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

@Jellycatspyjamas

I see your point. And I see you've made your own arrangements carefully. So we'll done. But you must see that others (not me, I'm relatively lucky, and like you I have no family support so have lost nothing there at least) do not have the benefit of your/my privileges. People who NEED two (low) salaries to make ends meet in the current climate. People who live hand to mouth and don't have the luxury of a "mortgage freeze" because they rent. Are you basically saying that only the rich are entitled to the "lifestyle choice" we have both made to have children? Because I don't know about you but having children isn't something I could "take or leave". It isn't something society at large can afford to take or leave either, we've seen the risks of an aging population in other countries. But leaving aside the net social benefit of children for a minute, do you really believe it's ok to say children are a privilege to be earned financially?

Come to that, how often do you see women berated on here for "allowing" themselves to become financially dependent by making the compromises you suggest are inevitable once the marital shit hits the fan?

It seems the bar for being entitled to children is now:

I) the means to lose your income at s moment's notice with no bother
Ii) the kind of joint income that allows you to subsist on one person's without warning as necessary
Iii) the ability to see into the future and anticipate any and all changes in your circumstances both likely and unlikely

It's a wonder anyone can manage it...

Well I favour socialism - from each according to his ability to each according to their need; so yes, if it comes down to a family losing their livelihood and home vs a company making less profit

The problem though that it becomes “from each according to their ability to each according to their wants, wishes and dreams”. I actually do support the idea of a social safety net, I think benefits aren’t fit for purpose and haven’t been for a long time, if the benefit system worked the way it should there would have been no need for furlough schemes and support for the self employed.

I think Covid is highlighting the gap between what the middle classes are happy for others to live with -v- what they accept for themselves. It’s very hard working and caring for kids - and employers aren’t necessarily being as flexible as they might be but the idea that the state should find a way to mitigate the impact of every life choice is unsustainable. Where are parents responsibilities to put contingency plans in place - not just for little jimmy catching the squits, but for short to medium term adversity.

Are you basically saying that only the rich are entitled to the "lifestyle choice" we have both made to have children?

Are you saying the State should absolve parents of the responsibility to plan and provide for their children?

I fought long and hard to have my kids - 20+ years of infertility and adoption assessment. In that assessment we had to demonstrate how we would fund our lifestyle with children, how we would plan for contingencies - so yes we had to think long and hard before becoming parents, and if we couldn’t get there we wouldn’t have been approved as parents. So our ability to have kids was clearly linked to our financial stability. While I don’t think having children should be the preserve of the wealthy (and we aren’t by any means), I do think parents need to have some idea of how they’re going to do it when/if circumstances change.

But in the current climate, the ability of people on low incomes to make 'contingency' plans is limited. There is no contingency resource available. Capitalism has them running, running, running to make ends meet already. You can't save when your rent is more than half your household income and rising all the time. Insurance of various types may be more than you can afford on the off chance that you need it - you definitely need school uniform now. You can't 'start your own business' if your every waking minute is already spoken for.

It does seem more and more as if you're saying the only responsible way to have kids is to be rich first.

Are you saying the State should absolve parents of the responsibility to plan and provide for their children?

You plan and provide for the immediate situation and likely future events. Nobody - NOBODY - planned for this and to pretend people should have is bloody silly.

jellycatspyjamas no, the problem is that neocapitalism only gives "their wants, wishes and dreams" to a very small proportion of the population who, strangely, enough, are very happy with this status quo.

A differently organised society would enable everyone to have access to at least the very basics ie food, shelter, occupation, community.

So many people in the UK and other wealthy countries don't even have this. Can you remind me how refugees, people with life limiting disabilities, people stuck in the poverty trap could have taken responsibility for putting contingency plans in place for a global pandemic, given that the only sector that was able to is the insurance sector with its 'force majeure' clauses?

Come to that, how often do you see women berated on here for "allowing" themselves to become financially dependent by making the compromises you suggest are inevitable once the marital shit hits the fan?

Women get berated for making themselves financially dependent on men, often without the protection of marriage, to protect his career. That’s very different from both partners planning to each take steps in their career to support their parenting - from shared parental leave, both making flexible working requests, equally sharing responsibility for childcare, medical appointments etc. We’ve been able to manage because we both took a hit at work (and no my DHs employer wasn’t remotely easy, he had to really fight for some flexibility).

