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?

We get housing - it's not part of the remuneration package. There are REALLY strict rules about the size and furnishing- it's related to the number of kids/household members, but the cost has to come within a cap which is set by location. In reality this is slightly moderated by the local housing market, so some people end up in oversized housing because that was all that was available at the time. The employer just has to have clear rules and implement them.

Is this in an independent school?
I guess if they want someone onsite then the housing is different to someone getting more in other ways such as wages. But then if you want to attract a difficult to fill position with a great candidate then offering bigger accommodation may be what secures them.

Completely unreasonable to claim that employees with children should receive better pay/compensation than those without, because that's exactly what this boils down to.

If a family is not happy with the free accommodation offered then surely they can buy/rent a bigger home away from the block of flats. If you have Dc the maybe a flat isn’t the best option. Why should having DC entitle someone to better accommodation? You chose to have multiple DC, which means it’s your responsibility to buy/rent a bigger house.

What a can of worms you're opened! It's a bit like suggesting that someone with a family of four should be paid more than a single person. After all, they have a greater need.

[quote CrunchiestCru]@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[/quote]
There should be a policy and some form of salary sacrifice for the larger home.

It’s not really a no brainier is it though? I am single and live in a four bedroom house. A lot of families live in smaller spaces but I want a large garden, a good sized home office and a large kitchen. So I pay for it.

A larger house is a perk, similar to a pay rise, there should be a formal way of allocating it - but it shouldn’t automatically do to a family with children. If anyone wants a larger house they should pay for it

[quote CrunchiestCru]@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]
That's unrealistic unless it's an extremely big company with a wide choice of accommodation available. The reality is that allocations will depend on what is available at the time it is needed. The fact that single person hasn't got bedrooms that they don't need shouldn't entitle them to more pay.

[quote CrunchiestCru]@Cuddlyrottweiler it should be based on how many people are you housing not who asked first.[/quote]
But if the person who asked first and was allocated what was available has already moved in, it would be highly unreasonable to demand they move out just because someone else has come along who would like their property.

If it is a perk of employment then why should 'need' come into it?

I had a friend who worked in Kuwait for years, her accomodation was a 2 bed, 2 bathed apartment. That was the standard accommodation that came with the job.

She started as a married women with her husband and continued in the same when her children came along.

If it's a case of accommodation already being empty and not all the same size, then yes I think a couple with kids should get bigger accommodation than those without. I guess it's different if they'd already been living there a while, but if you're requesting it at the same time, I wouldn't be happy with 2 adults getting a large 2 bedroom flat, for example, if my partner and kids were given one bedroom that would easily accommodate a couple but not 4 of us.

I agree with you.

I think that few people will voluntarily give up a better house just because a colleague has children and they don't. People aren't morally inferior for putting their own job requirements first. And companies will offer what they need to offer in order to secure the best candidates. I would think that the employee with the bigger house is paying more tax on it because it would likely be seen as a perk, in the same way as a company car.
If this company aren't following their own policies, then this is something to take up with a union or HR dept. Or look for a better job.

@BalloonSlayer

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

"There should be a policy and some form of salary sacrifice for the larger home.

It’s not really a no brainier is it though? I am single and live in a four bedroom house. A lot of families live in smaller spaces but I want a large garden, a good sized home office and a large kitchen. So I pay for it.

A larger house is a perk, similar to a pay rise, there should be a formal way of allocating it - but it shouldn’t automatically do to a family with children. If anyone wants a larger house they should pay for it"

but this isn't a social justice organisation , its a business. They are perfectly entitled to say "our contract is with the employee. We require the employee to live on base during their periods of work (ie not while on annual or sick leave) and because of this we will provide accommodation at no charge to the employee which we will allocate. Because we are kind people we will allow the employee's partner and children to live in the accommodation that we provide and will not charge for that permission (who pays the council tax?) Additionally we will allow employees to exchange accommodation if both are agreeable."

Are they just assigned what's available when they apply? Whoever is making the decision is hardly likely to ask settle in people do rearrange in to new accommodation. So is it that you get whats available rather than any attempt to match a certain sq foot area per person???

TBF godmum, they'd struggle to recruit if they weren't willing to house the employee's family. People only agree to live on site if there's some advantage to them for doing so

If company provide accommodation then yes families with children should get the bigger space. I had this and us singles/couples were put in small apartments and families had villas with loads of facilities. That’s how it should be. If we get money, families with children get more as they need a bigger accommodation

@MrsHuntGeneNotJeremyObviously

TBF godmum, they'd struggle to recruit if they weren't willing to house the employee's family. People only agree to live on site if there's some advantage to them for doing so

do you know the business that the OP is describing then? They are wiling to house them, just not willing to give families with children any kind of priority. When i was involved in a company housing scheme (being housed, not operating it) there were many couples who did not both locate (and this was outside the UK) as they wanted to keep the children at the same school or had other family responsibilities. To them the perk was not having to pay for two lots of accommodation

Completely agree with you, @godmum56

It looks like some people on this thread would also claim people with children should get bigger/better company cars too, and probably more holidays to boot.

If OP was asking this in the real world - not on MN - the vote would be even further in favour of 'YABU' than it already is.

YANBU obviously a couple can share one room whilst a family can’t, so therefore the family with children should get a bigger place over a couple.

If you have children you need more space it’s not rocket science. Engineering wise it’s 100sq ft per person, more people more area. They employ people knowing their family situation and in this particular industry they often choose single people or couples for that reason as they’re cheaper.

For people who own homes there’s no issue buy a six bedroom house for yourself as you get the bigger kitchen but yes a family with children could equally use it. It’s funny this question has linked into so many other points. I think this shows why we’ve had such an issue with COVID people aren’t on the whole willing to think of others needs before their own.

@PearlFriday due to shifts it’s assigned in groups, so say ten employees at a go they’ll assign ten accommodations at once.

Is the accommodation provision not for the employee by their employer though? So whether they decide to have children or not isn’t relevant?

If the family with children is unhappy with the free accommodation they can always go rent/buy their own place more suited to their needs?

I think this shows why we’ve had such an issue with COVID people aren’t on the whole willing to think of others needs before their own.

Wow. Unbelievable conflation.