Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

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

531 replies

MustBookADentistAppointment · 20/03/2017 19:36

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.

OP posts:
Violetcharlotte · 20/03/2017 21:55

I've never heard of anything like this. It sounds very strange and surely could be classed as discrimination? People choose to have kids. Why should you get paid more than people who don't? Pay should be a reflection of your qualifications, experience and how good a job you do. This would really piss me off! (And I have kids!)

pointstaken · 20/03/2017 21:56

Childcare is something I only use in order to go to work - if I didn't work I would still want a home, holidays and drink; but I would not need childcare. It's more similar to a travelling expense that you need to pay to get to work.

well, technically so is my mortgage. The only reason I live in such an expensive place is because my job is here. So I have no choice about house and travel expenses, but I do about childcare. If anything, it's up to me if I employ a nanny, a childminder, pay for a nursery, or an au-pair or ask my mum to babysit. My choices shouldn't affect my salary.

sonyaya · 20/03/2017 21:56

wayfarers

Quite apart from the significant number of other holes in your logic, I very much doubt there will be much in the way of taxpayer funded healthcare by the time I am a pensioner.

There is nothing sneering about calling children a choice. Children are wonderful, joyous creatures. I LOVE children and want to have children. None of that changes the fact that most people choose to have them and it follows as a matter of very basic logic that having children is a choice.

Cheby · 20/03/2017 21:57

How is this any different to contractual maternity pay? You get paid to take a year off when you choose to have a child, and lots of companies pay way more than the statuatory amount put by the government. It's a financial incentive paid to women who have children.

What the OP is describing is just another financial benefit paid to people who have children. I can't see a difference. It's presumably aimed at attracting and retaining people.

Winteriscominginnit · 20/03/2017 21:58

Having children IS a choice. No one is forcing it on you and on the whole people should have less children as the world is massively overpopulated. 'All children are a blessing' that's your opinion. I do not rate humans over other animals. But then I'm not a narcissist with an over-inflated sense of self-importance.

MollyCule · 20/03/2017 21:58

EU officials get paid nearly 400 Euros extra a month per dependent child (fra.europa.eu/en/about-fra/recruitment/what-we-offer/allowances-benefits-deductions). Seems a lot, I suppose it may be to do with the cost of living abroad. But goes to show that these types of payment may more common than people think and I don't think it's legally considered discriminatory.

puglife15 · 20/03/2017 21:58

They clearly value parents as part of the workforce. This is pretty bloody rare tbh.

I can see why it might put your nose out of joint but you like your job and they pay and treat you very well so don't look a gift horse in the mouth.

Comparison is the thief of joy...

Flopjustwantscoffee · 20/03/2017 21:59

Is it a dependant allowance? I work somewhere that pays this - but it is a small amount per month paid for people with dependants (so most usually school age kids but also step children if the person is supporting them, adult siblings with special needs if the person is supporting them financially, etc). I don't think it is legally discriminatory as it is an allowance paid on top of the set sallary and isn't linked only to having biological children. However my company doesn't need to follow U.K. HR rules so I am not sure how it would work in the U.K.

PigletWasPoohsFriend · 20/03/2017 22:00

What the OP is describing is just another financial benefit paid to people who have children.

It is completely different to mat pay which isn't always paid for starters. It can just be SMP.

Paying 3k to someone for 11 years (so 33k) just for having children is very very different.

PigletWasPoohsFriend · 20/03/2017 22:01

but it is a small amount per month paid for people with dependants

Do they pay out for dependent spouses then. It isn't just DC that can be dependent.

Gabilan · 20/03/2017 22:01

If you don't have children, you ought to be thanking your lucky stars that other people are paying for the expense of doing so, so that they can fund all the public goods and services you'll enjoy in later life

I pay income tax and NI. I also have a small private pension. The NI and pension should cover the cost of my future pension if I eventually get to retire. As for the income tax, I don't currently get an awful lot from it. I rarely need the NHS and since I don't have children, I'm contributing hugely to a state school system that I don't use.

