Slashdot Mirror


Is Finding Part Time Work In IT Unrealistic?

I like my current job writes "Having worked full-time in IT for the past 12 years, I would really like to work less and focus on other goals and priorities in my life. I asked my current employer and was shot down. It seems like everyone I know in IT works full-time except for entry-level help desk staff. Striking out on my own seems to be the only way to control the ball and chain around my ankle. However, my experience with independent consulting is a 'feast or famine' situation, with work coming all at once, thus making part-time impossible, or the other extreme (which is even more likely). Is part-time work a pipe dream in IT? Maybe a career in toilet cleaning is calling me."

29 of 396 comments (clear)

  1. The Boss Decides... so be the Boss by alain94040 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    One reason corporations don't like part-time is that as long as you are full-time, you actually tend to work way past 40 hours a week. You do whatever it takes to get the job done, under impossible deadlines.

    Once you are part-time, you start saying no to crazy demands. Corporations just hate that.

    My answer? Be your own boss. It comes with a caveat: starting your own business alone is a bad idea. Guess what? It takes more than one person to provide something of value. It doesn't take an army of hundreds, but a small dedicated group of friends can do amazing things. The sum really is larger than the parts.

    Take a look at fairsoftware.net. It was designed for exactly that purpose: geeks starting a side business together.

    1. Re:The Boss Decides... so be the Boss by tukang · · Score: 5, Funny

      You do whatever it takes to get the job done, under impossible deadlines.

      Luckily, that's not the case at all when you're your own boss ;)

    2. Re:The Boss Decides... so be the Boss by plover · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There's always a catch.

      I have several friends who have tried this over the years, and know other people who have tried this. The bottom line is: friendships can fail under the strain of a business relationship, and when the friendship fails, the business is not far behind. My wife has worked for three of these ventures over the last 15 years, where two friends created a business, had a falling out, and the business collapsed as a result. All three times. In none of those cases were the owners able to remain friends. She is now with a family owned business who are having their own difficulties right now, but there's no risk of a partnership collapsing here to accelerate it.

      Being in it with a friend at a stressful time, when you have one idea about how to save the company, and your friend has a different-and-incompatible idea, and there's just enough money left to try one of your ideas, that's a pressure cooker not many relationships can survive.

      Now, you may have a "less permanent" idea about business. Maybe you just want to start a company for the purpose of working, but don't care if it stays together longer than three years or so. As long as you and your partners agree up front, that may work for you.

      One other piece of advice -- hire an independent person to do the books, someone you both can trust. Not just an external accountant, but a bookkeeper who sees the day-to-day spending, and lets you both know that the other isn't spending money foolishly.

      I will say that family owned businesses seem to be the exception to the rule, as long as Dad or Mom or Grandpa is the "boss" and everyone else understands that.

      --
      John
    3. Re:The Boss Decides... so be the Boss by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 4, Insightful

      My answer? Be your own boss. It comes with a caveat: starting your own business alone is a bad idea. Guess what? It takes more than one person to provide something of value.

      Guess what? That's not absolutely true. It's not hard for one person to provide something of value. You're not going to start a Tesla Motors but if you chose projects and products approprate for a one person operation, you might even do those projects and products better than larger operations could.

      I don't know where you think otherwise, but my experience shows such an absolute statement is not true. I'm in business for myself, no partners and no employees. Even before I started it, I knew several people that are in business for themselves, more people than had partnerships or larger businesses. From what I understand, partnerships are generally riskier ventures than sole proprietorships. I think the way to make a business partnership work is to have one person that's actually in control, the other partners are "minor" partners, or hire a non-partner to do the management work.

    4. Re:The Boss Decides... so be the Boss by wsanders · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yeah, buy hardly anyone goes into that level of detail, so if you get called when you list yourself as a reference, you can either just skip the part about why you got fired, or else tell the truth and sue yourself for defamation and settle for millions.

