At the C-suite level, I'm noticing more "fractional" positions, which — as far as I can tell — is a fancier way of saying part time. (This may be the Baader–Meinhof phenomenon at work, though.)

> Incidentally, why aren't there more part time positions?

It is obviously easier to manage a small group of people who work full-time than a larger group of people who work part-time. So, if there does not exist a strong wish for part-time positions from the employees, few will be created.

Also, a lot of employees are there "for the money". So getting paid much worse for a part-time position is considered to be the worse deal by many employees.

Maybe there are more than you think? Some companies are willing to do reduced time even if it isn't explicitly listed on the offer.

Go ask wait staff or warehouse workers how much they like their part time jobs.

So why would you deny me the right to hold several part time contracts instead of a full time "job"? I'm not in those industries.

It is not about denying but showcasing that it might not be as beneficial as you somehow believe.

I'm speaking for myself. I like having several part time contracts more than one full time job.

Of course, that only goes for IT if done remotely.

That's no reason to throw seasonal warehouse jobs at me as a counterexample.

because the overhead of a PT or fractional employee is just about as much as a FT one, and why should I give you 100% attention when you only want to give me 50%?

There aren’t formal part time positions but there’s a lot of jobs that only occupy half your full time and don’t ask questions when you disappear for a few hours