Do businesses need so many full time people?
Discussion
Just chatting in the office today about businesses who we know need new staff and also the amount of work done in a week by an employee. I can't help thinking that in many roles, employing someone part time would be cheaper for the business and in many cases they'd get the same amount of work done as staff often fill the time with the workload they have. How many people would do the same amount of work in 3 days that they 'pad out' into 5 now. Quite a few i would say. Would you agree?
Look at it from the workers point of view: would you be motivated to do four hours work when the cost of getting to work might be an hours labour? Or feel any personal investment in a company that is using two P/T workers to cover two busy spells in a day to save paying them for three hours of quiet period?
Frimley111R said:
Just chatting in the office today about businesses who we know need new staff and also the amount of work done in a week by an employee. I can't help thinking that in many roles, employing someone part time would be cheaper for the business and in many cases they'd get the same amount of work done as staff often fill the time with the workload they have. How many people would do the same amount of work in 3 days that they 'pad out' into 5 now. Quite a few i would say. Would you agree?
I'd agree, but you have to have the right person working with you. I realised a while back, starting at 0900 meant, for some, ambling in at two minutes past, followed by a quick coffee and a short matter before getting to work. Then, leaving at 1700 meant, for some, winding down at quarter to. The right person, motivated and switched on, strips that wastage out pretty much regardless of the terms of their contract.I don't understand the question?
Is it really about time or is it more about value?
I think the assertion that productivity does increase as time decreases is correct and this has been recently scientifically proven.
Its down to the employee to negotiate (or seek employment) for what they think they are worth and a lot of people seriously under value themselves. Some staff are worth their weight in gold, but don't have the skills or confidence in their own abilities to seek the proper remuneration.
I think its a balancing act between having part time staff and full time staff, but essentially its about having the right staff, and primarily having the right managers and recruiters who can spot talent and potential even for the 'lowest' but yet most valuable roles in a company.
I think flexibility is key if you find the right person, and if that person can instil some of the values, attitude & enthusiasm in other staff even if they are only working 8 hours a week then they have a part to play in the success of the business.
tl;dr time doesn't matter, the person matters.
Is it really about time or is it more about value?
I think the assertion that productivity does increase as time decreases is correct and this has been recently scientifically proven.
Its down to the employee to negotiate (or seek employment) for what they think they are worth and a lot of people seriously under value themselves. Some staff are worth their weight in gold, but don't have the skills or confidence in their own abilities to seek the proper remuneration.
I think its a balancing act between having part time staff and full time staff, but essentially its about having the right staff, and primarily having the right managers and recruiters who can spot talent and potential even for the 'lowest' but yet most valuable roles in a company.
I think flexibility is key if you find the right person, and if that person can instil some of the values, attitude & enthusiasm in other staff even if they are only working 8 hours a week then they have a part to play in the success of the business.
tl;dr time doesn't matter, the person matters.
alock said:
Frimley111R said:
Would you agree?
I've often wondered why more companies don't offer more jobs that can be worked 9:30 until 2:30. 5 productive hours everyday and your employees don't need to pay for before/after school child care. Seems like a win-win to me.Now funnily enough I had a personal experience of this.
When I started my business, I was asked to do some energy consultation in a factory in Bristol. No worries, but doing this and setting up my business meant I was really pushed for time.
So I went to Bristol, and did what I needed to do, in the shortest possible time (assume for a minute the quality of the work was fine). I started at 3 days a week, and very soon, I was kicking my heels on the 3rd day, looking for something to do. So I worked 2 days a week, with a few hours late if I needed to.
After a while I was down to 1.5 days a week, easily coping with the work.
I suggested to my boss I worked 1 day this week, and 2 days the next, as there was nothing to keep me busy.
This was met by stern disapproval, because I wasn't in work long enough. Not that I wasn't doing the work mind, just that I wasn't in work enough. The fact that I was saving them salary, but still doing what I needed to seemed to be lost on my boss. (And he was a very decent boss in many ways)
So I suspect that after you strip out the endless meetings, and all the other BS, most peoples work in this type of role could be done in 2 days a week, and realistically the rest of the time is padding.
Pass the flame suit please......
When I started my business, I was asked to do some energy consultation in a factory in Bristol. No worries, but doing this and setting up my business meant I was really pushed for time.
So I went to Bristol, and did what I needed to do, in the shortest possible time (assume for a minute the quality of the work was fine). I started at 3 days a week, and very soon, I was kicking my heels on the 3rd day, looking for something to do. So I worked 2 days a week, with a few hours late if I needed to.
After a while I was down to 1.5 days a week, easily coping with the work.
I suggested to my boss I worked 1 day this week, and 2 days the next, as there was nothing to keep me busy.
This was met by stern disapproval, because I wasn't in work long enough. Not that I wasn't doing the work mind, just that I wasn't in work enough. The fact that I was saving them salary, but still doing what I needed to seemed to be lost on my boss. (And he was a very decent boss in many ways)
So I suspect that after you strip out the endless meetings, and all the other BS, most peoples work in this type of role could be done in 2 days a week, and realistically the rest of the time is padding.
Pass the flame suit please......
alock said:
Frimley111R said:
Would you agree?
I've often wondered why more companies don't offer more jobs that can be worked 9:30 until 2:30. 5 productive hours everyday and your employees don't need to pay for before/after school child care. Seems like a win-win to me.Member of staff is happy, we're happy.
Another perspective is that the owners and/or management of the OPs company (the OP, I assume) have an under-utilised workforce.
Perhaps the challenge is for management to find more work, to increase the productivity of the workforce?
Although, I agree that most organisations need a combination of core permanent (full-time and part-time) staff, part-time and temp staff to alter in line with seasonal trends and other fluctuations in workload, and contractors/consultants to bring in expertise as and when required on a PAYG basis.
Perhaps the challenge is for management to find more work, to increase the productivity of the workforce?
Although, I agree that most organisations need a combination of core permanent (full-time and part-time) staff, part-time and temp staff to alter in line with seasonal trends and other fluctuations in workload, and contractors/consultants to bring in expertise as and when required on a PAYG basis.
sideways sid said:
Although, I agree that most organisations need a combination of core permanent (full-time and part-time) staff, part-time and temp staff to alter in line with seasonal trends and other fluctuations in workload, and contractors/consultants to bring in expertise as and when required on a PAYG basis.
I think a fair amount of large businesses do that already.One of my team recently went to two days a week.
I can't say I have noticed any difference from when they were full time. I have spoken to them about it and they said that not having the next day to put things off to has meant it makes you more productive for the time you are in the office. I guess we all do that, putting off the nasty jobs for another day, because you can.
I can't say I have noticed any difference from when they were full time. I have spoken to them about it and they said that not having the next day to put things off to has meant it makes you more productive for the time you are in the office. I guess we all do that, putting off the nasty jobs for another day, because you can.
andyb28 said:
One of my team recently went to two days a week.
I can't say I have noticed any difference from when they were full time. I have spoken to them about it and they said that not having the next day to put things off to has meant it makes you more productive for the time you are in the office. I guess we all do that, putting off the nasty jobs for another day, because you can.
This is what we were discussing really. Its almost assumed that you need to employ someone full time and yet many could do the same work in less time. I can't say I have noticed any difference from when they were full time. I have spoken to them about it and they said that not having the next day to put things off to has meant it makes you more productive for the time you are in the office. I guess we all do that, putting off the nasty jobs for another day, because you can.
Gassing Station | Business | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff