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.

stealth No - where I worked there were quite a few partners and only one could claim it. We got it until child was 11.

Then is extra (above statutory minimum) maternity pay discriminatory?

150 pounds is a huge amount for others.
Other employers offer other allowances and benefits if it's in their interest to do so. There's no guarantee that they would necessarily see value in paying for your physio. It's all very entitled!

For these people who think it is unfair, do you think it is fair that working parents are often earning less than minimum wage once you net their salary against childcare costs?

No they aren't working for less than minimum wage they are using their wage to pay for childcare costs. Big difference.

want2b I don't know why you're telling me about childcare costs. I know.

Not all people without children are as clueless about childcare costs as you might have been.

Want2bSupermum

Working parents made a choice to have children. What is fair about comparing my life costs to theirs?

The relative I cared for was not a parent or child, and I got no financial help. It would have annoyed me if I worked in a company where others got support for their caring and I got none.

I also got free physio every week for about seven years! Sorry Piglet !!!

Want2bSupermum

Why should someone be subsidised for a choice that they make?

My employer used to offer a heavily subsidised nursery - it cost a fraction of normal commercial rates. Which was in effect a benefit offered to parents not available to non parents. Unfortunately they out sourced it and it costs the same as any other nursery now. But of course they can pay different employees different amounts for doing the same job, as long as they aren't going below the minimum wage. I imagine no two of my colleagues are earning the same amount, we are on the same payscale but the amount you get will depend on when you started, annual performance rises etc. Not length of service though, the longer you've been there the more likely you will be to have slid back down the payscale, usually new starters are on more.

Good point happy. Seems different to me but I can't explain why.

Are your friends having ivf upset that they are paid less to subsidize maternity leave for others?
Presumably they're undergoing ivf in the hope that they will have children and then benefit from the allowance to help offset the costs involved?

'Hmm try and encourage even more disadvantaged groups back to work? That sounds hard I think I'll just keep moaning instead'

Op my dh company does give extra benefits to parents but i don't think it has any impact on employees without children. Example, private school fees are paid for but that doesn't affect someone without children. They also have one of the best nurseries in the area and it's almost free for employees. Again this doesn't affect employees without children.

I think the problem is that we force families to bear the entire financial burden for childcare when in reality, a new generation is necessary for the continuation of society. It's actually wrong that it should cost 25k a year to care for 3 children, though I do realise that is the extreme end of the scale. What we should have instead is a state that provides heavily subsidised childcare. That way nobody would feel hard done by at work and parents would be able to return to work with fewer problems. Take a leaf out of the Scandinavians' book.

It's not the same though is it want2be?

Ultimately having children is discretionary - no individual has to have children.

So you could make the minimum wage argument against any discretionary spending anyone makes...hell, if you worked it out I doubt many people's disposable income would meet minimum wage!

I think it's ridiculous that one persons can be paid more than another for doing the same job...it reeks of paying men more because they're the breadwinners...send the little women back to the kitchen why don't you!

A friend of mine works for one of the big unions. My friend gets free private gym membership in London. I think that is wrong when union members are indirectly paying his salary and they don't have free gym membership as part of their salary package.

Are your friends having ivf upset that they are paid less to subsidize maternity leave for others?

They aren't 'paid less'. They work in the NHS and their salaries are the same as anyone else on a like grade. What a foolish analogy.

Presumably they're undergoing ivf in the hope that they will have children and then benefit from the allowance to help offset the costs involved

In the hope of having children to have a family, as all the people moaning about how expensive childcare is presumably have. Their employer doesn't have this fucking gross policy but even if it did, I doubt thats the reason they're putting themselves through IVF

That's disgraceful. How the duck is that lawful?

If you don't want the costs associated with children, don't fucking have children. Don't have children then expect others to be paid less for doing the same job as you because you made an expensive lifestyle choice.

My friend works for a v large organisation in the UK & gets about £3k extra for the first year after maternity leave to help pay for childcare, (not vouchers or via salary sacrifice - she can do that on top).

She queried it when discussing maternity benefits & it has proven v successful in retaining staff after having babies apparently! So clearly it incentivises sufficiently to keep staff rather than recruit and train. I can sort of understand you feeling aggrieved but they support people with disabled dependents so any employee that has other people to care for - they just sound really supportive. Wish my bloody employers were half as nice!

In my organization no one is 'paid less' either, it's also on a scale. With certain allowances that the employer has decided upon.
Sorry you find it so distributing and hypothetically insulting to your friends, I quite like it personally 😀

Sonya

I don't expect it and I never asked for it but I certainly take it up if offered.

I think you need to calm down a bit.

We force people to bear the cost of caring for ill and disabled adults. Few give a damn.

Children are a lifestyle choice

Whatever the argument about extra allowances for parents, the above is total bollocks. And I'll only countenance someone saying it if they also make sure that they use no services or public goods that will be paid for by other people's children, from healthcare to pensions.

When you are saying to me that you definitely won't be claiming a state pension or using he NHS in old age because it's a "lifestyle choice" to do so when other people's children will be paying tax to fund it, then I'll allow you this "lifestyle choice" bollocks.

If you come out with this rubbish when you have children yourself, then you're bizarrely deluded. If you don't have children, you ought to be thanking your lucky stars that other people are paying for the expense of doing so, so that they can fund all the public goods and services you'll enjoy in later life. Perhaps a small perk from their employer isn't too much when you consider that you're depending on other people having children in order to provide you with a whole society of taxpayers when you're older.

And unless you plan on saving up a few million and funding every last bit of your future usage of services yourself (you won't be travelling on roads when you're 80, perhaps? Maybe you'll grow wings and fly instead?) - then have a think whether you want other people's children to be telling you in the future that cancer care, or end of life care, is a "lifestyle choice" when it comes to it.

Because that is exactly what awaits a generation so selfish and deluded by Tory capitalism that they think that the work and love put into raising new generations is somehow an "I'm alright Jack" function of the marketplace. Don't be surprised when those children start telling you that if being born is a "lifestyle choice" then getting old is a "lifestyle choice" too.

We force people to bear the cost of caring for ill and disabled adults. Few give a damn

I definitely do. I think it's disgusting that caring for society's most vulnerable members is not considered a public responsibility. I also think it is wrong that those who perform that essential caring work are treated like shit and told it is a lifestyle choice, whether they are caring for children or for disabled adults or the elderly. It's awful. That is why I at heart support employer initiatives like TonaldDrump's employer, but only if it gives the same benefits to carers of adults. However, ultimately it should be the responsibility of the state.