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.

[Trills]

Regular shifts are much better for planning your life.

Have a two-week schedule not just one week, so nobody is doing every Sunday morning. Pay more for unsociable hours.

[Toottootcar]

Back in the 70s my dm worked late evening shifts so that she could earn money while my df was at home. It's not only childfree people who work shifts, some do it exactly for childcare reasons.

[brasty]

It isn't doing every Sunday morning that is the issue. It is not being able to do any regular clubs, classes or studying

[Andrewofgg]

Well: if you can find people willing to commit in the long term to nights or weekends, I suppose it is no more exploitative than many other things that businesses can get a way with in an employers’ job market.

What you can’t do is expect anyone not so committed to take a bigger share of the nights that somebody else because of the sort of private life either of them has.

[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

That's your employer. Not sure about sick pets, but other caring responsibilities would definitely be looked on sympathetically. My father died last year and I was offered far more time off (paid) than I needed. But I know there are horrible employers out there. But I think they'll be horrible to parents too.

Changing shift patterns are a pain in the neck for anyone but I guess particularly for parents because you can't generally pay for childcare following one pattern one week and then a different pattern the next week. For example, if you work alternate Mondays you'll probably have to pay for childcare every Monday unless you are very fortunate.

As for holidays, in most places I've worked, it's been a question of first come first served, so if you need holiday at certain times, you get in early. I only worked one place where my boss decided to make a value judgment on who deserved leave more because she didn't think it was fair that I was getting first dibs because I had a child (I wasn't, I was getting first dibs because I was booking 6-9 months ahead) but in the event she never actually said no to any of my leave requests.

[brasty]

Parents and spouses dying tends to be looked on sympathetically by most employers, but not caring for another relative or friend.