Page 10 | Families should have more space than couples

CrunchiestCru · 2021-08-09T07:19:41+00:00

Employer provides accommodation, existing employees can request to move within as needed. AIBU to expect that a family would get the larger accommodation over a couple?

Yourcatisnotsorry · 10/08/2021 21:05

In a social housing situation yes. However an employer has different motivations. Nobody would say parents should be paid more than non breeders for doing the same job for example. If the available accommodation is very varied they should have a clear policy how it’s allocated to avoid upsetting people but that could be based on rank, longevity of service etc not necessarily family situation.

godmum56 · 10/08/2021 21:13

@Yourcatisnotsorry

In a social housing situation yes. However an employer has different motivations. Nobody would say parents should be paid more than non breeders for doing the same job for example. If the available accommodation is very varied they should have a clear policy how it’s allocated to avoid upsetting people but that could be based on rank, longevity of service etc not necessarily family situation.

but that clear policy could be take it or leave it?

surreygirl1987 · 10/08/2021 21:18

@godmum56 boarding schools I guess.

TractorsAndHeadphones · 10/08/2021 22:14

I’m now very interested in finding out what line of work the OP is in - because I’d really like to have free housing for myself and my entire brood!

OP I don’t think you’re being that U if everyone moves in at the same time and couples get significantly larger houses than large families.
However this should be reflected in pay - surely if everyone’s at the same grade and some get bigger houses just because they have kids it’s unfair?
Furthermore you’ve said that ‘existing employees can request to move’ which implies that you think any empty house should be offered to a large family first. But also employees work in shifts - so presumably they won’t be staying there very long?

StrawberryPuff · 10/08/2021 22:36

FOTTFSOFATFOSM

Bugbabe1970 · 10/08/2021 22:37

Of course you should get more floor spaces for more people!

FrippEnos · 10/08/2021 23:24

@erasemybrain

Well another bat shit set of answers from the professionally offended. Of course bigger family should equal bigger accommodation. Especially if it's compulsory. I'm realising of late that who ever posts anything is in the wrong, unless it's about leaving their partner in which case they definitely should. - standing by for answers to prove point!

Good of you to show how the professionally offended should post.

Carthief · 10/08/2021 23:27

@Bugbabe1970

Of course you should get more floor spaces for more people!

Why though?

Would you be happy to get paid less because you have fewer children than your colleagues?

Would you be happy getting a smaller company car because you have fewer children?

If not…why would you be happier getting smaller accommodation??

Why should you get more benefits for something that’s completely irrelevant to your ability to do your job?

Hankunamatata · 10/08/2021 23:44

I think your vagueness isn't helping to work out whether it's fair or not

NumberTheory · 11/08/2021 00:27

Why should you get more benefits for something that’s completely irrelevant to your ability to do your job

A decent home situation isn’t completely irrelevant to your ability to do your job. If, as OP appears to have stated, residence in company accommodation is required and if the job is such that people with families will almost certainly want their families with them, then the provision of accommodation is equally suitable for whole families, not just the individual employee, is part of ensuring employees are equally able to do the job.

Which doesn’t mean companies are obliged to do this. But providing benefits for families in accordance with family size can be about ensuring an equally supported diverse workforce.

LoisLane66 · 11/08/2021 00:50

@CrunchiestCru
You seem a very nice person who likes to see fair play. Whilst I have, in the past, lived on site, this has only been in a single capacity and I have enjoyed many grand living spaces.
TBH, most individuals would like the biggest and best accomodation just as we'd all like the highest salary or the most mouthwatering cake and that's because at the most basic level, we are, at heart, selfish.
Animals fight to keep food and don't share it. They fight over their homes/burrows/dens too.
They and we are selfish but it's a survival instinct and getting the best we can out of life.
I applaud you for your (seemingly?) unselfish view but I have to admit that I would hang on like grim death to bigger accomodation regardless of a larger family having a greater need.

PurpleOkapi · 11/08/2021 01:02

YABU, unless the childless couples are given more money to offset the difference. You aren't entitled to a larger salary just because you have children. That includes a free rental that's worth more than a childless couple's free rental because it's larger.

Mamanyt · 11/08/2021 01:25

Well, yes, families should be able to get larger accommodations, but "expect" is too strong a word to use with a business. They set their policies as they choose, and all you can expect is for those policies to be followed.

CutePanda · 11/08/2021 06:09

[quote CrunchiestCru]@mustlovegin enjoying the comparison that a hobbie room is more important than a child’s bedroom[/quote]
It is a privilege to have separate bedrooms for DC. If a couple has 2 DDs then they could fit in a 2 bed flat as the DDs share a room. At the end of the day, it is FREE accommodation. If the accommodation doesn’t meet your needs then you should privately rent a house elsewhere without having your accommodation subsidised.

