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?

@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.

Vitriol? - where?

If you think people having a different opinion to you is vitriol, dog help your employers.

None of us can assess fairness btw, because your OP is so vague.

CrunchiestCru

As this seems to be all hypothetical.

What if both of the couple work for the same firm?

Should they lose out on a benefit as they have no children or should they be allowed to 'pool' their benefit to get a bigger place?

And additionally

Should a couple only get a one bed flat whilst a single person should only get a bedsit?

Yes they should be entitled to a bigger house but should pay more... If it's free accommodation I dont think they should be entitled to more room.

It is free accommodation in that it’s part of the package working for the employer.

So nearly everyone on here would accept a larger place knowing it will give a larger family than yours less space? Generally they are flats so it’s not like children have space to run around. Just seems selfish, but it’s the employer creating the issue with poor policies.

@FrippEnos they do exactly that if both employed therefore saving themselves money

@Cuddlyrottweiler it should be based on how many people are you housing not who asked first.

It’s not a ‘free perk’ to have accommodation provided in the majority of jobs. Lots of people have to pay tax on the accommodation, however it’s so that you can always be on call and close by if needed.

I was provided ‘free accommodation’ so that I was always available to my employer. For example, employer was away in working hours but wanted to have a discussion about harvest yields in the evening, problem at an event on a Saturday, dogs needed walking, leak in a property or storm damage, I was always there.

@godmum56 it’s not virtue signalling at all, I’m surprised more people wouldn’t think oh they have children we don’t so why don’t they have the larger space? It seems like a no brainer

CrunchiestCru

Is it really a poor policy or is it down to the company trying for equality over equity?

Or are the company going for an approach that says they value single people and couples the same as they do families?

To be honest there’s a policy but it’s not followed, single people in four bedroom places and families with two children in a two bed. It is literally who shouts loudest/asks first etc

Not enough info.

@CrunchiestCru

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

I wouldn’t consider the size of the family. The accommodation is part of the remuneration package and I would allocate it accordingly. By your logic people with children should be paid more.

@Aprilx you wouldn’t consider the size of the family? So you’d put five people in a two bed or one bed?

The housing isn’t a ‘perk’ they are requiring people to live on site for their convenience, so yes they have a duty to consider the whole household when allocating accommodation. Being ‘fair’ is not the same as being ‘equal’. However, it does make a difference what the size of the properties is. Couples in 4 bed and family of 4 in 2 bed is crazy
And yes I would take the smaller property

Anyone else imagining Kensington Palace and this is Eugenie miffed that Prince and Princess Michael of Kent have a bigger apartment?

[quote CrunchiestCru]@Cuddlyrottweiler it should be based on how many people are you housing not who asked first.[/quote]
Then what’s your AIBU? It sounds like you’ve made up your mind… were you just hoping for a chorus of agreement? How’s that working for you?

Sounds like 2 flats, both 3 bedrooms. One is 1500 sq ft and one is 1800 sq ft. 2 people moving for work with a family of 4 put in the smaller one and couple in the bigger one. They're both 3 bedrooms, so everyone has enough space. I don't think it's reasonable to expect more space if your space is adequate, and I wouldn't presume the larger flat is necessarily better. The smaller one might be in better condition or a better/ quieter position; maybe one or two bedrooms are by a main road in the bigger one where a previous family complained about road noise, or quirky shape means one bedroom is not very usable; or the little flat might be nearer the school; or the couple are both employees and get preference accordingly over a single employee with family; or one flat isn't available until a week later than needed for the earliest arrival; or it's possible HR haven't even noticed the size difference but just allocate whatever 3 bedroom flats in order of arrival. The larger flat might be nicer just because it's bigger, but it seems you're making a few leaps of assumption OP.

There are statutory rules for overcrowding, based on number of people, number of rooms, and no inappropriate sharing. So long as they're not being breached I'd say it's fine. If some people get more than they need I don't think others can complain about it.

If the only difference is floor space then surely the difference in floor space is vitally important to answer the question. If the smaller floor space accommodation is still of an adequate size for a family with children then moaning about someone else having more space is unreasonable.

They should just give everyone a set housing allowance but they won’t, then it really doesn’t matter who has or doesn’t have children. I agree it’s their choice to have children but equally more people take up more space and given the situation the needs of four should outweigh the needs of two. Barring a minority in agreement on here I am AIBU

The other aspect of course is are there more people wanting jobs than vacancies or are there jobs that can't be filled? Would the employer prefer small/childless families? Free housing can still be a perk if its saving the family money or maybe getting the kids better schooling. I am assuming that if the small families living in big accommodation do feel that morally they should swap, that there is no barrier to their doing so? Do new employees see the accommodation that they would be offered before they accept the job?
I have to say (and flame me if you .like) that if I or my partner had been offered the job on the basis of one kind of accommodation and was then told "oh hang on, we have also employed someone with five kids, they get the big house, I would not be best pleased. And if I was asked to move once moved in and settled I would not.

Housing should be considered as part of the overall remuneration package - so if the family get bigger housing they should receive less salary relative to the couple.

Under no other circumstances would people effectively paid more because they've been breeding.

@CrunchiestCru

They should just give everyone a set housing allowance but they won’t, then it really doesn’t matter who has or doesn’t have children. I agree it’s their choice to have children but equally more people take up more space and given the situation the needs of four should outweigh the needs of two. Barring a minority in agreement on here I am AIBU

If they want people onsite and have built the accommodation why on earth would they switch to an allowance?

Exactly @godmum56 that’s why they won’t