Losing my job because I'm a parent

[Luaper]

Since the C-19 pandemic began I have felt that the 'new normal' is likely to include a disadvantage to parents. My employer made an early decision not to furlough any employees and offered parents the option to cut their working hours - but the expectation is still there that the same amount of work as a full time employee is delivered. As such, over the past 4 months I have worked every evening including weekends to keep up whilst still trying to give my primary age school children some structure / home school in the day and normality and fun at the weekends. It has however been pointed out at work that I am less effective than my colleagues without children because I have too many distractions and answer emails at inconsiderate times of the day.

At present that are the following protected characteristics under employment law (set out in the Equality Act); age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation. I think that parenting of young children should be added to this list and would ask the reader to sign the petition below.

Ask yourself this - if you were an employer would you employ a parent knowing that whilst C-19 circulates there will be frequent school closures that mean the individual has to quarantine for 14 days? And that whilst they are quarantining they will be looking after children which will mean that they cannot effectively work from home. At present there is little to prevent employers discriminating against parents in redundancy programmes and those same individuals may find it hard to find a new job. This has a serious knock on impact on families and children and is why parents as a group need this enhanced employment protection.

petition.parliament.uk/petitions/319813

This is where I think your petition misses the point OP.

What we need is GOOD childcare that is affordable and wholly or partly government funded. We need flexible working, working from home, job shares. We need protection over contracts. But these are for everyone (well OK not the first!) Once you go down the road of I-can’t-I’ve-got-KIDS it is problematic.

@PlanDeRaccordement

It’s not a sex discrimination issue because it is affecting male parents as well as female. It is definitely a parent discrimination issue. The fact that most mothers do the child care means that it only indirectly discriminated against women which is actually legal. After all the covid19 guidance for who gets a ventilator was written acknowledging that it indirectly discriminated against the disabled and elderly, but that was legal and ok and followed.

I wish people would stop trotting out this bullshit. The guidance on who would get priority for a ventilator was based on who is more likely to survive being ventilated. Ventilation is not a magical cure, at that point you have a 50/50 shot of living (more if you're young and fit, less if you're old or have certain disabilities). Ventilation is extremely hard on the body. Extremely hard.

To answer your question OP - I don't think I agree with the premise of the petition. You're doing less work than your childless colleagues for the same pay, and they are likely to be picking up the slack (even indirectly by filling in the gaps when emails go unanswered). You chose to become a parent - you don't choose to be disabled, or gay, or black, or female.

@Luaper

It is concerning that the new normal could be a decision between: have children or have a job.

This was already the case. Many people have to decide between advancing in their career or having children. But they make those decisions knowing the consequences.

My employer made an early decision not to furlough any employees

This is good thing OP, and a sign of a really healthy pipeline of work!

[My employer] offered parents the option to cut their working hours - but the expectation is still there that the same amount of work as a full time employee is delivered.

If i understand correctly your employer has said there's no need to be logged on 9 - 5, you can log on early, late, weekends (whenever) as long as the work gets done? So you can get up and do 2 hours before 'school', try and squeeze in a couple of hours throughout the day while your child is doing their work, log on again after school / bedtime as you see fit? And you're complaining? That is the definition of flexible. What did you want to happen? Your workload to be reduced but your pay to stay the same? To be furloughed even though the business needs you? I appreciate that its hugely stressful for you right now - it is for many people - but you have an apparently secure job and your full salary. I think you need to buck up your ideas.

It has however been pointed out at work that I am less effective than my colleagues without children because I have too many distractions and answer emails at inconsiderate times of the day.

Who said this? If someone mentions it to you you should say "I'm sorry you feel that way, I'm juggling home schooling with no childcare at the moment. I'm sure you know that we've all been told we need to work around people to some extent at the moment, please don't feel obliged to respond to my emails when i send them, I fully expect you to do so at a time that suits you and your current circumstances"

(Some of my client's email signatures include a note to say: "I work flexibly. I'm sending this email at a time that suits my schedule but please feel free to respond as and when is convenient for you" or words to that effect. This was a pre-COVID thing btw. Ask your manager if they'd be happy with that).

And stop moaning you're not getting a free ride!

@NikeDeLaSwoosh

Becoming a parent is a choice though, whereas all of the other protected characteristics are innate (with the exception of pregnancy/maternity and I'm not convinced they should be protected either)

Even before Covid, I saw a lot of people 'in the red' in terms of their lifestyle choices - multiple DC, both parents required to work round the clock just to pay the bills etc, and with little wiggle room should something major happen to them (and often with no proper mortgage protection plan/income protection policy in place either).

People just often make poor lifestyle choices, fail to think things through properly or properly have a 'worst case scenario' plan.

People just need to be more mindful of their choices, and ensure they have plenty of room to manoeuvre in the even of a problem (like Covid, but also death/divorce)

We tread a very worrying path when we expect the taxpayer to rescue people from the consequences of their own lifestyle choices.

See above.

If people don’t have children, there will be no future taxpayers, so no-one to pay for hospitals or state pensions.

