Childfree In The Workplace… Tired Of The Bias? Part 1
8 02 2007Plainsfeminist raised an interesting point when, on my post
Childfree Rejecting Those Myths she commented that:
“…speaking from the U.S., we don’t do much to help parents. We act like we do, and we pay a lot of lip service to it, but when you get down to it, we’ve set things up so that parents who have jobs (which most parents need to have) are screwed, and their families are screwed.”
Interesting comment. Being childfree in the workplace was a topic I’ve been meaning to write on for quite a while. But it is so huge that I can really only touch on it, so probably one post alone won’t do it justice. But it’s something I feel pretty strongly about as you’ll see from my reply to the above comment.To a point I agree with PlainsFemininist. I also disagree.
Here’s why.
I agree that working life today (as in well paid jobs with benefits or any job) does not make it particularly easy for people with children to raise children and hold down a well paid job.
Life must be juggled adeptly to accommodate job and children. The demands of the workplace can’t be taken lightly. There are very few places where you will not be working as part of a team, and your team mates rely on you as you will rely on them. The demands of work are ever growing, hours are long, and the pressure to deliver to shareholders and to compete shows no sign of letting up. It’s compete or die – unless you work in the public sector. Anyone who thinks reduced working hours and flexible working is going to get them to the top of the tree (earing substantial bucks) is living in dream-land and does need to wake up and smell the coffee. But, I’m getting a little ahead of myself…
Economic realities are such that most women need to work with or without children, but particularly with children have to work. So do men of course, but the issue here is slightly different. If you work in a good company (usually you can find these companies, they are usually the in the top 10 places people want to work if they want to progress and still have a life. They usually offer generous benefits and perks to their employees, and that includes parents. They don’t do this because it makes them feel good, but because these companies want their productive workers to stay with them. They want to retain their workers. But there is a cost to these benefits that people seem to ignore.
And the alternative to these decent jobs? Low paid, part time, short term jobs that have no benefits. Many women (and the largest number of workers in these lower paid jobs are women) work in these jobs that have few or no benefits. It can be hard enough making a living on a decent paid job but part time it can be harder if it is the sole income. Which is why some women may work two or even three jobs to make ends meet. A word on smaller companies – they also have a hard time providing the best benefits for anyone, let alone parents, because they can’t afford it. They can afford it even less when a woman decides to take up to a year’s maternity leave.
This is where I completely agree that in these types of jobs, benefits are indeed difficult to come by. On the other hand, the government still offers tax breaks to parents, and it isn’t even just those on low income. I obviously can only talk about the US from what I have read and I am more familiar with what happens in England Europe and Canada. Note also, that the tax burden is much higher in these countries than in the US.
My point is, however parents get tax breaks for having one or more kids. Childfree people do not. Canada for example given parents over $1000/year as some benefit claimable for parents with kids, irrespective of how much they earn. Childfree handouts from Government? A big fat zero. In fact guess who pays for those generous government perks for parents?
I have worked in low paying jobs, middle paying jobs and currently I fall into the very decent paying job category, work in a company that has very good benefits and I have every intention of taking my earnings as high as I can. I also work a very long day and roughly 48hr work week.
But to do that I had to make a decision. And that decision was about where my focus would be. I had seen enough of women trying in vain to manage kids and job to know that I did not want that kind of life for myself. I often wonder why women seem never to consider the implications of children on how economically active they are going to be able to be. I knew that if I wanted to have kids, and have the lifestyle I wanted, it was going to be a struggle and one I didn’t want to have. Where my loyalties would always be torn between kids and work. I did not want to work in low paying job, nor be forced to work part time (even in a good company), nor take a pay cut, nor be out of the work place losing my skills, then have to play catch up – simply because I had kids. Having said that, I also know women who also work long hours and have kids and don’t work reduced hours or do anything different from what I do, except perhaps work even longer hours. They have supportive partners and spouses, so it works for them; their kids are pretty well balanced.
