to think a ski company offering to pay any fines imposed by schools is wrong

[bottlenecker]

The times today have an article about a "A ski company is encouraging parents to take their children on holiday during term time by offering to pay any fines imposed by schools or local councils."

AIBU to think this is wrong on every level? It promotes parents to break the law. It discriminates against those without children having to pay a higher price than those with children for the same dates. I could go on....

[bottlenecker]

Kim
That's crazy the free meals for mums !

However, I would argue that this is a cash back deal.

[bottlenecker]

Tarka

It is not a cost of going on holiday it's a cost of taking kids out of school.

[bottlenecker]

So someone child free on a zero hours contract goes on holiday and loses all their pay whilst away. And they are subsidizing someone who chooses to get a fine by taking their child out of school who could be massively better off.
Madness!

[BabyDubsEverywhere]

This sounds brilliant - I hope other companies follow suit!

[prh47bridge]

Anything like this (kids go free, free meals for mums, etc.) involves some customers subsidising others. Nothing wrong with that as such. But I don't think they should be doing this. They are encouraging parents to break the law. And the available evidence clearly shows that children who regularly take holidays in term time are less likely to get decent qualifications than children who don't.

[bottlenecker]

Kim

But you could argue someone chooses to get a fine "That's their choice" too so why should they get a better deal than the other.

[fluffyraggies]

The prices a company charge will always be covering overheads which don't benefit all their customers. If i go somewhere which has a 'free' creche, for eg. and dont use it myself, i have subsidised that creche with no benefit for me. That's life.

I find it odd that the thrust of this thread is not about the fact that the company is encouraging folk to break this stupid bloody law

[ISeeYouShiverWithAntici]

how is it cheaper?

holiday on X date.

couple without children pay £1000

Couple with children pay £1500, (£1000 couple plus £500 for the kids because they are a larger group obviously the costs are higher) they also pay £120 fine, which the company gives them back, taking their total outlay back to £1500

so they have both paid... £1000 for the adults, plus the couple with kids paid £500 for the children.

Holiday cost for childless couple - £1000
Holiday cost for couple with children - £1500

How did you calculate that the couple with children would pay less than the couple without as a result of the ski company giving them a discount equivalent to the fine?

That would only be the case if the couple without children also had a fine, which the ski company did not pay.

(Don't take the figures literally, it was just cos they are easy numbers)

It's like saying that you have a cake, each of you has 4 slices, someone comes along and takes a slice from one of you, someone else comes along and gives a slice back to that person and the other person goes hang on, they've now got more cake than I have!

I don't understand the maths. Leaving aside fairness, etc, I don't understand the maths.

[Birdsgottafly]

"If they were offering the same cash back deal but only if you were female do you think it would be ok?"

Discounts for family members fall outside of the Equality Act etc, so the above argument isn't valid.

No different, as said, than a free child place, or the definition of what is allowed when offering a "Family Ticket".

In terms of people without children, you can self certify for the first week off work, so if you really wanted to go on a time limited holiday, then you can phone in sick.

My DD has just had to take a week off school with a very nasty virus and the school has taken my word for that, so I think all this ansk about the odd week off, is getting ridiculous, tbh.

I am glad my youngest is now 16 and past these numerous stupid new rules.

[TarkaTheOtter]

It's a cost they incur because they are taking their children on holiday. It's a cost not faced by people who don't have children. They may have other costs that they would like to be covered as well, but it's not discrimination. Those parents may well be on zero hours contracts too.
For two couples in exactly the same situation, but one with children and one without the total cost will be equalized by this offer. So not discrimination in my opinion.

It's also not really cross subsidization because, for example, once they have chartered the flight they are better off having it full is they make much better returns on having people travel throughout the season rather than just in school holidays.

[MidniteScribbler]

I'd question the legality of it actually. It's like a car manufacturer offering to pay any speeding fines if you buy their vehicle. It's encouraging people to break a law.

[Birdsgottafly]

"How did you calculate that the couple with children would pay less than the couple without"

Don't go there about costs.

I used to resent my 11+ year olds having to pay the same All Inclusive price, as the heavy drinking adults.

Once your child is over 12, you get ripped off.

I do less with my Teens because I cannot afford to pay for another Adult price, yet one is only just being paid Min wage and the other in collage.

[meditrina]

I see it as cheaper in the sense that a family may look at the price of the holiday in terms of the total of the major components. So the possible fine would be factored in, meaning that 'their' price might be £1240, but if the holiday company will refund £240 it becomes cheaper for them. They may or may not compare it to the possible costs of other people's holidays, just their likely bill.

[OpalQuartz]

"If they were offering the same cash back deal but only if you were female do you think it would be ok?" I would if women only were fined for taking a certain week off work. In that case the "cash back" would be going to the company, not the woman.

[bottlenecker]

Birds
"Discounts for family members fall outside of the Equality Act etc, so the above argument isn't valid"

But this isn't a discount for family members it's a cash back offer for those that have been fined. Not all families with the same family standing will receive the offer.

[ISeeYouShiverWithAntici]

But they won't be losing anything.

They won't be losing a penny.

two buskers side by side, each have 10 x 10ps chucked in their cases

someone comes along and takes one of the 10ps from one of the buskers

someone sees this and gives that busker 10p

the other busker goes hang on, that's not fair! I didn't get 10p

but they both now are back to having 10 x 10p. The busker complaining is actually complaining because they want 11x 10p compared to the other one, who is back to his original 10 x 10p

I don't understand where the calculations have come from that someone has suffered a loss!

[BackOnlyBriefly]

bottlenecker one of us is very confused here. If they pay the fine for anyone who genuinely has to pay a fine then that makes them all equal. It doesn't cost more for people without children.

Your examples seem to suggest that there are two groups. Those with jobs and those with children in school.

[bottlenecker]

iseeyoushiver

That is not how holiday costs are worked out though. In order for the holiday company to pay the fine they will have to take it from somewhere.
They will not be reducing their profits will they.

[CbeebiesIsMyLife]

Bottle tesco have given my mum £15 off her next online shop because she hasn't shopped there for so long, that £15 is effectively cash back as it's money she would have spent there.

Despite being in a similar situation (we both have 2 children under 5, haven't shopped there in a while etc) they haven't offered me the same deal, surely this is similar? Year tesco aren't discriminating they are simply enticing customers.

In my head it's the same thing.

[fluffyraggies]

but not all families will be willing or able to use all the offers/facilities on offer at any given resort/hotel. It doesn't make it unfair.

my money being used to subsidise cash back or allowances for those who have incured costs or inconvenience that i haven't are a part of life.

i cant think of any other way to put it.

[CbeebiesIsMyLife]

And yes it's not technically a cash back offer because they are paying an additional cost parents oh take their children out of school have to pay. Non parents who go pay exactly the same price because they don't have the additional cost. There is no extra money floating around.