      --
      Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
    5. Re:The Boss Decides... so be the Boss by mcrbids · · Score: 4, Insightful

      One reason corporations don't like part-time is that as long as you are full-time, you actually tend to work way past 40 hours a week.

      Funny. I'm an employer, in a corporation, and I would *never* ask anyone to work over 40, even when on salaried pay.

      But I still like full-time over part-time because full time is "immersive" - people who dedicate their time and primary mind share are more productive per time unit. I get more and better work per hour from a full-time engineer than a part-time employee.

      My answer? Be your own boss. It comes with a caveat: starting your own business alone is a bad idea. Guess what? It takes more than one person to provide something of value. It doesn't take an army of hundreds, but a small dedicated group of friends can do amazing things. The sum really is larger than the parts.

      I call bullshiznt. You think being your own boss means you WON'T work bat-shiat crazy hours under impossible deadlines? BWAH HAW HAW HAW HA!!!!!!

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
  2. Good course of action: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny
    This is how to handle the situation:

    Schedule an appointment with your boss, then walk into his office(shutting the door behind you) and grab his tie. Yank it down so hard that it chokes him and his head slams into his desk and say with your other fist clenched,

    "You punk motherfucker - I'm going to come in at 7am and leave at 11am and you're going to pay me my regular fucking salary as if we didn't have this little discussion, capiche?"

    If he says anything other than "yes" then grab his stapler and pistol-whip him with it. Go back to work while keeping a loaded pistol in your desk so that you can point it at your boss whenever he walks by your cubicle. Leave early so that you can break into his home and hang his pets from his ceiling fan, but take one of the pets, behead it, and place its head on your boss' bed. Then write, "I see you" above his bed using his favorite pet's blood.

    If the plan outlined above dosen't work, you just might have to play hardball.

  3. On the right track by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you are involved in the development of software then you will be on the treadmill. The only way out is to either strike out on your own or to give up on the industry altogether.

    Personally, I wouldn't do it. But I can see how leaving the industry completely is attractive for some. Just be prepared for the paycut.

    But then again, money isn't everything, and if you can improve your quality of life, even with a paycut, then more power to you.

  4. Maybe it depends on where you are by Anonymous+MadCoe · · Score: 5, Informative

    Depending on your definition of part-time, but many companies in The Netherlands will allow for a 32 hours week (4 days).
    As far as I know is hat not uncommon in Sweden either.

    1. Re:Maybe it depends on where you are by dunkelfalke · · Score: 4, Insightful

      that is the main difference between the european and the american attitudes.
      americans prefer to work hard, europeans prefer to get things done.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
  5. I work parr time - or used to by theaveng · · Score: 4, Interesting

    As a contractor I have the option to work less. I can voluntarily choose to cut my hours to 6 hours a day (or alternatively 4 days a week) if work is slow & I have nothing to do. That saves the company's money and gives me more time to enjoy life.

    The drawback is that when crunch time comes, then you're expected to put in the overtime.

    --
    FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
  6. Are there many high level PT jobs anywhere? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Outside of IT, how often do you find people working higher level jobs part-time? It seems to me that part-time jobs are almost ways lower level, lower responsibility positions. You'd probably have better luck finding something with some sort of flex time or telecommuting. By altering your schedule that way, you can save quite a few hours.

    1. Re:Are there many high level PT jobs anywhere? by cyclone96 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      We actually had an interesting situation where I work (spacecraft operations). We had a senior aerospace engineer depart after 15 years to become an airline pilot, of all things (decided to turn a hobby into a job).

      About a year later, he came back part time because the routes he flew left him with large blocks of free time at irregular periods during the month, and he was getting bored (because before his "hobby" was flying....and he stopped doing that on his days off!).

      It was a win-win situation. He'd give us 40-60 hours a month of hourly work when it was convenient for him. We kept his hopper full of things like documentation, training, and other stuff that most senior guys consider dreg work. Even though he now has enough seniority to avoid pilot furloughs, he'll volunteer to drop his flight hours if the airline needs him to. He just increases his hours with us (and he's so good, we'll take whatever he gives us up to full time).

