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.

[lucyandpoppy123]

I think YABU because it's not just about the parents 'lifestyle' choices it impacts the child's welfare, who is dependant on the parents income

[PigletWasPoohsFriend]

Of course it's appropriate that a cash allowance is paid for child care.

Childcare vouchers etc yes. Extra money because you have DC no.

[PurpleDaisies]

lucy that's assuming that the parents are spending their money on their children. What about people who are the sole earners because they have a disabled spouse? Should they be paid more for doing the same job?

[PigletWasPoohsFriend]

I think YABU because it's not just about the parents 'lifestyle' choices it impacts the child's welfare, who is dependant on the parents income

What about those whose partners can't work because they are disabled for example. They are also dependent on the other partners income.

To give workers money just because they have DC is discrimination.

[PigletWasPoohsFriend]

Ops crossed posts

[TonaldDrump]

I get an allowance for each of my children from my employer (not U.K.). They're bloody expensive!

[happypoobum]

Yes piglet it was an incredible perk.

[rightsaidfrederickII]

YANBU

Children are a lifestyle choice, and unless other people's expensive lifestyle choices (horse ownership?) also attract extra money, they shouldn't get extra just for having spawn.

Parents already get substantial subsidies from the government - childcare vouchers, child benefit, child tax credit, state education (which, let's face it, also doubles as free childcare), free nursery hours, maternity grant etc. etc. Adding extra money from your employer to the mix is a step too far IMO.

[PurpleDaisies]

I get an allowance for each of my children from my employer (not U.K.). They're bloody expensive!

It was your choice to have them.

If you did the same exactly job as me why on earth should you get paid more just because of a choice you've made that has no bearing on your performance at work?

[TonaldDrump]

But it's the employers' choice! No one is forcing them, this is how they attract skilled people. Don't like it, don't work there. A lot easier than child benefits or the like which no one has a choice about paying for!

[TonaldDrump]

My choice to have them and my employers choice to offer this benefit. I didn't force them or ask for it, but I'm certainly very happy to take it up!

[Winteriscominginnit]

Just tell them that your lifestyle choices (e.g. going on holidays, eating out, theatre) are also expensive and would they therefore please grant you the same benefits as those who chose to have children. That's what I would do anyway.

[ComtesseDeSpair]

Surely it's indirectly discriminatory against people in particular protected categories: on the basis that gay people are significantly less likely to be parents than straight people; older and younger people less likely to be parents of children under 18 or parents full stop; disabled people may have health issues which prevent them from or make it more difficult to be parents. It's a nice concession to the expenses of parenthood but surely a legal challenge waiting to happen?

[PurpleDaisies]

But it's the employers' choice! No one is forcing them, this is how they attract skilled people. Don't like it, don't work there.

Come on. It's intrinsically unfair. What if they were paying women less than men? Would you still be saying "just work somewhere else?"

[TonaldDrump]

Not unfair at all. Same as child benefits aren't unfair.

[Winteriscominginnit]

And if they say no ask why they favour having children as a lifestyle choice over not having them and spending the money on something else. It's pretty clear-cut discrimination.

[TonaldDrump]

It's an allowance. They offer allowances for other things too which I'm not entitled to. There are also people with more kids than me who get a larger allowance, I don't care. I'm not paid less because of them.

[PurpleDaisies]

Not unfair at all. Same as child benefits aren't unfair.

Not the same thing at all. Child benefit isn't based on you working for it. If I do the same work as another employee I deserve to be paid the same.

[PigletWasPoohsFriend]

But it's the employers' choice! No one is forcing them, this is how they attract skilled people

It can be a way they lose skilled people by paying those that have no DC less. Or are you saying that those that don't have DC aren't skilled.

It is just another kick in the teeth also for those that can't have DC.

[Papafran]

Wow, that is unfair. I agree. It should be for the state to top up for parents. Equal pay for equal work.
Also unfair if they do not pay the same allowance to those with caring responsibilities that are not childcare, eg disabled adult child, sick partner or elderly parents. Those responsibilities can be even more mentally and financially draining than children.

[okilydokily]

My employer also offers this type of benefit. I think it's around 2% of your gross salary per annum, paid until your child reaches the age of 5. They used to pay a maternity bonus as a lump sum when you returned after maternity leave - the bonus was obviously to encourage women to come back. For some reason they changed it to a monthly amount instead.

[BackforGood]

I think that is preposterous - and I have 3 dc so would have benefited hugely over the years if it were a 'thing' where I worked.

You should be paid for what you contribute to the company, not for your lifestyle choices outside of work

[PurpleDaisies]

There are also people with more kids than me who get a larger allowance, I don't care. I'm not paid less because of them.

You are getting a smaller wage packet that a colleague even though you've done the same job. Why on earth aren't you pissed off about that?

[TonaldDrump]

I haven't noticed they've lost skilled single people. And the 'gay people are less likely to be parents l' argument is pretty weak these days. It doesn't do much to offset the cost of children obviously but it's a nice gesture. I've been working there for years and no one has ever complained or raised it in the union as being unfair.

[RJnomore1]

I think it's legal as there is no protection in law for being treated differently for NOT having a child is there?