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

@Luaper
If I was to hire someone at the moment it wouldn't be an issue is someone was a parent or not. I would assume that applicants were fully functioning adults capable of juggling lives.
Their personal life is down to them and shouldn't impact the working day. If it does this becomes an issue.

And unless you told me I wouldn't be aware of your parenting status.

Once employed you are expected to do the job you are paid for. There are of course bits of help from the boss with reasonable adjustments. Some workplaces make you take AL for the children's appointments, others will be flexible and allow altered hours; some when your kids are off sick they will give you 24 hours to sort emergency childcare others will give longer. It varies on the company and what works for that company.

The comment from @popcornlover wasn't prejudice, it was and is the reality of many people who have older children or none at all. Many others have also mentioned the same thing. THere are many parents out there who simply insist that appointments for their children can only happen during working hours. Have a couple of parents on a busy team, and it's the others working the long hours etc because basically "parent"

@SecretSpAD your last comment was It is also going to lead to resentment within the team from people with no or older children who have already been covering for parents who have been homeschooling during the pandemic

Is that resentment because a colleague struggled with home working whilst looking after children when schools were closed and there was no childcare options? Or resentment that they have a protected characteristic?

And this expectation to work full time but paid part time, where did this come from?

Does your working only in the evenings fit with the business needs?

Inconsiderate times of the day such as?

You mentioned that weekends aren't workable for you, but does this mean the business is open then?

@canigooutyet you say If I was to hire someone at the moment it wouldn't be an issue is someone was a parent or not. I would assume that applicants were fully functioning adults capable of juggling lives but what would you do if the schools closed for 4 months and there were no other childcare options available to them? that would seem to impact their working day so would you terminate their employment in those circumstances?

@IrmaFayLear

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.

Do you hesitate from employing anyone with a protected characteristic? such as those of a different race, sex or religion to you?

When I recruit I look for the best person for the job whether that be male, female or parents. You can’t protect parents when you are employed to do the same role as non parents. It’s not the women’s job to sort out childcare but the parents jointly. Women have careers so why should they be treated differently from men?

What do you actually want OP when you say employment protections? What would that look like? It sounds as if you want to be paid the same money to do less hours/work than other people because the reason why you can't is childcare. Or not able to be fired or made redundant because of the time of you need related to parenting?

[quote Luaper]**@canigooutyet* you say If I was to hire someone at the moment it wouldn't be an issue is someone was a parent or not. I would assume that applicants were fully functioning adults capable of juggling lives but what would you do if the schools closed for 4 months and there were no other childcare options available to them? that would seem to impact their working day* so would you terminate their employment in those circumstances?[/quote]
I would be asking what hours and days they could work that fits in with the needs of the company and go from there.

If they aren't available during business hours, well why should they have that job?

Is that resentment because a colleague struggled with home working whilst looking after children when schools were closed and there was no childcare options? Or resentment that they have a protected characteristic?

Or resentment that I carried 120% of my usual workload because my colleague could only carry 80% of theirs and the work still needed to be done, resentment that my family life was impacted because my colleague has young children and can’t possibly be expected to pull their weight, resentment that parents of small children might then be protected from the job losses resulting from the business not being able to fulfil its normal role due to staff shortages caused by parents of small children working at a reduced rate without a corresponding reduction in salary.

Do you honestly not see how the measure your proposing would potentially create huge resentment between colleagues - we all have demands placed on us and responsibilities outside work. In your nirvana your need to care for primary aged children would give you benefits that a colleague with other caring responsibilities wouldn’t get - with the expectation that they also pick up the slack. Wholly unreasonable.

@canigooutyet you mean like my colleague who will only answers emails between 5am and 7am? Infuriating when l need an urgent answer as l always in effect have to wait 24 hours or more. Pointless when our key hours of work are 9-5 and we are so busy

Is that resentment because a colleague struggled with home working whilst looking after children when schools were closed and there was no childcare options?

It is a pandemic. No one is resenting parents for dealing with a shit situation. However....this pandemic will not last forever. The world will return to normal.

Or resentment that they have a protected characteristic?

It is not a protected characteristic though is it. And it's not going to become one just because some pissed off person on the internet decides to start a petition. But resentment of one group of people in a workplace always having to cover for another group does happen and that doesn't make for a very happy or productive workplace.

[quote EL8888]@canigooutyet you mean like my colleague who will only answers emails between 5am and 7am? Infuriating when l need an urgent answer as l always in effect have to wait 24 hours or more. Pointless when our key hours of work are 9-5 and we are so busy[/quote]
Yes.

I've met many people over the years who have this weird idea that their employer has to work around them and their choices. If a place needs someone 9 - 5 that's what they need, could be Prince Charming, but cannot do the job you're paid for, sorry but your personal life isn't anything to do with me.

The petition now has 87 signatures btw.

"No one is resenting parents for dealing with a shit situation."

I'm not sure that this is true. There seems to be lots of resentment towards parents who have been burning the candle at both ends to both wfh and provide childcare/distanced learning for their children over the last few months.

