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?

What size difference are we talking about?

This is where equal pay becomes an issue.

So two people working side by side doing the same job. One gets a large house and the other a small house as part of their salary package.

The only difference is one is single and he other has three kids.

In real life the person with three kids would pay more for he larger accommodation. So in this scenario I do think there should be salary sacrifice for larger accommodation.

Salary and benefits should only be based on work performance, not domestic set up and personal choices,

I'm still not sure what the problem is. A couple could easily have several children within a few yrs. A family with 4 teenagers could see them all move out within a few yrs.

[quote CrunchiestCru]@RedToothBrush I’m beginning to see that by trying to keep it simple I’ve ended up making it sound worse!

Only difference is floor space technically.

Personally if I knew a family were being given a smaller accommodation than me and they were same grade etc I’d feel awkward/selfish as there’s only two of us.[/quote]
If its floor space rather than bedrooms i dont think its arguable. Its just the luck of the draw if its employer provided accommodation. They only have to provide appropriate accommodation to families not give premium accommodation to families. As unfair as that might sound. They have forfilled their responsibilities.

@CrunchiestCru

As in accommodation is empty why would you assign a couple a larger accommodation when families could have it?

Because they asked.

Because they need the space for a reason that isn’t obvious to you.

It’s really none of your business.

Floor space might not be the only difference. There might be less tangible factors like the view, or distance to on site facilities.

There are so many variables in this, and because you are flat out refusing to give more information, it is impossible to know

If everyone is given a 3 bed house, regardless of children, then there isn't a problem

If couples are being given 4 bed houses and families are getting 2 bed flats, then someone is having a brain fart

If you're expecting childless couples to be kicked out of their house because a colleague has got pregnant again, completely unreasonable

@CrunchiestCru

Wow vitriol so early on that’s surprised me, equally it’s something I’ve observed rather than thankfully experiencing.

Two people need less space than two, three or four etc. @Happy36 made a good point that remuneration should be equal no matter if children are present or not, sadly employers aren’t that forward thinking.

What ‘vitriol’? You’re talking like you’ve been tarred and feathered.

This all depends on the specific circumstances. If you have two couples, one of whom has two children, and there’s a two-bed and a three-bed available, then yes, I’d say it makes sense to allocate the three-bed to the couple with children. If, however, a couple without children needs accommodation, I’d say there’s no reason to make them take a smaller property just in case a couple with children comes along at some point. And I certainly wouldn’t expect a childless couple to move - at least not without being heavily incentivised to do so.

Maybe the bigger house is unsuitable for Children or whatever company owns the house does not want children in it. Maybe the houses are assigned by random draw to avoid claims of discrimination of people who does not have kids. Maybe the couple do not want to rock the boat with management. Not everything is black and white.

[quote CrunchiestCru]@RedToothBrush I’m beginning to see that by trying to keep it simple I’ve ended up making it sound worse!

Only difference is floor space technically.

Personally if I knew a family were being given a smaller accommodation than me and they were same grade etc I’d feel awkward/selfish as there’s only two of us.[/quote]
....and now we see the virtue signalling... "Oh I'd move...."

so its not you (because there are only two of you) so why the massive concern?

Two people need less space than two, three or four etc.

Actually, I think with WFH, this isn't true

A couple both working from home can quite legitimately claim to need a lot more space than 1 WFH or WOTH parent and a SAHP with a couple of kids

A family with children don't need a larger property than a couple as long as there are enough bedrooms for the people occupying it.

A 3 or 4 bed property is equally suitable for a couple or a family of 4.

I think if two people start at the same time and there is a smaller and larger house and both of same seniority, then yes, family should get bigger commodation.

However it wouldn’t be reasonable to make a couple move out in favour of a family. It’s apart of the package of the job, so it also makes sense that more senior/long standing staff gradually move into larger accommodation.

If it's a free perk then the employer can allocate the accommodation on whatever basis they feel like, whether you deem it fair or not. Who knows, it's down to the individual contracts of employment.

We provide onsite accommodation for staff, and to avoid snippiness like this it is all identical. Staff can live in it, or not, it is their choice. I don't care either way.

