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.

whose top managers are mostly men or child free women

Most companies. Women tend to decide to take maternity leave and do the majority of child care, supporting husbands. The women who don't have children don't do this and can also get to the top. How is this unfair practice.

who deny promotion to good staff because they want to job share etc.

Job sharing is usually much less efficient so many companies don't like this. Compressed hours can be a pain being contactable during a longer period of time is beneficial.

What part oif this would have a problem with iFailed?

Seems crazy to me. I don't blame the OP for feeling peeved. Being single is an expensive way to live unless you are happy in a shared house for the duration of your life. You are more likely to be a gross provider via tax than a gross recipient. To then be paid less than a parent is a kick in the teeth as it shows little insight in to the challenges in your life and makes assumptions about the life of ALL parents. I find it a bit chilling as it reminds me the bad old days of a 'married mans' salary. What is the money for exactly? There is already child benefit and other allowances? If extra hours are needed outside of normal childcare then money doesn't make that childcare available. If you already have family to do the childcare then why is money's needed? Crazy. And I have a kiddie.

Actually I find in general far far less support for those caring for elderly or disabled people. I have cared for a relative. A friend has actually cared for years for a friend. She has had no support from anywhere. She used to work for an extremely family friendly firm who gave fabulous benefits to parents. When once there was a major medical emergency with her friend, she had to use annual leave and they were not happy about her taking time off suddenly. She left soon after.
This will become an issue for more people as people retire later and later. Social care is in a mess and many people rely on family or friends to care for them.

I have worked for companies that encourage job shares and where the top management reflect the demographics of their employees. They were pretty successful in their field, so it can be done. Those that just wring their hands and say they cant do anything are either lying or just can't be bothered. I know where I'd rather work, and I remind myself that people don't employ me to be nice, but because they see that I can earn them more money than they pay me, my choice of employer does matter a bit.

Lack of flexible working
Refusal to consider job shares or part-time working
Conscious or unconscious bias against women of childbearing age

All of these are problems.

Paying someone differently solely because they are a parent is also wrong.

Two (or more) wrongs don't make a right.

Do you work for an international organization? A lot of them pay dependent's allowances because many many European countries do this (e.g. Germany effectively pay people to have kids), and the international organizations have taken over these payments in lieu of the state.

I'm jealous too now, so,at least you know you are in good company.
The rest of us spend half our wages on childcare, constantly struggle with having enough time and our salaries progress more slowly once we've had kids.

Agree with those who say children are NOT a "lifestyle choice", unless your perspective is individualistic/ownership. As others have stated, a single person with a mortgage in therapy etc, disposable income is still higher. There are many extra costs, not only childcare. Women with children are underrepresented in the UK workforce and not by choice. Many children in UK living in poverty, girls missing school because of cost of sanitary protection. Most workplaces are geared up for single people with no children so turn it on it's head.

As others have stated, a single person with a mortgage in therapy etc, disposable income is still higher. There are many extra costs, not only childcare.

For some maybe. Not for all. There are many extra costs for many different people.

I have already stated by physio costs are parable to childcare costs so can my DH have a payment please?

Blueink

But posters have said that they wouldn't have an issue with this if it were only for women because that would be encouraging women to work and therefore oppressive men blah blah.

Some posters dislike this because it isn't exclusively for women, it's for fathers too and is therefore terrible and mean and unfair and discrimination and just because it's entirely legal doesn't mean the employers won't be taken to a tribunal ().

Blueink I hate the use of the word "lifestyle" that others have complained about but parenthood IS a choice. How can you say it isn't? Who put a gun to your head and said "You WILL have a child/children?" No one.

It is nonsense to make a blanket statement that a single person with a mortgage in therapy etc has more disposable income. That will be true for some, but certainly isn't true for others. I'm a single man with a mortgage but no therapy. Most couples with children I know have more disposal income than I do.

Being single is an expensive way to live unless you are happy in a shared house for the duration of your life. You are more likely to be a gross provider via tax than a gross recipient. To then be paid less than a parent is a kick in the teeth as it shows little insight in to the challenges in your life and makes assumptions about the life of ALL parents. I find it a bit chilling as it reminds me the bad old days of a 'married mans' salary

This.

And single woman are often the poorest in old age, and paid far less over their lifetimes.

And compete in work situations against married men whose wives do the "wifework." I remember when doing my PhD being shocked at a colleague's casual mention that his wife did all his footnotes & bibliography for him - that's a substantial task.

Have a look at economic research on the male "marriage bonus."

Single women are doubly discriminated against: as single people (who pay for everyone else) and as women.

And while yes, we need younger generations to support retirement incomes, we don't necessarily need to have UK-born younger generations. I really don't think anyone has children as a form of national service.

People have children for purely selfish emotional reasons, not to keep up our GDP!

