Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2 ··· 17 18 19 20 21 22

Original poster

Where I work, parents earn more than childless people... and it annoys me

531 replies

MustBookADentistAppointment · 20/03/2017 19:36

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.

OP posts:

Atenco · 23/03/2017 01:06

This whole thing is just about a race to the bottom, IMHO. The OP is not objecting to her salary and does not say that she feels she is not being paid commensurate with her job title. She just doesn't want these other people to be getting any extra money. If she really minded she could easily get a job elsewhere. When you are single you can work longer if you like, you can easily move to the location of the job and you can accept all kinds of shifts, if needs be.

BoneyBackJefferson · 23/03/2017 07:10

want2b

Tax breaks and what the thread is about are two different things.

But I suspect that there may be a balance that the OP is not telling us about.

BoneyBackJefferson · 23/03/2017 07:11

Atenco

If she really minded she could easily get a job elsewhere. When you are single you can work longer if you like, you can easily move to the location of the job and you can accept all kinds of shifts, if needs be.

Why should the OP do any of these things just because she is single?

PigletWasPoohsFriend · 23/03/2017 07:42

Of course because single people don't have friends, family, commitments, a life do they?

ShatnersWig · 23/03/2017 07:58

If it is a race to the bottom it's pretty clear that certain (fortunately few) posters believes parents belong at the top and that single people and those without children should know their place.

ArchNotImpudent · 23/03/2017 08:41

When you are single you can work longer if you like

Interesting the way 'childless' seems to be synonymous with 'single' in some people's minds!

Andrewofgg · 23/03/2017 09:46

Atenco while people without dependents can often be adaptable it is dangerously easy for management and colleagues to assume that they should be - and it won't do. Their private lives are equally important.

SapphireStrange · 23/03/2017 09:55

Interesting the way 'childless' seems to be synonymous with 'single' in some people's minds!

Isn't it! I've been with my DP for longer than most people I know have been or stayed married. We just don't have kids.

When you are single you can work longer if you like, you can easily move to the location of the job and you can accept all kinds of shifts, if needs be.

This comment is beyond stupid.

Want2bSupermum · 23/03/2017 10:08

I don't think atenco's comment is stupid at all. A childless person has those options available to them while those with DC don't. We are looking st trying to move back to the U.K. It's a project because we need a specific type of home to accommodate us, schooling needs to be organized and then I would need to find a job. If it were just DH and I we could live just about anywhere, schools wouldn't be an issue and I'd be a much more attractive employee so finding a job would be easier.

In my line of work we often have to stay late and it's really hard to organize plus expensive to do if DH can't step in.

SapphireStrange · 23/03/2017 10:44

Want, first of all atenco is conflating 'single' and 'child-free', which is patently wrong.

More to the point, a single and/or child-free person cannot necessarily just 'easily move to the location of the job/accept all kinds of shifts', for reasons including:

health/disability – they may need to have reasonable adjustments at work, including shift patterns/working hours
personal commitments – what if they're someone's carer? Elderly parent or other relative for whom they're responsible? Can they just take off to the other end of the country in that scenario?
finances/mobility –what if they can't afford to relocate?

That's just off the top of my head. Believe it or not, children are not the only responsibility/restriction that a person can possibly have in their life.

Andrewofgg · 23/03/2017 10:49

Indeed SapphireStrange but you know what? Your colleagues who have no commitments and spend their off hours doing anything they want should still not be called upon for extra shifts.

SapphireStrange · 23/03/2017 10:53

Oh, I totally agree, Andrew. I was just pointing out the absurdity of those assertions.

ArchNotImpudent · 23/03/2017 10:59

I would add that unsociable shift patterns and long hours don't become more desirable just because you can work them. I doubt that everyone who is confined to working 8am - 4pm due to childcare arrangements would leap at the chance to work 10am - 10pm if the childcare requirements were removed.

ArchNotImpudent · 23/03/2017 11:00

x-post with Andrew

PigletWasPoohsFriend · 23/03/2017 11:05

A childless person has those options available to them while those with DC don't.

No they don't always!

