Christmas leave priority

I was fine with it when I didn’t have children. I think young children should be put first sometimes particularly at times like Christmas. Don’t understand why this is controversial. Such an individualistic society now.

That for me is the crux: being reasonable. Recognising well all need support sometimes. Good old fashioned give and take. The issue is when some people forget about the “give” and worry only about the take.

I did as a young nurse too and got new year off instead the
But unfortunatley you always get selfish people who forget about you accomadating thrm when they had young.kids and didnt want to reciprocate when i had young kids .

I'm not clutching at straws, I have no skin in the game as my office shuts for Christmas so I get it off regardless of my personal circs but as a HR professional I am answering a question about how childlessness could come into it.

It may be a tiny risk and it may be difficult for a childless person to link to a medical conditions/disability but it is a risk nonetheless and one a childless employee MAY make.

Other risks that also exist have already been covered on the thread - sexual orientation and age discrimination.

Disgruntled ppl will clutch at straws, working in HR has taught me that. Whether they would be successful at a Tribunal or not doesn't really matter for most businesses - the time and costs defending it still rack up and cause headaches - whether it's morally fair or not, it's not a policy I would be sanctioning where I work as it's got all kinds of potential headaches, whether legally defensible or not

Edited to say your dog analogy doesn't make sense , how would a none disabled person claim discrimiation?

To give you a real example where childlessness could be indirect discrimination - cancer is covered under the EA. If I've had my ovaries removed because I've had ovarian cancer and that's also the reason I don't have children then there's my link. Obviously it's a tiny risk because I doubt that applies to many ppl but i was answering the question on how childlessness could link to discrimination.

The far more obvious risks are age and sexual orientation. If I'm 20 and gay I'm significantly less likely to have children and obviously don't have grandchildren so best chance I have is 2 out of 4 categories, than a 40 year old straight person.

Like I don't know a single competent HR professional that round touch something like this with a barge pole - why take the risks, there's enough ppl on this thread saying they'd complain , like no thanks, don't want that on my desk regardless of any personal feelings on children having Christmas with their parents

Such a ridiculous comment. Parents with young kids have existed before their children and will exist after them. The vast majority of my life I won't have young kids. It's not a permanent status. My children aren't even particularly young anymore.

It's like me arguing that you are against the policy because you don't have young children. It's nonsense. You can just support or oppose something because you agree with the principle. Not just because you stand to gain from it which I actually wouldn't if a policy to prioritise parents with children under 10 was implemented today.

It's like arguing that anyone that disagrees with you must be jealous. Such reductive reasoning.

I was fine with it when I didn’t have children. I think young children should be put first sometimes particularly at times like Christmas. Don’t understand why this is controversial. Such an individualistic society now.

That attitude doesn't seem very Christian to me. What happened to loving thy neighbour? What happened to kindness and Christian charity? Demanding the religious festivals as holiday every time seems quite a performative approach to religion.

So what if you are old enough to be a grandparent but don’t have children? Does age discrimination not matter then?

Well you would you have young kids
When you stop being so blinkered and realise not everything is about you and your kids you might realise how unfair it is.

90% disagree with that specific policy. I don't agree with it myself and have argued that parents should be prioritised generally.

90% wouldn't agree with OP's demands and reasoning around them.

90% disagree with that specific policy. I don't agree with it myself and have argued that parents should be prioritised generally.

90% wouldn't agree with OP's demands and reasoning around them.

I would say it's because they would like to see their grandchildren over the Christmas period. I don't think that's is unreasonable!

When my dad was a young nurse, he always offered to work Christmas so the nurses with young children could be with them. Which I thought was a nice gesture.

But to actually have a policy enforcing it is ridiculous and probably frowned upon by employee rights experts.

I highly doubt it would meet the criteria of proportionate aim which is about the business need or for example it was necessary to meet H&S requirements. Examples in link below

www.acas.org.uk/employer-decision-protected-characteristic/objective-justification

Weve decided we think parents with young children should have Christmas day at home which doesn't impact on the business one way or another is highly likely not to be accepted as a proportionate aim.

I am happy to be corrected if you have any case law examples, but I really don't think I've ever come across a proportionate aim accepted on that basis in 20 years of HR

OP, on even a ‘parent’ site like MN, 90% are in your favour. Go challenge the policy!

What about people who aren’t parents but are married to teachers?

I’m assuming you understand Christianity well enough to work the answer out for yourself.

Or do you need spoon fed?

note: don’t worry, I also have every Easter off :)