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.

piglet you would be surprised. I will have a paid adult in our home for at least 3-4 hours a day until our kids leave school because neither DH or I can be home when they get home from school. Leaving kids unsupervised leads to nothing but trouble.

Around here 3-4 hours a day costs about $350 a week, about GBP235 a week. Not as expensive as when they are young but not cheap either. Of course you could do an au pair but then you need a bigger home to accommodate said au pair. We have 3DC so a 4 bed home is about $2-2.5 million where we live whereas a 3 bed home is $900-1.5m. If I move out my commute increases and I will see less and less of my DC.

You will see the lawyers disagree on this thread about whether it is lawful or not. That shows companies doing this are probably in the clear.

Are you abroad?

You can pay someone whatever you like. For what ever reason.

I sort of get it if it's childcare vouchers but extra salary seems very odd. Is there a historical reason for it (for example my DH's work used to have a v subsidised nursery onsite which only a few got into. They took the subsidy away and gave all parents an allowance to spend on childcare instead. Iy certainly seems to discriminate to me (as opposed to a benefit which everyone gets but some benefit more from such as health insurance).

What a festering mass of peevish envy this thread has exposed. The OP has made her life choices, and so have her colleagues who have had children, and these choices have consequences. If an employer recognises that children cost money and time that single/childless people don't have to find, and wishes to support them, what is the problem? I bet none of those riding their high horses on this thread refuse child benefit or family tax credit, which equally discriminate against the childless.

You can pay someone whatever you like. For what ever reason.

You might be able to pay SOMEONE but not an entire group. That's exactly the definition of discrimination.

Strygil
get over yourself, you are talking crap and you haven't read the thread.
Not everyone is entitled to child benefit or family tax credit by the way.

IF this is extra pay and not vouchers or whatever, it's pretty outrageous and discriminatory.

Apart from anything else, how must people feel if they long to have children but can't?

This is discrimination. Do these parents get an allowance for each child they have? And, how does your employer know about these children? At application/interview asking if you have children could also be seen as discrimination. I am livid at the thought of this, on a par with men being paid more than women for doing the same job. I would contact MP about this, company is not acting fairly.

If an employer recognises that children cost money and time that single/childless people don't have to find, and wishes to support them, what is the problem?

Many things in life cost money. You have no idea of people's financial situations. The adaptions, equipment and care I have to have for example is very parable to childcare costs.

Never heard of it. But fair enough!

pointstaken

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

I'm beginning to wonder of people read who posts what, I haven't called childless people "freeloaders".

You might be able to pay SOMEONE but not an entire group
Is that true though? If the group is not based on a protected characteristic? Suppose I pay golfers more, or part-time firefighters, or people with curly hair?

Gosh Strygil, no need to be quite so mean. You may agree with the policy but lots of people don't have the luxury of the "life choices" you speak of. I could point you to at least ten women I know who would have loved to have had a family but haven't been able to for various reasons.

Just cannot believe some of the responses. I have children. I made the choice to have children.I accepted they were my responsibility and if I could not afford them I would not have had them no matter how much I wanted them. I considered my finances, housing needs,care support etc that would be needed to support children.I did receive family allowance but not for 1st child. I did not receive any other support. Why would I expect my employer to pay me an allowance for my children? Would they pay me an allowance because I needed a car to get to work? Would they pay me an allowance as I wanted a bigger house (couldn't afford one but wanted one)? Isn't it about time folk actually accepted responsibility for their actions instead of just wanting, wanting and wanting and then expecting others to provide for their wants. If I do a job, I expect to be paid the same as others doing the same job. I do understand and accept that salaries can be different when there is a banding system but basically you progress on the scale which isn't the same as giving special treatment to specific employees.

I don't know about the extra money thing, but family leave is quite common; it allows parents take extended leave to help cover school holidays and such. Family leave isn't paid though (I don't think). But is very helpful (especially for primary parents and single parents).

I like the idea of parents getting a bit of extra cash if having a child effects their career and career progress, as I'm personally having a nightmare finding a balance of being a mum and not letting my career go to crap. But getting a random extra bit of money just for having a baby sounds nuts. Are you sure you have it right?

That's discrimination - research that it's none of the other suggestions before addressing it.

I think they have joined the childcare voucher scheme by the sound of it and the company are given tax allowances for this. i don not think they simply pay more money as this is not allowed - it is discriminatory

www.childcarevouchers.co.uk/employers/helpandsupport/faqs/#.WNFx2m_ygdU

Although I have children and would like this, it is hugely unfair and I totally disagree with this. Having children may be expensive but it is a choice. I chose to have a baby, no one forced me. It may mean I cannot afford certain things, but that was my choice.

What country do you live in, never heard of people with children being paid more money in England. No body should get more money for having children. We need to reduce the size of families not pay out to encourage increasing it.

It really pisses me of that parents on social get more money on benefits than the average working family. Our government now only pay child benefit for the first two children. About bloody time. It sickens hard working people to see huge families of 10 -15 living entirely on benefits.

It's a perfect example of creating a diverse in the workforce by giving to one group and not another to in effect reward a personal choice. I would regard this a major negative and it wouldn't encourage me to join the company. When I had my DC's you didn't expect a 'well done for having a baby' payment on top of my salary.

Several of the businesses esses I consult for had policies where parents got first choice on olidays times and were omitted from the early start/late finish rota. I recommended changing this and the businesses made the change to a fair and equal system where everyone was treated the same.

It's discriminatory. You can't just pay someone more because they have a child.

It's not one of the illegal "discriminations" such as sex, race, disability, etc. An employer is perfectly entitled to discriminate on any ground that isn't specifically legislated against.

As long as those getting more pay aren't all men, all women, all disabled, not disabled, all one race, all races except one, then the employer can do it

Whether that makes them a good employer or a fair employer is a different matter.

It's not discriminatory at all.
The parent allowance is to help with things like childcare and can be an alternative to businesses buying into childcare voucher schemes.
You're jealous. Fair enough.
But YADBVU! You're boss is generous - get over it!

The leave throughout a child's lifetime is parental leave and this is an entitlement for parents but it is unpaid. Unless your employer is extremely generous and pays this. I have never heard of any employer doing so.

To claim discrimation you have to have been discriminated against for a prot cited characteristic I.e disability, race, religion, gender, sexuality. You can't claim that you are being discriminated against for being single. However, I have children but I can see how this policy may seem unfair to those who choose not to or can't. I also think it must be a nightmare to administer!