Working parents who could, for example, 'only carry out 80% of their job' didn't choose to be in the situation of wfh with young children and no childcare. The very people who 'picked up the slack' would have been in exactly the same situation if they had young children.

And many will be burning the candle at both ends, picking up the other 20% because they have children over 11 so still have all those same responsibilities, or caring responsibilities for another family member.

I don't know about others but I would be extremely resentful. The assumption that from 11 either parents don't work, or they no longer required to parent or educate annoyed the shit out of me, and I would be extremely resentful.

The parent entitlement is one of the reasons why after a while working for someone, I always revert back to SE. I'm all for helping out at times of need and in emergencies, but not when it constantly impacts my work.

And funny how in these situations, the poor sod doing the extra 20% or whatever, never gets a pay rise of equal proportion. Lucky to get a thanks.

canigooutyet of course parents are responsible for older children, and that comes with its own challenges.

But having a couple of upper Ks2 or secondary children at home while you're trying to work isn't the same as having a baby, pre-schoolers or Ks1 children.

Mine are older, and I've been constantly aware that even the simplest tasks of making a phone call or concentrating on something for 20 mins would have been nigh on impossible when they were younger, let alone for months on end.

What exactly do you think parents with younger children should do differently? Childcare is there primarily so that both parents can work. In its absence, I think it's true to say that most parents have done their absolute best to do their job as well as they can as well as parent. And felt pretty rubbish that they've done neither as well as they usually would or would like to.

If your employers never thanked you, I can see why you left. But crap employers aren't the fault of your colleagues with younger children.

There is a disturbing number of entitled people who think parenthood should cover them in fairy dust.

People are employed to do a job. If the work isn’t done, then employment should end. At a limited stretch, I could see people including non parents being able to apply for furlough where an employer has declined a request and on submission of substantial evidence be granted for a specific period (say max 3 months). This would allow the employer to recruit a short term employee yet relieve them of the financial burden of paying someone to do nothing relevant to their job.

I cannot see a reason why an employer should continue paying someone full time wages for part time productivity. Equally I see zero reason why a team member who either has no children or older children should be expected to deliver 120% output to cover a parents 80% output. I doubt the parent is going to transfer the corresponding sum into the overworked colleagues bank account.

Your wage is an exchange - money = output.

I’m awake because I can’t wind down after yet another 14 hour day covering for my team members who have children and can’t work full time although they’re being paid full time wages in an attempt to not disadvantage them, or cause financial hardship. It’s not forever and we’ll get through it.

But I’m tired. I’m also juggling caring responsibilities (elderly parents). Should having parents over X years of age be a protected characteristic? I’d argue it’s less of a choice than religion or being pregnant.

OP, you haven’t answered questions around your husband’s input into childcare, so I can only assume he doesn’t pull his weight, or you had children with someone who doesn’t provide for their kids.

Either way, you want him to be given protection against redundancy that I wouldn’t be afforded because I don’t have children. That doesn’t make sense.

You’re focusing your attention on the wrong people here. It’s not all about you.

I don't think anyone has said that being a parent should cover them in fairydust MehMehMeow. That's a ridiculous thing to say.

It is possible though to disagree with the premise of this petition (which I do) but acknowledge that with the best will in the world, being as productive at work as you are usually are isn't possible to sustain for months when you're wfh with young children. Especially if you live in cramped conditions, sharing tech with poor internet connection.

The responsibility for managing workloads, expectations and adjustments lies with management, not your colleagues with children.

Wouldn't being a parent (well mother) be included under sex discrimination as women generally do the most of the childcare

This is the root of the problem. How many men are asking for a petition on their behalf? It is single parents who need protection, and those with children with SEN / disabilities .

This isn’t discrimination because having children is a choice. Not a immutable characteristic

Marriage, civil partnership, pregnancy and religion include choices and are already protected characteristics

That means that you can’t pay someone less because if their marital / religious etc status. It doesn’t mean the employer picks up the cost of the wedding.

Luckily I’m not going to have to make any redundancies but if I did they would be based on the skill set of the individuals and not whether they were parents. The OP’s post sounds like parents of young children should have protection from redundancy regardless of whether their role is needed in the future of the business.

@christinarossetti19 the OP and others are expecting to be paid the same amount, for less work, yet be prioritised/protected in any redundancies To me that’s on a par with being covered in fairy dust

Individuals are contracted to deliver the output / productivity in exchange for their wages and it is their responsibility to manage their home environment, not their employers.

Think of workload as a big pool of water, say 1000L which needs to be changed every day. The employer decides it’ll take four people to do the job, and four people agree, becoming employees for the payment of £500 a week for moving 250L each as a fair workload distribution.

Now the OP wants to change the situation.