When, in a smaller company I was down-sized about three years ago, the fact we had no kids was a big reason I could take my time getting another job – I took the summer off in fact – and get the one that I wanted, not the one that I needed. Being childfree was a big plus in my case. One less thing to worry about.
Basically we thought through all the implications. Kids meant loss of income at a time when outgoings would be shooting up. And it meant risking a career – or even a decent job. Some people would say “oh you can’t look at it like that, otherwise you’d never have kids.” Well, duh! Precisely. It’s all about choices. I have never understood how people cannot look at it like that. This is why I like the way many men I know look at the issue of being childfree or having kids – they weigh the pros AND the cons. I’m not sure how many people are aware that having children is one of the key factors women are more likely to end up in poverty in old age.
Whoever told women that we could have it all? Job, career, well adjusted, balanced kids, happy healthy relationships, great social lives – hey we could do what we liked! We could have it all! And screw the men, dammit, we could do it ourselves. Well, few women can. With a support network. But I think that was one of the biggest myths yet. It’s right up there with “every woman wants kids, so go breed those kiddies and do your bit…”
So do companies do enough for parents? Does the government? Maybe not as much as parents would like them to. But, in the right company they do more than pay lip service. Parents get perks and the reason seems to be well, it’s because they are parents. So I find it hard to agree overall that both government and companies don’t do enough for parents. That’s not what I see. Some even get workplace schedules designed around them as parents – just by virtue of the fact they have kids. It seems every day I read of some new scheme being brought in to support “the family”. That’s mum, dad and one or more kids – NOT childfree individuals. We are second class citizens in that respect and have to fight even to be recognised as a family!
Why should parents expect to get preferential working options just to look after their kids? If parents having kids prevents them from working industries where they will get decent benefits, whose fault is that? It certainly isn’t mine. Who is supposed to fill in the gaps, for example the reduced hours, simply because they’ve made a choice to procreate? Where is the additional money coming from to pay for these “family friendly” workplaces, flexible working and initiatives? Guess.
Childfree men and women get nothing extra.
In Part 2, I’ll look more closely at some of the inequalities between childfree and childed in the workplace.
And here is a related article in Childfree News .
i agree, but i see it slightly differently being a man, my mum, stopped working when i was born, till i was 4 years old, then when i went to school she worked part time, then at secondary school full time.. she spent time with me, and i turned out quite nicely if i do say so myself.
BUT today, women take time off for a year (expecting the company to hire a replacement and pay them). then they come back to work. ok thats fine in of itself. but they arent spending time with their kids, and they are in essence taking jobs from younger people, or just basically giving them the experience.
i have almost always worked for women, most of the people i worked with were women, only ever temporary contracts, and only ever to cover maternity. i am 33, and i havent had a permanent job. if parents spent a little time with thier kids the first 4 years to give that child a better support system.
parents get far and away more benefits, direct and indirect (and most of those benefits go to the woman family tax credits for example get paid to the woman not the man not shared). in this culture of today, women are the family and parents, men are not counted as much, i want everyone to be equal but the maternity/paternity isnt for themselves and it definatly isnt for me or my partner.
IF you cant afford a kid, simple answer.. dont have one.
Having been screwed over more than once because there was a project that required someone working overtime (for many hours) and they needed a “volunteer” to stay late and somehow that “volunteer” was always me because “Well you don’t have to pick up your kids!”, being childfree in the workplace is something that makes me grumble and tetchy in short order.
You guys like to quote each other on your blogs in order to start more than one discussion. Isn’t one discussion enough?
no there is never enough discussion, you can always talk, see different views, tomorrow i may have thought about something a bit different, talking never hurts, not even thinking does hurt.
These were my work experiences:
(1) Co-workers with kids who habitually arrived late to work and left early. Reason: dropping off and picking up kids.
(2) Co-workers who arrived at work and immediately picked up the telephone to check on their kids, even though clients were waiting.
