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.

Surely the fault lies with management? If you have negotiated contracted hours with staff and ask them to work outside those hours they can say no. You can not force someone to stay longer surely?

I thought there were laws to protect employees so we could attend medical appointments that had to be made during working hours? I could be wrong though.

Do you have an HR department? I'd speak to them about the fact you will have medical needs / regular appointments that will affect your attendance.

It isn't about ranking private lives, it's about need. A person without caring responsibilities (by that i mean actual responsibilities) can choose whether they do a thing or not, medical appointments excepted. They can choose whether they do what their company asks and retain good favour or not. They may feel under pressure (or actually be under pressure) but they still have that leeway. They can choose to go along with it or tell them to stick it.

A person with caring responsibilities cannot choose that. They have to go. They can't decide if they'll just leave their child at the school gates to stay late or not. They have to go. They get to be seen as not putting in the effort, or not a team player or always out or making excuses and have no choice about it.

Let's not pretend that being a primary carer or even being seen as a primary carer doesn't affect career prospects.

I've felt the pressure of being expected to do things that just weren't possible because of my other responsibilities. That somehow I could magic my children away at the convenience of my employer and show 'commitment'

Some people take advantage of parental employment flexibility, some people take advantage of sick leave, some people take advantage of long term health conditions, some people just take advantage. At the end of the day it is still the responsibility of the employer to act fairly and control staff. If they aren't doing that then make a complaint, engage your union or move jobs.

I think it really depends what is in your contract and if all of you are contracted to work the same hours.

Soapboxqueen, but caring responsibilities for one's own offspring are self-chosen. No one is forced to have kids. So to create a situation, and then complain about the very real ramifications in other areas of life (free time, career impact, etc.) seems quite unrealistic and disingenuous.

If you don't want the trade-offs that responsibility for your own offspring require, don't have offspring, simple as that. As childfree living becomes ever more mainstream (and that's the trend), and global overpopulation becomes more dire, the tolerance for special accommodations for those who do opt for parenthood is going to become even more scarce.

Eldercare and one's own illness are different. I would not begrudge flexibility for people undergoing involuntary misfortune or hardship. No one chooses to get cancer, heart disease or to have an ill parent.

This is definitely not on, where parents have requested flexible working and a different contract has been granted, they have a right to keep that, they should have valid reasons for requesting it and justification why it's not detrimental to the business and other colleagues. Your situation just sounds like everyone has got used to doing what they do, without any of it really being formally agreed. Colleague going shopping is taking the piss, time off for medical appointments should be covered by HR and should be protected.

I almost had the opposite fight, in our workplace everyone does one late per week, I do a 2 day/ 3 day jobshare and all the full time non-parents decided it would work better if we each did a late, giving them a rotating week off. For various reasons the late was also a much harder shift and I was getting paid less (manager didn't think I'd managed to complete a full year for performance related pay assessment due to maternity leaves - even though I'd had a total of 18 months at work which could have been assessed, just with gaps during) for spending 50% of my working week working twice as hard as normal, while everyone else spent 20% of the time dealing with that.

I couldn't keep doing it, so I went through the process of fighting to make it fair, we now all do the same number of lates pro rata. I'd still do the same if I had the time over, because I couldn't continue to work in the way I was, both the increased workload and the stress of arranging childcare round it. However, it was really, really hard to bring it up, make my case and not be shouted down, there is also one person who still has a go at me, at every possible opportunity and will never stop.

Your colleagues need to start pulling their weight, but it's also down to your manager to make them. Don't let this become a problem you have to sort out, tell your manager when your medical appointments are and that they have to get cover for them, or close early.

Alley

The thing is with this, that every time you say "we" or "society" you actually mean someone else should do it.

You are not referring to yourself as you are firmly in the carers section, what you actually mean is that those without children or without caring responsibility should make up some sort of short fall.

soapboxqueen

"It isn't about ranking private lives, it's about need."

it is about ranking people, you are effectively saying that your need out weights someone else's. whether it is chosen or imposed by a situation it is a form of entitlement.

As I have said I have no problem covering when I am asked and when I am able to, but if it is demanded (and it has been) who ever asks will get told firmly where to go and if I am ever asked to justify why I can't cover for someone the comeback will be even shorter.

Whatever your circumstances, if you can't fulfill the requirements of your job, including start and end times, then you need to find another job.

Whilst flexible working is great, it is not always possible.

