Families should have more space than couples

[CrunchiestCru]

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?

[quote surreygirl1987]@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.[/quote]
That’s fair - subject to the post. I know that some caretakers of a historic property that have only bedsit. That’s what the job comes with and if they’re not happy they have to change jobs.

In any case - pp aside the issue isn’t people being given unsuitable accommodation. It’s couples being given spaces bigger than they need while ‘families’ are given space that while adequate isn’t as big as they’d like.

[quote surreygirl1987]@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.[/quote]
Not every job is suitable for every set of personal circumstances. If the employer wants to attract people with families, then obviously they shouldn't require the person to live in a one-bedroom. But if living in a one-bedroom on-site is a job requirement, then those who don't want to do it - because they have families or because of any other reason - just shouldn't take that job. One's life and job choices do become more limited in many ways when one has children, and there's nothing unfair about that.

I'd have been furious if my employer had expected me to live with some of my colleagues while other colleagues weren't expected to do the same. If that employer was giving some colleagues full-sized houses, I'd expect the same, or a housing allowance that would pay for the same on the local market. Anything else is just paying them more for having children, which is completely unfair. And the assumption that it's fine to force single adults to live with roommates, while providing much better accommodations for families, is just beyond the pale.

@TractorsAndHeadphones yes - if everyone has something at least adequate for their personal circumstances, then it does sound petty.

@PurpleOkapi
"Anything else is just paying them more for having children, which is completely unfair".
A colleague recently said the exact same thing about maternity leave/ maternity pay. Paid for doing no work, for having children. I told them to do one.

"And the assumption that it's fine to force single adults to live with roommates, while providing much better accommodations for families, is just beyond the pale."
As I said, this is my personal opinion, based on my personal experience. I was VERY happy with the arrangement. It saved me a fortune- so what if another colleague with a family got more? I was very grateful regardless! And completely understood why he and his family couldn't live in the same house share situation. If they'd tried to put him into my shared house, I'd have kicked up a fuss - much better for all our sakes for him and his kids to go into a separate property. Besides, as I said, I was not 'forced' to share with housemstes. We were not forced to live in. But was I really going to turn down an amazing deal which would allow me to rapidly save up for a despoit for a property and pay hundreds more in rent each month to rent my own flat, instead of living in a shared house with colleagues? No! That job, and that accommodation set me up for life, and I'm grateful, rather than bitter that someone with a family got more.

Different things can work in different situations. I always preferred to flat-share with colleagues abroad as it's nice to have company, but we discussed arrangements with HR before going and had picked our own housemates. I also didn't mind a colleague with wife and child having a small flat to themselves, it would be petty to fret about that. None of that is this particular situation though. OP has been clear there are two flats with THE SAME NUMBER OF BEDROOMS. Each flat is getting one employee with their household. OP's objection is that only one of the flats has a bigger kitchen / living area, so she thinks that should automatically go to the larger family. She won't clarify the number of square feet involved, so we know it's actually quite a small size difference. She also won't explain if there are arrival date differences, room layout differences, nor anything else about the differences between the flats, to identify other reasons why the smaller flat could look more suitable for the family. Whether there are additional differences or not, everyone has sufficient space, so it's jealousy rather than need.

Surely the company isn't in the business of rewarding staff for getting pregnant/getting their wives pregnant? That is what you're effectively asking them to do.

@PurpleOkapi but would you be happy sharing a house with children?
Technically a family with children ARE living in a ‘house share’ - just that it’s shared among one family!
If a company has 4 houses of equal size for example it doesn’t make sense to put parents and children + other single people in the same house if there’s space available in what is already a houseshare among strangers.

Again - for most jobs it just depends on what’s available at the time of hire. . The other ones I do know of are not rank and file. Execs being sent abroad may get school fees etc paid - are you saying their childless junior colleagues who are also sent abroad should receive the same amount of money just to equalise things? That’s not a set salary, it’s just a perk that’s negotiated because of the value someone brings.

Kind of depends - seniority, length of service etc also could be a factor. I work for an employer that provides accommodation for some employees, you can inspect it on the interview day to help you decide if you want the job if offered

TractorsAndHeadphones

Technically a family with children ARE living in a ‘house share’ - just that it’s shared among one family!

That really is a huge stretch.

@FrippEnos

TractorsAndHeadphones

Technically a family with children ARE living in a ‘house share’ - just that it’s shared among one family!