What about all the people with no kids (or grown kids) who, in other circumstances, have to cover your work while you swan off taking DC to the doctors, dentist, or stay at home with them when they’re ill off school? Lots of people don’t like this aspect of life but they don’t set up a petition for it.

As a PP correctly pointed out, if you have kids you have to expect some career sacrifice.

You can’t have everything. Lots of people in all circumstances are suffering under Covid.

@christinarossetti19

Can you remind me how refugees, people with life limiting disabilities, people stuck in the poverty trap could have taken responsibility for putting contingency plans in place for a global pandemic, given that the only sector that was able to is the insurance sector with its 'force majeure' clauses?

Well at very least those people should have known better than to procreate, Christina. Very irresponsible. tuts

While I don’t think having children should be the preserve of the wealthy (and we aren’t by any means), I do think parents need to have some idea of how they’re going to do it when/if circumstances change.

Exactly. People ask me all the time why we are only having one child, well because we can comfortably afford a 2 bed house and don't want to have to upsize; it would be managable on one wage, and any bigger to accommodate more children would be more precarious if one of us lost our job. It's also less disruptive to both of our jobs, because only one set of sickness etc to cover, and we can survive a drop in income and he still won't go without. It was a conscious decision based on different likliehoods. Of course if we both lost our jobs then it would be different, but that's thankfully unlikely, both in jobs of which there are a shortage, on my part that played a part in choosing what career to pursue. And the conscious decision for us both to try and maintain our careers. If people have more than that the implications and challenges should be considered.

What about all the people with no kids (or grown kids) who, in other circumstances, have to cover your work while you swan off taking DC to the doctors, dentist, or stay at home with them when they’re ill off school? Lots of people don’t like this aspect of life but they don’t set up a petition for it.

This right there. There's that bitter glee that parents are finally getting a good kicking.

I love nothing better than 'swanning off' to the dentist or doctor's appointments, honestly. Absolutely skip out of the office, so I do.

So many people in the UK and other wealthy countries don't even have this. Can you remind me how refugees, people with life limiting disabilities, people stuck in the poverty trap could have taken responsibility for putting contingency plans in place for a global pandemic, given that the only sector that was able to is the insurance sector with its 'force majeure' clauses?

The OP wasn’t talking about refugees or folk with life limiting conditions - she was pissed off because her employer, having given flexibility in reduced working hours, expected her to fulfil her job role. She’s petitioning for parents to be protected from normal workplace issues by virtue of having children.

The issues of poverty and asylum are quite different.

I grew up with 4 siblings, we often went without and lived in a cramped house with zero holidays, zero luxuries (lucky to get enough food)- I wouldn't have brought a child into the world without considering reasonable financial security that couldnt withstand a change in circumstance, it's cruel.

@staplemaple

So are you saying a hairdresser and his cleaner wife shouldn't have children?

This right there. There's that bitter glee that parents are finally getting a good kicking

Probably more likely a careers worth of being denied annual leave during the holidays, having to cover for others to be off with their children but having to take annual leave for their own appointments. Just a guess.

So are you saying a hairdresser and his cleaner wife shouldn't have children?

No, but there's no need to have multiple children.

Why should the government have to legislate for the fact that your employer is an arse hole?

I have to take annual leave to take my kid to medical appts. Who doesn't? I'm allowed time off to go to my own though. So not sure what you're on about really.

@Staplemaple

but if you can't 'afford' one child, you shouldn't have it? Is that what you are actually saying?

Hi OP, have you contacted Pregnant then Screwed about this? They're a charity that deals with this.

@Staplemaple
Very similar circumstances here. While I have sympathy and I am happy to help cover colleagues experiences difficulty in this period it is ultimately parents responsibility to care and provide for their children. It is not news that this requires financial commitment and would be unjust for me to expect my colleagues to be legally required to effectively pay me to take care of my child.

Jellycatspyjamas I was responding to your post about parents being responsible for putting contingency plans into place in case their circumstances change.

And pointing out that it's not always possible to do that through no fault of the person.