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.

I agree with you OP. That sounds very unfair.

Your manager should have stayed, it was his/her problem to solve.

heron98 It is anyones legal right to request flexible working. The company can refuse if it impacts on the company but they can not refuse because you don't have children. You have the same rights as parents to flexible working requests.

AlleyCat Once you start ranking private lives in order of importance you are in a mine field.

Among the people with dependents: does two children but an OH trump one but none or vice versa? Does the parent in a nursing home who does not physically need you but lives for your visits count as a dependent?

Among the people without: does the Scout commitment trump the bachelor who is going to look after his sibling's children and give the adults an evening off or vice versa?

Do we all want to disclose such matters to the people we work with?

Or of course we could say that every private life us of equal value and none will be preferred over another.

Sorry to hear about the recent diagnosis OP. Since it is an ongoing thing, I would tell your managers and say that you will need them to make reasonable adjustments to enable you to attend regular appointments. This may well mean that at times you can't work until 6.

It really isn't right to make non-parents cover certain periods always, and I say that as a working parent. If you all had to cover a particular day of the week, the parents could make a regular childcare arrangement.

And it does ignore the fact that, as other people have said, it is possible for non-parents to have other caring responsibilities. And a life, and hobbies, and the hope that, if they weren't at work the whole time covering for parents, they might actually meet someone to have children with.

My workplace thrashed this out in a very long meeting- well row, actually- some years ago. The singletons refused point blank to have a situation where they invariably had to cover out of hours stuff. They were prepared to do the lion's share, but not to do all of it. I think that was reasonable.

This is clearly discrimination.
it doesn't matter if you have kids or not you honour your commitment.
I think you should meet with your manager and point this out, and do you have a union rep to consult?
Nobody has more right than anybody else.

The trouble is that being single or without children or dependents is not a protected status like race or gender or religion. It ought to be and perhaps one day it will be; as working life extends there will be fewer people (especially - for reasons of biology- women) without children who won't put up with second class status.

Until then the only legal protection is the law of indirect age and gender discrimination.

MyFavourite - I'm surprised the "singletons" - odd term, presume you mean those without children - were prepared to do the lion's share.

people can have anything going on in their life.

I'm actually not sure where discrimination law is on this. About 15 years ago now - so well out of date - I had a flatmate who worked shifts and parents were given an automatic get out of jail free card in terms of working nights. It was openly declared and at one point my flatmate was overwhelmed with nights shifts because they kept recruiting parents and the company wouldn't even ask parents to do nights.

This was a big company too. It really threw me because what's to stop anyone going for a job there and saying "by the way I'm a parent so you can't factor me into night shifts"?

just a really odd way to run an organisation but I presume - I hope - in 2016, they won't be allowed to operate that way any more?

Andrew this is already done. Fathers get paternity leave and mothers get maternity leave. There is a recognition by many employers that parents need flexible working. Also in my place of employment I have seen people take carers leave. It is happening and it should be happening.

The singletons refused point blank to have a situation where they invariably had to cover out of hours stuff. They were prepared to do the lion's share, but not to do all of it. I think that was reasonable.

Why is it reasonable to ask "singletons" to do the lion's share of out of hours cover?

People are entitled to a private life, regardless of their marital or parental status. This issue really gets on my nerves as someone without children married to a teacher. The way some parents think they are entitled to book all the school holidays off by virtue of having had children really winds me up.

AlleyCat The world is changing!

But flexible working should be for all. If a non-parent agrees flexible working and then a parent asks for an arrangement which would be incompatible with what the NP is doing - not enough bums on seats - the answer should be No, NP got there first. But it won't always be.

Lorelei9: if I had been your flatmate I would have sued. As (at that time!) a man of 48 I would have argued that the policy was discriminatory against people of my age and against men. If the company was forced to mend its ways that would benefit all the non-parents including those who were of child-rearing age or female or both.

Andrew - most of the parents in the organisation were men though so I don't know how that would have worked, a sex discrimination claim.

In what way would it discriminate against people over a particular age?

I think they were trying to look trendy and trying to recruit more women, which backfired spectacularly. That said, and one reason I hate this sort of workplace set up, you can never know what personal circumstances someone has and if or when they will change. It is so much easier to just say "this is what the job requires". The job blatantly required night shifts so why it wasn't advertised that way, for everyone, I really don't know.

I always remember one bloke leaving my flatmate's firm to do police training. When asked how he would cope with the nights, he said "I've always been able to do nights, you said parents didn't have to so I never did!". He said they looked astonished. What is wrong with people?!

A policy like that hits people who are beyond the age at which child rearing is usual - hence the age discrimination claim. If it was mostly men benefitting that might stymie a sex claim. Highly unusual, though!

