Christmas leave priority

What about them?

Its controversial becsuse it would mean people who dont have children will never be prority to have xmas off and could potentially be expected to work every xmas of their working lives
Do you think thats fair?

This. I find it hard to believe some of the individualistic views on here. Have to admit I’ve not been on these forums long so my first time coming across a post of this nature.

I’d just assumed it was a case of when you don’t have kids you don’t mind allowing those that do have kids be priority (which doesn’t mean you never get it off, it just means they’re priority), so when you do have kids you get to benefit from the same courtesy from others (not withstanding it works intergenerationally also, so everyone benefits as their parents benefits when they were children).

Concept clearly applies wider than just kids (eg I had a period where a colleague’s OH was recovering from an OH meaning they preferred to be around to help them so I covered when it came to travelling for events/conferences etc they’d normally do).

This. I find it hard to believe some of the individualistic views on here. Have to admit I’ve not been on these forums long so my first time coming across a post of this nature.

I’d just assumed it was a case of when you don’t have kids you don’t mind allowing those that do have kids be priority (which doesn’t mean you never get it off, it just means they’re priority), so when you do have kids you get to benefit from the same courtesy from others (not withstanding it works intergenerationally also, so everyone benefits as their parents benefits when they were children).

Concept clearly applies wider than just kids (eg I had a period where a colleague’s OH was recovering from an OH meaning they preferred to be around to help them so I covered when it came to travelling for events/conferences etc they’d normally do).

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.

Not agreeing with your selfish attitude isnt ridiculoud
You are being more ridiculous by trying to invent scenarios that somehow prove your point.

But that doesn’t work out in practice though even in places that only informally (eg through consensus) implement the policy.

So you’re seeing a problem that doesn’t exist.

How is selfish when I don't stand to gain from it anymore? Your logic doesn't work.

What scenarios have I attempted to invent? I was merely using the exact same (crap) logic you used happily against me which is everyone only supports policy that enrich them personally. You levelled that accusation against me and continue to do so. So by the exact same logic you are wed to, you wouldn't support giving parents of young kids any extra privilege because you aren't one. You are just as selfish as everyone else.

Agsin some people will never have kids should they be expected to work every xmss for the whole of their working life?

What about if you never have kids? Why are you then always back of the queue for leave?

In that particular case the answer is self evident

Im not
I used to be a nurse and worked xmas day both pre children and after children some staff didnt have children ever there was one stsff nurse who worked on the same ward for 30+ years who didnt have children this policy would mean she would never have priority
Becsuse there was always some staff members who had children/ grandchildren under 7b
Do you think thats fair?

Is it fair that those without children never have leave at Christmas or school holidays?

@ExpectMore Lots of people never have children. Does that mean they forever remain at the back of the queue?

But that’s the whole point? If someone doesn’t have a priority need (recognising they may arise from more than just having young children) then why should be take priority? It’s all in the definition

But that’s the whole point? If someone doesn’t have a priority need (recognising they may arise from more than just having young children) then why should be take priority? It’s all in the definition

You’re extrapolating lack of priority to draw a conclusion of never which is wrong and again…

… concept applies beyond children. They may have other needs

… they benefitted from it when they were young and their children were parents

and….: no reasonable group of individuals, seeing Sandra never having Christmas off, would never intervene and work together to get that Christmas off.

That’s the overarching principle. Working together to do what’s right for the needs of the individual.

not just take take take

You’re extrapolating lack of priority to draw a conclusion of never which is wrong and again…

… concept applies beyond children. They may have other needs

… they benefitted from it when they were young and their children were parents

and….: no reasonable group of individuals, seeing Sandra never having Christmas off, would never intervene and work together to get that Christmas off.

That’s the overarching principle. Working together to do what’s right for the needs of the individual.

not just take take take

How do you know they benefitted when young? Their parents may have had jobs meaning they were off anyway.

Who decides on priority? That's the problem. OP may only ever get priority for a dying parent, so max 2 x in her life. Compared to someone who has small kids for 15 years. That's not fair.

You’re extrapolating lack of priority to draw a conclusion of never which is wrong and again…

… concept applies beyond children. They may have other needs

… they benefitted from it when they were young and their children were parents

and….: no reasonable group of individuals, seeing Sandra never having Christmas off, would never intervene and work together to get that Christmas off.

That’s the overarching principle. Working together to do what’s right for the needs of the individual.

not just take take take

Also - Last xmas with a dying parent is hardly joyful is it?

Well said.

Poster forgets that people with principles may choose to do or support something they personally don’t benefit from.

It’s frightening to think they can’t understand it - implies it’s all about them in their minds.

But there’s a difference between “never takes priority” and “never gets time off at Christmas / in school holidays”. It sounds like in OP’s case people without children / grandchildren(!) can’t ever get time off at these popular times. Which is an employer problem, but is also really unfair.