Now one employee wants to reduce their workload to zero but still be paid in full as she’s a protected single parent. The second employee wants to reduce her workload to half as she’s a protected parent, but still be paid. The remaining two employees, 3 and 4, are left with the work. Three is single and shares a cramped share flat. She has to compete with the other housemates to use the bucket (kitchen table) to get her share of the work done. She’s not protected. The fourth employee is married and childless but is supposed to be shielding. So they now have to move 375L but they don’t get any extra pay for the extra hours or stress. The employer can’t pay more or the business will go bankrupt as he’s now forced into charity donations to Employees 1 and 2, Employee Three and Four soon realise they’re now working for less than the minimum wage. #3 and #4 have got two options, one get a new job which will leave the employer with no staff to complete the work but a bill for two staff when only 25% of the work is being done (Emp2) or they lay various complaints that their employer is in breach of various regulations for discriminating against their (Lack of) family status, overwork etc

How about we don’t move to the OPs utopia, and instead the OP either finds a way to deliver her agreed output without taking advantage of her employer or colleagues, or she resigns?

To those parents who have been juggling and surviving good on you (and honestly, I don’t mind the Zoom bombs from your children, most are damn cute!). To those who’ve relied upon your colleagues to pick up your slack, show a bit of understanding and send a thank you message. Sitting up til 2am doing your colleagues work feels very thankless and unappreciated.

MehMehMeow I also disagree with the premise of the petition. It's a complete non-starter in terms of equality law.

But it's not as simple to say that it's the individual employees responsibility to manage their own home situation without support from their employers. That's why we have sick pay, maternity and paternity leave etc etc.

To use your swimming pool analogy, if someone is on sickness absence (which could happen to anyone of us and if it hasn't happened, it's luck not careful planning), then the water still needs to be moved. It's up to the employer as to how they distribute the additional work eg spread it amongst others or get a temp in, but refusing someone sickness absence because they can't offer their usual labour isn't lawful, and nor should it be.

Most employers have been forced to ask staff to work from home, regardless of whether their staff want to or are able to do so productively. Employees are entitled to for example, an assessment of their working station and adjustments to reduce the risk of back/neck injuries under H&S law. Employers haven't been able to implement that, but on the whole, workers haven't downed tools and refused to do their job.

And people's circumstances are different. I hold events that external clients pay for and no way could I have my children Zoom bombing them on a regular basis. Fortunately, my children are old enough to be fairly independent, but if they were younger, I simply wouldn't have been able to do my job to the required standard. I'm self-employed, so no-one to delegate to or ask for support.

If you or any other employee has difficulties with their allocated workload, it's up to you to discuss this with your employer.

To use your swimming pool analogy, if someone is on sickness absence (which could happen to anyone of us and if it hasn't happened, it's luck not careful planning), then the water still needs to be moved. It's up to the employer as to how they distribute the additional work eg spread it amongst others or get a temp in, but refusing someone sickness absence because they can't offer their usual labour isn't lawful, and nor should it be.
But in this case the employer will reclaim SSP and will therefore have the money to employ a temp. That’s not the case where staff are working under capacity due to childcare because of the ridiculous all or nothing nature of furlough.

Employees weren't involved in making decisions about how the furlough scheme worked.

And if people are furloughed, they're not expected to work, so I'm not sure how parents working under capacity fits in to being furloughed.

@christinarossetti19
Oh I got thanks, just saying many don't despite constantly having to do the 20% extra of whatever.

What should parents do? Find something that works for them and when both parents are around both need to step up and not the usual but but too important to parent excuses.

Many companies are helpful in terms of being flexible for child related stuff. I have never had any problems including having to leave work meetings and not attend anything that requires overnight stays, same with ex even when he was head-chef in the middle of service. Obviously surgical team, bomb squad etc cannot just do that!!

If parents cannot cope with their workload to talk to their line manager to see what options are available. If operating hours are the typical 9 - 6 Monday to Friday, people have to accept them being available outside these hours isn't viable for the company.

Some working parents offer no flexibility themselves and they become I'm a parent broken records.

Some people need to realise that they aren't entitled to things just because they have popped out a child. And as harsh as it sounds if parenting interferes with that working role, then that's were changes need to be made, the job.

Another reason I went SE, total control of my work life.
Other times I have gone part-time
When with ex, we worked around each other. Ok we didn't see each other a lot but bills needed to be paid.

When they were young there was a working parent childcare group and we'd all help look after each others kids to allow us to work.

When I had to HE my eldest, again SE. I've jumped around various jobs over the years from catering to education and health lol, using all those transferable skills we all have, and training on the job. When I had to take very long periods of time off, I updated my knowledge - loads of free/cheap courses. I also do a bit of voluntary work. And all this looks great on the CV. They see things like St John's for several months/years and think oh that's of benefit to us. Oh mentor/peer support in spare time, again that could be of benefit to us. Oh is proficient in software we use.

Most of this was needed because I knew from the start, raising that kid was down to us as parents. Schools close for weather etc. Childminders are great until they are ill. I have no family, his either didn't talk to him or had vicious dogs who had to be locked away because according to them, they would attack me. If I wanted to work and still do things I enjoy it was up to me to find the solutions and when we were together, it meant both had to make sacrifices. Had I not been proactive and look for workable solutions, I would have spent a huge chunk of the last 30 years claiming benefits or low income home. And I'm not bashing those on benefits because it is genuinely impossible for some people to work and that's why we have that safety net. Been on them myself when it's impossible to work, part time hours etc.