(3) Co-workers who took time off work for school counseling, teacher appointments, kid’s medical and dental appointments and who expected me to cover for them and not tell the boss so they could be paid not to work.
(4) Co-workers who habitually dumped the majority of any project work on me when working in teams. Reason: too tired from coping with kids and their home life and not really committed to project work to give it their all.
(5) Co-workers who spent every coffee and lunch break on the telephone tying up the business lines while sorting out problems with their kids. They did this knowing full well that clients could not call in when I was supposedly on duty to deal with their issues.
(5) Co-workers who left team meetings and meetings with clients for “just a few minutes” to answer personal phone calls from their kids.
(6) Co-workers who were either not available to work over-time or who brought noisy kids into our over-time “working” environment saying they couldn’t find a sitter.
(6) Co-workers who turned in time sheets that were bogus expecting to be paid for parenting during working hours. They shouted at me and sabotaged work flow when I kept a month long record of every time they were not truly available to work and adjusted their time sheets accordingly, before it was sent to payroll so their pay was properly docked.
(7) Co-workers who insisted that every social event sponsored by the company be conducted in a “family friendly” restaurant or as a picnic similar event which included spouses and children.
(8) One co-worker actually brought her child to a weekend long conference sponsored by the company. It was at a retreat center in an isolated location without public transit. She had her spouse drop them off knowing that we would either have to put up with the brat all weekend or delay the start of the conference by driving her home. I called her bluff, approached the boss and volunteered to absent myself from the first morning session and do just that. She bitched at me the whole 1 1/2 hours it took to take her and her kid home and the child cried.
@ Danielle - Last time I looked I could quote anyone and anything I want on my blog. What anyone else does on their blog is up to them. What does it matter if people quote each other?
@mercurior - Very well said. I also agree when you say:
“parents get far and away more benefits, direct and indirect (and most of those benefits go to the woman family tax credits for example get paid to the woman not the man not shared). in this culture of today, women are the family and parents, men are not counted as much,”
This is a good point, as we hardly ever hear the men’s views. Everything is loaded in favour of women as parents. As you say, if one cannot afford a child one should not have one.
@ TT - Thanks for this…. You know, reading your experiences reminded me that YES!! I have recognize many of those people too!! How could I forget 1 and 2!! All the time… And what about the parents - especially mothers who bring their babies into the office while their off on maternity leave and waste everyone’s time showing them off where I am working… or young kids, because their sitter has “fallen through…” and worst of all are the ones who dash off early because of some “kid catastrophe,” and then calling back into the office to hand out instructions for things THEY should be doing. And leaving others to explain their bloody absence. Oh, and they of course expect everyone to understand.. “Well”, some have said, “it’s kids, so you HAVE to attend to them. No, you have to do what your employer pays you to do and find some other way to fit in your kids, not the other way round. And why do they never make up their lost time? Or volunteer to stay late or work through lunch, or come in early at least ONCE or twice?
I bet if more of their pay was docked for being absence when they should be at work, they’d find a way to be at work when they are supposed to be.
Lets face it in a lot of the more civilized countries in the world parents do get a lot more paid maternity leave than in the US. Here they can have maternity leave, but a lot of the time it isn’t paid. As far as tax breaks for people with kids, these people have a lot more expenses than childless people, as a whole considerably more than the tax breaks cover. Health care in the US is just plain horrible for everybody, other than the wealthy. I do agree that familys should weigh the pro and cons of whether or not they can handle working full time and having kids. On the other hand, not everybody has a choice in that matter, accidents do happen, and if the right-wingers have their way, women won’t be able to choose safe abortions.
are you saying if i have more expenses, for whatever reason, i can claim for more from the government. or is it just one group of people getting more money than anyone else.
why should they get paid by the government, couldnt these parents actually pay for their own kids, or does that not matter.
i always thought tax was taken from everyone, directly and indirectly, and to be given out to anyone in need of tax breaks, not just one group.
