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.

Meant to be protected characteristic! Sorry predictive text!

I don't get this whole 'my choice to have kids'. Of course it is. But also my employer's CHOICE to offer a child allowance. I don't get to decide what my employer spends money on. I didn't grumble when they laid down expensive new flooring when it didn't need it. It's their choice. If they didn't spend on a child allowance for employees, maybe they'd decide to spend he money on potted plants for he manager. It certainly isn't a given it'd mean a pay rise for others. If l you don't like the policy, don't work there, that's also a choice. No one is being forced to do anything.

It seems reasonable to be jealous. I think lots of companies have similar policies in Japan. If all UK employers had great family policies it'd be less reasonable to feel jealous as you'd know you'd be gaurenteed the same one day. Hope it gets easier and you find someone to share your life with/ have a baby soon x

It really pisses me of that parents on social get more money on benefits than the average working family.

This is simply not true.

If the family size is the same, then the working family would be entitled to some top-ups if this is the case.

If all UK employers had great family policies it'd be less reasonable to feel jealous as you'd know you'd be gaurenteed the same one day

Unless you can't have children.

How about a period of paid leave equivalent to maternity leave to all employees, male or female, who have not had children?

Shatners I would support this wholeheartedly. In fact, the option to take unpaid leave would be better than nothing - the great thing about maternity leave is that you get your job back at the end of it - without children, the longest break most people get in 40+ years of working is a fortnight.

gaurenteed the same one day

How very unimaginative you are. Not everyone has children.

This doesn't sound right to me. Are you sure? There must be s pay scale policy - how is it worded?
And - get a little dog if you'd like one, it will improve your fitness and mental wellbeing bi end😄

Should I be able to pay people without children more because they are more valuable to me as an employer since they don't have as many comitments are those with parents?

No I cannot as it comes under indirect discrimination sadly as it could be argued that it advisably effects woman more then men despite them not being able to travel on short notice etc

Oh please. In all honesty I have no strong feelings either way on this issue. Ultimately it's down to the employer to decide what benefits it offers - in this case a very small contribution towards childcare costs, which are astronomical. There are plenty of ways in which people are discrimated against FOR having children. Let it go.

Discrimination is not a balancing game.

I've never heard of this. It's true that in many countries on the continent, employees with children pay less tax (a bit like working tax credits, but as paye and for employees of all incomes).

It would be illegal and discriminatory to pay someone LESS salary for having children. So why is it ok to do this when someone has NO children?

I don't have an issue with childcare support (where only childcare is paid for when needed) but this sounds like extra cash in the bank for the employee to spend how they wish.

If this was happening in my workplace I would be challenging it and seeking external advice. People should not be discriminated against for any reason, including for any lifestyle choice. Young, or old. Make or female. Disabled, not disabled. Children, no children.

One fifth of women over 45 years of age are childfree.

I don't like bankers' bonuses. I don't like companies giving private healthcare to U.K. employees. I don't like company cars (you may guess I get none of these things). It's so unusual to see a policy that is actually biased toward women with children, (and although it benefits fathers too they are already used to being paid more, and no one ever says it's not worth their while working as it all goes on childcare.)

I presume you, OP, are earning good wages and they are not taking the extra they pay to parents out of your money as, if that were the case, you would be changing jobs.

So what you are really moaning about is that some people are getting an extra that is really no skin off your nose.

Very unfair and discriminatory!

I don't like bankers' bonuses. I don't like companies giving private healthcare to U.K. employees. I don't like company cars

But surely women with children could benefit from all of those if offered by their company? You say it's unusual to see a policy biased towards women with children - I'm not disagreeing, but I'm interested to know what policies you believe are biased against women with children (in the present-day workplace, I mean, rather than historically).

I had no idea this happened.

I naïvely thought that people were paid a salary for the job they did.

Agree totally with Piglet

My employer pays a child-related monthly allowance (which is over and above "child benefit") on a sliding scale. For two kids it's a maximum of around 110€ / month, but each child over and above two adds between €130 and €200.
I work in a very common job - anyone who does it is entitled to the same allowance, although if both parents work in the same industry only one gets the extra money.
Obviously when your kids leave school the extra money stops.

I have never heard any of my child-free colleagues comment on the unfairness of giving a bonus to those with children.

I think the reason that

Lack of promotion, mummy-tracking, the part-time trap, concentration in lower paid jobs to begin with - all the things that contribute to the pay gap.

This is astounding!!

They also get extra leave for each child they have, a number of weeks they can take over the course of the childs life, I think. (This wasn't an intentional drip feed, I just forgot about that, I don't think there are any other benefits parents get that non-parents don't).*
Actually, this is UK law, just many ppl don't seem to know about it. For most children it ends at age 5? I think? (CBA to go fact check) but children with disabilities have the allowance annually. Parents cannot be fired for time off for children, within the allowance limits etc. The company isn't required to pay this time off (again, maybe, CBA to fact check) but those that don't are few.

Iggi What's mummy-tracking? - I've not come across this expression.

Lack of promotion - could that be described as a 'policy'? As pps have said, to have something like this enshrined as a policy would contravene discrimination laws.

Part-time work - again, I'm not sure this is created by a 'policy'. I can see that a single parent might have no option but to go part time to fit in childcare, but is that the employer's fault? If there are two parents, isn't it between the two of them who works full-time and who works part time?

Lower-paid work - is this something that specifically affects women with children, or a function of the 'gender pay gap' which if genuine (I know the existence of this is controversial) will equally hit childless women?