A general vent

Snookercues

Hi all

I guess no matter which way I write this, everyone will have an issue with it. I think it is more to get it off my chest!

I work in an organisation where those who have kids get significantly more flexibility than those of us who don't - they can work from home, come in at random times if their child needs to go to the doctor etc etc.... It's just taken as given.

I can appreciate that children do need time etc, but it seems to be that if you don't have children, that your personal time is "not as important" - I have a lot of personal commitments outside of work but no account is taken or importance put on them.

Is it just me that experiences this complete divergence in flexibility / time off etc etc if you do not have children?

Diziet

Have you asked for personal time for a specific reason and been refused?

Snookercues

No, not in particular. Its just that I have a huge commute to work each day, and working from home for me is not, and never will be, an option. However, those who have children and live in the area can work from home as and when required due to "family / child commitments".

Diziet

If your job is such that it can be done from home, then you should ask to do so. If not, then consider moving jobs. I don't see what the fact that parents are allowed some flexibility has anything to do with your situation of a long commute. Having a bit of flexibility makes people more productive, not less.

Unless you are suggesting that small children who are sick take themselves to the doctor...

Teyla Emmagan

Yeah, I used to work for a place where travel was required and the people with kids never had to do it. It was totally unfair - I have a life too you know!! And it's not less important than your because you happened to breed!

You should pretend to adopt a child OP, a sickly one preferably. After all "no one can expect a sick child to take themselves to the doctor".

StupidLikeAFox

Snookercues wrote: »

No, not in particular. Its just that I have a huge commute to work each day, and working from home for me is not, and never will be, an option. However, those who have children and live in the area can work from home as and when required due to "family / child commitments".

Sounds like they have a genuine reason for working from home and you have never even asked, but assume you won't be allowed anyway?

_Brian

I hate this !!
Employees moaning that someone else is getting something they are not - and it turns out that they never even asked could they have it !!

Do your job and don't be worrying about what others are doing no matter if they have children or not. If you need time off ask for it and see how that goes. You can hardly bemoan not getting to work from home when it's impossible to do your job from home !!

Diziet

Teyla Emmagan wrote: »

Yeah, I used to work for a place where travel was required and the people with kids never had to do it. It was totally unfair - I have a life too you know!! And it's not less important than your because you happened to breed!

You should pretend to adopt a child OP, a sickly one preferably. After all "no one can expect a sick child to take themselves to the doctor".

People travel according to professional need. Companies don't want to spend money unnecessarily and in over 20 years I have not really come across the situation that parents are never asked to travel. What does happen is that any sensible employer takes their employees' circumstances into account - if they are struggling with childcare over summer holidays, or if they have a partner who is sick then schedule gets to be adjusted if necessary. I and lots of my colleagues have traveled a lot, despite 'choosing to breed' (which is a particularly nasty comment by the way, you must be a ray of sunshine to your colleagues with families).
If you don't like your job, change it instead of complaining about other people.

mitresize5

I'm a parent of a 4 year old and it drives me bananas when people with young kids get preferential treatment even now that I have a child.

In my previous jobs I and other childless people were told we could not take holidays in July and August as people with kids needed them due to school holidays etc ... I left them in no doubt that if this was enforced I would be bringing a case to HR and external to the company if needs be, HR invited me in for a 'chat' about it and when it was insinuated that it was a bad idea I repeated my commitment to doing so.

I got my holidays but others childless people in the team who didn't complain didnt get the option. You can imagine what the whole thing did for team morale

Its absolute bollox, everybody, parents, non parents, carers, young singletons should be treated the exact same. If you're lucky enough the flexibility needed in work to balance lifes needs will be available to anybody who needs it. Not just one particular cohort.

What I will say is I dont blame parents for pushing for as much flexibility as possible but it should be available to all on a fair basis

Wanderer2010

I don't see why the OP should suffer because of other people having children. I see it in work as well, women getting half days left right and centre and still getting paid a full day or they know how to manipulate their boss with poor me stories about little Jimmy or Mary being sick as a dog. Who cares? Its your decision to have kids, you need to deal with the consequences.
OP, I would stand firm on this issue. If asked to cover for a parent last-minute, firmly say "I cant, I have appointments and commitments after work, I'm afraid I cant help you" and leave it at that. They will soon see you're not an easy option.

mitresize5

Diziet wrote: »

Unless you are suggesting that small children who are sick take themselves to the doctor...

quite patronizing.

I assume parents can take some of their leave to bring their children to the doctor which by most rule books is what should be done (outside of force majuer)

thankfully most employers will offer a little flexibility

Teyla Emmagan

Diziet wrote:

What does happen is that any sensible employer takes their employees' circumstances into account - if they are struggling with childcare over summer holidays, or if they have a partner who is sick then schedule gets to be adjusted if necessary. I and lots of my colleagues have traveled a lot, despite 'choosing to breed' (which is a particularly nasty comment by the way, you must be a ray of sunshine to your colleagues with families). If you don't like your job, change it instead of complaining about other people.

I changed it years ago. In my current role people are treated fairly and not given special treatment. Which is clearly how you think parents should be treated! It's exactly because of the attitude of people like you that the OP finds himself where he is now.

WealthyB

Snookercues wrote: »

Hi all

I guess no matter which way I write this, everyone will have an issue with it. I think it is more to get it off my chest!

I work in an organisation where those who have kids get significantly more flexibility than those of us who don't - they can work from home, come in at random times if their child needs to go to the doctor etc etc.... It's just taken as given.

I can appreciate that children do need time etc, but it seems to be that if you don't have children, that your personal time is "not as important" - I have a lot of personal commitments outside of work but no account is taken or importance put on them.

Is it just me that experiences this complete divergence in flexibility / time off etc etc if you do not have children?

What personal commitments do you have that should be given the same importance as looking after a sick child?

meeeeh

Companies don't do it out of charity, they do it to have happier and productive workforce. We don't overly need to do it often but if someone gets​ days off because kids are sick or because their relative has cancer we won't offer the same flexibility to everyone just to make things even.

fg1406

mitresize5 wrote: »

I'm a parent of a 4 year old and it drives me bananas when people with young kids get preferential treatment even now that I have a child.

In my previous jobs I and other childless people were told we could not take holidays in July and August as people with kids needed them due to school holidays etc ... I left them in no doubt that if this was enforced I would be bringing a case to HR and external to the company if needs be, HR invited me in for a 'chat' about it and when it was insinuated that it was a bad idea I repeated my commitment to doing so.

I got my holidays but others childless people in the team who didn't complain didnt get the option. You can imagine what the whole thing did for team morale

Its absolute bollox, everybody, parents, non parents, carers, young singletons should be treated the exact same. If you're lucky enough the flexibility needed in work to balance lifes needs will be available to anybody who needs it. Not just one particular cohort.

What I will say is I dont blame parents for pushing for as much flexibility as possible but it should be available to all on a fair basis

I had that issue in my last job where I had to work right up until Xmas eve and be back in on the day the office opened after st Stephens day (usually 2 days later) while hose with kids got 2 weeks off during that time. I kicked up murder after being told I was listed to work the post Christmas/New Years Rota for the 7th year running to no avail so I went out sick. I didn't care and my GP was happy to sign me out with stress and anxiety (which my workplace was causing me, not only with the above issues). That learned them. They didn't push me again about it. That said July and August are still no-no's for us childless folks which is infuriating. I wanted to get married the August bank holiday 2 years ago but had to push it into October as work refused my leave.

Zulu

I wonder...

As a parent, I can weight up importance of "child issue" vs "work reputation", and more often then not, work loses. That is to say, that I put my children first. Work accept this and we all get on together.

If you aren't even asking, then perhaps you are weighing up the two "work from home" vs "work reputation" and determining that the latter is more important to you?

A similar one when I was a FTE, noone used to leave at 5:30pm. I used to get up and leave if I wasn't busy. It was said to me sometime later by junior staff that 1) they were glad, as I used to give them the opportunity to go/they didn't want to be the first one and 2) fair play to me for not giving a sh1t about leaving on time. In actual fact, for the first few months I was very concerned about being the first to go, but, after awhile, I said f-this. I'd rather be reading my child a bed time story than sitting in work.

Long story short, are you sure this isn't all in your mind? Self-inflicted??

Jim2007

Snookercues wrote: »

I work in an organisation where those who have kids get significantly more flexibility than those of us who don't - they can work from home, come in at random times if their child needs to go to the doctor etc etc.... It's just taken as given.

Some companies are deliberately family friendly and people with families tend to seek out such companies. If you choose to join such a company, then you have to expect to be the filler... That is their culture and you're unlikely to change it.

All you can do is seek out companies with the opposite culture. Although you might find that management there may not be very accommodating there either because it's not how they do business.

Teyla Emmagan

Jim2007 wrote:

Some companies are deliberately family friendly and people with families tend to seek out such companies. If you choose to join such a company, then you have to expect to be the filler... That is their culture and you're unlikely to change it.

Yeah but they're hardly going to tell you that the interview are they? So you're not choosing anything, you just get an unpleasant land when you start and realise you're always getting the short end of the stick.

Teyla Emmagan

WealthyB wrote:

What personal commitments do you have that should be given the same importance as looking after a sick child?

It doesn't matter, that's the point. You have no right to assume that your child is more important than anything else going on in someone else's life. Even if they were just planning on heading to the gym for the night, that is their free time and equally valid.

mariaalice

Snookercues wrote: »

No, not in particular. Its just that I have a huge commute to work each day, and working from home for me is not, and never will be, an option. However, those who have children and live in the area can work from home as and when required due to "family / child commitments".

Why would working from home not be an option for you if other staff can avail of it.

Diziet

Teyla Emmagan wrote: »

It doesn't matter, that's the point. You have no right to assume that your child is more important than anything else going on in someone else's life. Even if they were just planning on heading to the gym for the night, that is their free time and equally valid.

People don't tend to assume anything, they ask for what they need and their employer says yes or no. You can do the same, surely. The employer/manager makes a decision if their is conflict and they have to decide.

