# Treated Unfairly for being Childless?



## maryt (25 Jan 2010)

*I've worked for the same small company for fifteen years and loved it.  I've hardly ever taken time off sick and I've been commended and praised on my work etc. by management.  I work with two other colleagues - both mothers.  I am married, with no children (even though we tried for years and would both have loved a family).  One of my colleagues who has worked here for some time before me has always worked part-time (needed to drop and pick kids up from school). No problem.  She then took every summer (July/August) off (school holidays).  This arrangement is being made permanent this year as it's an 'historical' arrangement (is there such a thing?).  My other colleague has worked here, part-time, for four years. She also has children.  She has now asked for a reduction in hours during July/August so that she can take the kids to the beach!  I work a four day week and asked for a reduction to 2 or 3 days as my husband needs help with his business.  I was refused!  I have worked diligently for fifteen years.  I'm so upset.  If I had children I think my request would have been looked on differently.  I feel like telling them to go and take a jump but that would be shooting myself in the foot.  I really need a break for the place.  I'm not getting at all those who have children but I do feel like I've been discrimated against.  Do I have any rights at all?*


----------



## Purple (25 Jan 2010)

Did you ask for reduced hours before or after your colleague who wants to bring the kids to the beach asked?

Do you all do the same sort of work?


----------



## moneygrower (25 Jan 2010)

That does sound unfair. Maybe the mother's are being accommodated as the employers fears being seen to discriminate if they don't? 
Or perhaps the company has a policy of accommodating parents and the policy doesn't extend to other situations?


----------



## maryt (25 Jan 2010)

I have been asking for reduced hours for the past two years.  And no, there is no policy here with regards to parents etc. - it was a 'decision' that they made.  We all do relatively the same work, i.e. we could all cover for each other, albeit one girl works in a different part of the building (the one taking all July/August off).  They are bringing another 'part-timer' (two half days and one full day) in to help with the workload so that she 'crosses over' our working hours e.g she'll cover for girl going off early (taking kids to beach).  I have been told that I'm the 'back-bone' of the company, I know the ins & outs of everything here and I run things well.  Great commendation I know, but it hasn't done me any good in the long run. So why would they bother to reduce my hours when I'm a good worker?  They don't have to by law but then again they didn't have to agree to reduced working hours for the others either but they did.  I could hand my notice in but jobs are scarce out there or maybe I could say that I'm under stress and need to take time off which I'd hate to do in all conscience.  Right now I'm just upset.  I think it's so unfair.  I seem to have less lawful rights than a parent has.


----------



## Purple (25 Jan 2010)

It is very unfair and discriminatory to have a policy of accommodating parents like that. Do they get paid less because they have kids?

If you're that important then make sure you are getting paid accordingly, you can't live on pats on the back.


----------



## Eblana (25 Jan 2010)

Is it possibly because you want the time off to work for someone else albeit for your husband?  I know where I work we are not permitted to take reduced hours/leave of abscence to work for anywhere else.

Also could your colleagues possibly be taking unpaid parental leave, I think it is 70 days for each child, which they are legally entitled to up until each child reaches the age of 8.


----------



## onq (25 Jan 2010)

If you had asked asked for compassionate leave on health grounds - as opposed to working for your husband [I'm assuming you disclosed this] - you might have received it.

If you explain your grievances to management you might be able to work out some kind of deal in recognition of the unquestioned loyalty you've shown.

But be wary of shooting yourself in the foot - the first thing they might suggest is training in your replacement since you "know everything".

Then they'll reslise you're not indispensible after all, and where do you go then.

Why does your husband's business need your input BTW?

Is is time to jump ship and sail solely with him?


ONQ.


----------



## maryt (26 Jan 2010)

Thanks for all your replys.  The girl who's taking off July/August - her youngest is thirteen and yes, she is taking this unpaid (her wages are broken down over 52 weeks).  And you're both right.  I should never have said I needed reduced hours because I needed some time to work for my husband.  (He's not long in business and was doing the books himself and at the moment cannot afford to pay someone else to come in and do them).  I should have asked for compassionate leave on health grounds (does eyestrain from the computer count?) and of course, nobody is indispensible, not even me.  This new part-timer will hopefully be a brilliant and maybe then they'll let me have reduced hours.  The girl who wants to go off early (kids/beach etc) - I've no problem with that.  She's a good worker and she's always willing to cover me for me when needed.  We can't afford for me to jump ship entirely right now, not until my husband's business gets up and running which will take another year and half.  And I love my job so much I never wanted to leave entirely to work for my husband.  I just wanted to cut down my hours so that I could help him out too.  I guess I'm stuck.  I'll have to wait to train in this new girl and approach them then again.  Maybe the next time on compassionate grounds.


----------



## huskerdu (26 Jan 2010)

Purple said:


> It is very unfair and discriminatory to have a policy of accommodating parents like that. Do they get paid less because they have kids?
> 
> If you're that important then make sure you are getting paid accordingly, you can't live on pats on the back.



I agree that the OP should insist on being treated the same as everyone else, but it is very normal to find that parents who take unpaid leave to mind their children, end up getting paid a lot less than their colleagues. In the private sector, its a guaranteed route to lower pay rises and no promotions.


----------



## liaconn (26 Jan 2010)

In the Civil Service, 'term time' was introduced a few years back to allow parents of school going kids take time off during the Summer to stay at home with them. Eventually this was extended to anyone who had any kind of relative (sick parent, invalid aunt and so on) who needed care. It was completely illogical that ill and elderly relatives would need more care in the Summer than during the Winter months, so it was obviously broadened out as the Department of Finance realised it was completely discriminatory to introduce a 'Summer off without pay' option and confine it to people with children.


----------



## sadie (27 Jan 2010)

Crikey. 'Term Time'. I've only just got my head around Privilege Days. 
Can't believe it.


----------



## Buddyg (28 Jan 2010)

sadie said:


> Crikey. 'Term Time'. I've only just got my head around Privilege Days.
> Can't believe it.


 Madness, the public service trying to let it's employees strike a balance between home and work life for the benefit of their family.


----------



## Firehead (28 Jan 2010)

"Term Time" is unpaid as far as I know.


----------



## AlbacoreA (28 Jan 2010)

Same as unpaid leave.

Therefore there is no reason why it should be granted one employee and refused another. There obviously the issue of covering a job, you CAN'T have everyone take unpaid leave at the same time.

Working for someone else is a different issue. Some places allow this as it allows an eased handover, before someone leaves for good. Some places don't allow it at all.


----------



## liaconn (28 Jan 2010)

sadie said:


> Crikey. 'Term Time'. I've only just got my head around Privilege Days.
> Can't believe it.


 
It's UNPAID, Sadie and temporary staff are recruited in to do the work (and no, it doesn't cost more than the salary of the staff taking time off, in fact from now on because of cutbacks the rest of us will just have to take on extra work for no extra pay if someone gets unpaid leave. Therefore, it is actually a saving to the taxpayer.) Please don't turn this thread into a PS bashing one. There are plenty of existing ones you can post on in letting off steam if you really must re-open all that.


----------



## Galwaygirl (28 Jan 2010)

> it's unpaid, sadie and temporary staff are recruited in to do the work (and no, it doesn't cost more than the salary of the staff taking time off, in fact from now on because of cutbacks the rest of us will just have to take on extra work for no extra pay if someone gets unpaid leave. Therefore, it is actually a saving to the taxpayer.) please don't turn this thread into a ps bashing one. There are plenty of existing ones you can post on in letting off steam if you really must re-open all that.


 
+1


----------

