to question whether parents should automatically get the sweeter deal at my work?

[ignatz]

A long one, sorry.

I am doing a vocational doctorate (or a practice PhD as opposed to a purely research/academic one) where the trainees work and are paid a salary but are rotated through 5-month placements to gain specialist experience (rather like junior doctors who are qualified and employed by NHS but who are posted to different specialties to gain further skills). Every 5 months a new placement in the region needs to be found for each trainee in the same specialist area. Some are concentrated in the city in which the doctoral training is based but most are further afield in the county. The placements in the city are generally the most popular for two reasons a) they are closer to where most trainees live and therefore the commuting time is reduced and b) they tend to be the more established centres and so offer better opportunities and potentially reflect better in future job applications (the difference between junior doctors working at Great Ormond Street or Dagenham Community Health Centre).

These placements are allocated according to people's interests but where placements are particularly popular, it has been explicitly stated by the coordinators that trainees with children are given priority for the more local placements. The assumption seems to be that parents should be offered the shortest commute so that they can spend more time with their families, although this has never been made entirely clear. Because there are so few of these placements, this effectively means that the trainees without children are always assigned the less coveted and more distant workplaces.

None of the trainees without children have ever formally questioned this although there have been a few grumbles "off the record" along the lines of people knowing what the demands of the training were before they signed up for the job. I have always felt that it was a little strange that it was assumed without discussion that the "free time" of parents was more valuable than those without children and that there should be more transparency about what the assumptions were behind this and more opportunity for others to argue their own special circumstances. However, it feels a little churlish to argue against mums and dads spending more time with their kids and so I kept quiet.

Now that I am due to join the parents soon, a colleague said "Oh, I expect this means you're guaranteed to get the central placements from now on". Which made me think...AIBU to think now (when I'm about to benefit and it might not seem like sour grapes) would be a good time to ask if this unofficial policy could be discussed? I'm not against finding flexible working solutions for working parents but this is in a situation where giving the most convenient arrangements to parents inevitably disadvantages other people. What do you think?

I think it should be challenged and I think you are in a good position to do so.

I'm a rotational junior doctor and I would be mightily hacked off I if I spent the vast majority of my working life in the sticks because of my childless status.

In fact for our training we have to do a certain amount of 'central' experience and a certain amount of 'peripheral/ DGH' type stuff so the division tends to be pretty equitable.

Do you have professional representative body - for example I would approach this via the British Medical Association Junior Doctors Committee or my College Trainee Committee, if it were an issue.

I also get fairly aerated about the 'oh you don't have children you shouldn't take school holidays' comments as my sister and frequent holiday companion is a teacher. Therefore if I don't get school holiday holiday I wouldn't get to go away with her to do the things we both want to do.

I wonder if it is less to do with 'free time' being spent with their children, and more an acknowledgement of the lack of flexibility that working parents sometimes have because of childcare?

When I needed childcare I was working a 9-5 job, but only had childcare available between 8 - 6. As I had a 50 minute commute I had little or no flexibility (in fact, was possibly thought of as a clock-watcher...) so maybe the arrangement you mention takes childcare into consideration?

I'm a bit confused that you say this has been 'explicitly stated...' but also call it an 'unofficial policy'. Maybe a good starting point would be to find out whether this is actually policy and, if so, ask for the reasoning behind it.

Good luck with the impending parenthood, by the way!

It's about work-life balance I guess. They don't want to lose extremely expensively-trained and valuable people because they can't get the right balance. I suggest you wait till you get to the other side of being a working parent before tackling what you see as an unfair institution. Imagine your baby is at a nursery that shuts at 6pm (most do) and you finish work at 6 an hour away. Who is going to look after your baby when you finish work? And will you even see him/her before s/he goes to bed? Or will you spend weeks without seeing your baby? Not too many parents would be able to do that. It may just be a very practical move on your employer's part.

btw- holidays out of school holidays are oodles cheaper usually. People with children at school would love to be able to benefit from them but aren't usually able to once their child goes to school, especially if they are teachers (doesn't seem to bother some people to take term-time holidays).

I think it should be widened out to include all people with caring responsibilities, but should not be widened to include people whose only responsibility is to go to work. It should also only apply to people who have children of below secondary school age.

I think duchess is probably right.

The childcare options here finish as 5.30 - as I have no family back up and most of my friends work and DH is still at work/travelling home at that time or away I have to be back. This places limits on hours I can work and how long I can commute.

Could well be difference between parents staying and finishing the training or having to jack it all in.

The only surprise is it is a blanket policy. Some parents do have family, friend partner childcare back up and can accommodate longer commutes and non parents have demands that can pre-exist training or crop up during it and mean they can not do longer commutes.

I definitely think that if you have an older or disabled relative in a day care centre that you are responsible for you should have the same flexibility as parents in that situation.

But having a relative with Alzheimers in a residential facility is emphatically not like having parental responsibility- if your relative is in a residential facility at least you know that they are looked after even if you don't get home at Xpm.

The only option for parents of small children is a VERY understanding relative or nanny if they are delayed at work. They are not swanning home to put their feet up, they are rushing to retrieve their child from daycare.

I'd question it' I'd be livid if it was an automatic assumption that someones lifestyle or choices automatically guarenteed them a preferential working environment. I'm not saying that it should not ultimately if their scenario means it is logical and practical, but the assumption would certainly grate.

I would challenge it.I can see the argument for it being agreed on a case by case basis. But other poster is right - some parents have lots of flexibility around childcare because of stay at home parent or nanny or gp doing childcare. And others have other demands/caring responsibilities that are not about children. There is usually far less choice about alternative care for elderly/disabled dependants than with children.

duchesse I realise there are potential difficulties for parents around childcare and work, which is why I thought very hard about how I would manage having a baby alongside doing the training. But I see that as my responsibility to decide my priorities and make compromises where I need to rather than feeling others should make the compromises to accommodate me. This is slightly different from employers offering flexible working hours to working parents because it is not an option available to everyone; you can only get a shorter commute at the expense of someone else having a longer commute. Also, some of the parents benefiting at the moment have 16 and 17 year olds, not small children requiring collection from daycare.

woollyideas you're right, I wasn't clear. I mean there's no formal policy written by the employing organisation that this is the way placement allocation should work; however, the coorinators who decide who goes where are very open about the fact that those are the criteria they use in deciding.

no, discrimination, positive or negative, is always wrong

everyone should have equal opportunities

The only option for parents of small children is a VERY understanding relative or nanny if they are delayed at work. They are not swanning home to put their feet up, they are rushing to retrieve their child from daycare.

erm you always have the choice not to have kids, or to put them first

Interesting question- a friend of mine (a single mother) was doing her PGCE and she was told that parents/those with childcare responsibilities were favoured when considering school placements - i thought this was fair enough as it was a short-term placement where location wouldn't necessarily be a huge issue for non-parents but could have caused her/parents a lot of problems but as the number of parents on the course was limited it wasn't necssrily hugely limiting the choice for non-parents and (more importantly) unlike your scenario the placements that would be favoured by parents weren't automatically the best placements /most advantageous ones. This is the key issue for me as it disadvanatgeous non-parents in terms of career option and is not just a convenience factor.
the childcare issue could be a factor but you could have childcare near work which reduces the time pressure