What is the difference between these flats? If they’re all 2 bed, but the square footage is a bit bigger in some flats, then the bigger flats should not be automatically allocated to families. You just need 2 bedrooms, 1 for the parents and 1 for the DC to share.

Why should the nicer, more spacious flats be given to large families? It was their choice to have so many.

FakingMemories · 11/08/2021 06:24

Maybe the couple are about to become adoptive parents to a sibling group (they do try to keep siblings together). Square footage isn’t everything - there may be less usable or practical space in the larger property. Maybe the kitchen and hallway are huge and the bedrooms are small.

liveforsummer · 11/08/2021 09:40

Sounds like it's first come first serve. People will take the best accommodation available. They'd be annoyed if they left the bigger accommodation in case a family needed it but then a single person took it instead

PeachyPeachTrees · 11/08/2021 10:31

This has been an interesting read! I mainly agree with the OP. But I have read all the posts going against what OP is saying. It's not as simple as it first looks. What's fair for one isn't fair for another, unfortuately there will always be winners and loosers and there will always be some luckier than others.

smilingontheinside · 11/08/2021 10:36

Haven't read whole thread but the only house with job that winds me up is our local vicar (single lady) is living in a 5 bed updated family home and has let the let front and back garden go to ruin. She may be quieter than a fily but what a waste of church money and space. She's the second single vicar living in 5 bed house that I know if in my town, there are probably more. Church needs to sell some of these big houses and get smaller ones for those clergy living alone. As long as there is room for visitors these great big properties are wasted and they're always needing money for something (church roof/bells etc).

echt · 11/08/2021 10:41

@smilingontheinside

Haven't read whole thread but the only house with job that winds me up is our local vicar (single lady) is living in a 5 bed updated family home and has let the let front and back garden go to ruin. She may be quieter than a fily but what a waste of church money and space. She's the second single vicar living in 5 bed house that I know if in my town, there are probably more. Church needs to sell some of these big houses and get smaller ones for those clergy living alone. As long as there is room for visitors these great big properties are wasted and they're always needing money for something (church roof/bells etc).

If you're a member of that church, surely you could write to the bishop/whatever?

MRex · 11/08/2021 10:57

I don't think it's reasonable to expect the church to sell properties that might be needed in a few years. We have two local churches who each have families of 6, and one has a couple of extra people also living in the vicarage, so it isn't an issue everywhere that clergy are all now always single. If the vicar isn't maintaining the land then you can complain to them or the church though.

PeachyPeachTrees · 11/08/2021 11:06

Our local vicar is married with 2 kids and it's a big house. The vicar before was a single man but the one before him was married with 3 kids and had his DM living there too. It's literally next to the church and should stay as a vicarage. I agree with the upkeep of the gardens and they should maintain the building inside and out too. Just because it's not owned by them doesn't mean they can let it go to ruin.

PeachyPeachTrees · 11/08/2021 11:10

The school my DS goes to has a tiny house on site for the caretaker. It's single storey and I'm guessing 2 beds. Mr B moved in single, he has since married a teacher and had 2 kids! It's probably a squeeze but at least it's convenient for work.

Thatsjustwhatithink · 11/08/2021 16:20

@TractorsAndHeadphones

I'd say spouse/partner of overseas civil service member.

SofiaMichelle · 11/08/2021 17:17

@smilingontheinside

Haven't read whole thread but the only house with job that winds me up is our local vicar (single lady) is living in a 5 bed updated family home and has let the let front and back garden go to ruin. She may be quieter than a fily but what a waste of church money and space. She's the second single vicar living in 5 bed house that I know if in my town, there are probably more. Church needs to sell some of these big houses and get smaller ones for those clergy living alone. As long as there is room for visitors these great big properties are wasted and they're always needing money for something (church roof/bells etc).

Being clergy is a job. If the job comes with a house then it should be the same house no matter whether they're single or have 5 children.

Jobs should never, ever, have remuneration/package determined by how many children the employee has produced.

surreygirl1987 · 11/08/2021 17:29

@sofiamichelle I think the issue is whether it not the person HAS to live there for the job. If it's a one bedroom place and you have 3 kids, and the job comes on condition of living there... one could argue that actually that person is being treated unfairly for having the job. Basically, I think if a job says the employee must live there, it should be appropriate accommodation for the individual's circumstances. When I started my first job, I was perfectly happy to be placed in a shared house with two other colleagues, while a colleague with a family was put into a family home. Yes, we did have to pay a little bit (and we paid less than this colleague) but it was so little it didn't really make much different financially. Decisions were based on both seniority and family circumstances and I personally was fine with that and felt it was fair. Now I do have a family, and if I was still at that job I wouldn't expect to be in a shared house situation as my needs have changed. There was also the option to opt out of accommodation (depending on specific role) so if someone wasn't happy with the set-up, they weren't stuck there.