Where I work, parents earn more than childless people... and it annoys me

[MustBookADentistAppointment]

So, where I work, parents receive an allowance because they have children. I don't have any children, but I would really like them. The argument is that people with children need the money because it's expensive having kids. Which I don't disagree with for a minute, but it pisses me off, nonetheless.

I'm single. Which means I have to pay all my rent/mortgage etc on my own, which is expensive. More expensive than if I lived with a partner. But I don't qualify for extra salary. Clearly, it's my choice to live alone, and I'm not blaming being single on my colleagues but hopefully you see what I mean. I'd also like a dog, but wouldn't get extra money to pay for dog daycare/walkers etc (I am NOT comparing having children to having a dog, just explaining that my lifestyle choices don't qualify for extra payments, like they would if I had children).

I can totally see the merit in an allowance for children, but am I being unreasonable to be pissed off about it? I'm slightly jealous of them, and am also paying through the nose for private therapy to try and manage/get over being alone and feeling sad about it - I just feel that their lifestyle is being subsidised, whereas mine isn't, even though it's kinda expensive too.

[brasty]

Parents and spouses dying tends to be looked on sympathetically by most employers, but not caring for another relative or friend.

[remoaniac]

IME of the workplace, unfortunately people with children have generally been given more leeway on leaving work early etc. In all the places I've worked in, while the employer has been fine about kids' illness/doctors' appointments/carol concerts etc, it would NOT have been OK for me as a child-free person to take or ask for time off for elderly parents or sick pets. I think there's a big double standard

That's your employer. Not sure about sick pets, but other caring responsibilities would definitely be looked on sympathetically. My father died last year and I was offered far more time off (paid) than I needed. But I know there are horrible employers out there. But I think they'll be horrible to parents too.

Changing shift patterns are a pain in the neck for anyone but I guess particularly for parents because you can't generally pay for childcare following one pattern one week and then a different pattern the next week. For example, if you work alternate Mondays you'll probably have to pay for childcare every Monday unless you are very fortunate.

As for holidays, in most places I've worked, it's been a question of first come first served, so if you need holiday at certain times, you get in early. I only worked one place where my boss decided to make a value judgment on who deserved leave more because she didn't think it was fair that I was getting first dibs because I had a child (I wasn't, I was getting first dibs because I was booking 6-9 months ahead) but in the event she never actually said no to any of my leave requests.

[Andrewofgg]

Well: if you can find people willing to commit in the long term to nights or weekends, I suppose it is no more exploitative than many other things that businesses can get a way with in an employers’ job market.

What you can’t do is expect anyone not so committed to take a bigger share of the nights that somebody else because of the sort of private life either of them has.

[brasty]

It isn't doing every Sunday morning that is the issue. It is not being able to do any regular clubs, classes or studying

[Toottootcar]

Back in the 70s my dm worked late evening shifts so that she could earn money while my df was at home. It's not only childfree people who work shifts, some do it exactly for childcare reasons.

[Trills]

Regular shifts are much better for planning your life.

Have a two-week schedule not just one week, so nobody is doing every Sunday morning. Pay more for unsociable hours.

[brasty]

You advertise shifts as night shifts, or late shifts. My mum worked a regular night shift when I and my siblings were young.

[Andrewofgg]

So somebody is permanently expected to take the unpopular shifts?

No prizes for guessing who!

That's not on. Their weekends matter to them too even if they ahve no dependents.

[brasty]

Regular shift times are much better.

[Andrewofgg]

brasty So how do you suggest shifts are allocated in work where they are necessary?

[brasty]

Rota sifts make life difficult for everyone. You can't do a regular class that needs attendance or club, because your availability keeps changing. I did shifts in a rota for 3 months, and left the job, because it made life impossible.

[PinkFlamingo545]

Surely this is some kind of discrimination?

[Andrewofgg]

People still moan about me having set shifts where they have a rota.

Yes GoodbyeBlueMonday - if they are working more early or late or night or weekend shifts so that you don't have to I bet they moan. If that is a policy of your public sector management I'm astonished that it has not ended up in tribunal as indirect sex, age, and orientation discrimination. Perhaps your colleagues without dependents are all like me; indignant in theory and online about such things but easy-going and helpful in RL

[brasty]

The reason care used to be cheaper is because standards were much lower. Some of the places I worked would never have passed current OFSTED. Quality care costs.