As long as everyone is assigned accommodation that meets their needs (along the lines of council allocations - e.g not expecting opposite sex siblings over 10 to share etc) then no, I don't think some families should be prioritised for the larger/better accommodation based on their reproductive ability.

If families with children are being allocated accommodation that is too small for their needs (needs not wants) then that is obviously a problem. But as long as everyone is adequately housed, a family with children is no more worthy than a couple, and shouldn't automatically feel they should have entitlement to the best accommodation.

@mrsm43s

As long as everyone is assigned accommodation that meets their needs (along the lines of council allocations - e.g not expecting opposite sex siblings over 10 to share etc) then no, I don't think some families should be prioritised for the larger/better accommodation based on their reproductive ability.

If families with children are being allocated accommodation that is too small for their needs (needs not wants) then that is obviously a problem. But as long as everyone is adequately housed, a family with children is no more worthy than a couple, and shouldn't automatically feel they should have entitlement to the best accommodation.

but presumably the employee doesn't have to take the job?

yes a family with two adults and two kids might get a bigger house. but a family with two adults only would have more disposable income (assuming that they get the same salary)

A two person family don't need three bed apartment. However if they are standing empty and no one is using it or needs it then I don't see an issue

@MrsHuntGeneNotJeremyObviously

You couldn't reasonably expect a couple to move out of accommodation they were already living in just because a new employee has children. People create homes, even in staff accommodation.

My thoughts too. Doesn't seem a very efficient system if people are constantly having to move

@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?

This is way too little context to decide whether or not they are being reasonable, but reading between the lines, a couple have been allocated something you felt should have been allocated to you - is that right?

When I was housed in a temporary accommodation (2 years), we were all new mums. It was a converted house so we effectively had a room in the house each converted into a kitchenette and bathroom. Tiny
I was given the only one bed flat (small room plus a box room).

I moved in the same day a couple got a minuscule studio flat below me.
Frankly it was shit for them and if I had known we be in there for two years I’d have swapped.. I was out at work all day, whilst she worked evening shifts and he was out of work after being diagnosed with a serious medical condition. The housing authority charged the maximum it could under housing benefit assuming that most tenants would be on that. Same as private rent for a one bed flat.
It broke them in the end.

What on earth are you going on about? Just tell us what this job is where everyone has accommodation but some have more than others. Save the guessing games for another day…

@SW1amp

Two people need less space than two, three or four etc.

Actually, I think with WFH, this isn't true

A couple both working from home can quite legitimately claim to need a lot more space than 1 WFH or WOTH parent and a SAHP with a couple of kids

How’s that? A couple with bedroom plus 2 studies =3 rooms A couple plus 2 kids plus a study= 4 rooms And there’s double the people in the communal rooms.

It’s not unusual for perks of jobs to be unequal depending on whether people wish to use them e.g. medical cover (usually covers whole family), gym membership, school fees, pension. If it’s obligatory to live on site, everyone is moving in on day 1 then yes it makes sense for families to get the larger accommodation. Unless the difference isn’t great eg they are similar in size and have the same amount of bedrooms

I dont think the house value has much to do with it...I expect the house still belongs to the company rather than a random free house is given out.

Depends who pays the bills I suppose....

In any case, a family should have more space than a couple taking away all other factors.
So if there is a flat and a 3 bed house, and a couple present itself at the same time as a family of 4, then sense says the family should have the 3 bed.

If only the couple has presented itself, then they should be allocated based on their current (not hypothetical) need. Particular individual factors might dictate a larger accommodation but a in general, a couple should be fine with this two bed flat.

Seniority might dictate 'quality' or actual sq footage of accommodation - so boss couple has a bigger 2 bed house/flat or more modern etc than worker couple. And boss family of 4 has a larger 3 bed than worker family of 4. But bedroom wise they have equal. Assigned based on availability at point of employment. Key life events might make you eligible for a swap (having a baby / child moving out / divorce / grandma needing to move in).

So none of them pay for the accommodation?
But you think that someone choosing to have children should get them a better place than someone else choosing not to have children, or not being able to have children?

I don't think people should get priority because they chose to have kids. It should be based on who asked first, who worked there the longest, who's the more superior, who's the better employee etc.