      Since he's not interested in advancing up the ladder, he really does a great job on this low-visibility stuff that really helps an organization run well if it's done right.

      --
      Worst...sig...ever!
  7. I did it by Spazmania · · Score: 4, Informative

    I did it for about 6 months. I went from 40 hour weeks to 20 hour weeks comprised of 2 10-hour days. After a few months the situation became untenable and I chose to quit and move on.

    The problem was the manager couldn't sequence the work where I could perform it on the days I was there. I wasn't just asking myself to rise to the challenge, I was asking him to do so too. He couldn't. So he placed another employee to deal with issues that came up while I was out of the office. The other guy was what I like to refer to as a brilliant idiot. That's not just sour grapes; a few months after I left he escaped just ahead of the axe. In the months I was there he took it upon himself to unilaterally reconfigure systems on the days I wasn't scheduled to work.

    Faced with the conflict, the boss made the decision to go with the guy who was in the office. Not the wisest of choices as it turned out, but completely understandable.

    --
    Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
    1. Re:I did it by murdocj · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So you were only available 2 days a week, and you're upset that your boss couldn't somehow schedule all of the work to occur those 2 days? You say "he placed another employee to deal with issues that came up while I was out of the office"... what was he supposed to do? Put the problem on hold 4-5 days till you were available?

      It's one thing to say "this is my code, my system, no one else touches it without talking to me first" if you are available normal working hours. If you aren't available, guess what, someone else is going to have to deal with the "issues" that come up while you are out of the office. Where I work, people are nervous if there's only one full time employee who understands how to do something, having a part-timer be the only one would be utterly unacceptable, unless the function is pretty marginal to being with.

    2. Re:I did it by Spazmania · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You misunderstand. I'm suggesting that someone who isn't entry level, someone with real responsibility who tries to drop to part time sets himself up for failure. He's asking the manager he works for to greatly exceed normal and reasonable expectations. Few can.

      I will, however, defend my choices this far: I carried a cell phone and left standing instructions to call me when faced with something that genuinely couldn't wait. Knucklehead didn't call. He did wait though: he postponed tasks until I *wasn't* there.

      --
      Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
  8. Find a small company... by mooreBS · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...that doesn't need full-time IT. The company I work for only has forty employees and we have a part-time admin who comes in two days a week. The only drawback is that he's on call 24/7. Just remember that remote access is your friend.

  9. Personal motivation by Exp315 · · Score: 4, Informative

    If your reasons for wanting to work part time are that you're lazy and you don't like being told what to do, good luck! You'll need it. I successfully ran my own independent software business for a couple of years, with a combination of internet sales of my own product, and part-time contracting for a couple of companies. I could set my own hours of work, but that didn't mean that I worked any less - just that I had to rely on personal motivation and sense of responsibility to get the work done. And if you think "being your own boss" means that you can do things your way, think again. It means that you have to learn to put ego aside and do what your customers want.

  10. Take a full time job and don't show up. by tjstork · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Well, if you are really bold, you could take a full time job and just not show up sometimes. Sooner or later, you will get fired, but, if you can keep the balls up in the air you might be able to make it work for a year or two, and, you'll make a lot more money. Let's face it, there's plenty of people that simply do not do anything except show up, so, it might not be too hard to give output comparable them..

    --
    This is my sig.
  11. Re:Pipe Dream? by plantman-the-womb-st · · Score: 4, Informative

    Um, no. The common usage of the phrase "pipe dream" most often was a reference to the crazy whims and idea a person would talk about after smoking opium. Freud doesn't matter to enough people to become vernacular.

    --
    Say bad words about my book, in cold oatmeal, or I shall sue!
  12. Get the definition right by heretic108 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In the IT industry as I've known it, 'part time work' is anything less than 80 hours/week.

