Is it legal to pay parents more than childless workers?

[Belushi]

Thanks Fullyplumped, I've never heard of this practice before.

 

[sleaterkinney]

To my mind, making sure kids are raised with a good quality of life is a social responsibility (i.e. something we should all ensure collectively) and I don't see why employers can't shoulder some of that.

Nothing wrong with that if pay is to be dependant on your value to soceity, and even then a single person could in some cases arguably contribute more than a parent. But your wages are supposed to be payment for the work you do.

 

[myname]

I think it's perfectly reasonable and I'm surprised people find it so objectionable. It seems people are so used to thinking individualistically that they see things only in terms of narrow individual rights and so this is 'discrimination'. To my mind, making sure kids are raised with a good quality of life is a social responsibility (i.e. something we should all ensure collectively) and I don't see why employers can't shoulder some of that.

It should be extended to other dependents for consistency of course.

but that's what child benefit is for, you get that regardless of your wage. I think it becomes a sticky area if employers are meant to make decisions on what to pay people because of their personal circumstances, should people with exceptionally big feet be paid more because they have to pay more for shoes?

 

[Belushi]

but that's what child benefit is for, you get that regardless of your wage. I think it becomes a sticky area if employers are meant to make decisions on what to pay people because of their personal circumstances, should people with exceptionally big feet be paid more because they have to pay more for shoes?

I agree, I've no objection to parents getting more financial support (as they do now through child benefit/tax credits etc) but I'd be unhappy about employers making pay judgements based on employees personal circumstances.

 

[zenie]

No-one is! You may think that they are, but you come over as bolshy and unreasonable and I know what I'd rather be like

Thanks for that!

 

[Brainaddict]

but that's what child benefit is for

I just don't think delegating all social responsibilities to the state is a very good thing. It means that the state is what supposedly holds society together (and usually badly) - as opposed to our decisions on how we deal with the people we see and interact with every day - the latter being the only decent form of social cohesion imo.

 

[Orang Utan]

Thanks for that!

You're welcome!

 

[_angel_]

People choose to be a carer or not. Not saying it's an easy choice, but it is a choice.

No, they don't.

Christ people will be arguing people choose to get disabled next.

 

[snadge]

I think it is a shocking practice, workers with children are subsidised by childless workers through taxation, schooling and all the other benefits are paid through tax.

I have no problem with this at all, but paying them more is an affront, luckily in my line of work it wouldn't be tolerated.

 

[marty21]

i'd be entitled to childcare vouchers or some kind of tax dodge scheme through my employers if i needed childcare.

you can adopt me if you want

 

[_angel_]

Yeah, you lose it when your youngest gets to 14

When they eat four times as much as the average adult and are going thru shoes/ clothes at a rate of knots you'd cut the money??

 

[Brainaddict]

I think it is a shocking practice, workers with children are subsidised by childless workers through taxation, schooling and all the other benefits are paid through tax.

Shocking!

I find your take on the purpose of schooling a little strange. It's not for the parent's benefit, or even, in my opinion, for the child's individual benefit - it's funded for the sake of society as a whole and to have an educated workforce in particular. So viewing it as childless workers subsidising families is a little odd - it's more like a necessary cost for society's survival.

Whereas an increased salary at work would be for the child's individual benefit - a very different thing.

 

[christonabike]

Whereas an increased salary at work would be for the child's individual benefit - a very different thing.

In theory, but it could get spent in the pub

There are benefits if you have children aren't there, could someone say if this is true, and how much, please?

Ta

 

[myname]

I just don't think delegating all social responsibilities to the state is a very good thing. It means that the state is what supposedly holds society together (and usually badly) - as opposed to our decisions on how we deal with the people we see and interact with every day - the latter being the only decent form of social cohesion imo.

the only problem with that is you are then relying only on people's arbitrary personal decisions (some of which might be based on prejudice).

Also can you explain how the decision on what you pay people will be decided? Or will it just be completely aribtrary? Some people get lucky (they have a nice boss who believes children are our future) some people get unlucky (they have a mean boss who prefers dogs to people)? And surely then single people will have to be paid more than couples because it costs less to live as a couple than as two single people... It's just not a workable solution apart from anything else.

 

[myname]

In theory, but it could get spent in the pub

There are benefits if you have children aren't there, could someone say if this is true, and how much, please?

