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?

YABU - providing that everyone is accommodated appropriately (ie nobody is overcrowded) then "extra" space is provided based on employers discretion, availability and practicality.

When I first moved abroad after Uni, ExDH and I both got a job in the same company and accommodation was included as part of the deal. Usually this accommodation was shared with other employees in shared flats but they did have some studios and a few 2/3bed flats for couples/families.

Accommodation was assigned based on requirements when you took the job and seniority - if you were single then you'd probably be allocated a room in a shared flat; a couple would get a studio and a family one of the 2/3bed flats. If you were hired at a managerial level you would automatically be allocated a studio or private flat regardless of whether you were single/couple/family.

However, once accommodation was assigned then the company was under no obligation to give you larger/different accommodation just because you wanted more space provided you were still adequately housed. If you were a couple with a child in a 2 bed flat, you would not automatically get a larger flat just because you had a second child as you would still have adequate bedrooms. Equally, accommodation was assigned on availability, so if you were a couple with 2 children and all that was available was a 2 bed then that is what would be provided, if a 3 bed became available during your contract there was no obligation to move you and if a couple with a single child arrived and that 3 bed was all that was available then they would get that flat even though you had more people in your family.

If you outgrew your accommodation then you could apply to move but it was based on need and availability not want, so if you were a couple in a studio flat who had a child, you could apply to switch. If there was a 2 bed sitting vacant you would get that but if all they had available was a 3 bed then they would move you there, even if there were other couples with two children living in 2 bed accommodation. If both the couple and the family were applying for a switch at the same time then they would usually move the couple to the 2 bed and the family to the 3 bed as it made most practical sense but there was no guarantee.

Rather than 'empathetic', it's likely this couple are massively fed up of being constantly asked to move over to make space for other couples who have decided to procreate.

The couple may have needs too. Like requiring rooms for visiting old parents or siblings, setting up a gym/hobby/office area etc.

If the couple have gone to all the trouble you mention to secure this flat (i.e. shouting the loudest, getting there first, pulling strings), they won't give it up voluntarily - which is what you seem to be trying to suggest. So your argument is ridiculous OP. Stop pondering and mind your own business

@mustlovegin enjoying the comparison that a hobbie room is more important than a child’s bedroom

[quote CrunchiestCru]@mustlovegin enjoying the comparison that a hobbie room is more important than a child’s bedroom[/quote]
It definitely is if you don't have kids!

enjoying the comparison that a hobbie room is more important than a child’s bedroom

You don't get to decide that OP

Do you mean 2 places with the same no. of beds but just more floor space? If so, I wouldn't give it to the people with children automatically
I might not even think about it.

If it was a 2 bed or 3 bed available and one was a couple and the other a couple with 2 kids and all else being equal I'd allocate the 3 bed to the people with kids. That way both families would be adequately housed and each still have a spare room if the kids shared.

[quote CrunchiestCru]@mustlovegin enjoying the comparison that a hobbie room is more important than a child’s bedroom[/quote]
But if both families are adequately housed, then a hobby room is no less important than an extra child's bedroom that is additional to needs. An extra room to fulfil a "want", rather than a "need". Why should families with children have their "wants" met, whilst families without children should only have their "needs" met?

As long as everyone is adequately housed, then why should families be prioritised over singles or couples?

But this is not about family accommodation.....this is about employee accommodation. the company don't really care whether the employees partner/kids accompany the employee or not and, as i said, some families will not relocate because of schooling, other family responsibilities or other reasons....but if they do choose to stay together, they kindly provide SOME larger places but make no guarantee that any will be available. This is not social or council housing, this is a business making business decisions.

Not read the whole thread, so apologies if I've missed something. I'm going against popular opinion and saying I think the families should be offered the larger space. However, only if it is already available, and nobody should have to move out to accommodate them. I'm surprised there is no small rental fee, as in my experience this gets rid of tax implications. Boarsing school staff often get accommodation provided, but many charge a small fee (for far less than market value - peanuts really!) and charge more for the larger properties, which I feel is a fairer way of doing things. And for those (eg @happy36) who say people don't get bonuses for having children, well yes - some independent schools offer a massive discount on fees for children of staff (in many international schools abroad it's typically free) which i guess is a sort of bonus for having kids. Some schools are offering a choice from a 'menu' of bonuses now though, of which fee remission is a part, to try and make it fairer for those who don't have children. It's definitely not black and white though, and depends on a whole load of things.

