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?

Couples are also families

This is what I came to say too.

@DeathByWalkies sorry how does fertility issues mean they need extra space?

I presume this is a situation you are currently experiencing OP.

On the face of it, I agree with your logic. However, there may be other reasons behind the decision that you are unaware of. Seniority, health needs, historic contract anomalies etc.
Do you have enough bedrooms for your own family?

@CherieBabySpliffUp

Surely the employer is only providing accommodation for their employee. However many bodies come with that employee is down to the employee to fit into the space allocated.

How detached of you.

What’s wrong with treating people nicely and with a bit of respect? Have you had your toys taken away and are feeling a bit of a git?

@MrsHuntGeneNotJeremyObviously good points there it’s an interesting one. Equally if a couple have been employed longer but are the same grade why should they have more space than a family with more than two people?

I was going to ask if you were military. If you are then YABU.

Is living in the accommodation compulsory?

I don’t think just because they have a bigger family someone shouldn’t automatically get the better perks of the job. It should be fair and why should someone who is child free be left living in smaller accommodation?

Sorry all good point poor choice of words on my part, couples are of course a family but I think we all know what I mean.

More detail is needed

I would expect the family to be given sufficient space. That doesn't necessarily mean they get the biggest accommodation, just that there are enough bedrooms for their needs. The couple might have been waiting ages or have needs.

If a restaurant gives employees a free meal to take home at the end of a shift should they give employees with children enough to feed the family?

[quote CrunchiestCru]@MrsHuntGeneNotJeremyObviously good points there it’s an interesting one. Equally if a couple have been employed longer but are the same grade why should they have more space than a family with more than two people?[/quote]
because they have been employed longer

Can you please give some actual details? Are the adults involved working at the same level? Did they start work at the same time? What is the actual difference in accommodation size?

@Sirzy mainly as more people need more room but I agree that whatever family situation the remuneration should be equal. So if a single person has somewhere smaller the difference in cost should be made up to them.

[quote CrunchiestCru]@MrsHuntGeneNotJeremyObviously good points there it’s an interesting one. Equally if a couple have been employed longer but are the same grade why should they have more space than a family with more than two people?[/quote]
As they've been employed longer. Its a benefit of the employment.

I don't know if remuneration always has to be equal. Take for example a highly valued candidate whose spouse and kids would all need to relocate. Perhaps an employer who really needs the skills of the candidate would pay more to cover what the candidate's family would lose by relocation. So spousal salary, or school fees for the kids if we were talking about wealthy companies and rare skill sets. A couple might incur fewer expenses and so relocation package might be individually tailored.
Usually people know what's on offer before they take a job and decision to accept an offer depends on whether it's a suitable offer.

What is the system then? If a couple and a ‘family’ are both asking to move to new accommodation and a three bed house becomes available, who gets it? The person who asked first? Or the most senior member of staff? The one who has been there longest?

Is this an actual situation or are you just musing on the scenarios?

@CrunchiestCru

Couples without children are often treated as less than, or less valid then couples with. That is what I'm assuming when you say "I think we all know what I mean" after backtracking on the use of couples or families.

It honestly depends on how things are allocated now. Is it random? Based on need? Based on rank?

I don't think people without children should always be given the smallest accomodation, without greenspace etc and only be allowed bigger space if they reproduce.

They are all the same grade, same duration in terms of service one family has two people the other family has four. No difference in facilities I believe but the floor space ifykwim

Agree with PP above. If accommodation is part of salary package then everyone on same band gets the same.

In our case our budget is dependent upon family size and seniority officially, but realistically it’s about what they think they can get away with and how much they want you to take the position.

@HelloDulling that’s it, it seems to be based on whoever asked first or knows someone rather than based on need

Surely would depend on the seniority of the Staff? I think its unreasonable to expect a bigger home just because you have a family? By that calculation no families would ever live in a flat!

This is interesting. I Come from.a big family and my dad had a job that moved a bit and had accommodation. Often the accommodation wasn't suitable so my parents found different accomodation. I'll have to ask them if the company contribution. It's a large multinational company.

@Hipt I certainly don’t believe couples are less than at all, it’s more straight forward than that simply based on size per person.