The mum who was going shopping was not right clearly. On the other hand if you go for a job and negotiate in the contract a certain finish time then it is not your fault if the company agree too readily. What seems to have happened is the company have made agreements with a number of your colleagues to finish at 5/5.30 when they have not thought through the implications or made provision for emergencies. In this situation you were right to go to your appointment and the company'take the hit'. I don't think it's a children verses no children problem though. For example, I negotiated to work my hours over 4 rather than three days due to another job I had. I was clear from the outset about it with the company and that it would be inflexible (as I had to get to my other work!). Late a colleague moaned about my earlier finish time. My response was to tell her to take it up with boss. It wasn't my issue. So I think you should take it up with your boss. Possibly they need to have someone available to cover or just agree that the next time they employ someone they will stipulate they need to be able to do 6pm finished. It's not the person who has negotiated's fault that this is impacting negatively on you though.

Why is it reasonable to ask "singletons" to do the lion's share of out of hours cover?

They weren't asked to, they offered to. That was up to the specific individuals there at the time, myself included. I offered to do more because at the time I was quite happy to get the extra money.

Andrew - "A policy like that hits people who are beyond the age at which child rearing is usual - hence the age discrimination claim"

Tbh I don't know how employers view things like school runs. Is there an age at which it's considered that your kids should just go home under their own steam?

I certainly don't see 48 as being a rare age for having a child at primary.

but when a company does something as silly as basing shift opt outs on whether or not people have children, it's also stupid because there is no way of knowing whether the staff member benefitting from that policy actually has someone else picking up their kids.

tbh there's no way of knowing they are telling the truth about having kids. and one place I worked, the only reason we found out about a very very senior woman having a child was that she (the woman, not the child lol) got so hammered at a do that someone had to escort her home - to be greeted by a very angry babysitter and a little child going "what's wrong with mummy?"!!!

I don't think there's anything wrong with not saying you have kids; it just underlines the madness of any kind of rule that relies on knowing personal info about the staff member.

Think this is really unreasonable of the employer - they have kids, you have a health issue. Both are protected characteristics as far as I am aware and in fact your health should be the trump card factor, IMO. You can't delegate a blood test, can you?

Is having children really a protected characteristic?

As an increasing number of people choose to be childfree, workplace policies that favor parents are going to dry up - particularly on a planet suffering the effects of human-induced climate change and overpopulation. I already see the backlash starting here in the United States. The fact is that in the 21st century, parenthood is a lifestyle choice and only one among many. No one's offspring is so desperately needed and hence the days of bending over backward to accommodate the production of new humans are waning.

There is plenty of childfree "top talent" out there as most developed countries are awash in excess labor capacity. Employers can pick & choose and many are opting to choose those who don't demand special accommodation. After being burned by "busy working moms" the last couple of hires, my director (a mother herself who bore & breastfed three children while in medical school) declared that only people past childbearing years will be considered for future posts. So far we haven't seen a dearth of qualified applicants that fit that criteria.

No, but childcare issues disproportionately impact women so my (hazy and very old now) memory is that there is case-law that you can't make changes to working patterns that disproportionately impact parents. Think there was a London Underground case where they tried to do that?

You do have the right to ask for flexi working but unless things have changed (again, very probable) that's your only right. They have the right to say no. But you also have the right to time off for family responsibilities, unpaid, I think.

Being a parent isn't though, no, (I think!) so apologies for implying strongly that it is.

Sorry, that was to PurpleDaisies.

Sorry, that should be Being a parent isn't a protected characteristic though^

My own toddler qualification is rather, um, active, so I am posting with about a tenth of my brain - the rest is stopping her pouring coffee on the sofa/herself out of the window....

Lea "As an increasing number of people choose to be childfree, workplace policies that favor parents are going to dry up"

unfortunately legislation in these areas, in the UK, is usually about 20 years out of date by the time it's implemented. I can't see this happening for about 50 years.

Ah Lea I think a country that is going to run Donald Trump as a presidential candidate has its own problems. I don't think America where the word socialism strikes fear shows an inevitability for what constitutes progress for the rest of the world.

At least you have an excuse sleeponeday-my hay fever has made me feel like I have a hangover when I didn't drink anything (so unfair). My brain's on go slow too!
Thanks for the clarification-I was genuinely interested rather than trying to be sarky.

The London Underground case turned on its facts which were that there were no more than a handful of women driving tube trains at the time. I believe LU has now dropped the adjustments it made after that case (probably allowing it to go on for young children then living whose mothers were already in LU) because of the impact on the people without young children.