Hacker News Reader

Comment by itamarst | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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