[Parker231]

We had to use private nursery and schools as it was the only way to get the wrap around care needed during the working day. Even then, unless I was working away, I left the office at 5pm each day to get home to have dinner and family time. When needed I logged on in the evening. Luckily I became senior quite young and was able to have more control over which clients I worked for. To a certain extent it is easier now as for some organizations there are opportunities to work from home and have flexible hours.

It's down to choice as to what is best for your family - two working parents, SAHP etc. My DH and I have both compromised our careers to try and get the balance between home and work life. These are our decisions and not the responsibility of our employers to contribute to the costs we knew we would have as parents.

[Want2bSupermum]

parker Read the report. It shocked me. The telegraph ran with a report saying the new poor are working parents.

When your kids were small there were more options that were cheaper for care. Now you have to registered and take courses. This cost falls on parents. My aunt was shocked when she heard what my friends are paying for their childminder.

Also, your DH is a doctor and presumably making a good income. Without that I know from my experience, if my DH was making what I make I would have to stop working.

[brasty]

I agree with paid time off for sick children. But no I had to use annual leave to take care of a sick relative who I was a carer for. The alternative was that they would go into a care home for the week that I would not have put a dog in.

[Iggi999]

In my work place parents get paid time off when their kids are ill. Great. But where are my extra days leave?
Do you think mopping up vomit, trying to stop a poxy child scratching their face off, or sitting at your kid's hospital bedside is what feels like leave to your colleague? If you had other dependents (eg elderly parents) to be off for you'd get it too.
If there was no entitlement to time off for sick children only the very rich people with children could ever work.

[Parker231]

Want2bsupermum - no troll just a working parent of DT's who are now at Uni. I worked ft from when they were tiny and worked my way to a relatively senior corporate position. DH is a GP but worked in A&E when DT's were born. We don't have family living locally. I regularly have to travel and stay away for work. Neither of our employers paid us any extra for having decided to have children. Some of my peers have children, some don't. It was hard, sometimes impossibly hard, particularly when the DT's were small but they were our responsibility not our employers.

[SapphireStrange]

It's much much harder with young children. Well, OK, this was the case for YOU. But perhaps, for many reasons, it might be just as hard if not harder for some single/child-free people?

I don't get how people can be so unimaginative about these kind of things: 'It was like this for me, therefore it must be like this for everyone; or, if it's not, you're doing it wrong/badly.' Weird.

[Want2bSupermum]

Actually I moved while single, as a couple and we moved locally as a family. It's much much harder with young children. I also have parents who live 3000 miles from us who are sick. We support them, visiting monthly, paying people to check in on them and following up with their GP/consultant/ social worker to make sure all is well.

Also if you have to move away from your elderly parent there is the option for them to use a care home. That option doesn't exist for parents unless you want children dropped off with SS's.

Finally, as a working parent, your flexibility is severely cut short by childcare being available and affordable. This is over a sustained long period of time. I've been on the mummy track for 5 years and I have another 5-6 years until I will be through the other side. I hate being late for work. I hate that I can't be better prepared for meetings and I hate that childless people think I have an easy ride when the fact is I don't.

[Atenco]

first of all atenco is conflating 'single' and 'child-free', which is patently wrong

Well actually the OP says she is single

[GoodbyeBlueMonday]

I'm kind of on the fence on this. I have three kids, I work in the public sector and pay out 2/3 of my wage to childcare, basically just working to stay in the workforce while my kids are young. People still moan about me having set shifts where they have a rota. I would swap places with them in a second and give up my set shifts rather than earning £3 an hour after childcare costs! But then, yes it was my choice to have 3 kids so I kind of have to suck it up.

[heron98]

This is outrageously unfair.

In my work place parents get paid time off when their kids are ill. Great. But where are my extra days leave?

[PigletWasPoohsFriend]

I don't think they're the same: indeed a couple w/o children is actually in one of the most privileged positions.

Well that very much depends doesn't it.