It's just how collective taxation works. I pay for some children to be educated. When I'm old and infirm their taxes might pay for some of my care. Though by then the Tories will well and truly have fucked us over and there will be no collective payment or welfare state anyway.

KarmaNoMore · 20/03/2017 22:01

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Papafran · 20/03/2017 22:02

Most with 3DC are not working in a paid job because childcare is so expensive. Some help might see more mothers continue to work

Have you read my posts? I am supportive of allowances for carers, but not just parent-carers. I also think that large employers should consider on-site nurseries where possible.

TheKitchenWitch · 20/03/2017 22:03

Children are a "lifestyle choice"? Wtaf Hmm

Iamyourmotheryours · 20/03/2017 22:05

We're all struggling. Can anyone in this thread honestly say that they're doing ok, they think this country is ran well and all the cut backs and austerity politics have helped to create a more equal, supportive and united atmosphere?

sonyaya · 20/03/2017 22:05

Help me then thekitchenwitch, if a couple start TTC, then the woman gets pregnant and births a child, which element of that wasn't a choice?

BoneyBackJefferson · 20/03/2017 22:07

Wayfarersonbaby

"For heaven's sake hmm" back at you.

I haven't missed the point at all.

I am offended (a term a rarely use) that you consider childless people "freeloaders" and that we should be grateful to you and others for having children.

once again, I have not said that children are a lifestyle choice. if I bold it you might read it

I have also said that I am happy with the quid pro quo nature of the symbiotic relationship.

But I refuse to be grateful to you and others for having children, it was a decision that you made, it has consequences that you (hopefully) accept.

Oh, and I am well aware of how pensions and the well fare state work. but I very much doubt that this was in your mind when you were conceiving your child. So stop pretending that you were doing us all a favour by having children.

Andrewofgg · 20/03/2017 22:07

But, it seems like they're valuing one lifestyle above another, which pisses me off.

Exactly. Many employers who don't pay parents more give them the first choice of leave and assume that others can cover for them when there is early or late or weekend work to be done.

Once you treat one sort of private life as more important than another you are in a minefield.

pointstaken · 20/03/2017 22:08

Children are a "lifestyle choice"?

Well, yes. I don't remember anyone ever threatening me or forcing me to have mine.

You get paid to take a year off when you choose to have a child It's really rare to get paid even close to your salary for the full year. Whilst there's always one mum who is ready to go back to work 2 hours after giving birth, physically most mums do need the time off. It's not a holiday either. Maternity allowance is not the same as a pay rise per child.

happypoobum · 20/03/2017 22:10

Re maternity pay, I got full pay for six months and half pay for six months. That's fairly common amongst my friends too................

Flopjustwantscoffee · 20/03/2017 22:11

Piglet - I am not sure about spouses I think they might (it would make sense in a way as most people in the job have relocated from abroad and therefore trailing spouses without the legal right to work themselves are fairly common). I think they would where a partner was incapacitated in some way through ill health but not so sure about other cases. As I said though, it also covers other dependants (e.g. Incapacitated siblings although you would have to prove you were supporting them. where both parents work at the company only one can claim, for obvious reasons.

pointstaken · 20/03/2017 22:11

I am offended (a term a rarely use) that you consider childless people "freeloaders" and that we should be grateful to you and others for having children.

It is such a ridiculous statement that you should not be offended. Some clearly people have issues!

pointstaken · 20/03/2017 22:11

*clearly some people

ArchNotImpudent · 20/03/2017 22:11

It doesn't seem fair, but you can bet that if it were to be evened out, it'd be a case of the parents losing the allowance rather than non-parents having their salary raised - the money would just end up in directors' bonuses and so forth.

VeryPunny · 20/03/2017 22:15

Used to work for an European organisation in the UK which paid £200 per month for being married and £250 per month per child, along with all kinds of other ridiculous "benefits". It was a supremely out of date organisation, stuffed full of people who wouldn't leave because they were raking in cash every month by virtue of being parents, and no HR to speak of so people could do bugger all. It was a treaty organisation and therefore outside of normal employment law.