To think being single should be recognised in law as an unreasonable basis for discrimination?

[OneLovelyDay]

I've just discovered (learning to drive later than others) that apparently it's unreasonable to charge women less for car insurance, but apparently fine to charge single people more than married people.

There's loads of things like this that discriminate against single people, although some not as directly. I'm thinking things like council tax discount, which should be 50% for living alone, not the 25% it is.

More broadly, it's interesting how society has accepted (to some degree) alternative family arrangements but not singleness/childlessness. I could marry and start a family with another woman and it would fit with societies' expectations (and financial incentives) more than being single, or having children alone by sperm donation.

I find being single totally an acceptable thing, don't feel the need for a partner in a day to day sense. But hoping for a family and a ticking biological clock reminds me that it's not my choice to be single. So I don't think it's acceptable for society to discriminate like this. (But also even if someone chooses to be childfree and single that should be respected and treated as legitimate and fulfilled life!)

I was reminded of it particularly harshly in the first lockdown in 2020, when people not living with a family were not supposed to go within two meters of another human, and there was no outcry. It was a real jolt in terms of realising how society views us as different/weird/not normal (thus not entitled to the same basic humane conditions, in that instance).

Fortunately most of my friends are either single or not the joined-at-the-hip with partner type. But sometimes these things crop up and I'm suddenly reminded that my life and needs are not considered as legitimate as those in couples or with children. At the moment this is happening a lot as I'm about to take a drop in income and so going through bills working out where to save money.

I just think it should be illegal to discriminate for things like car insurance based on single status, and more broadly that people should consider this issue and not treat single people differently, in the same way people have started to consider racism, homophobia etc.
AIBU?

Plus he works with the public, which means I'm in a constant low-level anxious state about his health re Covid. A single person doesn't have that worry.

This has to be one of the most selfish comments I've read on MN in a long while. What the fuck is actually wrong with some people?

@Anonymous48 and others struggling with the concept of single person supplements

www.avalonwaterways.co.uk/deals/no-single-supplement-selected-cruises/

fortunately not my kind of holiday - Im more of a Premier Inn/ YHA person

[quote Ted27]@Anonymous48 and others struggling with the concept of single person supplements

www.avalonwaterways.co.uk/deals/no-single-supplement-selected-cruises/

fortunately not my kind of holiday - Im more of a Premier Inn/ YHA person[/quote]
Reading into it for the likes of a cruise ship that isn't all inclusive a single supplement kind of makes sense.

The room is built for 2 people. It costs the same to clean it/provide the space and utilities no matter if one or two people occupy it.

Then for the likes of a non AI cruise where people would be expected to buy food/drink onboard, a single person taking up the space of 2 people will obviously spend less on this food/drink, so the company makes a loss. From a business POV it makes sense really. I'm not saying it doesn't suck for single people, but if every room was single occupied rather than double (and there was no supplement) then I'm guessing it wouldn't be financially viable. Again, I'm not saying it doesn't suck but I'm not sure it's discrimination. Without it I think cruises would just stipulate all beds in rooms must be full or the booking is void.

It would be like showing up to a 10 person restaurant booking with only 2 people, then demanding to keep the big table rather than move to a smaller one. The restaurant would lose money as it wouldn't be able to serve as many covers because you would be taking up more than necessary. Again, not saying it doesn't suck, but from a business POV in some situations makes sense, and I don't think would be called discriminatory.

@boredbuttercup

just to say that I have not argued discrimination at any point in this discussion

I was merely trying to illustrate for those unable to understand the concept that single person supplements are a thing. Whether it makes sense business wise is another issue.

But if they can fill these rooms with happy couples why are they offering supplement free trips?
They are probably responding to an increase in operators specialising in solo travel.

[quote Ted27]@Anonymous48 and others struggling with the concept of single person supplements

www.avalonwaterways.co.uk/deals/no-single-supplement-selected-cruises/

fortunately not my kind of holiday - Im more of a Premier Inn/ YHA person[/quote]
So a "single supplement" is anything over 50% of the cost of the room when it's one person rather than two? To me that sounds like a discount for a single person who's in a double room.