"A person with caring responsibilities cannot choose that. They have to go. They can't decide if they'll just leave their child at the school gates to stay late or not. They have to go. "

But in most cases, that isn't the case. In most cases, these children have a father but the mother feels it is more appropriate to expect her (usually female) colleagues to pick up the slack rather than, god forbid, for a male parent to have to juggle childcare and/or request flexible working once in a while.

It amazes me the way that the issue of 'working mothers'/juggling motherhood and a career is discussed all the time but there is this huge elephant in the room of another parent who doesn't have these problems and just isn't expected to take responsibility for their children.

Yes, many women are raising children on their own - but, if you are in a relationship with your child's father and he isn't prepared to take responsibility for his own child and views women and their careers/lives as less important than his own - why don't you challenge this and, if nothing changes, why are you still with him? - And what lessons about the roles of women and men in society are you communicating to your own children?

Soap, caring for someone is a choice.

I do think that many many employers could offer far more flex to everyone and the jobs woukd still be done. Luckily I'm with such an employer at the moment but in the past I have encountered really stupid attitudes about presenteeism.

I'm embarrassed to say one of my own friends was recruiting recently and lost her top choice candidate because of refusing to agree to a perfectly reasonable request. She had a chat to me about it, I to,d she'd been really stupid....then she rang the candidate back a few days after mulling it over and the candidate had found another job so my friend is whining about having to give it to the second choice. Argh.

it amazes me people still fart arse around over timings when it's not remotely relevant to the job!

My two sisters are childless and are fed up with the attitude that being single means they can cover in all circumstances - especially Easter and Xmas/New Year as they don't have families. Actually they do - my Mum & Dad!

And they still get sick or have to see the Dr or go to the dentist. That's not just an exclusively 'parent thing'. That said, I have 3 teenage kids now, but when they were younger, if I couldn't get away from work, I had friends who would collect them for me. Do these 'family people' not have friends?

Lea what utter twaddle. The human race isn't going to stop having babies because some people don't have them and think people who do are an inconvenience. We need people to have babies (potentially not at the same rate) but still,they are needed. Considering that the vast majority of caring is carried out by women, the only thing attacking parental responsibility rights will do is set women back 50 years.

Pretty much everything is a choice. Having a job is a choice. Staying in or leaving a job is a choice. I think it is entirely disingenuous to insinuate that the responsibility of caring for whomever is like taking up a hobby. Something that can be put to one side and isn't that important.

I've been the childless employee, I've been parent employee and now the parent who had to leave work because of those responsibilities. Even when childless it was really obvious that some staff had responsibilities that were more inflexible and necessary than mine. It isn't rocket science.

Caring responsibility free employees shouldn't be taken advantage of (just as any employee) but that is the responsibility of the employer not parents/carers

wannabe I do think there is an issue to do with default responsibility being with a female parent rather than the male parent. Whether that is through the mother taking more responsibility or a father feeling that he doesn't want parenthood to affect his career. However even if that were not the case, we'd still be having this conversation because there would still be a parent leaving work. It would just be a male more often.

Most people do have back up. Some people are just arse holes and can't be bothered. Some people really don't have back up. Either way it is still the employers responsibility to sort out.

Talk about twaddle.

Earning a living is not a choice for most human beings (except of course those on the dole, and we know who most of them are.) Having children is indeed a 100 percent voluntary choice and has become even more so in the past 50 years with the advent of ever-more-reliable female-controlled contraception.

That more humans are needed is certainly debatable by anyone with intellect. Ask the nearest lover of elephants, dolphins, whales, leopards, stick insects, bees or monarch butterflies and you might get a rude awakening.

It is not the responsibility of the employer to accommodate your lifestyle choices. Having backup childcare is parenting 101 and most of us have zero sympathy for the current-day "we don't leave our DCs with anyone but our mum and she lives 500 miles away" bullshit. Either support a stay-home parent or sort out a Plan A, B, C and D for your babysitting but either way don't complain when you don't have the same career opportunities as the childfree. No one's precious offspring are so necessary to the gene pool, and no individual's contributions are so irreplaceable in the workplace, that the rest of us are motivated to sacrifice our time, energy and wages (via tax revenue) so that only a decreasing subset among us can demand to have it all. We all have one life to lead and to each her own choices.

Lea do you honestly think the human race is going to push against literally millions of years of reproductive evolution because some people decide that they are cleverer than the breeders and so therefore nobody should be having children. Ha and ha!

