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.

But it's not just an incentive for who they want to keep, it's a sum of money set aside which is given to all parents in a particular company. They don't have to show their worth or their performance, they just have to produce a baby to entitle them to a higher salary!

I have a team of several people working for me. I don't want people in that team who may have to leave early or miss meetings. So I'm going to pay the childless people more money to compensate for extra hours that they will be working to cover for the parents and also because I don't want them to leave.

Now is that fair on the parents in my team?

Every person who has given birth is eligible for a special financial reward? How is that remotely fair?

it's a sum of money set aside which is given to all parents in a particular company

Who are clearly staff that are worth retaining.

zeezeek no it's not fair because you need to state what hours you require of your team in order to allow the parents on the team to ensure they can arrange childcare around their working hours. You state what your requirements are and the payment for the hours that you will give. And that should not be dependent on whether or not you have a baby.

Miriam retention should not be based on an employee's ability to give birth. In my opinion.

Are you sure it's the childless people you'd want to pay more zeezek and not the childless and/or male ? And in fact those childless women have a habit of wanting time off for future children or fertility treatment or whatever, so let's just pay the men more. Oh wait, we've done that for decades.

I'm sure that incentives are placed where value is incurred. Employers aren't going to invest in employees who provide no ROI, clearly these employees do so they are given incentives. This data must have been analysed and these incentives deemed to be good value to the company.

Fairness doesn't often doesn't matter to the bottom line.

Well if it's a company policy that people with babies are paid a higher salary then they aren't doing it as an incentive to retain good employees, they are doing it to retain those with babies only. Of which there are presumably as many good as bad employees (assuming that the fact you have a child neither enhances nor detracts from your skills or knowledge to complete the role for which you applied and were engaged by the company). Therefore that same logic could be applied to those without children, in order to retain them.

Payment for services rendered should be fair.

Unfortunately capitalism doesn't lend itself well to fairness.

For my father his thinking was very straight forward. He lost a lot of women once they became mothers and it wasn't because of the hours, but because working those hours put too much strain on their spouse. He spoke to the men who all said their wife takes care of their kids so no problem. My father himself saw his own marriage collapse and knew to ask the wives who pretty much all struggled with making the budget work given their loss of 2nd income.

So overall for a happier workplace the package was successful. Those without kids could easily ask for other benefits such as paid time off for studies, a sabbatical paid at 50% full pay and a travel scholarship if on less than £20k a year. Oh and my dad would never pay for those 'charity' trips you pay for. It has to be something independent and interesting to the person taking the trip.

My father needs his workforce to be creative. They can't be creative when they are worried about making ends meet.

Finally, he had a lesbian mother and a gay father. The lesbian mother conceived using sperm donor and the gay father adopted. Both got paid time off and increased pay too. My father paid for the adoption when he found out how much it was. They had been turned down by the catholic based adoption agencies due to rules at the time. The lesbian mother went on to have a second child, her wife carrying the second. For that pregnancy she got the same as fathers.

Protected characteristics were put in place to ensure equality and keep them on an even playing field for those without the disadvantage.

To then allow people with protected characteristics to have an advantage over people with non-protected characteristics just creates a whole new level of discrimination. It is actually not that difficult to treat people fairly and equally. Same job = same pay. How can it be any more complicated than that!

To then allow people with protected characteristics to have an advantage over people with non-protected characteristics just creates a whole new level of discrimination.

Since when has parenthood been a protected characteristic?

@Newtssuitcase

I had a brief chat today re. the spousal and child 'perks'. It was to do with them being a living allowance (still cash) as opposed to a salary increase that led to the payments being deemed legal and defendable should anyone every want to go to a tribunal.It was a 2 minute chat so I didn't get more info. than that.

want while that all sounds very kind and fair etc, the reality is that it is not. For one employee, having a baby means a bigger salary, for a childless employee they would be given a travel scholarship only if your dad felt it was independent and interesting enough - "not a charity" - quite subjective really. To be totally fair, a "maternity leave" would be offered at the same level of pay, to those who wanted it.

picture - maybe it is termed a "living allowance" - it's still grossly unfair. I'm sure it is legal and defendable - a lovely little perk: the fertile people can rub their hands with glee as they watch it drop into their coffers for having done exactly no extra work. I'm sure it's been wrapped up very nicely and tightly and securely "should anyone ever" consider that it's unfair and consider going to a tribunal. Of course they're probably banking on the single people not having the support to even try to complain. And they are in the minority anyway - far easier to put in place a special advantage for the majority who reproduce.

"Of course they're probably banking on the single people not having the support to even try to complain"

Why would children or husband / wife be of benefit in a tribunal?

Adoptive (all) and step parents (certain criteria) qualify too so it isn't to do with biology. Well, not reproductive biology anyway.

"consider that it's unfair and consider going to a tribunal"

You can't go to a tribunal because something is unfair. Children go to a teacher when their friend was unfair...

To answer the OPs original question, I agree with her and would be looking for work elsewhere. Though, apparently, legal, I wouldn't want to work for someone who paid childless staff less than parents - I would expect there to be other unfair practices as well. Equal pay for equal work seems like a pretty good principle to stand up for.

I don't think you're following, picture. Or you are and you are trying to patronise.

Ifailed - I agree. Equal pay for equal work. I would definitely leave a company that gave a financial advantage to one employee over another like that. I find it immoral. I wonder if people that do work for a company that pays parents more are all necessarily aware. People are not always aware of policies that don't affect them directly.

But yet people happily (or perhaps unhappily) carry on taking pay from companies whose male staff earn more than the female, whose top managers are mostly men or child free women, who deny promotion to good staff because they want to job share etc. But when it's parents receiving an incentive to work that helps with the cost of children, you'd leave your job? Odd priorities but sexism is so ingrained I shouldn't be surprised.
Fwiw I don't agree with the payment either, but working in the public sector it's a million miles away from anything that would happen to me! But I think the level of annoyance about it is a sign of skewed priorities.

I agree those things are unacceptable iggi. But companies can always slide round them and make out it's on merit. Proving them wrong would be pretty impossible. But to actually state that people with children are entitled to more money as a declared practice is wrong IMO.

If you work for Google, you get $500 cash for "baby bonding". Lovely! Had a miscarriage? Who gives a shit, crack on with your job, no benefits for you.

But you're better off with Facebook. $4000 "baby cash" - nobody's going to turn that down!! Fabulous.

I'm leaving this thread now.

in fact those childless women have a habit of wanting time off for future children or fertility treatment or whatever

What are you basing this statement on?

companies whose male staff earn more than the female, whose top managers are mostly men or child free women, who deny promotion to good staff because they want to job share etc.
If this was known about a potential employer, I wouldn't be seeking a job there in the first place. If it came out after starting there, I'd be asking them what they were doing to address it and be looking for another job. We do have the right to vote with our feet, and to tell employers why we are leaving.

That's a discriminatory practice not excused by 'knowing their policies before you decide to work there'. I'm pretty sure (as a HR senior professional) that you would have a claim against them.