    --
    -- In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was UNSIGNED, and the main(){} was without form and void...
    1. Re:Get the definition right by hobo+sapiens · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not sure if you are joking, but if not...then you need a new job. Or you may just need to put your foot down. I have been in IT for years as a web developer for a few diff companies, and have never worked like that. Get your stuff done at work, make it clear you are willing to work a little extra where needed (which should be rare) but if there is bad planning, well, tough. IT shops need to be brought back to reality, namely, that poor planning cannot be overcome by stressing out your workers. And I've done pretty well, and thus far my family hasn't starved. The people who are often overworked are overworked because they let it happen. I have known way too many "heroes" who are all willing to work as long as needed for no good reason at all. Trouble is, today's hero is tomorrow's burnout.

      Or become a consultant. You may work the hours, but they are no longer a free gift from you to the company. You bill every hour you work.

      --
      blah blah blah
    2. Re:Get the definition right by nabsltd · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Any project that requires "significant overtime" is a project that was planned with unrealistic ideas of how much work would be required.

      This assumes the overtime is free because the workers are on salary. If the overtime gets paid (even as normal hours instead of 1.5x), then it's possible the planning took this into account and was just willing to pay the price to get the job done in fewer calendar days.

      Otherwise, it's most likely a company with employees who aren't able to get jobs anywhere else, so they can't push back against the unreasonable demands of management.

    3. Re:Get the definition right by Bodrius · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Trollish ad-hominem apart, the parent AC comment does bring up a valid point.

      Web application development does have some characteristics that makes it more natural to do gradual, measured updates that do not 'require significant overtime'.

      Part of it may be their current limitations (some things just cannot be done in html+js, and many things should not be done in html+js), but mostly it is just the way the tech is supposed to work by design.

      A lot of the time, the 'required significant overtime' in traditional apps is a consequence of the features being tightly coupled - even if not in the code itself, ultimately they tend to be tightly coupled at application delivery. This makes death marches almost unavoidable without very conservative planning, because "it's all or nothing": by the time you 'require' that overtime, removing a feature that is not ready will often look as risky / expensive as trying to complete it. A 'late cut' normally brings in at least binary changes, installer changes, etc that also need to be tested before the whole app is released - and the horrible feeling of waste for everybody involved, because after investing so much the feature missed the boat and now may never even get shipped.

      In general, web development doesn't make the app easier to implement in time (sometimes, very much not so) - but it forces a loosely coupled interface for your features:

      - Gradual updates are easy to prop to web servers and generally transparent to the users.
      - REST architectures help to keep features self-contained (essentially you're updating / publishing a new resource at a url - much of the time you can isolate any code update to just the component that serves that specific url).
      - Proper use of CSS and html/code separation mean that fit&finish UI changes, which are often a good share of that overtime, can be updated more dynamically than the application logic.

      By design, the web makes it easier for people to 'cut late', and release the 'cut' features a bit later, transparently to the users. Once the penalty for missing the release boat is not fatal to the feature, people are a lot more willing to acknowledge schedule risks, and less willing to try heroics to get their pet feature done in time. Features go back to requiring time, not overtime.

      Granted, that doesn't mean there are no death marches in web development shops, there are plenty. Or that traditional apps cannot be architected to use very granular, automatic updates, to deal with the same thing. I'm just saying that the web, by nature, is already architected this way, so it is easier to break away from the implications of a release model that was created when software shipped in little boxes full of floppy disks.

      --
      Freedom is the freedom to say 2+2=4, everything else follows...
    4. Re:Get the definition right by hobo+sapiens · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sure, I agree. There is plenty of built in functionality in HTML and CSS to take advantage of.

      My rule is if a layer has some built in functionality, don't use another layer to simulate it. Don't use Javascript to style things that CSS can do, don't use CSS to make things that HTML already does (like classing divs to look like h1 elements) and the list goes on.