There are only a few rights parents have over non-parents, most of which is for emergencies . The rest is down to employer choices. Choices they make to keep those employees. Why is that? Are most employers just stupid or do they realise that flexibility creates loyalty.

Should flexibility be available to all employees? Yes. Do some people take the piss? Yes but some people take the piss for a whole host of reasons and using various methods.

However, the responsibility for that still lies with the employer.

Oh and I am one of those parents who is very rapidly getting to the no back up point.

Well Lea how are you going to decide which misfortunes are involuntary? If someone gets lung cancer after smoking, will they be allowed time off under your great new vision of society, or is that just once of the consequences of their life choices?

And if everyone stops having babies immediately as you would wish, who is going to care for you when are old?

A parent at my work comes in an hour late about 4 times a week because of 'kid stuff'. She has 3 teens and a 11 yo.

I come in 20 mins late once because of emergency dental appointment and get bollocked because I need to 'prioritise'. Fuck that. Her 16yo couldn't get his arse out of bed in time for the school bus so she was late. I HAVE KIDS MYSELF but because I haven't set this 'precedent', my dds dad helps and I have a great breakfast club setup - she 'does it all herself' oh what a bloody Saint... She is married to the dad, he has a 'demanding job' abd anyway, it's mums who should run about after kids! I actually find this attitude rife in my conversations with friends about their workplaces too.

Oh, Sunset, that old saw. Rest assured in 2053 or so there will be plenty of human beings to take care of me. In fact at the rate humans are outpacing available resources and jobs, they will probably be lining up to change my adult diaper for a biscuit and a cup of tea, forget wages. There is no prospective shortage of human beings. Quite the contrary.

I realize we cannot stop people from reproducing but certainly the marketplace isn't going to INCREASE perks for such a commonplace and quite frankly unnecessary process. Over the millenia the human species has burgeoned quite well without incentives and perks - and the workplace is in zero shortage of available workers - so why on earth would one class of humans be given special treatment over others? Especially when it's the others generally paying full tax revenue AND not treading so heavily on the benefits system?

I do believe the pendulum is swinging more toward rewarding the childfree and penalizing the childed, at least in the workplace. Now more than ever, with competition for decent pay and jobs growing, it's important to demonstrate that work is one's No 1 priority if one values career progress. If one values other lifestyle choices more than career progress, that is fine, to each her own choices - but "having it all" was always a myth and never more than now when an ever-growing number of humans are chasing an ever-dwindling supply of natural resources (including clean air and potable water) and jobs - even as they are being displaced by technology.

Well I'm glad you're so confident about that. We already face an ageing population and insufficient people willing or able to provide care for the elderly and disabled.

I'm not saying we're going to run out of humans as things stand, but if everyone did as you suggested and didn't have children so that they could dedicate themselves to their jobs instead then, eventually, we would! The logical end point of that is that humanity would die out completely. You might think that's a good thing. I don't.

If you're really concerned about the over-population of the world then it would be better to focus on improving access for women to contraception and education in the developing world (where having children certainly isn't a 'lifestyle choice') rather than trying to make life difficult for parents in the UK.

YANBU. Luckily I don't really come up against it much myself, but the stories I hear of non-parents being left to pick up the slack/work unpopular days etc are jaw-dropping.

Everyone has the right to their life, children or no.

There is no easy or complete answer. However, fathers just never seem to be expected to share childcare responsibilities. In any family where both parents are around (whether or not they are still in a relationship) , why can't the men do half the pick-ups, drop-offs and emergency cover?

That's between the parents, isn't it? Her colleagues cannot be expected to fill in for his failings as a parent.

Oh, I completely agree, Andrew. I just get exasperated at how this is always a 'womens' issue', reinforcing the idea that men having nothing to do with childcare is normal and right, instead of selfish and damaging.

3 years in a row, my brother in law hasn't come home to spend Christmas with us. Why? Because he is childless and all the the other staff, who have children, get Christmas off to be with their family. He complained, but was basically told, if he didn't like it, get a different job!

When I was childless and working full time, I didn't mind others taking time off for child reasons and then making the time up over a few evenings. The part that annoyed me was that when ever I had an emergency (much rarer), I had to take it out of my holiday. I was burgled and my french doors needed completely replacing, I asked for time off and to make it up, but was denied and had to take off as holiday.

All we want is fairness.

Mogster, that's APPALLING. Surely he has a case against them?