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?

Due to equal opportunity laws you cannot treat people differently based on things like how many are in their family if it's job related. If they are on equal job terms, their family situation shouldn't result in them being given smaller accommodation. It could be that a larger family might be given a larger property but then you would also have to offer it to someone who doesn't on a first come first served basis.

@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.

Based on numbers it would be logical, based on entitlement it would be unfair, because couples aren't families until they make their own decision to have kids, a decision they know come with consequences, so it'd be unreasonable to just assume they are entitled to more things because of it.

Do you work fork for the civil service and are posted abroad? Otherwise this doesn't make sense.

What you may have not taken into account is that certain roles come with certain duties. Certain diplomatic posts are required to 'host' that means their role may mean that they host dinners or visiting personal/ministers/dignitaries may have to stay at their place. Cartain jobs have to stay in certain places or their may be restrictions on families living in certain areas.

Certain roles may also need to have people living further out from work (generally you get bigger accommodation but have to commute) or people may have to live nearer International schools for their kids. Or they may even have a dog. All these things means that it's never as simple as floor space. It's all about what can be found at the time which fits the needs of the people.

I've been posted overseas lots and junior people have had bigger places than me, I've had more bedrooms than other families, but like finding all accommodation, it's always tricky and there are no strict rules. As long as you have enough space for your family you shouldn't be whining about someone's else's accommodation.

And you keep mentioning "grade" and that's a civil service term more than private industry

It could also depend on what's available at the time. Maybe there wasn't anything smaller at the time the couple was allocated the accommodation. Or they were in a large house before hand and to get them into the job they needed to match the accommodations to get them into the job.

Were you allocated the accommodation at the same time?

CrunchiestCru

Its this sort of thinking that makes singles and couples work weekends and get last choice for holidays.

Well another bat shit set of answers from the professionally offended. Of course bigger family should equal bigger accommodation. Especially if it's compulsory. I'm realising of late that who ever posts anything is in the wrong, unless it's about leaving their partner in which case they definitely should. - standing by for answers to prove point!

Equal remuneration for equal work. Haven't we been fighting for that for decades?

@erasemybrain

Well another bat shit set of answers from the professionally offended. Of course bigger family should equal bigger accommodation. Especially if it's compulsory. I'm realising of late that who ever posts anything is in the wrong, unless it's about leaving their partner in which case they definitely should. - standing by for answers to prove point!

In fairness in this case the accommodation has the same number of bedrooms so the family has enough bedrooms for the children. This is about one having slightly more floor/living space than the other. Once both family units are adequately housed, it would be discrimination to give the family the bigger/nicer accommodation on the the basis of their family status.

If everyone is properly housed (ie sufficient rooms and bedrooms to avoid overcrowding) then it doesn’t really matter who gets the bigger flat. It is totally unreasonable to expect better perks in your job simply because you have chosen to have a children - whether that be a bigger home, higher salary, whatever.

@erasemybrain

Well another bat shit set of answers from the professionally offended. Of course bigger family should equal bigger accommodation. Especially if it's compulsory. I'm realising of late that who ever posts anything is in the wrong, unless it's about leaving their partner in which case they definitely should. - standing by for answers to prove point!

That only works when both the couple and family apply at the same time. If the couple was in the bigger place first - how is it fair to kick them out? As long as the family has enough space nothing’s wrong. They’re not entitled to ‘more’ space and if they hate it then don’t move in or take the job

@CrunchiestCru

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

I’d likely assign new people an open spot vs moving two families

Unless the current family had requested a move, then I’d consider it

If a family of two (a couple) arrive at the same time as a family of 3 or more, then yes, if there is accommodation that suits the larger family better in terms of number of bedrooms then they should be allocated it.
But the larger family shouldn't be able to displace a smaller family from accommodation they already live in and neither should anything other than appropriate number of bedrooms be taken into account (eg not fair to say a larger family needs a larger garden or sitting room).

@CrunchiestCru

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.