Console yourself with the fact that these working parents probably don't see a penny of that money as extra income. It probably goes on childcare, school trips, and other expensive child related expenses. You too could be broke and happy when you get a toothless smile after 20 minutes of your toddler screaming because you peeled his satsuma then 'broke' into pieces. I fully agree with your employer paying more to parents because once you have kids, you don't have peace. Single life could be expensive or not depending on the quality of life you choose to have. Choices are not a luxury afforded to parents...you try and decide whether to buy your darling child the jumper that costs more than your life or if you are going to 'treat' yourself to new underwear, let's not confuse this for the frilly lingerie that makes you feel like angelina jolie in an advert but the best value cotton kind that make you feel like at least your life hasn't really changed that much since becoming a mum...the grass is always greener on the other side and if I were you, well I would enjoy the single life. The very fact you can paint your toenails, have a shower, do your hair, use the loo in perfect peace is priceless.

the grass is always greener on the other side and if I were you

That works both ways though.

I found it a bit interesting at work. We had the glamorous people who always had nice make up, nice hair and beautiful clothes and those of us, who earning the same, had not. It was not a matter of taste, just the usual lack of time and extra expenses to deal with.

Oh fuck off. I don't have children and yet I am not 'glamorous'; I don't have the cash for nice clothes, hair etc. Or the time. I won't have a holiday this year either.

I hate that tired old 'if you're childless you have more money' shite. It simply doesn't wash.

The benefit is for people with children, either way children are more likely to benefit from it than if the benefit were not there. Having children is not a "choice" for all and children come out of different situations, contraceptive failure (many!), even having sex is not necessary a choice (rape). Worrying if people are having them for "purely selfish emotional reasons". That's the 'lifestylers' bit I disagree with. The bottom line is the current UK set up outside of OP's workplace discriminates against people (mostly women) with children and many children in U.K. live in poverty, girls are not going to school due to lack of sanitary protection. Do you not think that is the bigger problem?

either way children are more likely to benefit from it than if the benefit were not there.

Well it depends though doesn't it. If you are on a good salary then the extra really isn't going to matter is it.

Having children is not a "choice" for all

Well for some not having DC wasn't a 'choice' either.

CauliflowerSqueeze - exactly. I was deliberating giving an example of unfairness to demonstrate that you can't choose to pay one group more than another due to the fact that they have a different lifestyle.

Iggi90 - not all childless women go on to have children as I'm sure you are aware. More and more women are choosing not to have children and so will never partake in the benefits that are offered to those who have reproduced.

The only fair way is to pay people for the job that they do according to their experience and qualifications and not due to sex and circumstances.

BTW I work at a University so all my staff are paid on the scale that is appropriate to their job.

Blue Sorry that's simply not true. Putting third world countries aside, If you have a contraceptive failure, you can CHOOSE to keep the baby, have it adopted or have an abortion. There is ALWAYS choice. If you are raped, then sex is not a choice, of course, but you still have the choice about whether to have the baby, have it adopted, or have an abortion.

We don't get extra money where I work but my workplace does do a Christmas party for employee's kids. My previous employer did as well. And my previous employer before that did a "family day".

It's not a direct benefit for parents, but it must cost the employer quite a bit. I think lots of employers provide indirect benefits for people with kids. In one role I received childcare vouchers which were not part of the salary sacrifice system, I actually got about £100 a month on top of my salary.

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

Childfree people can be ill, have elderly parents, have a sick dog - well anything, really. It's not the preserve of parents to need to take time off work. In fact, in the last 9 years I have had 5 days off work and 3 of those were for a small operation so I've had 3 absences in 9 years. Not one was to do with my ds.

Blueink

Why are you determined to turn this into a 'feminist issue' when it's talking about parents.

Men can be parents too.

The bottom line is the current UK set up outside of OP's workplace discriminates against people (mostly women) with children

No it doesn't.

If I want someone to work for me from 12-7 (difficult to arrange child care) then not even the most blinkered person could argue this discriminates against parents (or women, as you insist on calling them) could they? Nor could they if I want someone to work Wed-Sun. This is not discrimination. It is wanting someone who suits my business requirements.

remoaniac, IME of the workplace, unfortunately people with children have generally been given more leeway on leaving work early etc. In all the places I've worked in, while the employer has been fine about kids' illness/doctors' appointments/carol concerts etc, it would NOT have been OK for me as a child-free person to take or ask for time off for elderly parents or sick pets. I think there's a big double standard.

Where do you work? That sounds like a bizarre positive discrimination! I suppose having children is often a barrier to work and being single isn't. So supporting those who have families will ensure loyalty and it will motivate people to work hard and stay. I can see both sides really. One place I worked only people who had children could have annual leave during school holidays!!