That really is a huge stretch.

You clearly haven’t read my whole post. So In the situation that I’ve outlined - you’d have the family plus a single /couple person in one house , and another house with less than it could accommodate? Also if you read my posts I am against the OP but if there is a family of 4 and 4 singles it’s split into 4 people per house. The numbers match. If you want a flat and think a houseshare is unfair (when all the company has is houses) then don’t take the job.

[quote surreygirl1987]@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.[/quote]
But they don't have to take the job.....jobs have certain terms and conditions and if you don't like them, you don't take the job. Also (I keep saying this) the contract is with the employee and not with the family. The business owner says that part of the contract is that the employee must live onsite while they are working (ie not on leave or sick leave) and in return they are given accommodation at no cost to themselves. If the accommodation is suitable for them to have family with them, and they wish it, then the business owner will allow the family to join the employee without any cost to the employee.
No one makes the employee take the job.

oh I see the OP has vanished....maybe they didn't get the answers they wanted

@godmum56 I don't think you get what I'm saying but never mind! I was grateful anyway.

@tractorsandheadphones yes, you explain that really well! Good point re school fees being paid. This happens in the UK too (upto 80% off school fees paid for teachers' kids in some private schools). It's a perk, just as house share accommodation was for me in a previous job.

surreygirl
"Basically, I think if a job says the employee must live there, it should be appropriate accommodation for the individual's circumstances."

I think I have understood you....but the individual circumstances should NOT be taken into account because then it does become unfair. People shouldn't be given more or less of anything in a job because of their personal circumstances. Businesses don't make contracts with families unless there are social duties eg embassies and so on.....even then the partner is not employed by the company, but its clear (or was, times change) that the employee had to have a suitable spouse who would be expected to pitch in....
Anyway....the contract is between the employee and the company, the accommodation is intended to keep the employee where they are required to be while they are working ie not on any kind of leave. Any permission to have family there is an "extra" to the contract and in the gift of the employer.

[quote surreygirl1987]@tractorsandheadphones yes, you explain that really well! Good point re school fees being paid. This happens in the UK too (upto 80% off school fees paid for teachers' kids in some private schools). It's a perk, just as house share accommodation was for me in a previous job.[/quote]
I think some posters are getting confused between housing as a 'perk' and housing as a requirement.
Most employer provided accommodation that allows families are the former. If you chose to live elsewhere you got some money. From the company's POV they already have a set amount of accommodation so it's just a question of fitting as many people in as possible. They don't go 'oh this year we have many singles, we need to get more one person flats' or 'oh we have more families lets get more houses'. I've seen this happen with seasonal work and in academia (with visiting fellows)...

@TractorsAndHeadphones

I did read what you posted.

I just disagree that a family with children are living in a ‘house share’.

As long as the property has a sufficient number of bedrooms for the occupants, I can't really see an issue.

You said the only difference is floorspace, so I think its just hard luck.

[quote FrippEnos]**@TractorsAndHeadphones

I did read what you posted.

I just disagree that a family with children are living in a ‘house share’.[/quote]
You clearly haven’t read it if you didn’t r my questions. Also you don’t understand the difference between house share and ‘house share’.
Get better reading comprehension skills… and ability to explain your point..

*reply

@tractorandheadphones yes absolutely!!

No. If you’re a military family (we are). It’s well known houses are based on rank. Don’t get me wrong, it’s antiquated as a whole. Quite often the rank structure never translates very well to civvie street because those in the ground in skilled trades often come out in higher positions as they have more relevant experience.

However, there are set structured for housing and always have been. You know this before you sign up, before you have more children, etc. It’s just the way it is. It’s part or the pay package if you like.

People get heavily subsidised housing, continue to have more children and to a point, continue to get bigger housing on that basis. It’s pretty cushy if I’m honest. Married quarters get a bad press, yet it’s easy street. Half the people I see complaining would never cope in the real world.

For those who don’t understand the cost of MQ, we paid £440 odd a month for a 5 bed house, including water and council tax in the south. Our civvie house is 5x that. (my husband has just left, hence why we can afford it).

TractorAndHeadphones

ODFOD.

Its an opinion forum, and you are not the forum police.

Get better reading comprehension skills… and ability to explain your point..

To quote Alanis - ‘Isn’t it ironic…’