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.

At work, my job is not necessarily to be fair or equal.

Newtssuitcase

I can assure you it isn't. We have excellent HR and legal teams on retainer. I would be everything I own that we are well within the law.

Fair? That's a judgement call.

White people are more likely to go to university. Paying graduates more is not indirectly discriminatory toward black people.

Picture I have a cousin and a friend in a wheelchair and I applaud your company for that. I also get you don't necessarily NEED to be fair.

As a childfree person who has worked in some very large organisations, I have to say you buck the trend if your firm is more likely to promote non-parents. That's not something I've ever seen. But that is a promotion. You give them more after they've given YOU more. Yet you're giving people who are married more, just for being married. You're giving people who have kids more, just for being parents. Not the same thing at all.

Seems to me that you basically offer perks to anyone who isn't single but expect single people to work harder with the dangle of a promotion. Where are their PERKS and ALLOWANCES?

newtsuitcase

Another employment lawyer here - I agree retaining women in the workforce would be a legitimate aim, but I don't think it is paid only to women (for obvious reasons!)

Also it isn't just paid to those with very young children. I think therefore there is an argument that there is a less discriminatory way to achieve the legitimate aim and as such it is not proportionate.

To those saying "what about other perks e.g. Company cars" - not the same thing as paying someone less cold hard cash as recompense for their labour. If it were childcare vouchers, I don't have an issue with that.

I have to say you buck the trend if your firm is more likely to promote non-parents.

Really? I'm surprised if that's true as non-parents have more time, effort and dedication to give their work (if they chosse) as they aren't also trying to raise a family.

I agree retaining women in the workforce would be a legitimate aim

Well, this is MN after all!

It seems that you aren't arguing that this is illegal.

Picture Yep. I was about to name a company then but won't. Insurance company, had a bird in it's name, no longer around. But only one director of the board (of 9) had no children and only three senior managers (out of 23) had no children. I should also point out that of the 23, 9 were women.

I notice you haven't corrected my comment that parents and spouses get allowances for doing nothing extra for your firm while single people have to work extra hard to maybe get a promotion.

picture

I am not arguing it's illegal - I think it's an interesting point but I think it's arguable either way.

I do think it is unfair, regardless of the legal position.

I notice you haven't corrected my comment that parents and spouses get allowances for doing nothing extra for your firm while single people have to work extra hard to maybe get a promotion.

Why would I correct it. It was a fine comment. There should arguably be a 'that' in between "notice" and "you" and I think I'd have removed the "maybe".

The world is full of people getting allowances for doing nothing extra. Scholarships only available to women. Grants for specific university subjects and not others. Tax credits. Child benefit.

Do you have a problem with child benefit? Surely it's exactly the same. The only difference being the gvmt pays and not a company.

Re. the insurance company, did those people have the support of a partner? Were they the main breadwinners? I suspect it's more than likely they were. Perhaps if they'd had a small increase in salary it would have tipped the balance in favour of childcare over the other being a SAHP. This could be the case in my current company too. The small perk encourages parents to keep working if they choose.

There are lots of possible benefits to this even if one is simply kindness. The only downside is some may say "but it's not fair".
No one is being discriminated against in any proper use of the word and complaining something is unfair is quite childish.

How about divisive instead of unfair?

I think you should check your legal advice picture. I suspect they've actually said as I have, that it is discriminatory but that you might potentially be able to justify it if that ever became necessary.

Actually I think your situation is far less justifiable than the OPs. I think you'd have next to no chance of justifying a greater living allowance on the basis of having a spouse.

All of the various employment lawyers on here agree that the situation the OP has outlined is indirectly discriminatory but might or might not be justifiable (and here we potentially differ as to whether the defence might succeed). I'm not sure telling us all that we are wrong because you pay your employment lawyers a lot of money is particularly persuasive and I really wouldn't bet everything you own because you are wrong.

Im one of those who thinks the OP's situation is potentially justifiable (depending on the circumstances and in particular the "proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim" point might prove to be a tough hurdle to overcome) others think it definitely isn't justifiable and then there are some in the middle. We all agree that it is, on the face of it indirectly discriminatory though.

Newtssuitcase

I do not control salaries or perks. I won't check the legal advice again on your say so - even if it were my job or responsibility. The email could be a little embarrassing.

"Dear x,

an anonymous person on a parenting forum claimed to be an employment lawyer and said you need to check the spousal and child allowance we pay as it is arguably indirectly discriminatory. Be a doll and put it on the company account."

I said I was sure it wasn't illegal based on excellent advice. No one with the relevant education here has stuck their head above the parapet and said it is.

Oops looks like my last post went up before I'd edited it!

I didn't say you need to contact them I said to check the advice they'd given you (which presumably you have on file). I'm not trying to be rude I'm trying to help you.

I said I was sure it wasn't illegal based on excellent advice. No one with the relevant education here has stuck their head above the parapet and said it is.

Well that's just offensive . I've done exams and everything! We don't get special "I'm a solicitor with 20 years experience who owns and runs a specialist employment law firm" badges unfortunately but if we did I could post a picture of it for you.

Hey ho - you can't help those who don't want to be helped.

