bias in the work force against those with no kids


Agreed. In my experience, salaried staff have always been expected to put in a little extra time if circumstances demanded it. Often, there would be no extra pay, but there would be some latitude with regard to doctors appointments, etc without loss of pay.
I'm disappointed that most of the responses have been leaning towards telling the OP to drag themselves down to the lowest common denominator.
A good work ethic should be applauded, not derided. Like a few others, I'd question whether some people have made the correct employment choices, if they are so unable & unwilling to show some flexibility.
Without wishing to go over the top, it's attitudes like this that can lead to jobs being lost to other markets. Certainly, no-one should be a slave to the workplace, but there must surely be some room for common sense, and in return good employers should recognise this.
 
Pinkybear was feeling upset because she felt she had to stay all hours working, when the people with families could just leave at their contracted time. It is a culture thing in Ireland. Employers tend to be more lenient towards people with families. I.e. they don't expect them to do loads of unpaid overtime. However, a lot of Irish employers have the attitude that single people & those without children 'having nothing better to do' so they might as well help out & do unpaid overtime at work.

When I was single, my previous employer hired a girl with a child (a few months after employing me). He paid her about 4 K more than me despite the fact that I was more qualified than her, and had more experience. She was 26 and I was 31!!! When I looked for a salary increase the general attitude was that she had a family to support, whereas I only had to support myself. (I asked professionally for my increase and mentioned my experience, achievements etc. I did not moan about having to pay a full mortgage on my house as a single person). Even though I was professional with them, they were not professional with me.

I no longer work for that company surprise surprise.

As Pinkybear has given her employers the habit of working unpaid overtime in this company, it will be difficult to change. E.g. if she starts leaving on time, the relationship with her seniors may be damaged, as the attitude will be 'you always did overtime before, why stop now!!!'

Pinkybear should try to move companies, and should try not to work any overtime in the next company. If she has to work overtime, she should try & get it built into her annual bonus.
 
Parents who are using a creche (or childminder) will be penalised for collecting their children late. It's usually a scandalous rate of something like €20 per 15 minutes in a creche. Childminders can be flexible but also (understandably) want time with their own families before they go to bed.
And they will also need to be compensated for any additional time worked. If you are on a salary you are then paying someone else for the privilege of working an hour or two extra in the office.

But even if they are physically out of the office how do you know that they aren't working? I often bring home work to check in the evening, check and answer emails etc. Does everyone around me know this? I don't know. Do I feel I need to explain where I'm going at 5.30? Hell no!
 
I think though we are talking about 2 different things here. The situations described by buzybee and MandaC are discrimination. The issue isnt with the parent as such but rather with the organization themselves. Buzybee you were dead right to leave. In both scenarios I would wonder if the employee has a case for the labour courts.

The other scenario, people leaving at their contracted time to pick it up their children, isnt discrimination. Nor is it a reflection on the quality of their work or their dedication to their organization.
 
How did buzybee even know what her colleague was earning?
Someone there was very unprofessional letting that information out.
If it's any consolation, that 4K wouldn't go far in childminding, she might have got 6 months worth out of it if she was lucky.
 
Mel said:
If it's any consolation, that 4K wouldn't go far in childminding, she might have got 6 months worth out of it if she was lucky.
Click to expand...
That is totally irrelevant. In this country you get paid what you earn, not what you need (or feel you need). Anything else would be unjust.
If my childminding costs €200 a week should I get €200 more than a person doing the same job that has no children? Absolutely not.
If that were the case a colleague who had a €300 a day cocaine habit should get paid for that as well!
 
Buzybee's colleague negotiated a better deal before she started - so fair play to her. Maybe she was just more qualified or efficient and the employer gave buzybee a token excuse (which didn't work)?

My own manager has said more than once that I can't have what I'm looking for in my review and then adds 'but sure you're young' - is that to imply that someone a bit older with the same experience and doing the same job is paid more? I hope not!
 
casiopea said:
. . people leaving at their contracted time to pick it up their children, isnt discrimination. Nor is it a reflection on the quality of their work or their dedication to their organization.
Click to expand...
casiopea has it right.
 
I had known what my colleague was earning because I was doing all the accounts and payroll for the organisation.

My colleague was doing hotel reception (senior receptionist, over 2 junior receptionists). She had a 3 year hotel management diploma and was 25.

I had a business degree and was half way through my accountancy exams. I was 31 at the time, and had been working full time since I left college (just like my colleague). Therefore I had 4 to 5 more years experience than her.

Fair play to her for negotiating a better deal than me. However, when I went with my skills & experience (gained previously & on the job) & asked for an increase I was fobbed off.
 
But you weren't even doing the same job so? In which case her age, family status, experience etc. has nothing to do with it.
She was fully qualified at what she was doing, with the additional responsibility of people to manage.
Qualifying accountants always seem to earn poor enough money but then can earn a lot more once qualified.
 
We were. In fact she was in the office with me. She was doing some sales reports & some of the same work as me.

When she was out, I would do her sales reports etc. When I was out, she didn't know how to do the wages & accounts so she couldn't help me out.

