Why do employers just assume you're available 24/7 when you put "first shift m-f only" on the...

[ProtoLawyer]

This is actually my husband's problem, but I'm putting it here because I think most of us can relate.

Due to custody of his daughter, he is not available weekends (yeah, I could watch her, but if he was working all weekend it would largely defeat the purpose of her coming over).

He can work SOME evenings until June, when his daughter comes with us for the summer; after that, evenings are out. I work 1-2 evenings a week, and it's not like it's every Wednesday or something--it's variable and difficult to plan around. (And we both agree that me keeping my employment as-is makes more sense than me trying to find something else that pays as well, has a positive environment, while I'm pregnant--lawyer jobs aren't really known for their flexibility).

Once the new baby is here, he's committed to M-F, first shift, that's all, so he can take care of the baby on the nights I'm in court.

Now...we both understand that he'll be ineligible for a great many jobs (he's looking for tech support). We're OK with that and he'll look until he finds something that works. (He's been a student for the last few years, so we're very used to living on my income alone.)

BUT:

If he puts on the application that he's available M-F, 6 a.m.-5:30 p.m. ONLY, then WHY does he receive interviews, only to get there and be told, "oh, by the way, you'll be working at least one night a week until 10, and every other Saturday or Sunday?"

Today marks the second interview--unrelated companies--where that's happened. A few years ago, it also happened when he applied for a part-time job at a grocery store. "Oh, we make it clear everyone needs to work weekends." "Well, that's fine--why did I get called into the interview if I couldn't work the hours you required?" "We figured you'd be OK with it once you heard you'd be eligible for health insurance through the union even working 20 hours a week." Well, yeah, that's a great benefit, but if he can't work it, he can't work it.

He's been very clear on the applications, or in follow-up conversations when there was no application. For today's interview, he was very clear with the recruiter: First shift, M-F only. She got him in there and then hemmed and hawed. (And this was AFTER he took some technical tests.)

Why do they waste everyone's time?

[fruitfulmomma]

Why do they waste everyone's time?

I'm a sahm, but my husband has had the same issues. He won't work Sunday's and says so on the application but I guess some people just assume that he didn't really mean it or that he will bend if they offer him the work. He had an interview with a well known retailer and was told he would work Sundays. He got up, told the man thank you for his time and walked out, leaving him with a shocked look on his face.

[Hannah32]

Sadly, because there are so many people out of work, they can easily find someone to work whenever they want to. Times aren't good for the American worker.

[ProtoLawyer]

Originally Posted by Hannah32

Sadly, because there are so many people out of work, they can easily find someone to work whenever they want to. Times aren't good for the American worker.

Sure--that would explain why they'd not call him in in the first place. We're OK with that--the situation isn't urgent.

But why do they bother putting him through 90 minutes of testing and 45 minutes worth of interviews? If they can find someone willing to work nights/weekends, then why don't they just call that person in for interviewing and testing?

[spedteacher30]

well, my partner is looking for a job right now, and she wouldn't take something that was second or third shift due to my variable schedule, but she would take something that was equally variable.

I have an expectation to work outside of the regular work week, but have the freedom to schedule those outside hours at my convenience and the right to turn down meetings and obligations that are outside the regular workweek. DP would also take a job with that same expectation and flexibility.

So, if most of the job was during first shift, she would want to interview for the job to see how we could make the off-hours fit into our lives.

Personally, if I were him, I would consider those jobs with outside hours because there is always a chance he could renegotiate in June and make it work. My evening hours are totally random, but usually known far enough in advance that we can schedule around them, or find a sitter in a real pinch.

[lisac77]

In 24x7 environments, it would be very rare for an entry level position to come open M-F during regular business hours. Weekends off are earned through seniority.

Can he look for something besides tech support work?

[Ellien C]

I was just thinking this is probably a problem with the industry he's in. Can he look for a different type or work - receptionist, office management, that would be more M-F 8-5 kind of thing?

[ProtoLawyer]

Originally Posted by lisac77

In 24x7 environments, it would be very rare for an entry level position to come open M-F during regular business hours. Weekends off are earned through seniority.

Can he look for something besides tech support work?

He can (and has been), and a lot of what he's looking for isn't a 24/7 environment in the first place. (Think in-house IT support rather than a call center.)

He's not entry level (he had experience prior to and during school), but yeah, he'd be coming in with no seniority in a specific workplace, so if he did apply in a 24/7 environment it would be expected that he'd get a crappy schedule. He did have a job in a 6 a.m.-11 p.m. 7-days-a-week atmosphere, where everyone--no getting out of it for seniority, either-- was required to work at least 4 hours on weekends) and he worked 6 a.m. to 10 a.m. Sundays to minimize the disruption to his daughter. That place is out of business, though.

Again, it's not the frustration of not being able to find a job that works with his hours (as he's not been looking long and we've been living on my income for a long time), and he is looking at a variety of types of positions.

...it's that he puts right on the application his hours of availability, the recruiter (and here may be the problem--it's headhunters, rather than in-house HR) calls him and says he seems like a good fit--and, in this last case, he reiterated to the recruiter his availability, and she said "that's fine, we have openings that match your availability--does 6 a.m. to 3 p.m. M-F work for you?" and he says, "perfect!" then he gets there, takes the stupid tests, talks to two different people over 45 minutes, and then the second person (who is not the same recruiter--again, that may be the problem) says, "great! Now, we need to get your schedule written--we need you to work one weekend day and two weeknights, and the rest can be 6 a.m. to 3 p.m. on weekdays like you wanted."

