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.

Sunnyday Exactly!
Employers chose to give perks, which are enjoyed by some and can't be used by some (because the don't have children, are disabled, can't cycle to work, are on a restrictivd diet, etc)

I'd say that was indirect discrimination by marital status (on the grounds that it is a benefit skewed towards those in marriages/long term partnerships) and is illegal.

But people in short term relationships often have kids as well.
Also gay and infertile couples can adopt kids or find surrogates and this would be open to them to them.

This is not discriminatory at all.
Like the previous poster says, it reflects the higher cost living parents endure just like people in often London get an extra allowance for doing the same job as some up north because of the higher cost of living.

I'm an employment solicitor.

It's indirectly discriminatory on a number of grounds (age and sexual orientation to start) but that isn't the end of the story. The employer then has the ability to argue that it is a proportionate means of a achieving a legitimate aim i.e. the retention of parents in the workplace.

As such I can see an employer successfully defending any claim of discrimination.

I also agree the extra leave is likely to be some sort of take on the parental leave provisions. Possible parental leave enhanced by continuing to pay salary. Either way it's again likely to be justifiable as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

It's very unusual though. I've worked with many hundreds of UK employer clients over the past 20 years and I've never come across it.

crumbs you are wrong there is protection on the basis of marital status but its a more limited protection.

Interesting thread, started off thinking it was a ridiculous notion but have changed my mind as I've thought about it.

Employers offer lots of different incentives and perks that some employees benefit from, and others don't. Company cars, travel allowances, healthcare, discounts, gym memberships, location uplifts, maternity bonuses etc. These aren't generally offered out of the goodness of their hearts, but to attract/retain staff. I don't see that this is any different really. If they've deemed it to be a useful tool in attracting/retaining the staff they want then good for them. Yes, there are other groups that might also benefit from similar, although of course getting the company to see a benefit to them in offering similar is easier said than done.

pointstaken

is that the best argument you can find against someone who disagree with you? grin

Its better than accusing posters of having issues

So few employers do enough to encourage women back to work after having children. Yes it is a choice to have children but childcare costs in this country are so excessive it prohibits many from taking an active part in the workforce, predominantly women. Any employer that makes an effort to counteract that injustice is doing a great thing in my book and people get upset that it doesn't benefit them at this current moment, miss the whole point. It is about doing their small part to create a more equal workplace, something that will benefit all women.
*
^^ this!*

I disagree that it creates a more equal workplace - it does exactly the opposite from a legal perspective - but then in terms of encouraging women to remain in the workplace after having children it may well have a useful purpose which is legally objectively justifiable.

I can't be bothered to read the whole thread, sorry

1. I don't see anything wrong with this. They probably don't even see the extra money anyway cos it goes on childcare. I pay £1k a month for full time childcare. Plus, you probably have it confused with childcare vouchers or something, which are usually salary sacrifice, and means you save some tax. I save £77 a month, which mean almost nothing anyway considering how much I pay out!

1. The extra leave is parental leave, which was brought in by the government. Why should I have to use up my holiday days if DS gets ill?

1. If you're really that bothered, talk to HR instead of complaining on mumsnet. You might find that you're wrong about some of this stuff. Are you even hearing it from a reliable source?

For those who are interested the full list of protected characteristics in England and wales is:

Age
disability
gender reassignment
marriage and civil partnership
pregnancy and maternity
race
religion and belief
sex
sexual orientation

OP, do parents continue to be paid more once their children reach a certain age? If something awful happened, and a parent lost a child, would they also reduce their wage?

They probably don't even see the extra money anyway cos it goes on childcare.

Of course they do. It's money they aren't spending in childcare.

Also how much childcare does a 11 year old have?

If something awful happened, and a parent lost a child, would they also reduce their wage?

I would imagine they would.

If you truly don't believe in the system, why take its benefits whilst pretending that you don't?

Wayfarer - I do believe in it, that was my point. I know that it can seem inequitable at times because it can feel as if you're not getting much out of it. But that's how it works. The good thing about collective taxation is you get to live in a society which has collective taxation and pays for many things together that would be all but impossible to afford individually.

My taxes currently pay for many things that I use, other things that I don't use and some things that I object to (Osborne's first salary, for example). But I like it as a system, warts and all. However, to say, as some pp have, that because I don't have children I'm sponging off those who do, is inaccurate. I'm paying my dues and I very much doubt I'll enjoy any form of retirement or have much care when I'm elderly, given the way the welfare state is being treated.

We're not in UK but it's very common to get different packages for families or singles here. My DH will earn the same salary as his single colleague but he gets a higher housing allowance and a schooling allowance for our DC - these are just given as cash so it's available to be spent on whatever you wish. As it's such standard practice nobodies ever raised it as an issue.....

Surely that's discrimination?? You cant pay someone less because they are childless! Do you belong to a union or similar? I think that is outrageous! X

I agree with Newt on the law (and I am a lawyer too). I also agree it is unusual. In a sense it sounds a bit like the 1930s when my grandfather (a local councillor and JP ) was reported in the press for lobbying to ensure male doctors only were hired locally as they had families to support in the Great Depression, rather than female doctors who didn't have families to support (dreadfully sexist - my mother never liked her father in law).

People seem to think there is some general law against unfairness in the UK. Only certain categories of discrimination are unlawful and then they are bit complex - eg age discrimination is different again.

Given most employers make very few accommodations for the huge costs and hassles of having children (I have worked full time always from when they were babies and have five of the little horrors) I think this one family friendly company who it sounds like are operating within the law should be excused their pro children foible. It sounds like their measures really work and they are so popular hardly anyone ever leaves even the childless/childfree.