Is it all parents though or returning to work after maternity leave. I work for a huge company with offices all over the world and we have the childcare support scheme where you get a yearly amount divided up per month until the youngest reaches 5. It is part of the maternity policy though and is only for basic taxpayers and only for those returning to work

As it happens I think this came from when two companies merger and the benefits from both were looked at and the best ones kept (it was a prerequisite of the merger). Before my side had a one off return to work bonus now we have the childcare support scheme. Given the sheer number of lawyers that worked on it and how tricky it was to get the merger through it must have been looked at.

Newtssuitcase

You run a specialist law firm and you categorically state that this is currently illegal?

picture

No, newts hasn't said it is illegal. The opposite if anything.

Some forms of discrimination can be legally justified. In other words, just because something has a discriminatory effect, it isn't necessarily illegal.

Newts is saying that this policy is indirectly discriminatory but not illegal because the employer would have a defence of justification.

Picture I didn't actually say that if you read my posts (I also didn't say that you were given incorrect advice - I think its more likely that you haven't properly understood the advice you were given or that the lawyer/HR person didn't explain it very well)

What I said was that yes on the face of it your practice is indirectly discriminatory. It discriminates on the basis of age (younger employees), sexual orientation, possibly disability etc.

The law on indirect discrimination operates by stating that a practice which is, on the face of it, indirectly discriminatory might be justifiable on the basis that an employer can establish that it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

You would therefore need to show that you have a legitimate aim that you are trying to achieve and that your (discriminatory) way of achieving that legitimate aim is proportionate when considering other non discriminatory ways that you could potentially achieve the same aim.

It is therefore possible that whilst your practice is discriminatory you might be able to justify it in tribunal. That would depend on the facts of the individual case.

You might be able to justify a payment to those with children if you could demonstrate that you were for example having problems retaining employees with children and that this practice removed that problem and that there wasn't a less discriminatory way of removing that problem.

You are likely to struggle to justify a payment to those with a spouse IMO. The marriage protection actually works to prevent discrimination against married people not against single people (for historic reasons) but there are other categories of employee who are less likely to be able to satisfy the condition of being married.

I have paraphrased some of the law to prevent this becoming overly complicated and detailed on an internet chat forum.

And yes I do run a very successful and highly regarded specialist employment law firm. Brownies honour

No, newts hasn't said it is illegal. The opposite if anything.

If she'd been saying it's legal then why would she suggest I check the legal advice?

I didn't actually say that if you read my posts

When I said that no one has stuck their head above the parapet and said it is illegal, you called that offensive (with a grin) which I took to mean you had said so.

When in fact you're saying you really don't know but still suspect I don't understand the legal standpoint. You're right, I don't know the technicalities but the two comments still seem opposed to me.

I haven't read the advice or had it explained to me. It is not part of my remit. As I said earlier, I have nothing beyond a slight informal influence on salaries and perks but it's one I've never used. I simply trust that the company I work for would not do this without investing time and money into ensuring it would not come back to haunt us or cause us problems. The lawyers are yet to steer us wrong and have proven their worth on a number of occasions. We need very specific legal advice in fairly diverse areas quite frequently hence using various teams as opposed to in-house advice.

I have work to do picture so can't be bothered to argue forever but you said

No one with the relevant education here has stuck their head above the parapet and said it is.

which I took to be an extension of your previous assertion that I was claiming to be an employment lawyer (implying that I'm not).

To be honest it's no skin off my nose whether you look at your policy again or not. When you get sued you might regret not doing so but again it doesn't affect me one way or the other. I thought you said you were the boss but if you're not then I can see that you might not care.

When in fact you're saying you really don't know but still suspect I don't understand the legal standpoint.

I am not saying this at all . I am saying I absolutely know that your policy discriminates. I'm then saying you might be able to justify it for those with children (if you can tick all the boxes necessary to justify discrimination). I don't think you'd justify the spouse payment.

If she'd been saying it's legal then why would she suggest I check the legal advice?

2 stages:

1- is it discriminatory?

2- if so, is it justified?

newts is saying possibly not illegal because of stage 2

I think you said that your advice was it wasn't discriminatory at stage 1. That's what you were told to check.

newts He did indeed originally say he was the boss, while a board sets salaries. Now he only works for the company. Hmmm.....

newts He did indeed originally say he was the boss, while a board sets salaries. Now he only works for the company.

I don't see what's contradictory there. It isn't my company so I would usually say I word for it: I do. Oh, she, not he. Was that a PA dig?

When you get sued you might regret not doing so but again it doesn't affect me one way or the other.

True.

newts is saying possibly not illegal because of [justification]

Ah. I see. As I said, not my area although I may well mention it. I am certain it's been well investigated though.

The idea of paying employees more if they have a spouse, and therefore less if they don't, seems disturbingly like the old days when married women teachers , and others, were paid less than those unmarried.

In many jobs the pay for a post is given as a band, often many thousands higher at the top end than the bottom. The person will then be allocated within the band, getting different pay for exactly the same job depending on their last salary and their experience. Thus people often do the same job for different salaries.
This company, who by the OPs description, is really good, offers good salaries and no one leaves. This sounds like a great place to work. They probably offer sick pay: therefore if some one has a bad illness and gets 6 months paid sick leave, would you then complain and say that you were not sick and did not get this benefit? They may provide legal advice services, counselling, special equipment for RSI, opticians vouchers etc which not everyone will need or take up.
Fairness is not equal to exactly the same, sorry.
They pay a bonus to parents to help them, and it clearly works resulting in a great workplace. Lucky you.