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.

Crisp Oh the whole parents getting preference during school holidays and at Christmas is not at all uncommon in a lot of companies. Of course, the childfree get told "just be grateful, it costs us so much more to go on holiday during the school holidays". That's not the point. The point is preferential treatment is given just because your bits have worked or you've made that choice. What if you yourself aren't a parent but your OH is a teacher who can obviously only go away during school holidays, and you can't actually go on holiday together because where you work, the parents have taken all the school holidays. And yes, I have known that happen to more than one person. They of course left those companies.

I think OP, you need to look at this from the employers point of view. Why would they have this policy, what do they gain from it? You mentioned they don't hire new staff very often, is this because they focus on retaining existing staff? Is this actually a staff retention policy, childcare being a major hurdle for parents to continue working, is your employer helping those members of staff with children with extra costs associated with continuing to work there?

What if you yourself aren't a parent but your OH is a teacher who can obviously only go away during school holidays, and you can't actually go on holiday together because where you work, the parents have taken all the school holidays.

Totally this. I had one parent who was a teacher and this dogged our family life/my childhood.

Another way to look at it is that parents are contributing to the continuance of society by producing new members of it. If no one became a parent, then there would soon be no society - and the tax costs of keeping society running in the meantime would become heavier and heavier on the remaining childless population.

Not saying I agree with it though, especially as it's such an unlikely scenario.

cauliflower My dad wasn't about to pay for an employee to do a charity trip, like the ones advertised to those wanting to take a gap year. He also wasn't about to pay for someone to spend a month in Ibiza.

He was however very willing to pay for the Hungarian employee who wanted to take his girlfriend back to Hungary via train stopping at various European cities on the way that they had always flown over but never been to.

Jux there are more than enough young people in the world. This argument doesn't wash in a globalised culture where emigration is almost the norm.

No-one has children for the benefit of anyone but themselves. It does no favours to those arguing for the value of extra benefits for parents (not for children) such as extra salary, to pretend that people plan to have children for anything other than personal, self-centred desires.

Just because it's not defined in law, doesn't mean that the discrimination against single women doesn't exist. It goes very deep in our society.

Piglet I was saying the same, not everyone can choose to have children (OP case in point), hence is not about choice. Having an abortion is not always an option and children are not easily cared for by the state or adopted.
The 'lifestylers' argument really disturbs me the most, that children are some kind of emotional prop or accessary for their parents. Surely just because we see that in the media it isn't really true?!
I spoke about people, not only women, with children. The reality is of the groups mentioned women with children are the most underrepresented in the workplace because of the current set up. For example, at my workplace, none of the managers have children and this is reflected in the hours, travel and so forth set for others. Scratch the surface, we as a supposed not poor country are not set up for work with children - school does not start at 7am - or end at 7:30pm (per example) or happen at the weekends. There are extra costs to meet the employers requirements. Retention is really good where the OP works - my workplace, not so much!!

Well having read this whole thread I'm glad that I've never worked for a company which paid extra to someone just because they had children. I'm glad I got paid equally with my colleagues who didn't have children and that our salary represented compensation for work done. As a parent DH and I paid the childcare costs for our DC's - we never expected our employers to do so.

If two people are earning the same salary and A has children and B has not, on average B will have more cash to spend on things of choice because of spending less on things of necessity; it's common sense and common experience. And there is nothing wrong with it. But it's no reason to pay B less for the same job.

And B will probably find it easier to take a fair share of early and late and weekend and night shifts where they are required. And that's no reason to allocate B more and A fewer of them.

You might as well say that if B's home is inherited from parents who have both die and B had no siblings to share with, so that B is paying neither mortgage nor tent, B should be paid less. Perhaps whoever drew that famous sketch that PictureTools used would think so.

But it's rubbish however you look at it.

I have long believed that family status (having or not having dependents, young or old, being married, single, in LTR) should be a protected characteristic, and this thread suggests I am right.

I used to work in a civil service, where parents who has children under 5 are paid child care voucher of £250, not salary sacrifice scheme like most companies . This is actually on top of my salary.