This whole rigamarole could be avoided if, when the recruiter called and he said, "I'm not available weekends," the recruiter had said, "this position requires weekends" and that had been that. Instead of two or three hours of interviewing and testing, it would be a four-minute phone call. (Or, at the very least, the recruiter could have said, "this position is unlikely to work with your schedule but why don't you come in, take the tests, get in our system and if something comes up that fits, I'll contact you?" I have to wonder if this was the recruiter's goal all along--she probably gets paid commission based on placements, and it's faster to place someone already in your system than not.)

Sigh. This *would* be a bit easier in a non-blended situation...again, I don't mind taking care of my stepdaughter, but he's not willing to miss what would end up as almost 50% of his waking time with her (nor would I ask him to unless we were in dire financial straights). If she was with us all the time, he'd have weekday after school/evenings and all that and wouldn't feel as bad about leaving her with me or, if I was working, with a sitter on occasion.

[Purple*Lotus]

That stinks

That happened to me once when I worked at a grocery store. I wanted part time, maximum of 25 hours. I put it on the application. I told them that in the interview. They hired me and I was on the schedule for 39 hours every single week. After substitute teaching all day. I was so tired.

I also put on there that I would not be able to start any shift during the weekdays until 4 PM. But yet I was always on the schedule at 3. So I would have to call them every time and tell them "Hey I am at a subbing job so I wont be in at 3." Good grief. That was beyond annoying

Sorry I hijacked your thread

[lifeguard]

Many people put their ideal shifts but it doesn't reflect what they are actually willing to work.

[lisac77]

The problem as I see it is that every tech support/IT job that I know of (and I've been in the business for 10 years) involves weekend/off hours work. It's the nature of the business.

I totally understand the desire to be home in the evenings! I was lucky that I was a junior employee during my son's babyhood and preschool years... by the time he got to school I was senior enough to get weekends off.

I just think it would be more advantageous to apply for jobs that only have regular business hours M-F and stay out of IT/tech support entirely.

[spedteacher30]

Our in-house IT person is available 24/7, but, most of the time, the emergency work can be done over the phone or from his home terminal. I would certainly NOT rule out a position until I knew exactly what the evening/weekend work entails. If it is "your cell must be turned on, and you must be available to log on to fix server issues" well, OK. If it is "you must be physically present in the building, regardless of need or issue" well, that's another situation.

[ProtoLawyer]

Originally Posted by spedteacher30

Our in-house IT person is available 24/7, but, most of the time, the emergency work can be done over the phone or from his home terminal. I would certainly NOT rule out a position until I knew exactly what the evening/weekend work entails. If it is "your cell must be turned on, and you must be available to log on to fix server issues" well, OK. If it is "you must be physically present in the building, regardless of need or issue" well, that's another situation.

That's totally fine as well (assuming that by 24/7 immediate access doesn't mean you actually have to bring a laptop to a funeral or something--my ex once had a boss who screamed at him for not answering his cell phone for 30 minutes--even though there were two other people on call that evening-- because he was on the house phone making arrangements to fly to his grandfather's deathbed)...this one was pure onsite shift work.

And yeah, I understand the difference between an "ideal" or preferred shift, but when you tell the recruiter flat out that you cannot come in on weekends (or Tuesdays, or mid-mornings, or whatever), that should be the end of it. She shouldn't just say "oh that's fine" and then completely change tune after two or three hours of testing and interviewing. Just some honesty. (Just like it would be very unfair of my husband to say weekends were fine and then call out or try to switch shifts every time.)

He's applied for a technical production manager (apparently that's being the runner between the customer, sales, and designers?) job with a shirt printing company...this ad says very clearly "working hours M-F 7 a.m.-3:30 p.m." We'll see what that even means, if he gets an interview.

[GuildJenn]

To be honest I think you're looking at the "time wasted in interview" aspect backwards.

In the long-term, he wants to build his network of contacts as wide and solidly as possible. The time that he spends in the interview impressing them with his technical skills is good for his chances of getting a job even if the shift element wrecks it in the end for that job. So he should see each of those opportunities not as time wasted, but as "yay! Even though I can't work those shifts I got to talk to a human who may well be hiring somewhere else or for something else down the road!"

That said, I also agree that in IT his expectations are pretty out of whack. I work in an industry that is probably 60-80% 9-5. IT works weekends and evenings not just to support the 24/7 elements but also because that's when everyone else is NOT working - that's when you can do the upgrades, etc. etc. etc. You guys may have to rethink your plan, if you hope for him to get employed eventually. If he were doing a non-support role he would have a higher chance but support is sort of like nursing - there's just a period of time that you pretty much have to suck it up.

[ProtoLawyer]

Yeah, he is casting a much wider net than just IT/tech support (while it's what he's done, it's not ALL he's done or is capable of doing)...and I do see your point about speaking to a "live person" (that is important and I'll remind him of that). It's just the frustration of this particular field, I guess (plus grocery stores, apparently).

I know the shift issues aren't particularly unique--plenty of people can only or cannot at all work (when the kids are at school/when their husband is home/3rd shift/etc.). We're fortunate in that we're not in an economically dire situation and we don't have to choose between bad and worse (not eating versus having to scramble to find yet more child care and never seeing our kids).

[ProtoLawyer]

Hm...the recruiter called back and apologized for the mix-up, and said she does occasionally have openings for M-F/1st shift jobs (a couple of her clients just aren't open outside of those hours) that match his skill set and she'd keep him in mind.

Progress!

Edit: Not that I'm holding my breath for these openings to materialize, but the apology (which my husband did not solicit--he didn't even write a disappointed e-mail, only one that thanked the recruiter for her time, reiterated that he unfortunately could not work weekends, and asked her to keep him in mind for future opportunities) is the progress.