Stereotyping nonsense.

sonyaya · 23/03/2017 11:09

It comes down to seeing people without DC as less important or worthy of consideration. There is no other way to analyse it.

If childcare costs are the issue, give such employees vouchers, not cash.

LostSight · 23/03/2017 11:39

I think I might take a different approach than trying to argue about whether it is fair.

If you have an additional need due to your personal circumstances, then it might be worth approaching the company to see if they will help. If they are that decent, and you tell them you are struggling and need private counselling, perhaps they will be willing to help you with that. If you just go in angry about what others are receiving, I think you run the risk of pissing off a decent company who appear very keen to do things kindly.

CustardShoes · 23/03/2017 12:26

Something like 2/3rds of children in poverty have a working parent

So why did they have a child in the first place? No-one -- at least in Wales, Scotland and England - is forced to go through a pregnancy they can't support.

Look, I do actually understand the arguments about the structural inequalities of the workplace. It is still organised around the assumption that all workers are able-bodied men, with wives & children at home. The assumption that said wives do all the domestic personal & emotional labour, unpaid, to enable the male worker to devote himself to work.

And I understand how difficult it is to fit into that model if you're not male or able-bodied.

But in the end, no-one is required to have children. If people want children it is pretty much for their own personal emotional (and thus self-centred) reasons.

There are many single workers who live in poverty. There are also many single women who have to work at 85% of average male wages, and undertake caring duties. None of these groups is visible or supported. It does make me wonder why.

Atenco · 23/03/2017 13:26

"So why did they have a child in the first place? No-one -- at least in Wales, Scotland and England - is forced to go through a pregnancy they can't support"

First of all, circumstances change, wouldn't it be wonderful if we could count on being in ideal child-rearing circumstances for the entire 9 months of pregnancy and 18 years of parenting.

Secondly, sometimes pregnancy happens despite birth-control and not everyone is happy to abort.

And thirdly, I don't agree with you that the poor are not entitled to have children.

brasty · 23/03/2017 13:35

Wait till you all get older and are more likely to be caring for relatives or friends. Suddenly you won't be saying stupid things such as that adults who are childfree or no longer have children at home, have lots of options open to them. It is way easier to move a 4 year old across the country, than an older person with dementia.

sonyaya · 23/03/2017 13:37

No one is saying the poor cannot have children. The state provides support for parents struggling financially, as it should. Employers should not tell workers their labour is worth less based on having children or not.

This additional cash paid to certain workers in OP's company is not a child poverty issue and it's facile to spin it as such.

CustardShoes · 23/03/2017 13:54

More to the point, a single and/or child-free person cannot necessarily just 'easily move to the location of the job/accept all kinds of shifts

SapphireStrange good list. But what it misses out is that single people often have no domestic/emotional support. They have to build that network themselves. It is tough, relocating alone to a new town/new country, and having to do everything yourself, with no emotional support, or even for the routine stuff about waiting in for tradesmen etc to connect electricity etc -- all that ordinary stuff. Single people have no-one else. It's not necessarily the easy thing that people like to think it is.

Boophis · 23/03/2017 14:05

"So why did they have a child in the first place? No-one -- at least in Wales, Scotland and England - is forced to go through a pregnancy they can't support."

What a disgusting and horrible thing to say.
I am working single parent. I am pretty skint. Do you think I should have had an abortion because I am not well off??

Splinters6 · 23/03/2017 14:44

Surely it's just a recruitment and retention initiative?
It's no different to the fact that the government was/is offering incentives to those teaching subjects struggling to recruit teachers. Does the physics teacher working at the same school under the same conditions deserve to be paid incentives to train and to join the pay scale further up than his English teaching colleague? They are both newly qualified, they have the same level of responsibility but one is being paid more as there's a shortage in their subject.

I see this the same way. The company is incentivising parents to work there.

Jux · 23/03/2017 14:45

In short, there's a lot of stuff in life which isn't fair, but we make choices with all that in mind. Sometimes, a bit of luck comes your way; you'd be foolish to refuse it.

And then, we try to make things more fair, and one day they will be, but we still have to live with how things are now.

Flip

1 2 ··· 17 18 19 20 21 22

Swipe left for the next trending thread