And if, in your hypothetical case, an employee has to change their gym plans, vs a childcare or health issue, it would be a really rubbish employer that prioritises the gym.

In any case, the OP does not seem to have a specific grievance - he/she has a long commute and a job that needs presence in the office. Hardly anyone else's fault, really.

meeeeh

Teyla Emmagan wrote: »

It doesn't matter, that's the point. You have no right to assume that your child is more important than anything else going on in someone else's life. Even if they were just planning on heading to the gym for the night, that is their free time and equally valid.

Did you just suggest that taking care of another human being who is either not mature enough or well enough to take care of themselves Is equally important as going to the gym. Good to know.

I find it baffling that some would not distinguish between necessity and recreation. Leaving a child on their own is negligence not being able to go to gym is annoyance. It is not about importance, it's about responsibility.

Zulu

Teyla Emmagan wrote: »

It doesn't matter, that's the point. You have no right to assume that your child is more important than anything else going on in someone else's life. Even if they were just planning on heading to the gym for the night, that is their free time and equally valid.

Don't be daft. :rolleyes:

listermint

Zulu wrote: »

Don't be daft. :rolleyes:

Hey man abs are a commitment.

😂

Snookercues

Hi all,

OP here. As I expected I knew people would have really different views on this, and of course that will always be the case.

Just to clarify - I haven't asked to work from home as it has been made implicitly clear to me by my manager that it is not an option. I asked to leave 15 mins early one day a week to get an earlier train, and I was told that I would have to work up that time on my lunch break. This is all fine and I have absolutely no problem with this, IF this was the consistent policy throughout the firm!!!! Only yesterday, 3 people with children arrived in 1 hour late / went home an hour early due to "child issues". No mention of working up the time there!

Also, for after work events (which again I have no problem attending), it is always taken as given that I will be in a position to attend, whereas that outright expectation is not placed on those who have children,

Essentially my issue is that 1. in the place where I work (so as to not generalise!), there is an unwritten rule that those with children get more flexibility and a blind eye is turned to it 2. it promotes a message that those of us without children's private lives are less important. To the poster that said "what personal commitments are more important than a sick child?" - my father has very bad Alzheimers and my mother is unwell and I try my best to help her out at home to enable her to rest etc - is that not as important as a sick child"???

I just don't think it is equitable that there is an unwritten rule that if you have children, that you automatically get great flexibility.

Zulu

Snookercues wrote: »

my father has very bad Alzheimers and my mother is unwell ....

So, if they require your care (like a child for example) you make that perfectly clear.

Walk up to your boss, and request the "work-from-home policy". Assuming there is one in place and being used by those with children, you tell your boss you have a sick parent that needs your assistance and you need to avail of the "work from home" scheme. If they refuse, put it in writing and ask for a reason why you can't.

Going back to my original point; you are second guessing from different things that were made "implicitly clear". Ultimately, you asked could you leave early, and your boss said "yes - just make up the time". That was fairly sound, but you took it as a warning and an indication that it couldn't be done!?!

WealthyB

Teyla Emmagan wrote: »

It doesn't matter, that's the point. You have no right to assume that your child is more important than anything else going on in someone else's life. Even if they were just planning on heading to the gym for the night, that is their free time and equally valid.

What employees do in their free time is of no consequence as long as it doesn't impact their ability to turn up for work the next day. But what going to the gym at night has to do with employees with children being given flexibility to take time off/leave early etc I have no idea.

Lux23

As a single person I don't care what anyone says, parents do need more flexibility in the workplace. Someone started working with me recently and their child is often sick and the stress she is under is immense. When I go home I don't bring any work with me and I don't have a kid to look after either so I have the evening to myself. If I decided to stay after I have worked the allotted hours it is up to me and I don't feel pressure to do so. But I do agree flexible policies should be across the board and the OP should be getting more support given the responsibility of looking after an ailing relative.

jimmycrackcorm

Snookercues wrote:

I just don't think it is equitable that there is an unwritten rule that if you have children, that you automatically get great flexibility.

Will you feel better off you push the agenda and the outcome is that the company says no one gets flexibility?

The employer gets to decide working hours, location and holidays. I Assisi don't think you are quite correct about working from home being specifically related to childcare. Some roles are better suited to remote working. You'd be better off asking why you cannot be allowed to have this if you can find someone in a comparable position that does have.

AlanG

Snookercues wrote: »

I can appreciate that children do need time etc, but it seems to be that if you don't have children, that your personal time is "not as important" - I have a lot of personal commitments outside of work but no account is taken or importance put on them.

Not always, but in the majority of cases a carers personal time is more important that someone who is not a carer as it impacts several people as opposed to one.

mariaalice

I don't think you can do a lot about unwritten assumptions.

What do you do about situation where an individual gets flexible working arrangement because their husband/wife has cancer and another employee take that as a signal that they should get flexible arrangement because of their fibromyalgia or torn ligament in their little finger.

When an employee with a sick partner gets to work at home occasionally and another asked to work at home because they see the other person getting it however they take total advantage of the working at home and do half work they do in the office. How do you solve issue like that.