HR Time – 2 part-time employees told they are now job sharing – difference ?

Isn't job sharing where one job / salary is performed by 2 people ?

My wife returned to work after maternity on a part-time basis (3 days a week when previously full-time). Her work colleague went on maternity soon after and returned to work (2 days part-time when previously full-time) a good few months after my wife. After 2 years working like this, today someone from HR described them as 'job sharing' (whilst trying to get them to change hours / cover other days).

My understanding is job-sharing suggests there is only one job position but it is being fulfilled by two people. There was always 2 jobs i.e. one each (well plus the other person in the department who is being moved out) so if they are now describing their jobs as a job-share position hasn't one position redundant ?

Why does this matter…well things are getting messy there and redundancy might be attractive.

Hmmmm

I ain't sure and yo need real advice.
However – I don't think its job sharing unless you agree that it is. HR might be treating it as a job share for their bureaucratic purposes but unless you agree to it / its in your contract it is not a job share – its two part time posts.

I don't think it makes a huge difference anyway

I'm suggesting she goes to the union for this one as I think it's the thin end of the wedge. I was hoping to suggest 'redundancy' if there was only one job as it would be a better result than running away with nothing. (but I can see the work is really still there).

Their manager has just been moved outside the department and a part-time cover worker is moving on and they want the remaining 2 people to cover all office hours by calling it a job-share. Currently the 2 work together one day, and neither work Wednesdays – other workers were there previously.

(nursery care and my workng hours are arranged around her currently agreed working hours so it's a bit of a problem)

If they have been working a set patten of hours for a period of time custom and practice applies – however if needed for operational reasons ( which is what this sounds like) reasonable alterations can be made following consultation and so on.

Might be one to be reasonable on unless the altered shift pattern is an utter pain?

It might allow HR to show one less person on the headcount and therefore they need to make one less person redundant in the company.

I.e. if it is part of a group they may have been told to lose 10 heads so it may be an internal way to save a member of staff.

…except it's not saving her job as she probably wants the redundancy (it has been generous in the past). Perhaps she needs to be open and ask for it.

Union time.