Searching for the impossible?

As I carried out my weekly search through the incoming recruitment emails, scanning for jobs which I could feasibly apply for, I felt irritated at how unreasonable some employers are. I now realise that this feeling of unfairness rumbles inside me every time I search the job ads. But this feeling of being hard done by is not because there's nothing worth applying for, nor is it because I don't always have the necessary 'essential requirements' for those few interesting-sounding posts. It's not even because I'm limited in what I can apply for as I need to be looking for part-time work to allow for school timetable, etc.

No, it suddenly dawns on me that the reason I find myself tutting, sighing or stomping off in disgust when I do find an interesting, challenging, part-time post and my hope begins to rise, is because I very often see something along the lines of " working hours - 18hrs, but flexibility of working hours is essential" as part of the ad.

What's so unreasonable about a bit of flexibility, you ask?
Well, here's why I think it's unreasonable. Firstly, I'm looking for office-based work, most of which can be done within normal office hours. I'm deliberately not looking for sessional/community-based work which often does, by its very nature, need workers who can do unsocial or evening/weekend hours.

Secondly, I understand the nature of business and the need for flexibility to complete projects etc. But if you offer a job part-time, it should mean part-time. The number of people, myself included, who have worked so-called part-time hours and been paid part-time hours, but are expected to either fit a near-to-full-time workload into fewer hours, or be 'flexible' which usually means extended or longer hours than contracted to do.

Thirdly, and crucially in my mind, I suspect there is a huge number of part-time posts being applied for by parents (and perhaps I should do my research on this to back up these suspicions) who need to fit work around inflexible childcare commitments, hence the reason they are applying for the part-time posts rather than full-time.

So why do many employers offering part-time work - knowing that childcare commitment is a huge reason people are applying for part-time posts in the first place - then expect us to somehow be able to ignore these other commitments? And do appealing part-time posts which don't expect unreasonable flexibility, just not exist? I am beginning to think the answer to this second question is no, depressingly. Which means that the only options are doing a job which will not be stimulating or motivating enough, or getting a interesting role but be in a permanent state of stress worrying that you either can't commit to the extra hours asked of you, or trying to sort out additional childcare to allow you to do those extra hours.

I was watching a TV programme last week about the lack of work-life balance in this country compared to some other European countries. They interviewed one particular woman who suffered a nervous breakdown following years of working long hours combined with raising 3 children and keeping a home. Once recovered, she started her own business where a more 'positive flexibility' was offered, i.e. where parents are not frowned upon for taking a few hours off for a school performance or if a child is sick, where everyone understands the need to take annual leave within school holidays, and where leaving the office bang on 'home time' to do nothing else but spend some quality time with your children is genuinely encouraged.

But that business's  positive attitude to working parents is sadly in the minority, and so I resume my frustrating scan of job ads and recruitment emails in the hope that I might find something that suits both my skills/interest and my non-work commitments. Here's hoping...