I would take the larger place offered instead of a smaller one on the idea that a hypothetical family might need to move in at a later date

Entitled

and once again, this is not about the family.....so far as I can see from the OP the employee is required to live onsite while they are working ie not while on leave or sick leave. Out of the kindness of the employer's heart they provide accommodation which will also hold a partner and maybe family who can choose to move in with partner or not. Accommodation is allocated to the EMPLOYEE by the EMPLOYER. where two employees wish to exchange accommodation they are allowed to do so. The employee is required to live onsite so they accommodation does not count as a perk...the perk is that partner and kids are allowed to move into the provided accommodation without being charged rent.
Employer does not care about size of family or any other thing and there is no reason why they should unless they would prefer employees with large families to singletons and employees with small families.

@nannykatherine

Entitled

Me?

I think if accommodation is part of the employee renumeration package, it had to be the same offer to all employees at that grade. Families make their own decisions either to have or not to have children, and employers shouldn't discriminate either way.

In the 1950s, men were often hired over women, and paid more, with the excuse that "they have a family to support". Having children, or not having children, should play no part in what remuneration package you receive.

@godmum56

and once again, this is not about the family.....so far as I can see from the OP the employee is required to live onsite while they are working ie not while on leave or sick leave. Out of the kindness of the employer's heart they provide accommodation which will also hold a partner and maybe family who can choose to move in with partner or not. Accommodation is allocated to the EMPLOYEE by the EMPLOYER. where two employees wish to exchange accommodation they are allowed to do so. The employee is required to live onsite so they accommodation does not count as a perk...the perk is that partner and kids are allowed to move into the provided accommodation without being charged rent. Employer does not care about size of family or any other thing and there is no reason why they should unless they would prefer employees with large families to singletons and employees with small families.

The only exception is when family are actively involved (i.e diplomatic spouses) or when accommodation forms part of package. If the latter it’s almost always individually tailored.

Come to think of it I’m struggling to think of a profession where the employer has several flats lying around that they allocate to employees with the exception of barracks. Academics get it as a perk but it’s similar to an executive package and will have been pre negotiated - certainly not from any need to be onsite.

It is pretty common for work based accommodation to have a needs element and yes you have to move if your needs change.

I have lived in company provided housing before and know of people that had to move because the kids grew up and moved out and my employer offers this (I don’t live in company housing) and again people move around and property is allocated based on needs, so families will get more space than a couple, who will have more space than a single person.

TractorsAndHeadphones Tue 10-Aug-21 20:17:12
"godmum56
and once again, this is not about the family.....so far as I can see from the OP the employee is required to live onsite while they are working ie not while on leave or sick leave. Out of the kindness of the employer's heart they provide accommodation which will also hold a partner and maybe family who can choose to move in with partner or not. Accommodation is allocated to the EMPLOYEE by the EMPLOYER. where two employees wish to exchange accommodation they are allowed to do so. The employee is required to live onsite so they accommodation does not count as a perk...the perk is that partner and kids are allowed to move into the provided accommodation without being charged rent.
Employer does not care about size of family or any other thing and there is no reason why they should unless they would prefer employees with large families to singletons and employees with small families."

*The only exception is when family are actively involved (i.e diplomatic spouses) or when accommodation forms part of package. If the latter it’s almost always individually tailored.

Come to think of it I’m struggling to think of a profession where the employer has several flats lying around that they allocate to employees with the exception of barracks. Academics get it as a perk but it’s similar to an executive package and will have been pre negotiated - certainly not from any need to be onsite.*

yup me too....and the OP seems to have vanished.....

@VorpalSword

It is pretty common for work based accommodation to have a needs element and yes you have to move if your needs change.

I have lived in company provided housing before and know of people that had to move because the kids grew up and moved out and my employer offers this (I don’t live in company housing) and again people move around and property is allocated based on needs, so families will get more space than a couple, who will have more space than a single person.

yes, but that's how your employer decided to operate for their own reasons. Companies don't have to do this, indeed there is no non busioness reason why they should.

If the accommodation is supplied by the company then it should be equal across bands - it wouldn’t be fair to give people on the same band, doing the same job, differing size properties based on something irrelevant to your employment.

If however the accommodation is paid for by employees - even a token contribution, then a sliding scale dependant on property size can be implemented and employees can choose what they pay - that might well be a single person or couple choosing to pay more for more space - it still shouldn’t be reserved for families.

@VorpalSword what job was this?

It depends on the situation

I suppose as long as they've all got enough space then the larger family shouldn't necessarily have the bigger place