To me that sounds like a discount for a single person who's in a double room.

Except there are no single rooms for single people.

Travel companies are in business to make money - what reason would they have to discriminate against single people .?

@IntermittentParps You say above, And incidentally, as my DP makes less than minimum wage even in a normal year, I pay the bills and mortgage.

Now think about if you and your DP separated. He'd be on less than minimum wage, and he would be single. Can you understand why that would make his life even tougher?

Its not a discount for single people because this companies pricing structure is not based on a price per room its price per person

so in the cat E room its &2700 per person, total cost 5400
if a single person booked it would be the 2700 price per person PLUS 1355 single supplement total cost 4055

and no its doesnt have to be anything over 50%.

@ruthet

I absolutely agree. As others have mentioned it's not marital status that is protected, just being married. This seems unfair and unlike most of the other characteristics which cover all people in them e.g. all religions, all sexes etc. It doesn't make sense to outlaw discrimination based on being married, but not on single/ widowed/ divorced etc.

I think single parents shouldalso be added because there is so much discrimination that occurs towards single parent families. I run a voluntarycampaign groupcalled Single Parent Rights and we are trying to get single parents added to the Equality Act. Our research shows up to 80% of single parents face discrimination and we've come across lots of examples of government policy which discriminates (e.g. rules for free childcare and those in receipt of carers allowance). We also found that employers often treat single parents differently which prevents single parents progressing, hence 43% of working age single parents in poverty despite almost 70% being in work. Another big area of discrimination is private rentals. So many single mums are told, "we don't rent to your kind". It's criminal that it's not actually a crime to treat single parent families this way. And like others have said the fees and pricing structures for so many things exclude single parent families, it's like we are invisible to society. I'd love to see a situation where single parents are protected and all marital statuses (including single) are covered like the OP suggested.

Thank you for the work you are doing. Will you also be campaigning on the tax issues I posted above? They would be very easy to fix.

@mainsfed

To me that sounds like a discount for a single person who's in a double room.

Except there are no single rooms for single people.

I'm not sure what the relevance of that is.

If there were smaller rooms with single beds then surely they would be cheaper?

A single parent with the same number of children to provide for but earning £60k receives none.

The same is true of a couple where one parent earns over £60,000 pa, they won’t get child benefit either, will they?

Likewise, if one spouse earns over £100,000 pa, they won’t get 30 free child care hours either, will they?

This is nothing to do with discrimination against single people, because married couples where one is a high earner, are treated in the same way.

Likewise, single supplements in hotels - would you all prefer to take the Premier Inn approach, where every room is the same price, regardless of whether 1, 2 or 3 people sleep in it (where one is a child)? It’s a way of apportioning costs, given hotels are run to make a profit, as a return on the owner’s investment - which must be better for the owner, than leaving the money in a savings account.

Let’s hear you all suggest a better way for a hotel owner to apportion costs like the cost of the land, the light and heat, business rates, water, the wages....given you all use the common parts like corridors, reception, etc not just your bedroom?

Businesses are not some kind of charity.

The only time I was treated worse for being single was Christmas time in my workplace. I was expected to work them because I was single with no kids. Sucked it up for a decade.
Single people still have family they want to see over Christmas.

@XenoBitch

The only time I was treated worse for being single was Christmas time in my workplace. I was expected to work them because I was single with no kids. Sucked it up for a decade. Single people still have family they want to see over Christmas.

It's the same even if you are married without kids😔

@Intercity225

A single parent with the same number of children to provide for but earning £60k receives none.

The same is true of a couple where one parent earns over £60,000 pa, they won’t get child benefit either, will they?

Likewise, if one spouse earns over £100,000 pa, they won’t get 30 free child care hours either, will they?

This is nothing to do with discrimination against single people, because married couples where one is a high earner, are treated in the same way.

