to feel discriminated at work for not having children

[rosieposie2]

Don't get me wrong I have a lot of respect for working mothers/fathers but recently in work have been feeling discriminated against.

There are 6 people in my department, 3 mothers, 1 father (John) and myself and another(Sue) without a child. Three of us at work take it in turns to work till 6 (the 3 mothers can't as they have children to pick up from nursery).

Last Thursday I asked to leave at 5.30pm as I had an appointment, Sue was rota'd to work till 6 but phoned in sick and John couldn't because he had to look after his children. Our manager told us that one of us would have to stay till 6pm and all the parents said that it would have to be me.

I understand that they all had children to pick up but then one of them turns round and says hubby is picking daughter up and she's going shopping!

AIBU to feel that because I'm childless I should be made to feel worthless.

Not surprised you're annoyed. This takes the piss.

BerylStreep
"I spent years working on Christmas eve, christmas day etc because I didn't have DC. Now I do, I expect a little flexibility in return."

Flexibility from who?
Those that you covered that benefited from your "selflessness" or those that have just arrived and have no children?

YANBU. I once asked to work part time but was told that the business couldn't accommodate my request. A short while later, someone came back from maternity leave, asked to go part time & their request was granted. How can that be justified?

I remember the Christmas thread - it was very unfair on the lady without children.

There was a suggestion that the parents be told: "Enjoy these Christmases with your DC, because you will never get to spend Christmas with them when they've grown up. They won't have DC of their own, you see, and so their plans will be less important than those of everyone else."

Focused my mind rather, that did.

While the OP is getting a raw deal which should be more blanched I would commend the workplace for trying to accommodate parents.

It's not the 'workplace' offering flexible working though is it - in reality, it's childless colleagues who are providing the capacity, through picking up the slack, not management providing additional resources to get the job finished. The only people who are commendable here are the ones staying late to keep everything on track.

It's not fair OP, I've experienced it myself. It's very one-way and it creates a lot of resentment. You end up feeling that YOU are the one making the sacrifices (by working longer, harder hours with more stress) for the benefit of colleagues' children so the parents can carry on without anything to worry about. It's never fair to expect others to put themselves out because you chose to have children.

I remember that thread too. Flexible working should not mean that childless colleagues pick up the slack all the time. It breeds a lot of resentment.

Yes it is the employers' responsibility to manage this but your colleagues' attitude would make me gopping mad, particularly this. and all the parents said that it would have to be me.

I've experienced this from both sides and when I became a parent, I worked very hard at not taking the piss. Of course there were times when I asked someone to cover for me but I always reciprocated.

Sorry if you've explained this but I've read all your posts and I still don't understand why only the non parents are rota'd to work late. If that is part of the job then it should fall to everyone.

YANBU - I have 2 colleagues working compressed hours and 1 PT. They see their right to leave at a specific time as inviolable whereas the men and childless women just pick up the slack and work unpaid overtime until all hours. It stinks.

It's not even poor management because in my line of work (law) the workload is not easy to predict and tasks are invariably urgent/last minute. Deals tend to sign at midnight (and yes, some of this is macho presentee-ism nonsense, but equally time differences, tight deadlines and sheer volume of work play their part.)

I don't know what the solution is, but - like it or not - ime there is a direct correlation between "family friendly policies" which basically incentivize women to be away from the workplace and female under-representation in senior roles.

"Lean In" by Sheryl Sandberg is a great read for anyone interested in this topic

When my DD had swine flu I was asked not to attend work, then told I had to take the time as unpaid leave!

My college was given paid for compassionate leave when her dog died.

Leave and pay is up to the manager.

I was miffed to say the least as the dog pipped my honesty

Everyone's private life is of equal value and all the shifts must be rostered equally. Then people are free to exchange but free means free: not bullied, expected, forced, guilt-tripped or made to feel that they are not team players if they don't. Swaps should be like for like, and even at the last moment if someone is asked to swap or take somebody else's late or early or weekend shift and says No that is the end of it.

The parents may have negotiated early finishes as part of their contract.if this is the case then your colleague is entitled to do what she wants after she finishes

Where is the OP?!

There are some unfair stories shared, but OP's isn't definitely one of them.

If 3 people are contracted to finish at 17:30 and 3 others contracted to do regular 18:00 finishes then there's no problem. OP was asked to cover, said she couldn't, and she didn't.

Mountain, molehill.

But not everyone has the same responsibilities. It's pointless saying that everyone should be treated equally as needing to leave (either early or on time) to pick up a child is not the same as having other plans. A parent cannot cancel their child. The same goes for people with other caring responsibilities.