how much money is spent on these family tax breaks, the cf pay in, but we take NOTHING out. is that fair no. can we have the same tax breaks for our parents, no. if a parent wants to have a kid they should pay for it themselves, regardless of expenses, the kids arent the governments kids, they are their parents kids.
why dont the parents pay for all the expenses (perhaps they dont know the expenses before hand but if thats so then they are dumb). they had the kids, they should pay for it, save up first before having that child, is that so hard.. my mother, had no government help with my brother, she saved up and the expenses was paid for by HER and my dad.
accidents do happen but this hasnt got anything to do with the taxes claimed by parents. its far and away more than any CF person would get, (and dont say well their kids will pay for my retirement for when i retire i would get nothing anyway. and i am gonna work till they carry me off in the coffin). is that fair.
@foxgrandma - I don’t care if they have more expenses. I really don’t. Because they have made choices, just like I have. So, what if I as an individual have more expenses? Do I get tax breaks? I think not. I think health care should be provided for everybody, parents and non parents. And as for not everybody having a choice - while this is true in some cases, we are not talking about the exceptions. Most do have a choice.
@mercurior - Very good points. I really think they don’t get it. If you read my comments on PlainsFeminists blog “Who Benefits from the Benefits” you’ll see this clearly (among other things
They believe that because they have more expenses they are entitled to tax breaks. They complain we are selfish because some childfree people are beginning to question why their taxes should support people’s choices to breed. (I personally have no problem with supporting education, playcentres, healthcare, municipal taxes etc).
Parents have more child releated expenses because they CHOSE to have children. So they feel they are entitled, because they have children. It’s more or less what’s been supported by the government so they are in good company.As you say, you or I may have a relative that we look after, or need to support. WE may have even MORE expenses than the childed. but we don’t qualify. Why? because we don’t have kids. So we must pay out of our own pocket. No tax break for us. We don’t have kids, so it doesn’t count.
And while I am all for supporting people on lower incomes, (although why have several kids if you are on a low income?) they also ignore the fact that parents get all sorts of tax breaks irrespective of income. So even very rich people with kids in expensive private schools get the tax breaks, not because of the expenses, because of the fact they have kids period.
They don’t seem to think planning for or even thinking about whether a child can be afforded is a valid point to make. Nor that they should be self sufficient in bringing up their kids. Instead they quote “shit happens” “accidents happen.” Yes, they do. But as you say, that’s has nothing to do with it, because this isn’t about the “shit happens” stuff, it’s about the rule.
I think this misrepresents my argument a bit. I have argued consistently that childfree people should get the equivalent of the kinds of benefits that parents do. My basic point is that I think we ought to be compassionate about other people’s needs, regardless of what they are, and as I’ve stated repeatedly, that certainly includes the needs of childfree people. I also clarified many of the points that you mention here, though you do not mention these clarifications, which does change the meaning.
For what it’s worth, BG, there is no “they” here (as in “they say this” or “they don’t get it” or “they think”). It’s just me. (The commenters on my blog did not fall in line behind me - they agreed with some of my points and some of yours.) I am not part of any parents’ group that is organizing for anything, I receive few benefits, special or otherwise, for having a child (I’m sure that readers of this blog receive far more benefits than I do, in fact, for all sorts of reasons, perhaps even unearned benefits). I don’t have anything personally invested in this - almost none of these issues affect my life and I stand to gain nothing. And I have always been supportive of the choice to not have children and have argued and published criticisms of the whole romanticized notion of parenting and the negative effects that has on all of us. This doesn’t mean that I was without criticisms of the movement, but it does mean that I’m not exactly the enemy, either.