Your decision to have kids shouldn't impact anyone else.

@CrunchiestCru

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

If it’s government or military, perhaps because they outrank you? If it’s corporate, perhaps because they are more senior or both work for the company so have double entitlement?

It's implausible that anyone would make a fuss over a few square feet in a work context. Perhaps there's more to this story and you are unaware of the details? Maybe the slightly bigger flat has a better view or nicer decor and the couple+kids are trying to play the 'family card' to kick the other couple out?

I would stay away from this OP, as it may get nasty and you could go down with the CFs too

Do you work for the Royal Family?

I think I agree with you OP.

I certainly think that the number of people to be accommodated is a better system than who asks first / shouts loudest.

There should be some sort of standard policy that everyone knows about on joining, so that they make an informed choice, and which is then followed. This should have some sort of coherent system in place as to how accommodation is allocated.

No. Package is package. If you want a larger accommodation pay for it.

YABU if you want bigger accommodation then rent somewhere, await a bigger allocation etc.

It appears you’re confusing jealousy for legitimate entitlement

If using the employer provided accommodation is a requirement (or the only practical option) then there needs to be a policy that provides and adequate amount of space per person as a minimum.

If, once everyone's housed at that minimum standard, there are units that are bigger/more luxurious/more convenient/etc. then I don't think it should necessarily be families with children that have priority for that "extra". I think it could be a good policy to spread out "extra" space by giving the four bed to a family of three so that a family of two can have the three bed they vacated, but I can also see a case for first pick of any "better" housing to go to most senior or longest served, etc.

However, it sounds like your company has an arbitrary or nepotistic practice and that's bad policy whoever's benefiting.

@DDiva

I would expect families to be considered for a larger space over a couple when its available. I wouldn't expect a couple established in accommodation to move for a family.

This is what I think too.

I wouldn't expect a couple to move OUT to enable me to have a bigger space.

Of course larger families need more space. Housing need (disabilities) and fit (amount sharing) should be first priority.

Does this not just reflect society. Couples without kids - DINKY we used to call them. More disposable income, can afford bigger property. Couple with kids, maybe only one working fulltime, less disposable income, less space as there's more of them in a smaller property. It's how we all live isn't it?

Discrimination on the basis of family status is a real thing and someone should not be expected to accept less just because they don't have children. If floor space is the only issue, then no, I don't think a family should have more than a couple. If there are enough bedrooms for the children then I don't see what the big deal is.

When I was single in a previous role, I was constantly on the receiving end of discrimination. I was given the most awkward shifts so that my colleagues could work around their childcare arrangements, I was given last choice for holidays and not allowed to take holidays during school breaks and for 7 years in a row I was rostered to work on Christmas because I had no children.

A couple would have just as much entitlement to claim this if they were given smaller accommodation because they don't have children.

It sounds a strange set up. It's the equivalent of someone getting paid more because they have a family (assuming that a larger property would cost more to rent, and the property is a benefit in kind).

I'd go so far as to say everyone needs suitable accommodation, but in the case of a family already having suitable accommodation wanting to take another property that was occupied by a couple/single person because it was bigger or had better facilities, that's unreasonable.

Once everyone has been allocated at least the minimum suitable accommodation, any changes should be on a first come/first served or voluntary basis.

[quote CrunchiestCru]@mustlovegin enjoying the comparison that a hobbie room is more important than a child’s bedroom[/quote]
Having children doesn’t mean your needs are more important then the needs of people who don’t have them, whatever their reason is. Sorry but you sound very entitled!

I once worked for a firm which had a set up a bit like this. The accomm was for the employee, not their family. It meant that the employer could be sure that employee could be onsite when needed. If the employee had some days off, or didn't work weekends, then they could go home for those days when they weren't needed. This is like my cousin who worked 200 miles away from his family and had to rent a place where he could live during his working week, while also paying a mortgage on the family home (and bills for both places etc). My old employzer simply made sure that I wasn't out of pocket because they wanted to be sure I was within a reasonable distance when I was wanted.

So, does your employer stipulate that the whole family have to live there full time? If it's free then you could rent/mortgage a place as a more permanent home for your family, surely? It would just mean that the one who's employed wouldn't be living in the family home full time, but that's not unusual.

I agree if the employer provided accommodation doesn't meet your needs people need to make their own arrangements. The degree of entitlement these days is astonishing.