She spent most of her time in the same office.
 


Once the new girl left, it was made clear that the revised hours were not an option for anybody. Because we are out in the middle of nowhere, everybody would have preferred to take a half hour break and go home that half hour earlier.

Anybody else taken on was not given an option of changing the hours in any way.

The old Secretary did not pursue it, as she felt she had made her point. I really dont know if she would have had a case in the Labour Court.

I feel that right across the board, that favourable treatment is definitely given to those with children.
 
I wouldn't agree that it's 'across the board' at all.
That girl probably had to be at the creche for when it closed at 6pm. There is no flexibility in a creche, so rather than lose a potentially good employee her manager(s) decided to arrange things in a practical way that meant she could do the job. She was probably very competent and it sounds like she was driven out of her job by petty jealous colleagues. Maybe she would have a case at a tribunal for constructive dismissal?
 

No, she left after three months after a heated discussion with the employer about her constant absenteeism.

She did leave her child in a creche. However, what people do in their personal lives is their own business. If the hours of the office were set for that particular job, then it was unfair to offer more favourable hours to somebody because of their personal requirements.

I can see exactly where the our older secretary was coming from. She visited her mother three or four nights of the week in a nursing home on her way home from work and finishing a half an hour early would let her do that and eventually get home a half an hour early, too. She felt that she had every right to obtain the more favourable hours if she was doing the same job, same pay, same status.

By the way, no body did anything to drive anybody out of their job and that is a most unfair statement.
The older secretary in fairness, did all she could to train in the new girl and help her settle and made it clear that the problem was with the employer and not personal. She also told the girl directly that was going to speak to the employers about the change in work hours, and would prefer that she knew upfront rather than let her think she was complaining behind her back.

There's nothing jealous or petty about standing up for your rights against discrimination.

The fault lay totally with our bosses. At the time, (and probably still is), it was proving hard to get good office staff even though it was quite a well paid position. A number of people were shortlisted for second interviews, only to have got positions before the second interview. They were panicing and thought this girl would fit the position, and tried to suit her, without realising that by suiting her, they were discriminating against somebody else. They did not believe what they were doing was discriminatory in any way.
 

Well good luck to you if that's the way it does work out - and I mean this genuinly. However the possibility of redundancy should never be ruled out. A company I worked for went bust. First a merger and the local sales and marketing staff were let go. Then wage freezes and finaly redundancy. I can't complain as we got a good payoff, and I got a new job straight away. But having experienced that, you realise that a "job for life" is very rare in the private sector.

I don't know about Switzerland, but I've seen plenty of redundancies (often with dirty tricks) in Germany where employee rights are generally considered to be strong.

And aside from redundancy, there could be any number of changes to your personal or professional circumstances which necessitate a new job (or a new set of managers). So I believe in working hard for your employer. From a self interest perspective alone this improves the chance of a good reference, and also it's the "right" thing to do. However, I don't believe in sacrificing your whole life to him. And working more than 10 hours a day is too much IMHO.
 

Apologies if I misinterpreted the above statement.
I wonder if the absenteeism had anything to do with the atmosphere in the office?
Basically, unfair as it seemed, the managers made an arrangement that allowed her to come to work. If they hadn't she probably couldn't have, simple as that. As you say, everyone has something going on in their personal life, but in fairness, collecting your kids from a creche on time is hardly a personal decision or choice, it's not negotiable.
And these kids will be paying your pension one day.
 
It's actually to be applauded that bosses are flexible towards people who are primary carers, be it for children or an elderly or sick person. Once the work is done and the caring is done a workable compromise is great to see.

It sounds like in the case of the new versus the old secretary that bad management was the fault.

I looked to work a day a week from home as I have a 4 hour round trip commute and the hours are killing me. My work allows for home working completely, which my boss acknowleged, but he refused me because "other people might look for it and then I wouldn't know how to manage it". I argued that other people all live within minutes of the office so might understand why I was allowed one day from home, but he was afraid to take that leap. I do see his point in that other people might request it, but fear of managing that situation if it should arise is no excuse.

As a result, he is now going to lose me as I can't keep up the job on account of the travel. That was my offer of compromise.
 

No she was absent because her child was ill and her husband did not take time off work.

It is really a personal decision as to whether or not you have children, so I don't see where you are coming from?

I would not be happy if someone was taken on to do the same job as me, but given better hours, irrespective of whether or not they have children. I would certainly speak to the management and voice my dissatisfaction.
 
Having them might be, but taking care of them once they are here isn't up for discussion or compromise. Of course it's natural to seek the same benefits that you perceive someone else to be getting for the same job, I just think that thinking child-free versus parents is petty to say the least.

Of course there are people who abuse the situation; we've all worked with someone whose kid was 'sick' every other week, but really, that's probably how they always were, 'sick' themselves every other week well before they had kids.

If childfree people are so annoyed that they have no 'excuse' to leave the office why don't they take on some addtional committment? Evening education, a youth group, coaching a sport? And then see how easy it is to have to drop tools mid-flow because of having to be somewhere else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register