left.

In this new job I'm hoping to build up a negotiating position where this will be possible again, this time I think the company culture might support it.

So it very much depends on the company and you need to cement your value before you can try it so it's a high risk strategy.

View on HN

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?")

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

> 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.

I don't think two wrongs make something right.

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.

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?

The problem I see is that the term is a pretty exceptional one. The employer reasonably thinks you both have been talking about a full-time position.

It's like going through the whole interview process with a company that's clearly hiring in-office positions, and then only after getting an offer, telling them you will only work remotely. It would be different if it were really part of the negotiation - ie they're offering way less than your asking/current salary, and you're countering with part-time for that same salary (or other benefits) to compensate.

For retail transactions we have bait-and-switch laws which address the same type of issue.

Personally I'd be pissed at whoever wasted my time like that, and wouldn't hire them based on the ethics they're displaying. If they brought it up during the interview process - even as just something they're looking for - I'd respect the fact that they gave me the option of considering it as part of the evaluation, giving me the option to clarify and end the process early if it just wouldn't work for the employer.

This is something I couldn't put into words but that was part of my thinking process. I personally would feel really bad if I knowingly hid this crucial bit of information during the process and then made it my requirement.

Maybe in some other work culture you have to be sneaky if you want a part-time job. Here in Finland I'd expect at least one third of IT companies to happily allow 80% time if you just bring it up.

Most places will check salary constraints at the onset these days. Or at least it's almost standard practice here in Sydney for both recruiter and non recruiters alike.

I do agree though it's a bit on the nose, the expectation is that you'll be working full time hours, not part-time.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com