Likewise, single supplements in hotels - would you all prefer to take the Premier Inn approach, where every room is the same price, regardless of whether 1, 2 or 3 people sleep in it (where one is a child)? It’s a way of apportioning costs, given hotels are run to make a profit, as a return on the owner’s investment - which must be better for the owner, than leaving the money in a savings account.

Let’s hear you all suggest a better way for a hotel owner to apportion costs like the cost of the land, the light and heat, business rates, water, the wages....given you all use the common parts like corridors, reception, etc not just your bedroom?

Businesses are not some kind of charity.

That's precisely the point, it is not treating families in the same way because they operate as households. Their expenses: mortgage, childcare etc fall on the household as a whole. Why should help - particularly that aimed at the children of the household - be available to households with a much higher income and not those with a much lower income? Just because the former has two adults in it? That actually means it is easier for them to juggle work and childcare so single adult households with children should get help up to a higher household income threshold, not a lower one.

@WeBuiltThisBuffetOnSausageRoll thank you

I agree that "family tickets" should account for different family set ups. My sister has 3 dc as a single mum and is also excluded from such deals or at best a family ticket for her and 2 dc and she has to buy a separate ticket for 3rd dc which often makes such places beyond her pocket

And yes she's had similar issues with hotel rooms.

It's just constant price gouging of single parents I feel

@boredbuttercup no because nmw is law except where someone CHOOSES to be self employed or freelance. AND choosing to work self employed or freelance in such a way as you're not even making nmw is also a choice as you set your own rates/hours, if you're not making nmw then you're in the wrong job! I think at the very least insist on working according to nmw rules and claim benefits and look for something better paid/more reliable

@DadDadDad well I think that age discrimination against younger drivers is also wrong, there's more to it than that, especially when you consider that the NEXT most accident prone group are elderly drivers and they aren't charged high premiums for that! It's because insurers can get away with it with younger less experienced drivers.

Or because I’m single should I take up as little space as possible?

That does seem to be what the anti single attitudes come down to doesn't it? That we should try to be invisible

Those who have never been singletons or find it easy to say - just share with someone have no idea of how difficult that gets. Fine when you are young and you see it as a temporary state

Totally agree

I do think being single is less harshly discriminated against than race or homosexuality (I'm bi so I've experienced that at times myself and witnessed what others have)

But I would say that is true of all the protected groups - some experience worse treatment than others, doesn't mean they all shouldn't be protected

the single person will still pay less. council tax - yes but only 25% less paying 75% total per person, whereas a couple in the same property creating double the use of facilities only pay 50% each. The couple are effectively the ones really receiving a discount

@excuseforfights actually there's been numerous everyday sexism threads on here and other sm that prove that when it's the man taking the appointment solo they're happy to go forward with the contract WITHOUT them wanting him to check with his wife/partner first - it's sexism plain and simple

Someone does make the rules though. Life isn’t a person.
On this we agree

single people are aggrieved at having to pay £150 for single occupancy of a £200 double room, but the hotel is losing £50 of their potential income for each room,

Personally I didn't say that, I said I objected (using your example of pricing structure) to paying £250 or even £300 for a £200 room - something I have actually seen to be true in many cases when trying to book holidays as a single person.

The hotel aren't only not losing money they're additionally penalising single holidaymakers

Second homes, empty properties ugh - the owners of these should definitely be taxed more!

What gets me is the carping on about single people as "selfish" and "not contributing" to the community. That's total rubbish, but is very widely accepted. The discrimination against single people is everywhere - it starts with the basic assumption that "normal" adult life is as half of a couple, and goes on from there.

I'd agree with that

I do think we need something that discourages deliberate under-occupancy of a finite housing stock.

Many of us that are under occupying would LOVE to not be! Dd left home 2 years ago and I'm in a large 2 bed that's hard to manage, expensive to run and I'm disabled and on benefits too but there are NOT ENOUGH 1 bed properties not only in my area (west coast of Scotland) but I've looked as far as glasgow and beyond to no joy whatsoever. I'm fortunate being in Scotland as the bedroom tax is offset for me but I'm still paying higher rent, higher bills inc council tax than I really ought to be for a single person. I would LOVE to be in a wee neat open plan studio type place, with much less upkeep and lower bills!