The issue here is still the employer. They have a legal duty to be flexible with parents, more so for parents of children with disabilities. They have a moral duty to be flexible with all employees.

If you are being forced to carrying out work that is above and beyond your role due to parents leaving on time or early, the issue is your employer.

If you are being forced to stay behind for overtime that should be equally shared but isn't, the issue is your employer.

If separate working contracts have been issued that are not working well for the team, the issue is your employer.

If staff are refusing to negotiate to cover time when they should, the issue is your employer.

The other employees and their views are irrelevant. It the employer's job to make sure things run properly.

soapboxqueen The children are their parents' responsibility, and that includes having backup - and your colleagues are not your backup. If that sounds harsh remember your pre DC self and imagine yourself when your DC are older.

Giving preference to people without childcare obligations for shifts or Christmas or expecting them to ride to the rescue when childcare arrangements fall through is probably indirect age and gender discrimination.

Christmas is not the same thing at all. No priority should be given to people just because they have children. That's just a nice to have not a necessity.

However, sometimes there is no back up. Sometimes it just isn't available. Sometimes the back up is already agreeing with your employer what your hours are, your availability for cover etc will be. If other members of staff don't like it they need to take it up with their employer.

Employers need to have back up plans to make sure they can cover the work that needs to be done.

It must be hard for people with fertility problems to have to constantly cover for other people's children.

If a person without children is asked to work late to cover a colleague's problem and says Sorry, I have an unbreakable commitment the discussion is over. Nobody - not the parent and not the manager - can ask what that commitment is. Not their business.

RockUnit You said it. My poor niece has suffered from that. People are so bloody good thoughtless.

Andrew absolutely right it's none of their business. Just as the reason why an employer needs staff for emergency cover isn't anyone's business. That other employee doesn't have to cover it if they don't want to, unless it is part of their contract to do emergency cover.

The fact that the cover is needed for a parent is irrelevant.

It clashed with half-term and I was accused of being selfish for asking to book it, despite explaining the circumstances.

That is really shocking. But in most places I've worked parents don't get priority for school holidays or indeed Christmas, it's whoever books first. First come first served. If you're a parent and eg want May half term off, you need to be organised and book it early.

That shopping woman was taking the piss. I am a working mother and commute and I never pulled out the "picking up my daughter" card. It's always been the same in our team, Mums/Dads/childless, no special treatment with very rare exceptions when children were very sick or in a hospital. But because it's not misused, it's working fine.

She's not taking the piss. She wasn't contracted to work. So she didn't.
THE OP DIDN'T WORK THE EXTRA 30 MINS EITHER!

It's not even poor management because in my line of work (law) the workload is not easy to predict and tasks are invariably urgent/last minute. Deals tend to sign at midnight (and yes, some of this is macho presentee-ism nonsense, but equally time differences, tight deadlines and sheer volume of work play their part

The culture of presentee-ism is rife in the industry I used to work in too. Also the culture to give everything over to the job, very often including employees health, a totally male dominated industry. Not something to be aspired too IMO. I think the idea that people on certain jobs should be pulling 60-80 hour weeks should have gone out with the industrial revolution tbh. The sooner that work-life balance becomes a legal requirement not an aspiration then the sooner we will have equality in society.

Asides from that though in the here and now many people have caring responsibilities and that matters. If you are responsible for caring for other human beings then IMO society needs to support that. That could be a person's parent, a sibling with a disability or indeed young children. For those of you saying but why should people who don't have children suffer as a consequence well maybe they will need to care for a family member or a parent in the future and then they will need that support or perhaps they themselves may need to be supported by the state, who can predict the future? However notwithstanding that the ultimate goal should be supporting work-life balance for everyone. So if someone like the OP puts in extra late hours some days she gets them back in kind in other days.

You say society needs to support that which sounds good until "society" means your colleague with a choir rehearsal or who runs the Scout group or is meeting an old friend who is passing through - or of course has a date which might lead to the end of single status - or who just wants a quiet evening alone or with OH. It's no good telling that person that it will even itself out over time. That's like "my kids will pay your pension".

I quite agree that we need better protection for everyone's work-life balance but some forms of work are by their nature 24/7 and others require early and late and weekend work.

Andrew yes that is precisely what I mean by society. Precisely that. Should everyone who requires care be institutionalised like we used to? Should we not support families of people with disabilities, the elderly? Should children spend even longer hours in childcare? These are choices that have to be made and in my view prioritising caring roles is reasonable.