People may make the perfectly reasonable decision to have children because they can afford to at the time, then Covid comes along and their circumstances change. It’s not their fault.

Plus, the economy needs people to be having children to produce taxpayers of the future

Just from an economic standpoint, this is not true.

The vase majority of individuals are net 'takers' from the public purse. Also, higher income (hence higher taxpayer) families have on average far fewer DC than do families on benefits.

Sorry, but that argument fails before its even got out of the starting blocks.

If people don’t have children, there will be no future taxpayers, so no-one to pay for hospitals or state pensions

If fewer people have DC, there will be a vastly reduced demand for hospitals, pensions and care facilities.

I agree with PPs, it's not a sex discrimination issue. The OPs problem lies with boundaries and the fact that output on reduced hours was not considered. The problems could have been solved early with a conversation about expectations.

However expecting parents to do the job they are paid for is not unreasonable or discrimination, and it it's parents this applies to not just mothers. Ingrained sexism means that for a long time childcare has fallen to women, OP hasn't shared whether there is a partner or if DCs father is present but he should be providing equal childcare- no excuses. He works? So does the mother. He works 'long hours'? Not 24/7 so he can do his share around work. He can't handle the DC or some other bs excuse? He's a grown ass man deal with it. (Obviously I do not include single parents here, but unless the father is not a part of the children's lives at all they can still step up).

I agree that sex discrimination is wrong, such as a woman not getting a job because she is of child bearing age but women using having children as an excuse means that it is harder to fight that kind of prejudice.

People may make the perfectly reasonable decision to have children because they can afford to at the time, then Covid comes along and their circumstances change. It’s not their fault

It is their fault for failing to take reasonable steps to protect themselves and their income.

There are many different types of protection available - MPPI is pretty basic, but most income protection plans will cover self employment and other niche cases.

I think this is an issue for a lot of women. I also feel that beside more women won’t be working, due to not having childcare - and will be at home more the burden of care of elderly relatives will fall in them even more.
‘You are home anyway, you check on MIL’ ‘Take the children with you and cook MIL’s tea’
We will end up with no careers and by default caring for the youngest and oldest family members.

The arguments both for and against are good. But consider this example

An employer continued to operate throughout the pandemic with a skeleton staff. A long term, full time, very experienced female employee in a male dominated work place was furloughed despite not fitting the criteria for section because the employer decided she needed to be at home for childcare reasons, no discussion was had with the employee until she queried the reason for selecting her. However, as it turned out she was on the shielding list so would have been furloughed anyway.

Now the employer is consulting on redundancies. The employee is really worried that she's in a more vulnerable position because she was furloughed for being a parent. Had they furloughed her because of shielding then it would absolutely be discrimination to get rid of her because she was furloughed for health reasons.

If the employee is made redundant then it would be as a direct result of the employer's decision on her parenting responsibilities. So I would think she would have been discriminated against because she is a parent.

It is certainly frustrating for the many people who don’t have children. They are often expected to attend after work events, fill in for absence of their colleagues due to child care issues etc. Ultimately having children is a choice, therefore childcare should be very carefully considered prior to making this decision. Obviously we need to pro create to keep the planet going, but it can’t just be assumed that work has to fit around childcare etc.
I am a lone parent btw

If people don’t have children, there will be no future taxpayers, so no-one to pay for hospitals or state pensions
And
Plus, the economy needs people to be having children to produce taxpayers of the future

Nope, most people are net takers and the high earners (so more likely to be actually contributing) generally have fewer children.

How many posts do see just on MN of families with multiple children, parents scraping by and struggling with money, reliant on benefits to top up income. Parents and/or children with multiple health conditions requiring care, children in schools etc. And that's before we get to housing, pollution, food and water requirements, the capacity of the country and planet.

Hi there,
We've moved this thread to Petitions now, thanks!

Even when l was working full time before starting a family,my DH earned at least double what l earned plus he is self employed so can't just take days off as it will significantly affect the business so his job has always taken priority over mine. Just the way it is. I was never a high flying career type but l brought home a decent salary, now l earn less than l did when l first got a full time job at 20. I accept it because l chose to have a child and she is more important to me than any job.

This may be all right for some mother’s already in situ, but it is really pulling up the ladder from other parents (women) seeking a job.. As an employer I would hesitate before employing a person who would have the right to earn the same salary for doing less work. That’s nuts!

At the moment - and probably for some time to come - jobs will be scarce and to be angling to not pull your weight before you’ve even started seems like a daft move.

This stuff about having a partner is bollocks anyway. So each of you look after the kid 50% of the time; that still leaves you unable to work 50% of the time, unless you work stupid hours in the early morning/late evening. This is how people burn out.

My work is hilarious; they have this lip service to 'mental health and wellbeing', so have said to enforce a 'digita;l detox' no emails are to be sent after 5 or before 8 or at the weekend.

When literally ALL the parents pointed out this was cosmetic bullshit because that's when they're able to work undisturbed at the moment, the company suggested that you could put a 'delay send' on the email Who the fuck that is supposed to be helping I do not know, as it actually adds a step into what should be a simple task of sending a bloody email. No-one is MAKING anyone check their emails out of hours if they have the privilege of actually taking any time for themselves any more.