Other countries recognise the need for accommodation for single adults, in this country property developers aren't held to account and aren't made to create the housing that's actually needed.

@SchrodingersImmigrant rubbish uplift is just one example. Generally speaking single adults are using less - in many cases even less than half - the services that couples and families use.

set at a rate appropriate to means

Very few single adults - especially women! - are going to earn 25% more than those adults in couples

And I am not liable 50% less than the single parent next door anyway. They get 25% off.

No you're "only" 25% better off than they are - what's 25% of your council tax bill? Could you afford to pay 75% of your bill on your own?

according to the value of the property

Which is determined by a number of societal factors - including what properties are available which is due to what developers and govt (local and national but mainly national) ALLOW to be available

This constant comment that single people have a "choice" to live alone - no not everyone does! I have mh issues largely due to an abusive childhood inc csa, I find it incredibly difficult to feel comfortable living with others, even other women. It would be hugely detrimental to my health to make me live with another adult especially a stranger.

Again - I wish our govt would make property developers, housing associations etc build/provide small, well designed, self contained, single person abodes. Yes they would command less value per unit but in the same area of land you could have multiple perhaps even many multiple units of high rise living weren't so looked down on due to being so poorly designed in this country. It's gradually improving but it's taking far too long, we are way behind other countries on this.

Council tax isn't calculated on the size of house but on notional 1998 value of property.

Yep! Which is utterly ludicrous!

People objected to the poll tax because it was a flat rate (ie barely means tested) and because the amounts of peoples bills were double and occasionally even treble what they had previously paid in rates plus lodgers and those in shared houses who's rent was supposed to include rates were suddenly expected to pay the tax with no reduction in their rents - basically an awful lot of people simply couldn't afford to pay it! It was an absolutely terrible ill thought out unmitigated disaster for those reasons! People didn't object to the IDEA of a personally attributed tax they objected to it being unaffordable and there being no way of mitigating that.

It’s not so long since there were huge obstacles in the way of a woman wanting to stay single and I would say it’s important not to forget that.

True - and clearly not all of them HAVE gone away

Not forgetting those whose partners cheat on them and run off

Thank you for saying this.

While I am contentedly single now when I married I married for life - as most if not all do - wasn't my choice for him to cheat, knock up the ow and leave dd and I high and dry!

@ruthet thank you for your work for single parents. I raised dd as a single mum, my brother was a single dad for several years and my sister is raising her 3 as a single mum. It infuriates me when I read on here that there is apparently no longer discrimination or stigma to being a single parent - there absolutely is! It's very very gradually improving but not quickly enough.

I've experienced it in every area - housing, healthcare, education (mine and dds), benefits, employment, transport... it's everywhere!

So a room costs the same if one person is staying in it or if two

Keep seeing this theory posited - it's not always the case, some travel operators/hotels charge single occupants MORE than the TOTAL they charge a couple. Eg charge a single occupant £150 and a couple £100 for the same room.

Without it I think cruises would just stipulate all beds in rooms must be full or the booking is void or...they could build/design ships/hotels with actual single rooms that only take up the same amount of space as half a double room? Therefore still filling the space and making if not exactly the same then close to same profit - and if you think cruises and hotels don't already make a LOT of money you are very naive.

*And I am not liable 50% less than the single parent next door anyway. They get 25% off.

No you're "only" 25% better off than they are - what's 25% of your council tax bill? Could you afford to pay 75% of your bill on your own?*

Yes, 100%. We both could still afford the bills without the other. I made sure of that in case anything happens. A rougue driver, rougue hormones, deportation... That's why we moved into not so wanted postcode.
But that's another story and just my oen experience

I don’t think cruise ships could make rooms half the size. At least none you’d be able to stay in. And maybe it is effectively the couples getting council tax discount. That’s true. But where I am, each household gets the same bin, emptied the same amount of times. Just an example. The couples household doesn’t generally take double the resources as a single persons.