It's indirectly discriminatory on a number of grounds (age and sexual orientation to start) but that isn't the end of the story. The employer then has the ability to argue that it is a proportionate means of a achieving a legitimate aim i.e. the retention of parents in the workplace.

As such I can see an employer successfully defending any claim of discrimination.

I doubt that. It would not be enough to say that the retention of parents is a Good Thing. The employer would have to show that that business had been losing new parents and that at exit interviews they had been saying that "the pay was OK when I had no children but I can't manage now". And even then there would be questions of proportionality - and paying A more than B for the same work on a criterion linked to a protected characteristic is in these days going to look so bizarre as not to be proportionate.

If I was advising a client who had this system in force my advice would be Keep it for those who have it now, don't give it to anybody else, and cross your fingers because if you get sued you are in deep doo-doo.

It's more interesting to think what would happen if parents of small children were excused late or early or weekend or night shifts. That on the face of it would be indirect discrimination on the grounds of age, orientation, and possibly gender (there being more women than men bringing up small children) and an employer might be able to show that new parents had quit rather than stay and take their share of the awkward shifts. But even then: making others work more of them would probably be disproportionate.

I disagree. Retention of employees is a good thing in general and likely to be found to be a legitimate aim. As such, its unlikely to take much to demonstrate that it enables retention of employees (and even potentially attracts employees) and the likelihood is that any employer with such an unusual benefit has probably introduced it in response to an identified need. The OP has already confirmed that it works and that people rarely leave. I didn't say every employer who does this will successfully defend a discrim complaint - I said I can see an employer successfully defending it.

If its just been introduced on a "worthy whim" then I agree it would be more difficult to justify.

I also agree that I would never be advising a client to introduce it as a benefit.

Clearly all dependent on the facts of the case though and so none of us can say for certain on the internet.

So, those of us who choose not to have children or can't have children are officially valued less by this and other companies? Nice. I think those of us in the childfree/childless boat already knew this. It's usually us who end up not being able to take holidays when we want because the parents always get first choice because they have to take them during school holidays. It's usually us who have to stay late to do the work that the parents don't do because they've had to go to sports day, or because they have to take their child to the doctor and almost never make the time up, yet get denied the chance to go home early to look after an elderly or disabled parent. It's usually us who have to work at Christmas because our employers ensure the parents get it off because "you know, they have kids, and Christmas is a time for kids". It's usually us who end up covering maternity time for months on end doing a colleague's work without extra pay or reward because the employer can't be bothered to get temps in.

Yes, we pay in our taxes and our national insurance. We run our households on one income. Most single people I know rent because they can't afford to get on the housing ladder. I know very few couples in that situation, even though they complain about the high costs of childcare. I don't object to paying in my share to pay for education for other people's children who may one day treat me at the NHS (hasn't happened yet, thankfully).

Humans are not an endangered species. We are in no chance of dying out. It is a choice to have children. No one NEEDS to have any but no one certainly needs to have 3, 4, 5, 6.. they WANT them. I want a large screen TV, but I can't afford one, so I don't have one.

If an employer wants to provide benefits specifically to parents then they need to provide equivalent benefits to those who are not. How about a period of paid leave equivalent to maternity leave to all employees, male or female, who have not had children? OK, the argument will come out "but you might have children later?" Fine - give it to everyone over the age of 45 who haven't had children.

BoneyBackJefferson

Yes, because accusing childless people to be "freeloader" is reasonable, is it.

ShatnersWig
I do agree with you for most things, but the maternity leave is a different subject. See it more as paid leave after a medical issue. Most mums would be completely unable to go back to work early after having a baby, and in some fields would be a danger.
I am not being a martyr after having a child, but having a baby is not such a walk in the park. It doesn't make sense for employers to get mums back to work too early. They need the leave.
I am completely aware that in other countries women come back earlier, BUT the medical support and help they receive in general makes a world of difference, from childbirth to early school years . Most women in this country are treated like cattle, and take so much longer to recover because of the poor care.

Anyway, paying people LESS because they have no children is outrageous. I am not defined by my children at work, I was just as valuable and an asset in my job before children than I am now. I was probably even more dedicated because I could afford to be selfish, prioritise my career and work more ridiculous hours. But because I have children I should now be paid more? Shocking.

Where I work (I am the boss but board / trustees set the salaries etc), we give allowances on top of salaries and bonuses.

We give a living allowance which increases if you have a spouse, 1 or 2+ children and other factors.

Whether it''s unfair is clearly up for discussion but the one thing I can assure everyone of is that it is not against any form of anti-discriminatory legislation. Yes, it may simply be waiting for a legal challenge but so were McDonald's before they wrote "caution - hot coffee may be hot" on their cups ie. there's always someone outraged.

Remember, after a divorce, women are more likely to keep the children. our policy does state something like "children in residence". If there's one thing I know about MN, this extra payment toward a working divorced mother will not be deemed unfair towards the father.

points I get where you're coming from on the maternity front as "medical leave". But I still think that giving people who never had children a paid sabbatical to the equivalent of one period of maternity leave would be a fair compromise and an employer who offered that AND the perks for parents would be regarded as being a very fair employer whom people would really want to work for and would, as a result, feel valued and do their utmost in return.

Picture OK, you agree it's not legally discriminatory. But do you think it's FAIR to your non-parent employees? What perks do they get from you?

picture you are wrong.

It is discriminatory on the face of it. You might then be able to justify it when defending a case based on the facts of your particular business but it is discriminatory. Clearly the proportion of e.g. non heterosexual employees who can fulfil the requirement of having children is less than the proportion of those who are heterosexual. As such it is indirectly discriminatory (in very basic terms). You might then run a defence that whilst it is discriminatory it is objectively justifiable in your business's case. You might be successful in running that defence depending on the rationale for introducing the policy and whether that constituted a "proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim".