Why doesn’t the 2 child limit apply to civil servant benefits?!

[Shepherdswarning]

I’ve just realised that education allowances, inc incredibly expensive boarding and ‘continuity of education’ allowances are available to an unlimited number of offspring, if you are a diplomat (or similar).

How is this even remotely reasonable, when benefits are limited to 2 children for the rest of the population??

The costs of employing a person w family in these jobs is already vastly greater than employing a single person (more travel, bigger house) - why on earth should they also get hugely subsidised private boarding school education for 3 or 4 or 5 children???

This feels so much like one rule for us and another for them…

I've just read through the thread. Double standards? My colleagues have left the CS to consulting, finance, legal etc. and all are better paid, with better benefits. Of those, the diplomats earn the least despite the pay package and benefits being offered, especially for those in high-risk countries.

My wife earns five times the amount I do, she has private healthcare, dental, enhanced sick pay, amazing maternity pay, and various other benefits (incl. discounted memberships). If I were to go on a diplomatic posting, I wouldn't get anywhere near what she gets.

The issue you seem to fail to grasp is the children going on these postings, don't have a choice. They need some stability and education can be provided to match the UK's educational system but it has to be private in many countries diplos head to.

Further, do you think hiring for senior CS posts will go well if you remove simple benefits that they can get in the private sector? I will give you the answer, it'll be dreadful for the CS. It is already arguable that we can't attract the best talent at all levels* and to strip it further will screw the CS.

Finally, an employment benefit is not the same as welfare. Perhaps get a job with benefits rather than try to take away other's?

*I don't know what hiring is like in operational areas but I know there is a struggle to get top candidates to pick the CS when they're receiving offers from the private sector which far exceed what they'll get from the CS.

You do realise that every time the minimum wage goes up, a whole swathe of the bottom layer of the Civil Service has to be bumped up as well, as their wages are so poor. Seniors wonder why candidates for recruitment are so poor, but you can earn more in a supermarket.

Exactly! They start long before they have kids so if you didn’t have this kind of benefit people with experience would just leave when they had kids.

Its really not comparable

I was being sarcastic!

Well, it’s interesting to hear these views, and I really am amazed that so many think it’s ok.

My views are absolutely shaped by people I know choosing this career path in order to get a type of education they could never otherwise pay for, for their kids. And marvelling about how unbelievably valuable a perk it is (‘there’s no way I could ever get a job that would pay me enough to allow us to educate our kids this way’).

And remember, I’m not arguing the toss for 2 kids. It’s for more than 2.

Nobody seems to have grasped my point about mat pay etc - if it isn’t good enough for civil servants etc, why the hell is it ok for ANYONE?

We've grasped your points. We just don't agree with you.

Because the issues are completely different

Do you not understand the difference between rewarding people for their work and skills. And providing minimum financial safety net?

Diplomats as an example have to work all around the world and are often relocated at short notice. If they had to move their kids with every posting a lot would not do it

The pay is poor for most of these jobs so it's the pension, sick pay etc that keeps people. Trust me withdrawing these things will be a mistake and cost more in the long run

Plus do you actually know how much maternity pay they get? Spoiler: it's not a 100% like some people assume

I don’t believe for one minute you know anyone in this position. You wouldn’t be spouting such nonsense if you did

Nobody seems to have grasped my point about mat pay etc - if it isn’t good enough for civil servants etc, why the hell is it ok for ANYONE?

It is you who isn't grasping it. Statutory benefits are the minimum standard. In order to ensure an absolute bottom threshold. All employers are welcome to provide whatever benefits package they need to over and above that, in order to attract the required calibre of employee.

My DH salary when he left the forces over 12 years ago was about £60k. The same rank now earns about £67k. The benefits package is the only thing that makes it worthwhile. As it is, since he left, his salary is now about 4x that and mine has trebled since I left. Would you prefer that we were paid those kinds of salaries directly, because that is what you need in order to retain the best.

Why don’t you exercise how many civil servants ads getting boarding school fees paid for 5 kids. It will be minimal.

I had a friend at university whose dad was a very senior diplomat- think ambassador to important countries. As a child she moved countries every 3 years - her dad later had postings in a conflict zone. I really don’t think anyone would have begrudged her the boarding school to give continuity of education.

The people doing these jobs are incredibly experienced and represent the country abroad. They are always on and foreign office salaries are shit even compared with the rest of the civil service let alone industry.

Agree. It can take 20 years to get a dip posting - and the majority who apply won’t be successful. Who chooses a job path for their fictional future kids where the likelihood of success is minuscule.

You are making your self look rather silly by constantly doubling down on your absurd attempts to link civil service remuneration to welfare.

I simply don’t believe that you know people who, as undergraduates, chose their career path entirely because they planned to have 5 children and expected to get one of the (relatively) small number of careers in the civil service that require continuous international postings and so would get their children’s education paid for. It’s not credible, and I actually do know people with that sort of career. Not, however, with 5 children…

We all grasped your point about public sector benefits - we just don’t agree. The fact that civil service employment benefits might be better than some in the private sector certainly hasn’t stopped this government introducing an Employment Rights Bill to improve the position for workers. And guess why? Because it’s politicians that determine policy, not civil servants. A point you seem to have spectacularly missed ;)

you all know different diplomats to me, is all I can say…

Pp who says ‘the benefits are all that made the job worthwhile’ - aaaargh!! Exactly this!! And why on earth is it fair that one person doing the job just gets their salary and entirely reasonable cost of living benefits, while another, doing EXACTLY THE SAME JOB costs their employer many times as much?? Each child at boarding school, plus travel, costs the taxpayer the same amount as the working parent’s entire salary? So when you have two equally hard working employees one cost their employer x, and one with a large family could easily cost 5x.

so yes - I would absolutely rather people were paid a salary commensurate w what they are doing, and not given these infantilising and totally unfair benefits. My single childless friend has done precisely as useful a job for FCDO, for decades, as her colleagues w kids.

I thought there were several benefits that aren't subject to the 2-child cap. E.g. housing benefit is based on how many children you actually have and scales up accordingly.

You are embarrassing yourself TBH

So you aren't comparing it to welfare after all. Your friend is just unhappy that someone with more children than her gets more school fees paid than her because she has fewer children. They aren't getting paid more than her though are they, and the outcome for each employee is the same.

I think I might start a thread whinging it’s not fair that as a post-menopausal woman I won’t be costing my employer maternity pay, therefore my employer is paying more to have pregnant Pattie working.

OP your ‘friend’ would be eligible if she had children. Same as I’d be eligible for maternity pay if I was pregnant. Employee benefits are available to all - if you don’t want or need all of them, don’t take them. Certainly shouldn’t be an issue that others do take them.

She could perhaps adopt half a dozen next week if she’s that bothered.

I think it’s called equal opportunities, or not discriminating against people because of their family set ups. If you’re not in favour of equal opportunities, that’s fine. Just say so, rather than trying to draw a nonsensical link between a welfare recipient and someone doing an important and moderately well paid job 😂

edited to add that it’s not all that long ago that women, and single women in particular, would have been discriminated against in any senior civil service job, and I presume you’re not advocating going back to that sort of discrimination? Just turn it round; your friend, if they exist, is saving the country money. Don’t look at it as those diplomats with families costing us more :)

Hardly a sensible comparison

Bahaha, okay, you are embarrassing.

But in case you actually don't know the rationale for this and also don't know how to use Google: diplomat kids typically go into the international system while on posting because the local schools are in local languages, of differing standards, with different curricula, and with local teachers and students who have no understanding of the various needs, specificities and contexts of diplokids. They often continue in international schools in their home country because it ensures (some) continuity in curriculum, a sense of belonging somewhere (namely as a diplomatic TCK), allows them to come in and out as they need to move at short notice, and so on. Diplomatic life is, despite the Ferrero Rochers, fucking hard. Google Third Culture trauma and diplokid if you can be bothered. Understand some kids have been in bombed areas, been kicked out their house by the host country in 48 hours for political reasons, moved from seeing extreme poverty to rich countries, had the uncertainty of a health crisis with no reliable healthcare available, lost high-mobility friends over and over again. Understand then that the Foreign Service wants to get people to do the job, including people with kids, and that schools fees are a fucking small price to pay for the country to those kids whose families, including them personally, make seriously hard choices to eat Ferrero Rochers and drink Champaign all day. The WORK benefits are directly related to mitigating the damage that the work is doing. Oh and with more kids more harm is done and more compensation needs to be done.

Oh, and you say you know people who chose the diplomatic career for benefits they wouldn't otherwise have. Well yes, and paid many a price they wouldn't otherwise have to pay. Isn't that how we all make work choices? Apply and do it if it bothers you that much, it's a merit-based process.

Also, side note, diplomats might be well-paid civil servants but if you're good enough to be a diplomat, you are typically good enough to have a better-paid job elsewhere.

Okay so this isn’t about welfare but jealousy? I’ll admit, some do marvel that their kids get an education they’d never have in the UK but it isn’t the driver. If it is, that family will be miserable on the tour. And I don’t know any diplo who went for a post just so they could send their child to private school. A lot would already do it as the FCDO has a disproportionate number of wealthy Civil Servants, similar to CO and HMT. DBT also features a lot of well to do Civil Servants. You’d actually be surprised at how many Civil Servants send their children to private school, it’s higher than you realise.

Hard agree. Any diplo on a posting can 100% get a significantly better paid job in the UK and would likely afford private schooling here too.