I am childless and all my requests for flexible working were turned down, despite all the parents in my office benefiting from it. I was told it was because I didn't need childcare.

I also got flack for requesting time off in the school holidays. I used to pretend it was because I had to look after my nieces which wasn't true, but as soon as I said that they let me take the holiday because it was deemed a good enough reason.

@garlictwist

I am childless and all my requests for flexible working were turned down, despite all the parents in my office benefiting from it. I was told it was because I didn't need childcare.

I also got flack for requesting time off in the school holidays. I used to pretend it was because I had to look after my nieces which wasn't true, but as soon as I said that they let me take the holiday because it was deemed a good enough reason.

This INFURIATES me. I have worked with people who don't have children who have had similar experiences - wanting flexible working to take part in a hobby/exercise or just to make commuting easier or whatever - and it drives me crazy. It's completely unacceptable. I'm sorry you've experienced this.

@garlictwist this makes me FURIOUS too!
On one hand you have parents complaining that they don’t get promoted on the other you get shit like this.
If someone is a good employee and flexible working allows the same level of output then it should be granted. Whether the reason is childcare, growing cucumbers or pole dancing is none of anybody’s business.

Agree @garlictwist. I'm really sorry you've experienced that.

I got slaughtered on a thread on here for objecting to my workplace introducing a policy in March 2020 that all parents could work half of their weekly working hours and top up the rest, regardless of the age of their children. Everyone else was expected to do additional hours unpaid. I asked for some time off after a traumatic incident in August 2020 and it couldn't be accommodated as over half the workplace had essentially gone part-time.

To me, the assumption that childless single people don't have anything better to do is absolutely rife in workplaces, and the above was an example of how that assumption can play out when we're in a crisis situation. The response I got on here shocked me but I think it's partly to do with the fact that people with children often don't understand what it's like to have experienced this treatment for decades, with no obvious end in sight.

That's awful, and blatant discrimination. Even pre-Covid everyone in my workplace had equal access to flexible working. You have to justify it with a business case but the reasons for the request are irrelevant. That's also very important for mothers especially not to be stigmatised - to have other women and men working flexibly also. Hopefully Covid changes these attitudes but if I were you, I'd look for a better employer as that is unacceptable (I am a mother btw).

@garlictwist another who's very sorry you've had to deal with that. While I'm a parent now I well remember working in elderly care prior to having dd and getting screwed EVERY school holiday with understaffing due to all the parents taking leave then and my employers not considering staffing levels and especially at Christmas and new year. When I reached a point where I was the person making the shift rotas I made sure it was fair for EVERYONE. In that industry working bank holidays even Christmas and new year is part of the job and imo if you don't want to do it don't do that job. I did it so that everyone did the same amount of bank holidays and that it wasn't the same people working Christmas EVERY year with the exception of allowing those who specifically asked to work then to do so. Some flexibility was allowed eg some preferred to work Christmas but not new year and vice versa but as long as NORMAL staffing levels were covered and people didn't take the piss that was fine. There were certain people who ALWAYS tried to avoid working bank holidays but frankly they were the lazy, workshy ones nothing to do with if they were parents or not. They were also the types to try and pass on the less popular tasks within the work day onto others and tried to only do the "nice" tasks. I stopped that nonsense too!

Single adults without children ALSO have families and friends they want to spend special occasions with, they may well have other caring and other responsibilities outside of work which are really none of their employers business they have lives too!

While I was doing this work I was trying to maintain a long distance relationship with my now ex husband who was in the army so he didn't always have weekends off either - the crap I got if I refused to swap a weekend off with a parent because it was my first chance to see him in several weeks was ridiculous!

All childfree and childless people should create a union or something, because single or married, if you don't have a child, you are fucked if you wnat Christmas off. Or summer time off. Or anything really!