But the leave is actually unpaid parental leave or term time only leave etc

I never felt guilty as I took big salary cut after moving from private to public sector. By the way, I work in IT

People who have children should definitely be paid more. They are supporting children, the future.

People who have children should definitely be paid more. They are supporting children, the future.

Pass the sick bucket.

Parents are the only people making valuable contributions to society. I teach. Should I be paid less than another teacher because I don't have children? We both have a massive influence on children's lives.

That should say parents aren't the only ones...

I've always thought that about WTC for adults without children. Obviously you have extra costs if you have children, but I'd guess that the money received goes towards bills, which people have regardless of offspring.

It doesn't seem fair the differences in the amounts given, when the money pretty much goes on the same things. Children do come with costs, but if you consider CTC, CB, aren't most of the costs met there?

We don't qualify for CTC but still get CB. As we've always lived in a way where we look to spend as little as possible, this didn't change with the more money that was earnt. So we understand why we might not qualify. If you compare it to a family who is younger and got on the property market later, their mortgage would be significant, if renting, they'd have to be really thrifty to try and save a deposit.

Onthecouchagain
People who have children should definitely be paid more. They are supporting children, the future.

Just a goady post, nothing to see, move along.

People who have children should definitely be paid more. They are supporting children, the future.

Er, no. Just no - a child costs the state around £1000,000 by the time they're 16. So the childless are helping others to raise their children.

And generally being slagged off for being "selfish" etc etc blah blah blah into the bargain.

Custard Actually the statistic everyone should be focused on is the huge number of children who are growing up in poverty. I think it is 50% of families are in poverty. Something like 2/3rds of children in poverty have a working parent. What do you think the outcomes of these DC are?

I am saddened at how narrow minded some people are. There are clear links that household income and educational attainment are positively correlated. An employer is bringing about positive change and those without DC feel 'discriminated' against. I would be shocked if 50% of working age single people are living in poverty.

Let me turn your argument around to say that if employers paid parents more, based on the fact that cost of living goes up when you have a family to support, just may be the government wouldn't need to spend so much money on children.

Then let me add that the UK is one of the few countries that doesn't have provision in the tax code for families supporting DC. Here in the US we get some nice deductions to recognize that we have higher costs. The amount spent by the government is therefore a lot lot less.

Should say - I would be shocked if 50% of working age childless people are living in poverty.

Want2bSupermum heartened by your post. If more people focussed on the structural failures impacting the quality of many children's lives & addressing these rather than petty minded individualism, the UK would be a happier place (a bit like OP's workplace!)

Want2 If was classed as living in poverty the last thing I would do is choose to bring a child into that situation.

Want2bsupermum - you're missing the point. It shouldn't be anything to do with an employer as to whether the employees have children. Your family circumstances should not impact onto your salary as an employee. It's a parents responsibility to provide for DC's.

I, as a parent of two DC's should get the same salary for the same job as someone with no children, one child or five children.

Want2b

So now employers are paying parents more because of child poverty?

If we are looking at the poverty aspect of this then maybe the wages are too low in the first place.

Shatners Why, aren't you a model of virtue. Not everyone who is in a family in poverty started off there.

Parker I think you are missing the point... Employers paying parents more want to make sure their employees are in a position where they can continue working or, heavens forbid, know that it is likely the employee will stop working because wages don't cover the cost of childcare and they earn too much to qualify for help. Not everyone is equal and equality isn't about paying everyone the same for the 'same' job (none of my peers have the exact same job as mine and its like that in most workplaces where I have worked).

Boney There will always be some who are paid too little. It is why they receive benefits. Nothing wrong with that. What I have an issue is with people thinking that parents shouldn't be paid more because to do so is discrimination. Quite frankly I think it is highly unfair that parents do not get better tax breaks in the UK. Anything to help families with DC should be applauded not banned.

Thankfully I've always worked in organizations where you don't get extra money because you are a parent. The amount you are paid is in relation to the role you undertake, your experience and skills and the number of children you have isn't taken into account in pay review season.

Why should the UK government give tax breaks to parents - it discriminates against those with out children.

parker I'm giving you the benefit of doubt and assuming you are a troll. If you are not please read the report by Banardos on childhood poverty.