      Depending on the audience and purpose of the site, make your site fail gracefully if the user agent doesn't understand javscript. Case in point, a site I did recently, http://ampedia.redbeartrading.com/ works this way. The menu is a folder tree. If you have javascript + cookies turned on then the site will remember which folders you had open and reopen them for you when you return. If no javascript, then everything will be expanded by default. Sure, you lose the convenience but you can get to the content. If you want convenience stop being a luddite and get a user-agent that does javascript. The markup on that site is semantic, so if your user-agent doesn't understand CSS the info will still be relatively well organized. How is this possible? By using default behaviour for each layer to the extent possible.

      An experienced web dev knows how the layers fit together, and that's sort of to my original point: there are lot of layers that you have to know well in order to be a good web developer. HTML and CSS is the foundation of web development. But just as there is more to a house than the foundation, there is much much more to web development.

      --
      blah blah blah
  13. why am i replying to my own question??? by capsteve · · Score: 4, Interesting
    i starting reading your question and was wondering when i penned this question to slashdot... but i realize that there are many of us out there with similar stories.

    i too have worked in IT fulltime for 12 years, and i've always been in positions which required working above and beyond the standard 40 hour work week. in the beginning i used to envy my 40 hour co-workers, but then i started putting things into perspective:

    + i don't punch a timeclock.
    + although i am consistent in my arrival and departure time, my time is flexible enough that i can come and go as i please.
    + my lunch hour can be as short as 30 minutes, or as long as a couple of hours.
    + i'm often taken out to lunch by various vendors(existing and potential) to discuss new products, services, etc.
    + the company pays for my cell phone(i know it's a leash, but i'm also not limited in my usage).
    + i get equipment refreshes with a higher frequency then most users(save owners and other bigwigs).
    + i have more technology in my cube/office than several co-workers combined.
    + i can wear what i want.
    + i usually set my own agenda for my work week.
    + i'm often involved in interesting projects, many of the involving exploratory research regarding cost, deployment, etc, stuff that actually is challenging.
    + i'm a techno-god in the eyes of my co-workers.
    + i get a regular paycheck.
    + i have ability to authorize up to $5000 purchases per P.O.(no limit on number of P.O.s... how did that happen?...)
    + i get reimbursed on work related expenses.
    + i get paid vacations and official holidays.
    + i get to go home to my family and leave work behind from time-to-time.

    of course on the downside:
    - i get stuck holding the bag when technology misbehave.
    - i have to work long hours from time to time.
    - sometimes there just isn't someone to hand things off to, so i have to see things thru to the end.
    - there often isn't anyone else to blame.
    - i don't always get compensated for my time appropriately.
    etc...
    etc...
    i can go on and on with the plusses and minusses, but the bottomline for me, i'm better off workin' for the man, and not for myself. you need to run a +/- list for yourself and see how it shakes out. work less? and you're thinking of going into business for yourself? pull your head out of your ass!
    your gonna work harder and longer when you work for yourself, for a while(months, maybe even years)...
    and you bring your work home with you...
    and you can't take a day off 'cause your sick...
    and you can't just up and quit cause your boss is an asshole...

    why don't you ask for a different compensation schedule? or maybe a flex schedule? track how many hours you work(regular and overtime) and see if you qualify for overtime pay in your state/country. ask your employer to pay for your cell and home internet connection(so it's less money out of your pocket). start becoming creative about how you are compensated for your work, and maybe not just money...

    sometimes i wish i was a bricklayer: only responsible for making sure that my shit is level, straight and plumb, and be able to leave all my work behind at the end of the day, but alas, that's not my lot. oh well, maybe the next reincarnation.

    --
    three can keep a secret, if two are dead - benjamin franklin
  14. Many Costs Don't Scale by nick_davison · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If you work three days a week - 60% of the time...

    Your computer doesn't cost 60%.

    Your software licenses aren't 60% either.

    That desk you use didn't cost 60% as much.

    The office space to put your desk in doesn't cost 60% as much.

    The HR department doesn't only do 60% of the work for you.

