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.

There is no protection or even understanding often, if you are caring for someone you are not related to. Until she died, myself and another friend were caring for an older friend who had no close relatives at all. But unless it is a relative, nobody cares.

Oh no, Purple, I didn't think you were being sarky! I phrased it really badly and you sounded genuinely interested. It is an interesting subject, discrimination law. Lots of competing rights and social policy stuff. I really enjoyed it - shame my understanding now is so outdated.

Cleaty that was immensely good of you. Wish more people were that generous-spirited.

Excellent! I know tone sometimes gets missed on here and I read back my post and wondered if it sounded off. I know almost nothing about anti-discrimination law. I might have a look on a free afternoon.

Going back 15 years or so, my DM, a primary school teacher, asked to cut down her hours to three days a week rather than five as she was the main carer for DGF. She was initially refused permission by the school's head as there had been many women who had gone part time recently due to having had children. The letter she was sent saying no was a load of bollocks and basically waffled on about how it could be disruptive for the children etc - except that DM had only ever worked full time at the school, was the staff member who lived closest and so was always there late if it snowed or whatever, very rarely took time off ill, ie - she had caused no 'disruption' whatsoever in her years and years working there but suddenly other people with small children being part time meant she couldn't (and for a perfectly valid reason too - me and siblings all grown up by the way). I researched to the nth degree, quoted every bit of legislation going, we got her union involved and based on the letter that I wrote and she signed, finally she was granted permission to do her three days.

All a bit long winded but just wanted to say that flexible working can't have one rule for some and another for others. It's also interesting that DM saw this at the other end of her career, as in, she didn't work when we were small and then when she did, she gave it her all and was a more than committed full timer. Sadly this counted for nothing when she needed a little more flexibility.

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.

Just read this above. This has also happened to me in the past. However, as a parent now, I would always put my children first. I'd work my hours and that was that. We need to question on a wider scale why an employer is able to get away with people working such crazy hours and times, and those people being willing to work like dogs, until something as fundamental as creating a new human life happens, at which point it becomes socially acceptable to say no.

Namechange that is a disgrace all caring roles require time and should be accommodated.

My own mother was caught up in a marriage bar that existed when she married. Many people on this thread it seems would like to see us step back to a time when this was the norm. Flexible working policies are needed if women and men are going to work and raise children but other caring roles are equally as valid in necessitating this. Remember it was mainly women who historically cared for our elderly and disabled too as your post reminds us. Flexible work places offer particularly women more choices but as we can see up thread sometimes things are not a choice.

Alleycat

No one wants to go back in time, but equally no one wants a society where they have to ask those that have children/caring if its ok to go out on a date/have a holiday.

nell I would probably do the same as you if I had DC, but equally it's more difficult for women to achieve parity in pay/promotion when they are the ones scurrying out of the door at 5.30pm while those without childcare responsibilities (overwhelmingly men) crack on with the hard/late hours.

I really don't know what the answer is though. I can only comment on my own sector but clients "like" it when we all slog past midnight because it makes their "big sexy deal" seem important and it's a one-off for them. We will be working on someone else's big sexy deal the next week and the week after that ad nauseum....but the clients don't really care about that as long as their own work gets done yesterday.

It will also be women's careers who suffer as we are all increasingly expected to care for our own elderly relatives rather than getting help from the state. It makes me sick when ministers extol the virtues of other cultures who "look after their own" whilst conveniently overlooking the fact that women in those cultures often have little or no life outside the home.

I recently bought a stack of old magazines at an estate sale and a major US women's magazine from 1974 had a lengthy article about how hard it is for women to juggle young children and career, with many of the exact same complaints/issues raised as are today.

If "society" really were motivated to figure out an answer it would have done so in the ensuing four+ decades. It seems to boil down to a personal choice - one can devote oneself to career and reap the resulting fruit of that devotion, or choose to have a family, quite likely at the expense of career progress. Repeatedly saying that reality is "wrong" or "shouldn't be so" doesn't carry much weight, apparently, since all the palaver to that effect over numerous decades hasn't really changed much of anything.