Unless - and this is, sadly, the sense I’m getting, not from you in particular but from other sites I’ve been visiting - parents are always the enemy simply because they’re parents. Since I began writing about this and coming here and having an exchange with you here on my blog, I’ve noticed that there is on childfree sites often a slippage between a critique of the relative treatment of parents and childfree people, and some rather nasty attacks on parents as just in general a group of not very nice people. Even on this blog, which someone recently praised for the quality of the discussion (for ex, your comment about parents who waste people’s time by bringing in their babies to show workers. You know, childfree people bring their pets in to work and ask me to say hello to and stroke the pet, they show me pictures of their pets, they come to my desk and show me pictures from their travels - and of their baby nieces and nephews - and I would never say that they were wasting my time by sharing something with me that means so much to them. And this happens OFTEN.). It’s a bit disheartening, because it makes me feel that parents and childfree people can’t have any sort of alliance, and I kind of had assumed that we could, especially since I agree with so much of the critiques the movement has raised (and with so much of what you have written, BG). Perhaps I seriously misunderstood the movement. Perhaps, just as many childfree people would rather not associate with children, you would also rather not associate with parents and would rather not have parents supporting your movement. If so, then the joke’s on me. I really didn’t understand that that was the case.
So, no. I guess I don’t get it.
This may take the discussion off topic but I am going to make an exception in this case.
I don’t feel what I wrote misrepresents your argument, but I did mention your blog so that anyone can go there and read and judge the discussion there for themselves including any clarifications. If you feel it does it isn’t intentional.I had no intention of rewriting the whole thing in a comment here. I mentioned some key things relevant to the comment and not every single thing.
I have never disagreed that everyone should be compassionate about about people’s needs, highlighting the bias childfree people face in the workplace does not preclude compassion. But as you yourself said on your blog, I thought we agreed to disagree.
Also, by “they” I was not referring only to you but to parents as a group or in the general sense. If I did mean you I would have quoted you directly. And no, many parents don’t get it. If you do, then take yourself out of the ones who don’t.
No, “they” does not include every single parent, just as when references are made to childfree people or the childfree it doesn’t refer to every singe childfree person. Just in a general sense. Whether you like it or not (and we do not, but we’re stuck with it for now) parents as a group carry the day in and out of the workplace.
As I mentioned and as is clear throughout this blog I know have worked with and still do work with many parents. I know very well that not every person on that thread agreed with you, I even quoted some of them on your blog.
And fyi, I don’t write as part of any “movement”. Not sure where I became slotted into a movement. I write as I see things, people are free to disagree if they like.
If you view my comment - about what I feel as a waste of my time as “a nasty attack on parents”, that’s your choice. I don’t recall saying that I SAY to parents trotting kids into the office that they are wasting my time. However I reserve the right to feel/decide that they are wasting my time if I am supposed to be working and they decide to bring their kids in to show me. I am not interested in cooing over their babies or their tots. Period. I may put up with it when I can’t get away or when I know the worker very well. But to say “oh because it means so much to them…” doesn’t cut it. That is my choice and my view. Whether or not you think that or anything else on my blog constitutes “a nasty attack on parents” isn’t really my problem and entirely your opinion. But then I’d ask - why come to a place where you feel attacked?
What you read on other childfree blogs I cannot answer for. There are plenty of parents who think nothing of denigrating childfree people at the slightest opportunity.
And it’s a bad idea to jump so quickly to conclusions. I do not see you or anyone else as “the enemy.” As I’ve mentioned in many of my articles, I talk to people about their kids. In the workplace. I ask after them, I share their photos when appropriate. I know when their important milestones are. I take part in bring your kids to work days if I feel like it…. I know more about the parents and their kids than they do about me - because I take an interest. So please, don’t muddy the waters. Don’t even go there.
To your point about “finding an alliance with the movement” again, I don’t know what you mean - I am not writing as part of a “movement.” That’s entirely your lens. I blog about life as I see it. Among other things. And I’m a childfree person . Necessarily, that entails talking about other childfree people and parents and children our interactions and their impact. Whether or not parents “support” childfree people doesn’t bother me. And I don’t go to other people’s blogs to criticise their blogs either.