I am so lucky I have an amazing (childless) manager who is picking up a shitload of slack for me at the moment. She doesn't have to do it, and I'm incredibly grateful. But she shouldn't have to, I shouldn't have to. There needs to be a formal recognition of the extra burden on parents, and some sort of partial furlough scheme to allow parents to look after their kids without doing two full-time jobs and losing all quality of life.

Honestly, I think this would more to enshrine further the idea that childcare is women's work and not something for men to worry about

There are battles to be won but this is not one of them

And then taking it one step further - if there are redundancies, and if an employer felt they could not include parents, then it is discriminating against people who don't have children.

Then at what age of children does this preferential treatment stop?

I'm sympathetic to the emotions and situation of the OP and other people's thoughtful counter-arguments.

I'd also wonder at which point and degree of caring support people might wish for protection for being a carer? I care for people at home which pre-COVID-19 took an elaborate schedule of support that fell apart and had to be managed. During COVID-19, I acquired more family to look after who'd previously had support to remain in their own homes. I know other people who took relatives out of care homes for the duration and don't know when they'll return.

I've seen a number of adverse comments, even on MN, from teachers in similar situations who had complaints from parents (whose children were frightened) when a relative with dementia wandered in during an online teaching session.

It's unprecedented. I feel that very few people in government understand what many of us are experiencing now and even fewer employers. I don't know what the solution is but it isn't amending the EA 2010 to incorporate categories for people with caring responsibilities.

And to all the people calling children a lifestyle choice, DFOD. Yes it is, but it's a choice made on the basis of certain assumptions, i.e. that you will be able to work because you will have arranged childcare, be that school, daycare, or family support. You might have to take to odd day/week of emergency A/L or unpaid leave if they are sick, but that's manageable.

During lockdown (a completely unforseen and unprecedented situation) ALL options for childcare have been taken away unless you happen to have live-in staff. Even grandparents/relatives aren't allowed to watch your children. But, astonishingly, they still need to be fed, so you still need to work. Square that circle, oh wise people who didn't make the 'lifestyle choice' to continue the species

Lockdown so far (still the potential for it to go on indefinitely if you live in Leicester) has already been far longer than any family's allocation of annual leave. The only other option would be to take unpaid leave, which brings us back to, how do we feed the kids? I suppose we could make the 'lifestyle choice' to let them starve; or the 'lifestyle choice' to lose their homes; or the 'lifestyle choice' to continue to lock the office door and continue to work at full capacity while the toddlers fend for themselves. Or the societally and economically preferred option, which seems to be do everything, all the time, increasingly badly due to stress and exhaustion, and then get chastised for being both a shit parent and a shit colleague while smugly being informed that you CHOSE to live like this.

Fuck all the way off and then fuck off some more.

Where is the money going to come from for furloughing parents? COVID-19 is expected to already cost £300bn+. Plus the fact work does still need to be done. Where l work has been busy throughout lockdown

@IrmaFayLear that is exactly why this kind of thing is so damaging. Why would an employer choose to take on someone with young children if they expect to not pull their weight from the off and fee entitled to it.

It is already the case that potential employees, women in particular, will avoid mentioning children in interviews for this reason.

Pregnancy is already a protected characteristic and therefore it would seem to follow that parenting of young children should be too.

@user1487194234

*Honestly, I think this would more to enshrine further the idea that childcare is women's work and not something for men to worry about

There are battles to be won but this is not one of them*

That's as may be and I take your point (I'm lucky, my DP is a good one and we're splitting care of our daughter 50/50).

But frankly at this point, as a family we would take any option that acknowledges the additional burden we are facing, and gives us some way out of it. This is a crisis for working parents, working families. The mental health outcomes both for parents themselves and the children being looked after 24/7 by increasingly frazzled and anxious adults are a ticking time bomb. It needs to be acknowledged and accommodated by society. My 'lifestyle choice' is a little human being with a developing brain that will be harmed by this environment. Right now she's my problem; when she's grown up she'll be society's problem too. BECAUSE SHE IS PART OF SOCIETY, however much the children-haters and the parent-haters might wish her existence away.

wish people would stop trotting out this bullshit. The guidance on who would get priority for a ventilator was based on who is more likely to survive being ventilated.

It’s not bullshit. It’s the truth. Go to BMAs ethics guidance
www.bma.org.uk/media/2360/bma-covid-19-ethics-guidance-april-2020.pdf

BMA states in black and white that their ethic guidance indirectly discriminated against the elderly and disabled.
Quotes:
Direct and indirect discrimination in prioritisation decisions
Where patients are refused access to life-saving treatment as a result of triage or prioritisation decisions it is likely that questions about possible discrimination may be raised. During the peak of the pandemic, it is possible that doctors will be required to assess a person’s eligibility for treatment based on a ‘capacity to benefit quickly’ basis. As such, some of the most unwell patients may be denied access to treatment such as intensive care or artificial ventilation. This will inevitably have a disproportionate impact on older people and those with long-term health conditions that have a direct bearing on their ability to recover quickly.