The people who arrange their lives so they can stay late, etc. will always have an edge in the workplace over those who don't. Presumably the rewards and benefits of childrearing offset that. You can't have it all - at someone else's expense.

Lea done countries have made more progress than others in the ensuing 4 decades. I would argue that progress is hampered by the views of those heavily invested in maintaining the status quo.

Done = some

wants a society where they have to ask those that have children/caring if its ok to go out on a date/have a holiday

I am not sure whether you are being facetious or serious here Boneyback So who do you think should look after the elderly, the disabled or the children? Something has to give. These vulnerable members of society exists. To be fair Lea deals with at least some of it when she suggests basically women don't have children or we don't work which kind of puts pay to your idea that none wants to go back in time But the other vulnerable members of society where do they go?

Alley

I'm not being facetious at all, your view of society suggests that those in caring/child rearing roles come first. This means that everyone else by default comes second.

This would mean that every time someone in a non-caring/child rearing role wants to do something the companies would have to check that the carers/parents are not going to be put out/suffer lack of flexibility.

Your view also means that in an emergency those without children would be expected to drop everything and cover the emergency.

As with most situations, peoples views of what is fair is directly related to their own situation.

I have no issue with covering emergences when asked in a civil manner but anyone who tells me that I will be covering because I don't have children/anything as important to do will be told where to go in the firmest of terms.

Gosh, this sort of thing used to really annoy me when I was single and childless.

Still annoys me now! Have had several experiences of women who can't attend important meetings about studies because of childcare issues, having to leave early to pick up children, refusing to attend important conferences and seminars - and then wonder why i don't include them in future applications.

Do people think the parents should be allowed to negotiate the early shifts if it means the others (non parents and the dad) will have to do the later shift much more often???

Op - if this is the case please tell us whether this was done before you started or after? And whether you were consulted or asked, or just told you would now do more late shifts?

In terms of asking permission, that's exactly what I used to have to do. If I wanted to book time off, I not only had to make sure it wasn't during school holidays - or at any other time where the working parents had called 'dibs' - but I also had to explain why I wanted the time off!

Can't understand why I don't work there any more...

I think there needs to be flexibility on both sides; from the employer and employee. Goodwill goes a long way with your colleagues as well.

I've only read the op but I think YABU op.

Presumably, those that work until after-nursery time (be it 3.30/5.30/whatever) work until that time because it's their normal rota? You were asking for an early finish. And expecting someone else to stay beyond their shift time to cover you.

I work until 3pm one day a week...the request to drop hours was put in writing and agreed and as I finish at 3 on that one day I have no afterschool childcare in place.

If you 'expected' me to work beyond 3 on my agreed day so that you could finish earlier than your agreed shift, you'd have a firm decline.

wow was not expecting so many replies! Thanks everyone :)

rollergirl - originally my hours were 7.30-4.30, then changed 8-5, then about a year ago we were told everyone was going to be working 9-6 but it only ended up been us 3. The manager realised then that he needed more people in early so did alternate 6pm finishes with us 3.

minecraft is wasn't my usual day to work till 6pm, but was expected to cover as I don't have children.

Just politely decline. You have an appointment you cannot miss. The parents will decline because they have dc waiting to be picked up. They're no more in the wrong that you are for refusing to work late.

It's the managers problem to review working arrangements to make sure it doesn't happen again.

As with most situations, peoples views of what is fair is directly related to their own situation

I have to disagree with you there. I have had these views before I had children, I also have never cared for an elderly member of my family and yes I do have a child with a disability but that has only been a recent discovery and my views on caring for the disabled pre existed the knowledge that I would be directly affected by these views. They are long held views and probably reflect the culture I grew up in, I guess which certainly was more Berlin than Boston.

Totally unfair that these changes have been forced on you then. It's not what you signed up for and they are treating you badly because they're so worried about treating the parents (particularly the mums) fairly

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

Andrew Spot on. I have become increasingly irritated by AlleyCat's posts.

I worked full time from when my son was 2 months' old. I don't think I ever had the attitude AlleyCat has.

Manager needs to sort this out - you may not have children but you do have a life and responsibilities. Those with children will need to make the necessary arrangements to meet their contractual requirements.

What happens when you take leave?