    Your health insurance doesn't only cover 60% of you - you either insure or don't insure a person.

    And so on.

    As a rule of thumb, most employees cost their companies 2-4 times the cost of their full time salary. Take a hypothetical $50,000/year salary. Cost to the company may well be around $200,000 a year. You take a pay cut to $30,000 in exchange for working 40% less, that $200,000 cost has just dropped to $180,000 or only 10% less. They're paying 10% less to get 40% less value out of you. Hardly a good deal. Admittedly, many costs do scale - 401k matching only matches what you pay, taxes are relative to salary, etc. Still, those that don't ensure the argument's not in your favor.

    Worked in reverse, it makes it painfully obvious why companies like EA so famously loved forcing overtime, especially when they could get it unpaid, out of workers. Health insurance doesn't cost them any more for a 100 hour week than it does for a 40 hour week. Office space costs no more. Hardware and software costs no more. On purely mercenary terms, efficiencies come in with more hours, not less. You're asking them to do the opposite.

  15. Have you considered training? by shock1970 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If your IT skill sets are in demand and you are good and knowledgeable with your skill sets, or you can pick up and master new skills without too much pain... and you have the capability to be personable and social and you can also get up in front of a small group and speak, then perhaps you might want to look into becoming a contract trainer.

    I worked as a trainer in this fashion from '99 to '05 and it was a great experience. Generally it involves traveling to a client's site or training facility to do the work, but if you live in a big city, it will reduce the probability that you have to travel depending on the organization you do work with. The pay is pretty good... you can bring in between $400 to $1000 a day or more depending on various factors such as content complexity, demand, and class size. Most IT classes seem to run for about 3 to 5 days.

    It is part time work in the sense that you train only when classes are available to be taught, and when you feel like teaching them. (Though turning down requests for training will move you to the bottom of the 'available trainers' list with most companies) So you could easily work 26 weeks during the year and realistically bring in a $75,000 salary. That gives you the other 26 weeks of the year to learn new skills and brush up on old ones, and to basically do whatever you want to with your free time.

    On the downside, unless you are always learning the next new "hot" thing, it can be difficult to find work... Especially now that the economy sucks, as training budgets typically are the first to get slashed.

    But if you find the right niche, you have partial control over the times and places you work. Also, you typically don't work during the weeks where there are holidays. And usually, a training day is exactly 8 hours, which includes a 1 hour lunch break and other smaller breaks in between. You typically won't work more than that unless the materials are new to you, where you have to spend an hour or two per night reviewing what's to come the next day.

    As a bonus, if you can write your own materials, you can also make an additional income. Course materials sometimes go for anywhere from $10 to $75 per student per day.

    Granted, training is not for everyone, and this is probably the worst time to consider starting off in the field... wait for the markets to go up... but it's an awesome part time gig!

  16. In engineering... by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 4, Informative

    My company hires a lot of part-time people for engineering. They are entry-level, and the savings in pay and benefits are marginal compared to the added costs of supporting part-time people. We do it because it helps us find quality people and poses little risk for us (not hard to terminate someone part-time).

    For people more senior that only want to work part-time, we hire them as independent contractors. They all have day jobs and moonlight, and their pay is really just 10-20% above their day-job salary. Again, we gain benefits at minimal risks, making it worthwhile.

    It works for us because the tasks they are doing are between 2-10 hours, and can be done in one or two sittings. It works for them because they already have benefits and the money is generally extra cash.

    Part time employees don't take the place of full time employees. There are tasks that part-timers can't be expected or trusted to do. You get disappointed with performance periodically.

    So, converting a full-time job to a part-time job is generally impossible, especially on a long-term basis. (I pulled it off for 8 months once though.) You aren't going to get 2x the hourly wage to cover billing, benefits, and overhead if you are working part time and picky about hours.

    What does work is recognizing a deficiency and understanding how it can be solved part-time or in a geographically-agnostic way by someone with your particular experience.