Most childfree people spend their lives being bombarded by the pro-natalist parent propaganda driven by parents. I am not in particular looking for parental support… I don’t need their approval to live my life. I would not swap my life for theirs even if I was offered a tax break…
I respect their choices to reproduce, they should respect mine not to.
everyone should be treated equally, but a lot arent, yet be compassionate for others needs, but not many people are compassionate about the cf needs. we all have parents and pets, and friends and family.
the term THEY, ism a generic term for the establishment, or pressure groups, they are the powers that be, in magical terms, like the government, the pro family pressure groups, the anti abortionists, they are all a version of they.
and i think your wrong with the benefits parents do get, there are the governmental tax breaks, government childcare places, the family tax credits in the UK, (family tax credits that are only paid to families).
and its great you have criticized the parenting of today, but there is no movement, like there was in feminism, we are disorganised at the moment, but that will change.
its not parents per se that we are against its bad parenting, and the pro child natalcentric governments of today, women fought for equal rights, but now women are considered to be able to have it all, have children, have a job, have this, have that, with no mention of men, there are exceptions of course, but its not so much as equality its more a case of what can i get out of it, look at pelosi, she got voted in and showed the world she had kids and grandkids, how that helps her in her job i dont know. but thats the world of today pro child.
we rant about bad parents as there are far more of those than good parents, but a lot of cf people to them their pets are their children, if parents are allowed to show off their kids, why cant we show off animals in our lives that mean more than a lot of humans.
they will only be an alliance, if parents realise that we have made a decision not to have children, and our reasons are ours, and not come up with things like ” you will change your mind when its yours” or, ” mother hood is the most important job in the world”. as soon as they accept that we are our own people and not freaks for not having or even liking children, then we will have an alliance, but even then they will want more and more for their children at the expense of others.
parents, and governments need to understand they cannot rob peter to pay paul, which is what they are doing.
there are many types of childfree like our esteemed blog owner, or me and my fiancee, i dont like kids.. i couldnt be doing with them.. but i would never want to hurt them. but we all agree that parents have far and away more benefits in work, they can go home early for emergencies, we cant they have to have holidays off and we have to cover.
there will never be an alliance unless there is true equality, cf and parents, but a lot of parents want what they can get, look at the politicians, they come up with more and more pro child laws and taxes.. and who are left out. who has to pay more.
BritGirl, thanks for responding to my comment. I appreciate the clarification of your position. And thanks to the others, as well.
another good story about this very subject
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=BK5OI0NUJWSNHQFIQMFCFF4AVCBQYIV0?xml=/news/2007/02/14/nmums14.x ml
Labour’s tax and benefits system makes it more lucrative for single mothers to stay on state handouts than return to work, according to research from the world’s chief economic and social authority.
Everyone is missing the point. As a childless/childfree ( depending on how I feel about it at the moment) single woman, I have studied and worked all my life for the benefit of others ( I’m a primary school teacher).
I have never had the opportunity to have a child - I have always had to support myself. What I resent is having to support everyone else through tax.
Where is the logic that says a childless women should support parents, who for politeness sake, sprog without even thining about it/or the consequences? Surely this is yet another slap in the face for childless women who already have to put up with the excessive ‘family’ culture of our society, the probes, the questions, the disrespect of a childfree life?
All the ‘benefits’ that families get and I’m working all hours so my neighbours can sit on their backsides without working, get a free house, get rent/mortgage/ bills paid - I’m sorry I just don’t understand how this system works? Its not even the peoples fault - Of course people will play the system, if it encourages this?
If I don’t work I don’t get paid - end of - as I am on a long term supply contract. Even if I did want to take maternity leave I couldn’t.
Noone supports me, I do everything myself - and yet I pay over thousand pounds a month in tax? This is not for my old age, this is not for my welfare in any way.
I love my job, I do genuinely care for the welfare of children and I realise this is at the root of the system - unfortunately this is played too much.