Ta

For the tax year 2007-2008 you receive:

£18.10 a week for the eldest child
£12.10 a week for each additional child

 

[Thora]

Because you should be paid for the job you do, not paid depending on how much your employer thinks you need.

Why shouldn't people get paid what they need?

 

[_angel_]

I think if you did pay parents more it would probably result in more discrimination against parents being taken on in the workforce.

 

[Belushi]

Why shouldn't people get paid what they need?

They should - I also believe employees should be paid the same for doing the same job - I dont think employers should be making value judgements that some workers need more money than others because of choices they've made in their private lives.

 

[zenie]

No, they don't.

Yes they do....

Why shouldn't people get paid what they need?

Who sets up the boundaries for need?

Not illegal in the UK. Unless you could show it was indirect sex or disabliity or race discrimination, which would be difficult if parents of both sexes and all races and disability status who are parents were paid the same higher rate. Arrangements like this were very much more common in the UK until the Equal Pay Act, as was the custom of a woman being required to leave work on marriage.

So it's perfectly legal for parents to be paid more than non-parents is it? (I take it you know about Employment Law)

I can't see how this isn't discriminatory

 

[quimcunx]

All for supporting parents but not in this way.

Equal job equal pay.

 

[Belushi]

And surely then single people will have to be paid more than couples because it costs less to live as a couple than as two single people...

Good point.

 

[christonabike]

For the tax year 2007-2008 you receive:

£18.10 a week for the eldest child
£12.10 a week for each additional child

Cheers there myname

It's not much so I would be all for parents getting more, means tested, from the relevant authority, but not from their job

Childcare vouchers are added to that as well, I presume? Meaning that you are not paying the market rate for childcare?

As well as parental leave, meaning you get more annual leave than a child-free person

It's a mine-field

 

[Brainaddict]

I think if you did pay parents more it would probably result in more discrimination against parents being taken on in the workforce.

If companies were required to pay parents more, yes. And it's a good objection to that idea.

But voluntarily paying parents more? I don't see why companies should be stopped from doing that if they want to. I find it depressing that so many people have reacted by shouting 'Discrimination!' instead of being happy that families are benefitting from the policy.

 

[Belushi]

if they want to. I find it depressing that so many people have reacted by shouting 'Discrimination!' instead of being happy that families are benefitting from the policy.

I find it depressing that companies are allowed to get away with blatant discrimination against those who choose not to have children and already support those with children through the tax system.

 

[Poot]

I've never heard of any company doing this. I got fired from one job for being pregnant and if my kid's sick I have to take my holiday, and I don't get much holiday. Just in case people think you immediately get a promotion, a payrise and an office near the coffee machine when you have kids, like.

 

[zenie]

I've never heard of any company doing this. I got fired from one job for being pregnant and if my kid's sick I have to take my holiday, and I don't get much holiday. Just in case people think you immediately get a promotion, a payrise and an office near the coffee machine when you have kids, like.

I don't think anyone's saying that actually....

I'd kick up a really big fuss if anything like this happened at my work, and I'll more than likely have kids one day!

 

[Poot]

I don't think anyone's saying that actually....

I was stretching a point. I've never heard of positive discrimination for parents. Just the opposite, in fact.

 

[_angel_]

Yes they do....



Who sets up the boundaries for need?



So it's perfectly legal for parents to be paid more than non-parents is it? (I take it you know about Employment Law)

I can't see how this isn't discriminatory

No Zenie people really do NOT choose to become carers any more than they choose to be in wheelchairs.

If I have a disabled kid which I do it's hardly a 'choice' to look after them.

Unless you're suggesting I had the 'choice' of phoning social services and getting them adopted.

 

[zenie]

No Zenie people really do NOT choose to become carers any more than they choose to be in wheelchairs.

If I have a disabled kid which I do it's hardly a 'choice' to look after them.

Unless you're suggesting I had the 'choice' of phoning social services and getting them adopted.

You're being ridiculous now, but there's always a choice whether you feel you could do it or not.

People do make the choice to not bring up their own children, whether that's the *right* decision in our opinion is neither here nor there, it does exist.

 

[sleaterkinney]

Why shouldn't people get paid what they need?

How would you decide what needs are greater?